[Simon]

OK, I checked out the new iBooks last week and the update seemes humble but not that bad. I just came back from checking the eMac updates now.

Well look here, the new 799$ eMac gets AP Extreme, but the new $1299 iBook doesn't.

What interesting logic! The desktop machine that's cabled anyway gets the fast wireless network access, but the small portable machine that will probably rely on wireless networking gets the old slow stuff. Huh?

This got me thinking if maybe Apple really shot itself in the foot with the 12" PowerBook. Since it was so close to the iBook and not beefed up enough (woohoo it could compete with the 15" Ti) the iBooks are made to suck more. Steve and his wise buddys found out that to many customers are going for the iBook because the 12" PowerBook is too expensive for too little advantage and whoops, there goes Airport Extreme for the iBook.

Of course this is just my guess, but if that's only half way right I think we're getting a rotten deal. Crippling the iBook just stinks.

[Geoff Thompson]

In my case, Airport Extreme was pretty much useless. My cable modem caps out at much less than what 802.11b does. I would have prefered more than 128mb base ram though. If apple would have even just made the iBook a two slot ram system, that would have even been better! OSX really does need it!

[arnette]

I had the worst time deciding between the PowerBook 12" and an iBook. I like the PB fine, but if I were to do it all again I'd go for the iBook. There are only a few instances where I see a big difference between the two in terms of performance.

I'd rather have the extra money. Just my opinion.

[dettociao]

Originally posted by arnette:
I had the worst time deciding between the PowerBook 12" and an iBook. I like the PB fine, but if I were to do it all again I'd go for the iBook. There are only a few instances where I see a big difference between the two in terms of performance.

I'd rather have the extra money. Just my opinion.

Agreed. Hence the reason I'm getting rid of my PB

[iamnid]

I have to say that I agree with the original poster -- the ibook is suffering in terms of specs because of the 12" powerbook. I would have liked to have seen a 1Ghz ibook the last time around but then it would have "appeared" to be faster than the 12" No airport extreme because then that's one less advantage of the 12" -- C'mon apple... I think they should have released the 12" powerbook but with a 1Ghz G3 and perhaps everything else the same as it is now and called it the new 12" ibook -- forget all this 12" powerbook nonsense... if it really were a powerbook it'd have a pc-card slot and l3 cache.

[arnette]

Originally posted by iamnid:
I have to say that I agree with the original poster -- the ibook is suffering in terms of specs because of the 12" powerbook. ....C'mon apple... I think they should have released the 12" powerbook but with a 1Ghz G3 and perhaps everything else the same as it is now and called it the new 12" ibook -- forget all this 12" powerbook nonsense... if it really were a powerbook it'd have a pc-card slot and l3 cache.

Exactly. I completely agree that the iBook is being held back. But that doesn't matter because it is what it is (how philosophical). If you were in the market for an Apple laptop and you were deciding between the 12" PB and the iBook my recommendation is the iBook. I have the PB 12", it's nice, but it's not that much of an advantage over the iBook.

ALL of Apple's hardware is being held back in some form or another.. the G4 chip mostly.. because Apple doesn't want to push anything faster than the G4 so it's sort of like the big fat kid at the top of the slide who won't move and everyone else is stuck behind him in line screaming "GO!". More or less.

[infiniti]

I hope no one minds my going a bit off topic here, but this is related to a decision I have to make...
If I have the choice between a Powerbook 667 DVI, 867 12" and iBook 900, would the 900 be just as good for most non-video/3D applications, and a whole lot cheaper? How about OS X performance? I'm really stumped as to what to do, and could use some advice if no one would mind offering it.

And I must say that I agree with the original poster as well. Once again, Apple is forced to play the MHz numbers game, and the consumer suffers.
So what does everyone think regarding the next major iBook rev? Will it be faster G3's with new mobo supporting bluetooth, AE, etc, or (more likely IMO) will the 12" G4 basically be repackaged as an iBook?

