PowerBooks Updates?

[mxpiazza]

all three models WILL be updated...

Originally posted by hvfsl
Apple is not going to update just the 15in PB, but also the 12in and the 17in, which means the speed updates will not be minor. Apple never lowers prices accross a range (except for the 17in) unless they are bringing something new out soon. The only other time Apple lowers prices is when they release a new product or product update and sell it for less than the last model.

exactly, someone who finally looks into the facts, which can be a breath of fresh air in these forums...

so everyone can stop their guessing, the reason why the 17" price wasn't dropped is stated in this CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztec...reut/index.html

in short: "... Joswiak said that Apple did not cut the price of the 17-inch PowerBook because it was still a good value at that cost.

"It's going strong at that price," Joswiak said. "It's been selling very well." "

hope this clears some stuff up...

no matter what, we'll be getting some sort of nice update at WWDC, so we should be happy either way... let's not start calling for heads now. but i'm still waiting for my 15" 970

BTW... has anyone been over to the education store lately? if you buy a laptop and iPod together by Sept. 23rd, you get a mail in rebate for $200... that's a sweet deal, considering the substantial discounts you're already getting in the education store.

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by dongmin
Duh. Yes, it's all rumors. But we can make guesses as to which are more likely. All I'm saying is that, based on a few recent rumors, a 970 PB update is not likely at this time. Plus, given what we know about the 970, I don't think it's ready for a laptop.

Why? What do you KNOW about the 970? All I KNOW is that it is slightly (>10%) Larger, cooler, uses less power (19w@1.2GHz vs 23w@1.0GHz) and faster.

Sounds like a good candidate for a laptop to me.

The big question is did Apple design the current Laptops with the 970 in mind and release them with the G4 as a stop gap, or do they need to redesign the motherboard? I personally think the former, but I guess we'll all find out.

 

[Winston Smith]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
powerbook rumor #8632... I'll file it in the pile with the rest of them.

Would that be the pile on your Panther desktop?

 

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by JBracy
Why? What do you KNOW about the 970? All I KNOW is that it is slightly (>10%) Larger, cooler, uses less power (19w@1.2GHz vs 23w@1.0GHz) and faster.

Sounds like a good candidate for a laptop to me.

The big question is did Apple design the current Laptops with the 970 in mind and release them with the G4 as a stop gap, or do they need to redesign the motherboard? I personally think the former, but I guess we'll all find out.

Processor sockets are not compatible between the 970 and the G4. Infact the bus signalling isn't either.

However people should keep in mind, IBM announced a 1.2GHz version of the chip. IBM has announced their blade servers will run at 1.6GHz - 2.0GHz. So I ask you, why make a 1.2GHz chip? If what everyone says is true...that Apple needs to wait for IBM to shrink the process late this year to get a better notebook chip...then why would IBM be producing a 1.2GHz chip?

Also, remember, PowerBook rumors seem to be the hardest to get accurately. Remember when Arn received the 12" and 17" rumor? Less than 12 hours before release..... This could be something big and we wouldn't hear about it.

Also, anyone with a 17" power book know how big the motherboard is? My guess would be it is small enough to fit in a 15" powerbook without modification....which then begs the question why didn't the 15" ever get released? Understanding that Apple had too many 15" books in the channel would make sense, and Apple would not have lost much R&D by failing to update the book with a chassis only update.

If the same holds true, I could see the 15" and 17" going 970, because they could share a board. If Apple is going to spend R&D on building the new chipsets & motherboards, makes no difference to them if they do it now or later......infact, because AMD delayed their desktop Athlon 64 until late summer, this would give Apple a nice size claim to fame. Not only are we first to market on 64-bit consumer desktops, but we are first to market on 64-bit consumer laptops as well.

The 12" will probably not see any changes, and fill in a gap in their lineup. Eventually, you will see a 970 in the 12", with the 12" G4 motherboard being demoted to the iBook line, as I am sure they could use the 12" board (since it has no DVI) on both the 12" & 14" iBooks without modification to anything other than the iBook chassis. Talk about R&D well spent for Apple.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by pretentious
Didn't Apple release the first generation of the Wallstreet PowerBooks at WWDC? Is it so hard to think that they would do it again?

