WWDC PowerBook G5 2.2GHz?

[Lancetx]

My bet is still with an anouncement MAYBE at MWSF '05 at the earliest, but no G5 PowerBooks until a year from now by the time they get into the customer's hands...

You're probably right on the money. That's why late last month I decided to go on ahead and get a new 17" PowerBook now and just reassess the situation again this time next year. In the meantime, I believe I'll be quite happy with the G4, I certainly have been so far!

 

[~Shard~]

You're probably right on the money. That's why late last month I decided to go on ahead and get a new 17" PowerBook now and just reassess the situation again this time next year. In the meantime, I believe I'll be quite happy with the G4, I certainly have been so far!

I'm sure you'll be happy with your purchase as well - people often seem to underestimate the true power of the 17" PowerBooks - they're quite impressive, actually! People get caught up too easily in the "G5 trap", thinking that since the G5 is the "latest and greatest" chip, anything with a G4 in it must be crap.

 

[aswitcher]

If Apple are Having Problems doing a G5 in the PowerBook why dont they consider Putting Dual G4's in --

Dual G4 1.5 GHz
512 MB DDR 2700 (max 2 GB)
80 GB 5400 HDD (80 GB 7k BTO)
8 X DVD-RW
BT
APX
2 X Firewire 800
2 X USB 2

for the sake of a slightly bigger case on 15" and 17" and removing of the PC Card slot i am sure that this config would work ! arrr but we can only but dream lol tell you what i'd settle for a G5 Single come on Apple must be able to do that a least.

Tom ( Very bored at work thinking up sh** like this all day)

A 17 is the most likely candidate for this and given my experience of the revb it would need some really good cooling with duals. I suspect constant fan noise doing anything signficant and short battery life...

 

[jefhatfield]

A 17 is the most likely candidate for this and given my experience of the revb it would need some really good cooling with duals. I suspect constant fan noise doing anything signficant and short battery life...

dual G4 powerbooks would be a great item to have at the same time as the G5 imac, but not anytime after that

we wouldn't want the G5 imac to stay around for nine full months before the G5 chip finally goes into a professional level powerbook

the dual G4 chip can keep laptop users happy until apple hammers out a G5 powerbook which seems most likely to come out sometime next year...but if the G5 powerbook comes out this year i would be pleasantly surprised

sometimes apple comes along and surpasses the hopes of even these rumor sites...many thought the G3 imac would either give way to an lcd screen or a G4 chip, but when apple came out with both upgrades in one machine, they hit a home run with the computer buying public

it would take a G5 powerbook in 2004 to wow laptop users...the pc side already has 64 bit computing with amd powered portables...intel is likely to join the mobile 64 bit computing world soon

 

[aidamahn]

it would take more than a g5 to get me to replace my graphite clamshell ibook... i'm a sucker for curves

 

[jefhatfield]

i also love my rev a ibook and its curves

when the new ibook, square and pc like, replaced the curvy ibook, i was not happy...but specs-wise, i was excited at the time of a 500 mhz laptop/firewire/dual usb which weighed only 4.9 lbs but was still durable

and now with a decent video card and a G4 processor, the ibook is very pro level and a steal at 1099

 

[DHagan4755]

In an anonymous post to Craig's List, one participant claims:



Obviously anonymous mailing list posts lack much credibility.

How much credibility does it have now that we've seen the plist file of 10.3.5 and it shows new PowerBook Models? (7,1 and 7,2). Combine this with Think Secret's story about the new iMac G5 at 1.6 GHz, and the fact that iMacs and PowerBooks have always seemed to be in unison speedwise, and that PowerBooks have never been weaker in features than the iMac.

 

[~Shard~]

How much credibility does it have now that we've seen the plist file of 10.3.5 and it shows new PowerBook Models? (7,1 and 7,2). Combine this with Think Secret's story about the new iMac G5 at 1.6 GHz, and the fact that iMacs and PowerBooks have always seemed to be in unison speedwise, and that PowerBooks have never been weaker in features than the iMac.

It has absolutely no additional credibility. The plist file could refer to upcoming G4 PowerBook revisions, and since the G5 is a new chipset, you cannot base anything on previous circumstances. The Apple engineers had their hands full incorporating the G5 into the iMac as it was, so shoehorning a server-class chip which is HOT into a small, confined laptop is not going to be any easier. In addition to this, due to chip yield issues on IBM's part, Apple will be lucky to have enough G5s to meet demand on the iMacs, PowerMacs and xServes as it is - this is the reason the G5 iMac has been delayed in the first place!

