15inch PowerBooks?

[fred_garvin]

No one is arguing that a 970 PB would come out before the 970 desktops. If the PB did debut first, it would be all of a week earlier as was the case with the g3's debut. People arguing for the likelyhood of a 970 PB appearing soon, are thinking that we'll see both announced in late June, or perhaps desktops in June, and PB's announced in July, now that Apple is makeing a presentation at NY.

There are really several debates here:

What products COULD Apple physically produce this summer?

What WILL Apple LIKELY produce this summer?

Given what is possible and marketing strategies, what SHOULD Apple produce and when?

So, the first question I want answered is: Is it possible to produce a PB (15 or 17") using the .13 process 970? From the docs I've read, I would think that it is possible.

If this assumption holds true, then I think it very likely to see a 970 PB announced June/July, available August/September. I'd guess that the 15 and 17 are both upgraded. The 12" may have to wait for the .09 970's.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when cpus are manufactured aren't they targeted for a certain Ghz, and some pass, some pass certification at a lower speed, some pass at a far lower speed, and some (hopefully not many) fail certification outright? If so, when they build a sheet of 1.8 Ghz 970's, they get many 1.8's, some 1.6, some 1.4, some 1.2, and maybe some garbage. I don't know the ratios for the generated cpu's, but if Powermacs use 1.4 to 1.8 only, all the 1.2's are available for PB's. In addition, any of the "faster" chips can be underclocked to 1.2 as well.

Some are suggesting we see a 1.25 G4 PB coming in 1-6 weeks. I just don't see how between the mobo and cpu that this will generate less heat than a 1.0 or 1.2 ghz 970.

As much as I want a new 15" PB, look at the performance gains from the original 500Mhz TI to the current 1Ghz Ti. Based on the early writeups, it looks like the performance boost from a 1 or 1.25 ghz PB to a future 1.2Ghz 970 PB would be greater than the performance gains made from the original TiBook to today. If so, that's worth waiting 6 months for.

 

[rog]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Check your history. The original G3 PowerBook (aka 'Kanga', or 3500) was released about a week before the G3 Power Macs were released. Both were released in November of 1997.

You're totally right. My bad! Still everyone knew the G3 was coming for months, as both Power Computing and Motorola had announced system, which MacWorld mg even tested and reported on. So it's not in the same league as Apple right now without ever having acknoledged they plan to use the 970, just releasing it in a PB before the towers. Also, while the G3 PB came out a week before, I don't know that it was necessarily announced much before. It probably shipped early because it didn't need a new motherboard, while the G3 towers did, which probably accounted for the delay. Anything using a 970 will need a new motherboard for sure.

 

[nikfel]

TITANIUM IS NICER?

Am I the only one who thinks that titanium is nicer than the aluminium design recently adopted by apple.......comments please!!

TITANIUM gave the G4 POWERBOOK a real upmarket feel that no other company could match!!

 

[mim]

Yawn

Originally posted by nikfel
Am I the only one who thinks that titanium is nicer than the aluminium design recently adopted by apple.......comments please!!

TITANIUM gave the G4 POWERBOOK a real upmarket feel that no other company could match!!

Titanium..well, personally I prefer anodised aluminium - it's not a 'cheap' material by any means. Looks great, wears fantastically, light, robust. Don't think you'll find too many other laptops using it.

Oh...BTW, whoever thinks the back of the iPod is 'chrome'...well it's not. It's polished high grade stainless steel, and pretty indestructable. If the back of my 'pod was made of anything else, by now it would look like a cheese-grater had been taken to it. The aluminium pb's take this approach too. Anodising is a 'natural' finish, meaning that it won't chip or flake off. It can't be polished back up to new like stainless steel, but it will certainly take a beating.

I think the "raw" approach to materials is a good direction for Apple's design. Lends authenticity and honesty to the products.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by rog
... It probably shipped early because it didn't need a new motherboard, while the G3 towers did....