The Powerbooks are their biggest sellers, and from what we have been reading, with Apple wanting to quickly move to the 970 for everything, I don't think its so hard to fathom a PB-PM 970 release, it will make the anoucement even bigger and show Apple's commitment to their next generation chip to all the developers.

I believe that's inaccurate. Apple doesn't sell more portables than desktops (though the ratio is moving that way, especially because of the relatively slow desktops)
I belive you are getting confused with apple's relative market share. Apple owns a larger percentage of the Laptop Personal Computer sales... compared to the overall percentage of market share (sales) in the generic PC category.

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by dguisinger
Processor sockets are not compatible between the 970 and the G4. Infact the bus signalling isn't either.

I know that, but how dificult would it be for Apple to design the motherboard for the 970 and then make minor modifications to allow it to use a G4 for the time being?

I am actually asking the question. I don't know the first thing about motherboard design. All I know from looking at the 1.2 GHZ 970 spec is that it is only slightly bigger than a G4, uses less power is faster and cooler. It looks like a good option for a Laptop. But Apple would not have wasted the R&D on the 17" if it was going to scrap it in 6 months time - UNLESS it would only need minor modification.

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by ffakr
I believe that's inaccurate. Apple doesn't sell more portables than desktops (though the ratio is moving that way, especially because of the relatively slow desktops)
I belive you are getting confused with apple's relative market share. Apple owns a larger percentage of the Laptop Personal Computer sales... compared to the overall percentage of market share (sales) in the generic PC category.

Actually the figure is almost 50/50 (45/55 maybe) but apple makes more money on a Laptop than on a desktop - the margins are very high

 

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by JBracy
I know that, but how dificult would it be for Apple to design the motherboard for the 970 and then make minor modifications to allow it to use a G4 for the time being?

I am actually asking the question. I don't know the first thing about motherboard design. All I know from looking at the 1.2 GHZ 970 spec is that it is only slightly bigger than a G4, uses less power is faster and cooler. It looks like a good option for a Laptop. But Apple would not have wasted the R&D on the 17" if it was going to scrap it in 6 months time - UNLESS it would only need minor modification.

Extreamly difficult. However todays board design programs are great. Apple could design 90% of the board, and tell the program to lock the layout into place, and then only change the remainder of the board design for the 970. It would cut down on R&D.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by dguisinger
Also, anyone with a 17" power book know how big the motherboard is? My guess would be it is small enough to fit in a 15" powerbook without modification....which then begs the question why didn't the 15" ever get released? Understanding that Apple had too many 15" books in the channel would make sense, and Apple would not have lost much R&D by failing to update the book with a chassis only update.

My assumption until I saw the inside of the PB 17, I still expect the same board to be used -- except it'll be a different layout and flow around the internals of the new PB 15.

The PB 12 is a different logic board and really seems to replace the iBook's niche.

Though I'd guess that the iBook will still be around and follow the same path as the old CRT iMac and provide the education market with new OS 9 machine for another year (along with the eMac).

 

[evilsprung]

If this rumor proves true it would literally kill me. I got my pb relatively 2 1/2 months ago and even then I was hesistant that Apple would make some kind of changes. A price drop I was expecting, but a price drop and a speed boost. damniit!

 

[redAPPLE]

ok guys... let's slow down for a second...

if i have my information correct, Apple usually upgrades their desktops first(!?) (processor-wise), then the notebooks...

although, it would be a great dream to have a 970 notebook within 3 weeks (it might be announced anyways...)... is this realistic?

if Apple's strategy is to make the 17" king of the notebook hill, then the 15" may not have more speed than the 17", logical?

so, my take, 17" special edition (maybe speed-bumped) and a 15" albook.

 

[hvfsl]

Apple always updates the powerbooks this time of year as well. The powerbook G3/G4s have always had an update this time of year.

 

[neutrino23]

Originally posted by dguisinger

However people should keep in mind, IBM announced a 1.2GHz version of the chip. IBM has announced their blade servers will run at 1.6GHz - 2.0GHz. So I ask you, why make a 1.2GHz chip? If what everyone says is true...that Apple needs to wait for IBM to shrink the process late this year to get a better notebook chip...then why would IBM be producing a 1.2GHz chip?