Answer your question?

 

[Seanb23]

I wonder, is it a lack of funds that prevents Apple from creating a new R&D department with the singular goal of creating an ultrafast, relatively cool "Mobile" chip, as their competition has done ?

If you look at the fastest laptops out there...the AMD64 and M chip lines...this is precisely what occurred. You know, one of the basics of the art of warfare is to thoroughly know your enemy and beat 'em at their own game...

 

[~Shard~]

I wonder, is it a lack of funds that prevents Apple from creating a new R&D department with the singular goal of creating an ultrafast, relatively cool "Mobile" chip, as their competition has done ?

Well, since Apple isn't in the business of manufacturing or designing microprocessor chips in the first place, this would be quite the undertaking, and yes, a LOT of funds would be required! You might as well ask Apple to start manufacturing their own line of mountain bikes as well.

Since you appear to not be aware, IBM makes the chips which Apple uses in their machines, so if anything Apple would need to work with IBM on this initiative. But I am not privy to IBM's roadmaps and strategies when it comes to its Power series of chips, so I have no idea if they are working on something, what their R&D budget is like, etc. Perhaps another solution to this "more powerful chip in a laptop" problem would be a Motorola/Freescale 2 GHz G4 (dual core?), not a G5...

And to correct you, you imply that Apple is in competition with the likes of Intel and AMD - this is incorrect - Apple manufactures (say it with me!) computers and AMD and Intel manufactures processors. IBM is in competition with them, not Apple.

 

[Seanb23]

Well, since Apple isn't in the business of manufacturing or designing microprocessor chips in the first place, this would be quite the undertaking, and yes, a LOT of funds would be required! You might as well ask Apple to start manufacturing their own line of mountain bikes as well.

Since you appear to not be aware, IBM makes the chips which Apple uses in their machines, so if anything Apple would need to work with IBM on this initiative. But I am not privy to IBM's roadmaps and strategies when it comes to its Power series of chips, so I have no idea if they are working on something, what their R&D budget is like, etc. Perhaps another solution to this "more powerful chip in a laptop" problem would be a Motorola/Freescale 2 GHz G4 (dual core?), not a G5...

And to correct you, you imply that Apple is in competition with the likes of Intel and AMD - this is incorrect - Apple manufactures (say it with me!) computers and AMD and Intel manufactures processors. IBM is in competition with them, not Apple.

Don't talk down on me that way, buster, when you aren't in the same room as me. It's childish and rude, not to mention cowardly, and you don't even know me. I'm well aware of who makes Apple's hardware components...I was just simplifying the question for the sake of expediency. It should be obvious to anyone that Apple told Motorola and now IBM what they wanted in a proc, not the other way around, right ?

But speaking of Motorola, well, my brother in law was one of the principal engineers in the design teams who created the G4 for Apple. He and his hardcore Linux activist brethren down in Austin have insisted to me, as I tried as hard as I could to defend our beloved Apple, that Moto was, as well as IBM is, in cahoots with Apple all the way up to the top to delay modern hardware implementation specifically to sell a backlog of outmoded, outdated and severely overpriced procs. I wouldn't quite go THAT far, but then again, I don't have multiple degrees in physics from UC Berkeley like these people do, and I'm not exactly an industry insider and expert, as you surely also must be, judging by the haughty tone of your insightful and most enlightening post.

Have fun lobbing another substanceless, insulting reply, and have a nice day.

 

[Squire]

I wonder, is it a lack of funds that prevents Apple from creating a new R&D department with the singular goal of creating an ultrafast, relatively cool "Mobile" chip, as their competition has done ?

If you look at the fastest laptops out there...the AMD64 and M chip lines...this is precisely what occurred. You know, one of the basics of the art of warfare is to thoroughly know your enemy and beat 'em at their own game...

My guess is that Apple couldn't do it because of, as you suggest, lack of funds. Another reason might be return on investment (or lack thereof). In order to make it worthwhile, they would have to end up selling chips to other customers. Lots of them.