Well, actually, I can tell you from personal experience that the original PowerBook G3 had a different motherboard than the PowerBook3400. Yes, the form factor was the same (as they used the exact same case), and the connectors were the same (well, almost), but the chip configuration on the Kanga was completely new and different than that of the 3400.


81...

 

[razorme]

How often does the Apple Store go down for 'updating'? It's closed right now...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by razorme
How often does the Apple Store go down for 'updating'? It's closed right now...

It seems to be up now. Anyone notice anything different? There wasn't anything that I could see.


71...

 

[mim]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
It seems to be up now. Anyone notice anything different? There wasn't anything that I could see.


71...

Hey w00t! Extra pixels to the column width!

Thank god some one was watching out...would 'ave missed it otherwise.

ok, back to snoozing.

 

[chazmox]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes, but that assumes that they could deliver the product as soon as the board engineering is done. In reality, what almost universally holds back product releases in this area is the lack of having the actual processor in sufficient quantities. Now, if they have been working on both projects for over a year now, is it so hard to believe that they would have finished both and just been waiting for the processors to be produced in quantity by IBM? That is the premise of my argument that they would ship both concurrently.

I don't think that any responsible program manager would ever design a schedule with a purposeful "wait" in it. Any waiting period in a schedule would come about because of missed dates from a supplier or because of a surprise unavailability of part that would come about becuase the part is not being tracked ( this would not happen due to the processor - it would be tracked - but it could occur from some little tantulum cap on the board which has some 80 week lead time ). If a program manager knows that there will be more time between uP samples and full production than is required to design a product then he will wait to start... not start development and wait... to stop in the middle of development means one of two things:

1.) Your engineers work on something else. Some institutional knowledge is always lost in this case and has to be relearned when starting the program. This occurs even if your stoppage is only a few weeks.

2.) The engineering team keeps "tweaking" and working on the board which results in efficiency in that the team is taking and logging more time to unneccessary design.

Then again the "wait" could come in unintentionally - say if IBM misses dates with it's parts. This is typically where a such a "wait" would occur; but, in this case, I do not believe this to be so - IBM has been ahead of schedule with the 970 release.

Therefore, I do not beleive there have been designs just waiting for the 970. If the 970 was late then I would consider this; but from what I know, it is not.

Here is the reason that I beleive that the 970 PowerMac will be seen first.

PowerMac 970 Design Cycle:

970 Production: -------------------------------|
970 Samples: --------|------------|
PM Dev: Proto1 ---- Proto2 ---- Pilot ---- Production
Mechanicals ------------------------|-----------|


PowerBook 970 Design Cycle:

970 Production: -------------------------------|
970 Samples: --------|-------------|
PB Dev: Proto1 ---- Proto2 ---- Proto3 ---- Pilot ---- Production
Mechanicals -----------------------|------------|-------------|

The point is that PB development takes longer. Not only is PCB design more difficult, but the integration of the electricals and mechanicals is also more difficult. Also agency approvals are more stringent for laptops. Therefore the design cycle is longer.

Also there are advantages to delaying PB development until most of the PowerMac development is complete. The architectual problems and "gotcha's" can be learned during the easier development cycle and passed down to the other team.

Then again, we have no idea of Job's motivation. He may put top priority on releasing the PowerBook first. But that says that he is purposely going out of his way to let the PowerMac lanquish - doesn't bode well for that line...

P.S. The reason I said that you appeared to be letting the cart pull the horse is that your theories and assumptions seemed to be trying to fit the two rumors: a PB 15 inch next week and a 970 PB in a few months.

Key:

Proto - a build using samples for development engineering and testing - usually small quantities. Usually built near engineering - not for customer sale.

Pilot - a larger build in the manufacturer of choice to exercise the production line. Some engineering issues may still be being tweaked. May be saleable units - may not...

 

[yzedf]

Originally posted by tgrundke
I don't understand why everyone thinks that the 17" PowerBook *always* must have the 'better specs' than the other books. The major selling point of the 17" PowerBook (and really the ONLY selling point, IMO) is the 17" screen. That is what Apple has been touting above all else (bluetooth, backlit keyboard) and it is the main reason cited by everyone who buys the thing: the screen.