Generally, the speed number bandied about is the highest speed available. However, when chips are manufactured there is always a spread of performances available on each wafer. It could be that IBM would select the chips on each wafer that are appropriate for a powerbook. These might not be the fastest chips, but they would have the lowest power consumption.

Also, even though a chip could possibly run at 1.6GHz (for example) it will use less power if the clock is scaled back(1.2GHz for example). In such a case the PB designer would make a trade off between performance, battery drain and heat emitted by the chips.

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by dguisinger
why didn't the 15" ever get released? Understanding that Apple had too many 15" books in the channel would make sense, and Apple would not have lost much R&D by failing to update the book with a chassis only update.

You are also forgetting OS9 booting. The TiBook is the only one of the three that can. If Quark comes out OSX-native (maybe around WWDC), Apple will use it as a pretext for a OSX-only laptop line.


NicoMan

 

[dswoodley]

Re: The weird journey Apple marketing is taking us on...

Originally posted by Sun Baked


While the PowerBook 12 continues to take over as the G4 replacement of the iBook (as we watch the iBook slowly drifting off into oblivion.)

-

Funny...Apple is still reporting it as a top seller...

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by neutrino23
Generally, the speed number bandied about is the highest speed available. However, when chips are manufactured there is always a spread of performances available on each wafer. It could be that IBM would select the chips on each wafer that are appropriate for a powerbook. These might not be the fastest chips, but they would have the lowest power consumption.

Also, even though a chip could possibly run at 1.6GHz (for example) it will use less power if the clock is scaled back(1.2GHz for example). In such a case the PB designer would make a trade off between performance, battery drain and heat emitted by the chips.

Basically, if you take all the chips out of the same wafer (waffer??), you need to test them to get a rating. The highest frequency for stable operations (allowing for some room, that extra bit that overclockers are so fond of) is the rating of the chip. In general, the higher the rating the higher the price for the chip. Now if I am not mistaken, if you 'underclock' a 1.6GHz down to 1.2 GHz (through lower voltage or something), you will get a chip with the same properties as the one that was rated at 1.2GHz. The point is, the PowerBooks' chips will probably be those who have failed the highest tests.

NicoMan

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: The weird journey Apple marketing is taking us on...

Originally posted by dswoodley
Funny...Apple is still reporting it as a top seller...

Twisted logic based on a couple data points... and projecting Apple's current marketing stategy a year into the future.

Steve Jobs usually play havoc with those predictions, and the 970 looming on the horizon can only make those worse.

But that's also looking at the current machines as we now know them.

 

[dswoodley]

Re: Re: Re: The weird journey Apple marketing is taking us on...

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Twisted logic based on a couple data points... and projecting Apple's current marketing stategy a year into the future.

Steve Jobs usually play havoc with those predictions, and the 970 looming on the horizon can only make those worse.

But that's also looking at the current machines as we now know them.

Possibly...and maybe we're saying the same thing, but Apple is never going to abandon its consumer line - and that means the iBook ain't going anywhere and neither is the G3 in it

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by ffakr
Also... the one GREAT thing that Amelio did was trim the Apple product line. Before Amelio, there were like over 20 Macs.. buyers didn't know what to get and Apples costs were too high. Amelio was a busness man (not just a Koolaid drinker), he made some important reforms that were absolutely crutial for the coming SJ golden years. ;-)

Uh, no. I don't know what that wink is for (if it means that whole paragraph was in jest then ignore this), but when people talk about "over 20 Macs" they are talking about the Amelio era. SJ was the one who chopped the product grid way down, to 2x2. (Of course, it's since expanded to include the eMac and Xserve, but at least we don't have the 5300, 5300c, 5300cs...I still don't know what the difference was!)

I think Apple's going to bump the Powerbook line to the 7457 processor. We'll get a bus speed increase, a power/heat decrease, and a speed bump.
We'll see 1.2ish, maybe up to 1.4 max in the powerbooks... and it will be done with a better power profile. Apple might offer a tolken increase in estimated battery life too.. just to point out 'look, this is why you still get a G4 in your notebooks'

The argument about underclocked 970s consuming less power than G4s, is only accurate for the 7455 processors. It isn't true for the 7457 processors that Motorola announced (at 1.33GHz) months ago. All around, the 7457 is a better mobile processor at this time: cooler, better bandwidth than we have now (though still not enough), and it should be pretty fast for just about everything a mobile user needs (especially with that 512K L2 cache).