Steve

[iamnid]

Originally posted by infiniti:
I hope no one minds my going a bit off topic here, but this is related to a decision I have to make...
If I have the choice between a Powerbook 667 DVI, 867 12" and iBook 900, would the 900 be just as good for most non-video/3D applications, and a whole lot cheaper? How about OS X performance? I'm really stumped as to what to do, and could use some advice if no one would mind offering it.

And I must say that I agree with the original poster as well. Once again, Apple is forced to play the MHz numbers game, and the consumer suffers.
So what does everyone think regarding the next major iBook rev? Will it be faster G3's with new mobo supporting bluetooth, AE, etc, or (more likely IMO) will the 12" G4 basically be repackaged as an iBook?

Steve

Off topic -- agreed -- don't you have a thread for this elsewhere? anyway, non-video/3d I am almost certain the ibook 900 would be faster than the 667 powerbook... can't think of anything it would be slower for... maybe ripping songs in itunes.

[Simon]

Originally posted by iamnid:
I have to say that I agree with the original poster -- the ibook is suffering in terms of specs because of the 12" powerbook. I would have liked to have seen a 1Ghz ibook the last time around but then it would have "appeared" to be faster than the 12" No airport extreme because then that's one less advantage of the 12" -- C'mon apple... I think they should have released the 12" powerbook but with a 1Ghz G3 and perhaps everything else the same as it is now and called it the new 12" ibook -- forget all this 12" powerbook nonsense... if it really were a powerbook it'd have a pc-card slot and l3 cache.

Well actually it's Apple's own fault that they're now in the sh!t.

They could have differentiated the 12" PowerBook enough by giving it a 1GHz G4 with a L3, a Radeon 9000 Mobile and a DVI-out. That would have made a 1GHz G3 with only VGA (mirroring) out including APE perfectly possible for the iBook.

Instead they chose to make a half-a$$ed 12" PowerBook (crap GPU, VGA out, no L3) and now they're stuck behind it with the iBook.

Ah shucks, it hurts.

[palmberg]

It does my heart good to hear so many people lauding the iBook, especially in favor of the 12" PowerBook. I'd really love to get another iBook, but my Key Lime 466MHz is still going strong and runs OS X like a champ!

I'm only worried that Apple's portable offerings will languish after this "year of the laptop." If the rumors of the new desktop processor come to pass, this next year will clearly focus on Apple's desktop systems. It'll be a while before any of these new processors make it to the portable line.

[bleee]

The 12inch TiBook was the answer to all the whining on this forum complaining about wanting a G4 in an iBook. Plain and simple Apple is not going to stick a G4 in an iBook and call it an iBook because it would compete with the TiBook line so to shut you guys up they shoved a G4 in an Aluminum iBook case and put it in the professional line of portables. This all comes down to the fact that at the time Apple does not have enough Ghz to work with to separate the iBooks and TiBooks you will not see a G4 or AE in an iBook until the portable 970 CPU is released. With regards to 1Ghz iBooks if you haven’t noticed Apple has had a very hard time eeking past the 1Ghz mark with the G4 CPUS i.e. the last pitiful PowerMac upgrades

[bernt]

I've only tried the 800 iBook, but compared to the 12" PB it really sucks. The PowerBook has a much finer, sturdier design, and beats the iBook hands down speed-wise in every aspect. The largest difference I found was multitasking, where the PB was brilliant compared to the iBook.

Not sure how much faster the 900 iBook is though...

My 2 cents

erlend

[xtal]

Originally posted by bernt:
I've only tried the 800 iBook, but compared to the 12" PB it really sucks. The PowerBook has a much finer, sturdier design, and beats the iBook hands down speed-wise in every aspect. The largest difference I found was multitasking, where the PB was brilliant compared to the iBook.

Not sure how much faster the 900 iBook is though...

My 2 cents

erlend

That's odd, I had the opportunity to compare the iBook 800 with a 12" PB also. My results were far different than yours. I found that they were quite similar, with the PB having the slight edge (especially in Altivec utilizing applications). I would give the 12" PB the slight edge, but it's up to you to decide whether that performance advantage is worth the price premium.

bernt,
What was the RAM situation of the two machines you tested? An extra dose of RAM in the PB would be the culprit if you saw a multitasking advantage.