I'm also of the persuasion that Apple is going to have to lower the price of the 17" *OR* chock it full of some very compelling new features (or a combo) in its next rev, or sales will crawl to a stop. Apple shipped 14,000 units and it appears that 14k has virtually eliminated the backlog that existed since January. Now I am going to venture that sales are significantly lower, as is typical with Apple's 'vanity' products.

You have a good point regarding the 'vanity' products. The 17" could easily go down the path of the G4 Cube... good start, long time w/o upgrades, weird inconsistency problems, lagging sales, and then cancellation.

 

[Raiwong]

Either way or not, if a powerbook does come out next week, it can't be 970, because if it did we can expect it in the keynote.

Still I stress that there is still space for sales in the powerbooks before it becomes obsolete, right now Apple's primary priority would be desktops, the laptop lines are doing fine. ITs not come to a point where the G4 is completely useless in laptops, but it has come to a point where the G4 is no longer fast enough for pro users. Plus admit that nobody really edits films on laptops on a large scale, the proccesing power is simply not enough.

In the same situation , Apple has left the old tibook, because it still knows there is still juice and is trying to push everything out of the tibook, before they introduce something new. It gives them more things to announce.

In response to someone saying that Apple is likely to release 970 in All PB and PM at the same time I disagree, because it would be possible for the PM, but impossible for the PB since there is 12", 15" 17" all sporting a completely different design especially the 12". Apple would be ridiculously slow and ineffecient if it spent the developement into 4 seperate systems.

I'll be really impressed if Apple did come out with a 970 for 15" PB, and here goes my wallet then lol

 

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Raiwong
In response to someone saying that Apple is likely to release 970 in All PB and PM at the same time I disagree, because it would be possible for the PM, but impossible for the PB since there is 12", 15" 17" all sporting a completely different design especially the 12". Apple would be ridiculously slow and ineffecient if it spent the developement into 4 seperate systems.

I'll be really impressed if Apple did come out with a 970 for 15" PB, and here goes my wallet then lol

Not really. Apple could use the same basic mobo for all 3, and leave lots of room for cooling and add-ons (secondary cards) for the 15" and 17" models. It would be stupid to have 3 totally unique designs for the same proc and chipset....

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by chazmox
I don't think that any responsible program manager would ever design a schedule with a purposeful "wait" in it...

Yes, but from my experience in industry (although not the computer industry), there are far too many unknowns to deal with to try to make sure there are never any waits. If Apple didn't start development of the 970 based Macs when IBM delivered the first 970 prototype specs, then they were foolish. As you pointed out, there are always things that can go wrong, and while it may cost you a little to have to put your engineers on another project during a 'wait', it costs you a lot more if something goes wrong and you have to play catch-up just to make your original schedule. Every project manager I've ever worked with preferred to be ahead of schedule and needing to find new things for the engineers to do to being behind schedule and facing the anger of supervisors, the cost of engineering overtime, etc.

If we assume that you're right, then Apple would have been planning to release the 970 Macs (let's disregard the question about the PBs right now) some time around Q4 of this year. Then IBM comes back and says 'Hey, this is working better than we expected! We can get you enough chips to start shipping units by the beginning of Q3!'. Now Apple is in a bind. Their development cycle is way behind for having shippable product by Q3. So, did they suddenly start paying everybody massive overtime to catch up? Or are we going to see the 970 according to the original schedule because Apple's schedule is based entirely on Right-On-Time?

No, though I understand your arguments, they don't hold water for me, based on what I consider to be common sense, and based on my own experience as an engineer and project manager in industry.

The point is that PB development takes longer...

I never disputed this. I've only argued that it is possible that Apple has had enough time to get both projects ready. Nothing definite, just possible.

As far as whether or not SJ made the PBs a top priority meaning that the PMs are going to languish, I find that a weak argument, too. Just because one project (the harder of two) is a priority doesn't mean the other will simply be moth-balled. Apple has plenty of engineers to distribute between the development of the two products.