There's only one catch: it's not shipping for another three months AT LEAST.

WM

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by WM.
There's only one catch: it's not shipping for another three months AT LEAST.

WM

Hmmm... if you look at the second 7455 series the Rev 3.3, it wasn't supposed to be shipping until THIS month.

Yet it's been in all the new PowerBooks for a quarter easily.

If the 7457 is running on the same clock as the 7455B, maybe ... just maybe ... it's ready for Apple to drop into PowerBooks now.

This would be enough to lower the temps and bump the speeds to 1.0 GHz and 1.25 GHz easily.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I think we might get one more decent speed bump out of the 7455. Wasn't the 1.33Ghz in the xServe designed to run cooler because of the smaller enclosure? With some modification it would probably work fine in a Powerbook. I remember when Powerbooks were only 550Mhz and everyone said they would never get to 1Ghz because of heat. Well they have scaled with little problems, so I think a 1.33 Ghz is completely do-able. That would be rocking for a laptop!

 

[LSP]

new powerbooks

Powerbooks, imacs, powermacs and ibooks all showing 30 day delivery times. Either a big mistake or a big change coming.

 

[juniormaj]

Originally posted by WM.
... but at least we don't have the 5300, 5300c, 5300cs...I still don't know what the difference was!)

The difference was:
5300=Greyscale screen
5300c=Color Screen (Active Matrix, 16bit color)
5300cs=Color Screen (Passive Matrix, Dual Scan, 8bit color)

The better, more expensive 5300c had a "c" for "color".
The cheaper 5300cs had a "c" for color and I always thought the "s" stood for the word "scan" in "dual scan", but it may have been something else.

There was also a 5300e with a faster processor and more memory/storage. I guess maybe the "e" stood for "extra"?

Yes, there were too many models of every kind of Mac back then. What about all those Performas? Yikes.

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Hmmm... if you look at the second 7455 series the Rev 3.3, it wasn't supposed to be shipping until THIS month.

Yet it's been in all the new PowerBooks for a quarter easily.

I have to admit that I haven't been checking out all those Moto PDFs about the G4 roadmap (aside from that one about the "small developers conference" or somesuch). So I wasn't aware that there was a G4 version actually *gasp* shipping early.

I still don't think the 7447/7457 will materialize before Q4 (which was the last word from Motorola AFAIK).

Thanks for the clarification/correction.

WM

 

[WM.]

Originally posted by juniormaj
The difference was:
5300=Greyscale screen
5300c=Color Screen (Active Matrix, 16bit color)
5300cs=Color Screen (Passive Matrix, Dual Scan, 8bit color)

The better, more expensive 5300c had a "c" for "color".
The cheaper 5300cs had a "c" for color and I always thought the "s" stood for the word "scan" in "dual scan", but it may have been something else.

That's roughly what I thought, although it's been so long that I wasn't sure.

But I think this only further illustrates my point about the complexity of the line--sometimes, added letters after the number meant "better", and sometimes they meant "worse". Weren't there also multiple revisions of each model (e.g. the 5300c was upgraded at some point)?

There was also a 5300e with a faster processor and more memory/storage. I guess maybe the "e" stood for "extra"?

I thought so!! But I didn't want to include it for fear of being wrong.

Was there a 5300ce too?

Yes, there were too many models of every kind of Mac back then. What about all those Performas? Yikes.

Oh, those were the days. We've got two 6400/180s, still going strong. I think the 611x series (from '94 or so) was even worse...about eight different models with different numbers after 611 that didn't really mean anything...

Anyway, lemme see if I can remember all the '96/'97 Performas (without cheating and checking apple-history.com): 6360/160, 6400/180, 6400/200, 6400/200 with the internal Zip drive (I think it had a totally different logic board), 6500/225, 6500/250, 6500/275, 6500/300, 6500/350...and then all the 5x00s with roughly the same MHz ratings. Slightly before that we had the POS 62x0, 63x0 (but the 6360 wasn't nearly as bad), 52x0, and 53x0.

Ah, nostalgia.

WM