Here's a link and excerpt on IBM's Fishkill, NY, plant:

http://news.com.com/A+fab+construction+job/2100-1001_3-981060.html

IBM's retrofitting of its Fishkill fab exemplifies the challenge facing semiconductor makers today. The exploding costs of such fabrication facilities are widening the gaps that separate a few giants, which can afford to build their own fabs, from the rest of the semiconductor manufacturers that must share facilities or hire companies such as IBM to make chips for them. While outsourcing has its advocates, it creates risks and costs that can put a company at a disadvantage.

And a little further down...

In the end, the final cost [of the refurb]came to $2.5 billion. By 2007, the cost of building a fab is expected to reach $6 billion.

In comparison, Apple has about $4 billion in cash reserve. (Not that they'd spend it all in one place.)

Squire

 

[~Shard~]

Don't talk down on me that way, buster, when you aren't in the same room as me. It's childish and rude, not to mention cowardly, and you don't even know me. I'm well aware of who makes Apple's hardware components...

...

Have fun lobbing another substanceless, insulting reply, and have a nice day.

Hahaha!! Thanks buddy, that was the best laugh I've had all day! I thought I was so over-the-top and my post had so much sarcasm in it that you would have been able to figure out that I was just having fun, being a bastard and joking around, but evidently not. Was it the obviousness of the topic, the simplicity of the matter, or the use of bold in my post which apparently I didn't use enough of?

You take things too seriously buddy, you gotta lighten up man. Just chill, there's no need to overreact like that. Wow - I'm still chuckling! Don't worry, when you're less of a newbie here you'll get to know me better and know that I mean no harm. Just ask any of the other members (Squire, for example, I see him active in this thread) and they'll enlighten ya. So just relax, no need to get your panties in a knot, and have some fun!

 

[~Shard~]

...

Here's a link and excerpt on IBM's Fishkill, NY, plant:

http://news.com.com/A+fab+construction+job/2100-1001_3-981060.html

...

Squire

This is a very interesting article and a very good point Squire - due to the costs involved and the ROI implications, it almost becomes cost-prohibitive to pursue this, especially since Apple is not in the same position as a Dell, for example - this is again where supply & demand, along with economies of scale come into play. There would need to be a substantial customer base existing for Apple to pursue something like this, and (unfortunately), I don't see it happening - those fabs are extremely expensive. As you say, Apple has a sizable chunk of change in the bank, but not that much.

 

[Seanb23]

My guess is that Apple couldn't do it because of, as you suggest, lack of funds. Another reason might be return on investment (or lack thereof). In order to make it worthwhile, they would have to end up selling chips to other customers. Lots of them.

Here's a link and excerpt on IBM's Fishkill, NY, plant:

http://news.com.com/A+fab+construction+job/2100-1001_3-981060.html

IBM's retrofitting of its Fishkill fab exemplifies the challenge facing semiconductor makers today. The exploding costs of such fabrication facilities are widening the gaps that separate a few giants, which can afford to build their own fabs, from the rest of the semiconductor manufacturers that must share facilities or hire companies such as IBM to make chips for them. While outsourcing has its advocates, it creates risks and costs that can put a company at a disadvantage.

And a little further down...

In the end, the final cost [of the refurb]came to $2.5 billion. By 2007, the cost of building a fab is expected to reach $6 billion.

In comparison, Apple has about $4 billion in cash reserve. (Not that they'd spend it all in one place.)

Squire

Yeah, this makes sense. But I also wonder about all those old "Apple/AMD partnership" rumors...

Perhaps this won't seem so far-fetched or so much of a migration nightmare after all again in the near future if AMD continues to whup everyone's butt...

 

[Seanb23]

Hahaha!! Thanks buddy, that was the best laugh I've had all day! I thought I was so over-the-top and my post had so much sarcasm in it that you would have been able to figure out that I was just having fun, being a bastard and joking around, but evidently not. Was it the obviousness of the topic, the simplicity of the matter, or the use of bold in my post which apparently I didn't use enough of?

You take things too seriously buddy, you gotta lighten up man. Just chill, there's no need to overreact like that. Wow - I'm still chuckling! Don't worry, when you're less of a newbie here you'll get to know me better and know that I mean no harm. Just ask any of the other members (Squire, for example, I see him active in this thread) and they'll enlighten ya. So just relax, no need to get your panties in a knot, and have some fun!