I hope that we can see Apple take the 970 and run. Apple has done some really great things in the past. I'm hoping the era of the 970 will usher in a new age of greatness in Apples products.


70...

 

[visor]

Originally posted by vniow
I wonder if the iBooks and the Powerbooks (at least the 15" ones) are going to take a similar path..

With Gobi possibly coming soon, the last iBook update was just that,

What makes you think that 'gobi' will even be developed? I didn't see any reasonable source for that, as well as I don't really see the necessity for one, since the FX isn't even at it's top limit yet.
If there is a Gobi development, we'll see it in a year earliest.

 

[visor]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
This gets at something...

I've heard many people talk about how the 17" is the 'Flagship' PowerBook. Why? Just because it's got the biggest screen? Almost everyone I know thinks that the 17" is just too big (myself included).

my thoughts exaclty. I wouldn't go for a 17"er because it's to big. More like a desktop than something to take along. The 15"er is just a bit boring right now. The 'falgship' as I consider the 15"er to be, is just least attractive right now. However, if Apple wasn't going to modify it drastically, why not upgrade it with the two others to make a decent product line?

 

[chazmox]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes, but from my experience in industry (although not the computer industry), there are far too many unknowns to deal with to try to make sure there are never any waits.

Where did I say that there were never any waits? What I said is that a schedule is not designed with "waits" in it. A schedule may be designed with contingencies and such, but I can't ever imagine going to senior management and saying "Yes, and at this point, we will have the engineers idle for two months, intentionally, while we wait on parts from a supplier." First off, I'd get laughed out of the room.. second, my "team" would get split up and taken to other projects during the down time - and it would be very doubtful I would get the same guys back!

Originally posted by Snowy_River
If Apple didn't start development of the 970 based Macs when IBM delivered the first 970 prototype specs, then they were foolish.

Actually, very little development can be done with a spec... yes, a schematic can be created and a board can be laid out ( all this can be done fairly quickly ), but very little testing can be done without the actual sample parts - and the testing that can be done is either of known circuitry or very preliminary.

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Every project manager I've ever worked with preferred to be ahead of schedule and needing to find new things for the engineers to do to being behind schedule and facing the anger of supervisors, the cost of engineering overtime, etc.

Of course, but if a project manager always puts "dead time" in his schedule, then, when compared to a project manager that runs his schedule lean, he will always appear to be less efficient and his development will cost more - engineers still draw a check and collect benefits during dead time. A little overtime is very cheap in comparison.

Originally posted by Snowy_River
If we assume that you're right, then Apple would have been planning to release the 970 Macs (let's disregard the question about the PBs right now) some time around Q4 of this year.

Where is our assumption on Q4 from? I put no dates in that schedule...

Then IBM comes back and says 'Hey, this is working better than we expected! We can get you enough chips to start shipping units by the beginning of Q3!'. Now Apple is in a bind. Their development cycle is way behind for having shippable product by Q3. So, did they suddenly start paying everybody massive overtime to catch up? Or are we going to see the 970 according to the original schedule because Apple's schedule is based entirely on Right-On-Time?

Based on your above assumption, Apple has the next three generations of architectures waiting "in the bag." Or is it more than three...

No, though I understand your arguments, they don't hold water for me, based on what I consider to be common sense, and based on my own experience as an engineer and project manager in industry.

Ahh... common sense... it's so rare... isn't it?

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by visor
What makes you think that 'gobi' will even be developed? I didn't see any reasonable source for that, as well as I don't really see the necessity for one, since the FX isn't even at it's top limit yet.
If there is a Gobi development, we'll see it in a year earliest.

There are documents that reference the existence of the 750GX (aka 'Gobi'), so we know that it is around. The reason for developing it would have nothing to do with the fact that the 750FX isn't at its top limit. The GX presumably (if we are to believe the rumors that are around) implements an Altivec compatible unit, similar to the one on the 970. This would allow Apple to have all of its machines using the Velocity Engine.