[iamnid]

Originally posted by bleee:
The 12inch TiBook was the answer to all the whining on this forum complaining about wanting a G4 in an iBook. Plain and simple Apple is not going to stick a G4 in an iBook and call it an iBook because it would compete with the TiBook line so to shut you guys up they shoved a G4 in an Aluminum iBook case and put it in the professional line of portables. This all comes down to the fact that at the time Apple does not have enough Ghz to work with to separate the iBooks and TiBooks you will not see a G4 or AE in an iBook until the portable 970 CPU is released. With regards to 1Ghz iBooks if you haven’t noticed Apple has had a very hard time eeking past the 1Ghz mark with the G4 CPUS i.e. the last pitiful PowerMac upgrades

Well if that was the case they should have made the 12" either cheaper and done away with the ibook or made it comparable to the 15" and 17" at the current price point. They screwed up because it is too close to the ibook in terms of features and power but much more expensive. If they released the 12" to shut me up (as you put it) it didn't work... I'd much rather have a 1Ghz g3 ibook than an 867mhz powerbook that is way more expensive than the ibook but really only has a g4 chip to differentiate itself from the ibook.

[IronPen]

Wow! This was the perfect thread for me to read. I have a Rev. A iBook 500 and I really like it. However, I imagine that in the next year I'll be making a new purchase. I've always wanted a PB but found that the price premium was too much. Now that the iBook is up to 900MHz I'm really tempted to sell my loaded iBook on eBay and buy a new iBook...or save some money and see what happens later this year, when we will hopefully see new iBooks or updated PBs.

I originally thought I would wait to see the 15" updated, but then the iBooks got updated and the price is pretty good. I've found that I don't use my DVD drive much, so I am thinking of just getting the 800MHz version with CD-ROM to save even more $$$. Still, like many a Mac consumer, I have to wonder if I am better off in the long run getting the G4 PB. I use a dual G4 at work at 533MHz and it doesn't seem to run that much faster than my iBook 500. Multitasking is faster, but it's not a major boost. The real speed difference is in startup and system upgrade optimizations. I don't edit video or burn media so I think that is where the real difference might also come into play. My thought is that I would buy an external CD burner since they are faster and cheaper than the internal ones from Apple. I don't have a real need to have a burner on the go.

One thing that has ticked me off lately is that the iBook 500 has a difficult time playing large media. I downloaded the large Matrix Reloaded trailer and it plays very jerky...skipping frames and such. It only has 8MB of video RAM, which doesn't help any.

So, I'm thinking of getting the 800MHz iBook since I'll save more than $800 over the 12"...and I won't buy a 12" until Rev. B comes out so they can resolve some of the heat issues at least. Man, I'm so undecided.

[polendo]

If you ask me, it seems that the 15" powerbook is the flea in the soup. That one doesn't have a chance at all, its already obsolete with the current spec (even without considering price). The only thing it has is the DVI which I don't know what is for anyway.

Follow me on this one.. The ibook is for home users /students.. that's it.

For 999 to 1300 bucks you get a great deal to do whatever task you need to do.. plain and simple.

Now.. the TIbook or whatever name it is an upscale computer for the corporate force. Either you need to edit video or crunch numbers or whatever.. the g4 will go thru, no problem. The 15" doesn't have bluetooth built in, nor has airport extreme readiness (except the ridicolous priced 2799 one). These two factors, I think, are "success factors" for the corporate user.. name it connectivity issues.. the 12" and the 17" have this and the 15" doesnt. The 12" doesn't need the DVI thing since its purpose isn't to be editing video or designing on the wall with a projector or an external monitor.. the 12" factor computer is portability and enough power to do tasks that need to be portable. Editing video should be handled even on desktops alone.. but ok, 15" and 17" portable may cut it.

I see it plain and simple.. for the money any ibook is capable of any task it was meant to do.

The tibook does the same.. it does whatever you want to do, with the exception of the 15" model.