Well, I suppose that's the age old problem with sarcasm and satire...if it's done well enough, the stupes mistake it for sincerity...sorry 'bout 'dat snarling post of mine there...

 

[~Shard~]

Well, I suppose that's the age old problem with sarcasm and satire...if it's done well enough, the stupes mistake it for sincerity...sorry 'bout 'dat snarling post of mine there...

No need to apologize bud, these things happen, and it is a fine line at times - you aren't the first person to take one of my posts the wrong way, so don't feel bad! Just havin' fun...

 

[camobag]

My post has no meaning whatsoever

I'm sure this post will get deleted, but I just had to type something on my new wireless (bluetooth) keyboard. This thing is money and everyone needs to get one! Right now!

Thanks for your time.

And Apple thanks you.

 

[aswitcher]

I'm sure this post will get deleted, but I just had to type something on my new wireless (bluetooth) keyboard. This thing is money and everyone needs to get one! Right now!

Thanks for your time.

And Apple thanks you.

I agree, I want one, but I hanging out till 1 Sept in the vain hope that a metal look one will come out with the new iMac...

 

[ibook_g4_user]

I hope that the powerbooks stay with a G4 forever

 

[jefhatfield]

Yeah, this makes sense. But I also wonder about all those old "Apple/AMD partnership" rumors...

Perhaps this won't seem so far-fetched or so much of a migration nightmare after all again in the near future if AMD continues to whup everyone's butt...

i think that intel's lead in the field will make it harder for apple inc to keep up in the speed arena...the money, engineering/scientific talent it takes, and right conditions needed for a fab plant will keep out new competitors

as much as i would like to see amd "whup" intel, i don't think that it can happen anytime soon

 

[~Shard~]

I hope that the powerbooks stay with a G4 forever

With one of those rumored Freescale dual-core 2 GHz G4s that in theory benchmark faster than the low-end G5s, we just might!

 

[drsuse]

With one of those rumored Freescale dual-core 2 GHz G4s that in theory benchmark faster than the low-end G5s, we just might!

if it was 64 bit, then i would be 100% sold.

i'm not really too worried about how fast it is, a 1.5 ghz g4 would be plenty fast for me right now, it just seems to me that a 64 bit processor is insurance for the future.

 

[jefhatfield]

if it was 64 bit, then i would be 100% sold.

i'm not really too worried about how fast it is, a 1.5 ghz g4 would be plenty fast for me right now, it just seems to me that a 64 bit processor is insurance for the future.

that's true, but not quite yet

what's the average length you own a computer and use it daily/weekly? two years, two and a half, maybe?

the introduction of 64 bit apps is still in its infant stages and it will take longer than that to utilize a 64 bit machine to its potential...perhaps in 18 months it might make sense to have to go 64 bit to ensure a good life for your machine

now if you plan on buying a 64 bit computer (apple made G5 power mac, pc that has an athlon 64) and using it for four or five years, then you may see the transition from 32 bit apps to 64 bit apps

my next mac will prolly be an ibook with a G4, unless apple plans on getting that chip into the machine in the next 12 months which i doubt...we will see a G5 imac this fall and a G5 powerbook by early next year if we are lucky

the emac and ibook will stay G4 for another year most likely, and maybe even longer...now, how do i know this? he he..i don't but i am just guessing from all the rumors i have seen here because it seems we ask for stuff several months before apple inc is able to deliver and some macrumors members are never happy enough with apple inc's progress in computer hardware

as long as i compare macs against themselves, i think the progress is steady and admirable...but when looking at apps, hardware, and peripherals coming out on faster pc machines, then it always seems like macs are behind the speed curve...when we hit 3 ghz, they will be well beyond 4 ghz and so on

 

[macsrus]

as long as i compare macs against themselves, i think the progress is steady and admirable...but when looking at apps, hardware, and peripherals coming out on faster pc machines, then it always seems like macs are behind the speed curve...when we hit 3 ghz, they will be well beyond 4 ghz and so on

I think the Speed/GHZ wars have almost come to an end... At least for a while...
Intel has stalled... and said that they dont believe they can pass 4 GHZ

While it will be at least 18 months or more maybe never(which is more likely) before a PPC hits 4 GHZ... It doesnt really matter that much anyway...
Because clock hertz is only one factor in CPU speed which everyone should know by now