I have theorized that this GX chip might be dubbed the G4i, as it would then be implemented in the 'i' product line, and it comes from IBM. This would allow Apple to move completely away from any chips from Moto, while still maintaining capabilities of the 'i' line (not back-stepping to 'G3's), and allowing a processor differentiation between the 'i' line and the 'Power' line. However, it is all just speculation...


69...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by chazmox
Where did I say that there were never any waits? What I said is that a schedule is not designed with "waits" in it. A schedule may be designed with contingencies and such, but I can't ever imagine going to senior management and saying "Yes, and at this point, we will have the engineers idle for two months, intentionally, while we wait on parts from a supplier." First off, I'd get laughed out of the room.. second, my "team" would get split up and taken to other projects during the down time - and it would be very doubtful I would get the same guys back!

Well, it seems that we've worked in very different environments. Every engineer that I've known or worked with (myself included) has always had more than one project on his/her desk at once. There is never 'dead time'. It is always a matter of simply working with priorities. If project A is a higher priority than project B, then I work on project A until I get to a point where I can do no more (whether because I'm waiting for parts, or what have you), then I turn my attention to project B, until I can work on project A some more. And, most of the time there are also projects C and D sitting by.

Actually, very little development can be done with a spec... yes, a schematic can be created and a board can be laid out ( all this can be done fairly quickly ), but very little testing can be done without the actual sample parts - and the testing that can be done is either of known circuitry or very preliminary.

Regardless, my experience dictates that development is done as resources are available. If provided with specs, what can be done with those is done. Then, when parts become available, further development is done. And so on.

Of course, but if a project manager always puts "dead time" in his schedule, then, when compared to a project manager that runs his schedule lean, he will always appear to be less efficient and his development will cost more - engineers still draw a check and collect benefits during dead time. A little overtime is very cheap in comparison.

Just to be clear, as I said above, the project management model that I'm familiar with doesn't include dead time (or rarely does), and, on the other hand, I don't see that we're talking about just a little overtime.

Where is our assumption on Q4 from? I put no dates in that schedule...

Q4 came from IBM's original estimates as to when the 970s would be available en-mass.

Based on your above assumption, Apple has the next three generations of architectures waiting "in the bag." Or is it more than three...

No, that's a false extrapolation from my assumptions. However, I would be surprised if Apple didn't already have some development into the 980.

Now, honestly, unless one of us works or has worked at Apple in the hardward development department, I doubt we'll get any farther with this discussion. We have different experiences and concepts concerning approach to these matters. Perhaps Apple uses yours, perhaps they use mine. Who knows?


68...

 

[visor]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
There are documents that reference the existence of the 750GX (aka 'Gobi'), so we know that it is around.

well, they don't exist at ibm.com. at least not where there supposed to be. I wonder where you found those docs.

The GX presumably (if we are to believe the rumors that are around) implements an Altivec compatible unit, similar to the one on the 970. This would allow Apple to have all of its machines using the Velocity Engine.

It's true that a Processor without velocity engine doensn't make much sense anymore if you look at the apps.
However the G3 has a typical power consuption of 4 Watt, which made it extremely interesting for take along notebooks, alias iBook.
Given the fact that Apple migrates to 64bit technology, it doesn't make much sense to develop another 32bit processor with major effort (that i'd suppose Velocity engeine on G3 would be)
Also there will be a development of the 970mobile wich is much more interesing and quite necessary for the powerbook line sooner or later.
It would make sense to switch processors completey rom the Gline to 64 line.

Also looking at the palette of products, the G3 is only seen in the ibook, all other platforms switched to the G4

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by visor
well, they don't exist at ibm.com. at least not where there supposed to be. I wonder where you found those docs.

They are mentioned in a PDF file that is at IBM.com. Well, having just check that, it seems that IBM has increased their security, and you can no longer view that article. Before they did this, I did read the article, which referred to the 750GX (but gave no specifics).