I wouldn't be pissed for Ibook users, I in fact think we user have a lot of value for our money taking into considerance the real use that it was meant to when it was designed or marketed.

regards

[iamnid]

Originally posted by polendo:
If you ask me, it seems that the 15" powerbook is the flea in the soup. That one doesn't have a chance at all, its already obsolete with the current spec (even without considering price). The only thing it has is the DVI which I don't know what is for anyway.

Follow me on this one.. The ibook is for home users /students.. that's it.

For 999 to 1300 bucks you get a great deal to do whatever task you need to do.. plain and simple.

Now.. the TIbook or whatever name it is an upscale computer for the corporate force. Either you need to edit video or crunch numbers or whatever.. the g4 will go thru, no problem. The 15" doesn't have bluetooth built in, nor has airport extreme readiness (except the ridicolous priced 2799 one). These two factors, I think, are "success factors" for the corporate user.. name it connectivity issues.. the 12" and the 17" have this and the 15" doesnt. The 12" doesn't need the DVI thing since its purpose isn't to be editing video or designing on the wall with a projector or an external monitor.. the 12" factor computer is portability and enough power to do tasks that need to be portable. Editing video should be handled even on desktops alone.. but ok, 15" and 17" portable may cut it.

I see it plain and simple.. for the money any ibook is capable of any task it was meant to do.

The tibook does the same.. it does whatever you want to do, with the exception of the 15" model.

I wouldn't be pissed for Ibook users, I in fact think we user have a lot of value for our money taking into considerance the real use that it was meant to when it was designed or marketed.

regards

you seem to be forgetting that the 15" has yet to be updated to its aluminum brethren... and it's still a better value than the 12" -- bigger screen, l3 cache, dvi, faster cpu, better gpu... need I go on?

[polendo]

Well you can go on if you wish, but good luck waiting for it.

As in today, I wouldn't buy a 15" PB. It just doesn't make sense financially wise.

regards

[Simon]

Originally posted by polendo:
Follow me on this one.. The ibook is for home users /students.. that's it.

For 999 to 1300 bucks you get a great deal to do whatever task you need to do.. plain and simple.

No, man. You should follow this thread. It isn't about having a good student machine which the iBook is. It is also not about having high-end video editing machines for the go.

The point is that the iBook is being deliberately crippled because Apple was much too skimpy on 12" AlBook spces.

The 12" AlBook should have been a high-end portable with all the goodies, but in a very small enclosure to make it ultra-portable.

The iBook should be an inexpensive yet sturdy computer for education and low-budget buyers.

Those two segements have almot nothing in common, yet Apple made two machines that differ mostly by the case color.

The 12" doesn't need the DVI thing since its purpose isn't to be editing video or designing on the wall with a projector or an external monitor.. the 12" factor computer is portability and enough power to do tasks that need to be portable. Editing video should be handled even on desktops alone.. but ok, 15" and 17" portable may cut it.

Bull. The PowerBook needs such features. The iBook doesn't. It's not a matter of size.

[bernt]

Originally posted by xtal:
That's odd, I had the opportunity to compare the iBook 800 with a 12" PB also. My results were far different than yours. I found that they were quite similar, with the PB having the slight edge (especially in Altivec utilizing applications). I would give the 12" PB the slight edge, but it's up to you to decide whether that performance advantage is worth the price premium.

bernt,
What was the RAM situation of the two machines you tested? An extra dose of RAM in the PB would be the culprit if you saw a multitasking advantage.

Both machines had 640 mb of ram installed, so that was not the issue. The responsivness of the PB when simultanously making big installs, listening to iTunes and surfing the web was just much more responsive, more snappy

erlend

[xtal]

Originally posted by bernt:
Both machines had 640 mb of ram installed, so that was not the issue. The responsivness of the PB when simultanously making big installs, listening to iTunes and surfing the web was just much more responsive, more snappy

erlend

Ahh yes, the ever-lusted-for Snappy factor.