It's true that a Processor without velocity engine doensn't make much sense anymore if you look at the apps.
However the G3 has a typical power consuption of 4 Watt, which made it extremely interesting for take along notebooks, alias iBook.
Given the fact that Apple migrates to 64bit technology, it doesn't make much sense to develop another 32bit processor with major effort (that i'd suppose Velocity engeine on G3 would be)
Also there will be a development of the 970mobile wich is much more interesing and quite necessary for the powerbook line sooner or later.
It would make sense to switch processors completey rom the Gline to 64 line.

Given the fact that the vast majority of software will not move toward a 64-bit optimization (as it would do nothing to improve the software), I find it questionable that Apple would feel any need to move their entire line to the 970 immediately. The G4 is still a decent processor, and will work well in the 'i' line for a while yet.

As far as the development costs are concerned, we just don't know how complex it would be to add an Altivec type unit onto the 750FX.

Also looking at the palette of products, the G3 is only seen in the ibook, all other platforms switched to the G4

Well, yes, and that would be a reason why an IBM version of the G4 (i.e. Gobi) would be desireable, if Apple is trying to move completely away from Moto, expecially if such a processor is faster and cooler than the current G4s.


67...

 

[DHagan4755]

We've pretty beat the 15-inch into the ground, discussing and lusting it since January. It's clear that if it doesn't make an appearance by the first week of June, it's a WWDC or MacWorld Create Expo item, for sure!

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by DHagan4755
We've pretty beat the 15-inch into the ground, discussing and lusting it since January. It's clear that if it doesn't make an appearance by the first week of June, it's a WWDC or MacWorld Create Expo item, for sure!

That seems a fair assessment of the situation. The only real question is the significance of it being at either WWDC or MW. Would that make it more likely to be a 970 upgrade, as opposed to a simple speed bumped G4 (if that's even possible, which I doubt). I guess we'll have to wait and see...


54...

 

[nspeds]

I recently spoke to a sales rep at my nearest apple store in Houston...

I first asked him about the 15inch powerbooks in regards to them being updated...

He then threw his hands up in a shield meaning that he can't say a word... then he whispered in my ear...

"The 15 inch will be updated real soon, it has to be, it is the flagship model."

Au contrare, I say, "what about the 17 inch, I thought that was the flagship??"

Apple rep: "the 17inch is just there for the novelty factor, in my opinion, you should wait for the 15 inch."

There ya go, straight from the horses as... umm, i mean mouth.

 

[chazmox]

Snowy FYI

I've worked in Program Management for Panasonic, Motorola, Cadence, Nokia, Philips, and Lucent. These projects have ranged from paging, cell phones, and cell base stations. I have worked in almost all cellular protocols ( AMPs, NAMPs, TDMA, CDMA, W-CDMA, and GSM/GPRS/EDGE ) and managed all disciplines ( SW, digital, RF, mechanical ). My primary engineering training is in RF with focus in synthesizers and receiver down conversion chains.

I would equate a PowerBook design to an equivalent difficulty to a cell phone design due to the interdependance of electrical design and mechanical design.

For small projects an engineer may have several on his desk; however, for medium projects ( which is where I would group the Powerbook and cell phone ); there is a definite benefit in having a team focus on one product at a time - too many things to focus on and an engineer has trouble establishing priorities ( never mind multiple product managers are telling him that their product is #1 priority ).

Now in the case of radio design, there may be multiple radio bands being worked on by the same team; however, they are fundamentally the same radio. This applies more to the digital, mechanical and SW side - the RF side may need more focus and dedicated teams per band.

I would consider ( especially during the integration of the design ) the PowerBook and PowerMac designs to be significantly different to require two different teams. There may be some cross pollination between the two teams; but everyone knows their main focus and product.

P.S. I am considering only consumer/technical products when calling development tasks "medium." Automobiles, planes, stealth fighters, and space shuttles, fit in a completely different category!

 

[illumin8]

It's Wednesday now... I move that this rumor be officially declared dead... We probably won't see the 15" AlBook until WWDC...

Move along folks, nothing to see here...