[polendo]

Originally posted by Simon:

The point is that the iBook is being deliberately crippled because Apple was much too skimpy on 12" AlBook spces.

I understand what you are trying to tell, but I don't agree on the issue that the Ibook is being crippled by the 12" Albook specs.

Its simple. The Ibook owners are paying for what they are receiving. I think Apple positioned well the Ibook (specs and marketing wise).

The question is if the 12" PB buyers are receiving what are they paying for?

regards

[Simon]

Originally posted by polendo:
The Ibook owners are paying for what they are receiving.

No, they aren't. $799 buys you APE with an eMac. $1299 doesn't if you want an iBook.

iBook owners are not receiving what they pay for.

[Simon]

Originally posted by polendo:
The question is if the 12" PB buyers are receiving what are they paying for?

They aren't either. Because they're paying PowerBook and getting iBook - well, iBook with an aluminium case that is...

[bernt]

Originally posted by Simon:
They aren't either. Because they're paying PowerBook and getting iBook - well, iBook with an aluminium case that is...

Don't agree at all, I'll compare it to the PB beeing an Audi while the iBook is a Volkswagen: They are from the same company, but in different leagues..

erlend.

[polendo]

Originally posted by Simon:
They aren't either. Because they're paying PowerBook and getting iBook - well, iBook with an aluminium case that is...

At least we agree on this one.

[polendo]

Originally posted by Simon:
No, they aren't. $799 buys you APE with an eMac. $1299 doesn't if you want an iBook.

iBook owners are not receiving what they pay for.

Now, why do you brought the Emac ! You wiped my case with this comment.

I think the Emac is really cheap. That one does deliver value for its money, but is a desktop. It's a different ball game now.

regards

[Raidiant]

My friend has a 12 inch PB we exchanged one day with my ibook 800mhz, we both agreed the ibook was better.

The ibook is more tough, provided better preformance in unreal tournament 2003, no difference in OS preformance at all and for no reason at all the PB's battery runs out of juice more easily and the left side gets unconforatably hot after a while of use, the metallic casing was really nice, but that was really it.

I tried FCP 3 on both of them and didn't notice any difference in speed, in rendering 20 minute video the PB showed significant improvement, however does not justify the price.

[xtal]

Originally posted by polendo:
I think the Emac is really cheap. That one does deliver value for its money, but is a desktop. It's a different ball game now.

The eMac is indeed an excellent value, and it has AE, so what? The eMac is a desktop machine with a CRT (the only one left in Apple's lineup). It's also quite large, and unwieldy. I don't see many people wander into Starbucks and ask for a power outlet for their eMac.

It is an unfair comparison to position an eMac against an iBook and say: why doesn't the iBook have AE. The premium an iBook owner pays is for portability. Notebook owners have known that to be the reason for their slower, and much smaller, machines.

[polendo]

Originally posted by xtal:
The eMac is indeed an excellent value, and it has AE, so what? The eMac is a desktop machine with a CRT (the only one left in Apple's lineup). It's also quite large, and unwieldy. I don't see many people wander into Starbucks and ask for a power outlet for their eMac.

It is an unfair comparison to position an eMac against an iBook and say: why doesn't the iBook have AE. The premium an iBook owner pays is for portability. Notebook owners have known that to be the reason for their slower, and much smaller, machines.

I completely agree with you. The premium the Ibook user is paying is the portability factor.

regards

[bleee]

Originally posted by Raidiant:
My friend has a 12 inch PB we exchanged one day with my ibook 800mhz, we both agreed the ibook was better.

The ibook is more tough, provided better preformance in unreal tournament 2003, no difference in OS preformance at all and for no reason at all the PB's battery runs out of juice more easily and the left side gets unconforatably hot after a while of use, the metallic casing was really nice, but that was really it.

I tried FCP 3 on both of them and didn't notice any difference in speed, in rendering 20 minute video the PB showed significant improvement, however does not justify the price.

Then according to that reasoning there is no real reason to put a G4 in the iBook.

But I believe that you are not using the powerbook to it's full potential for example any app that uses Velocity Engine. I notice a huge difference in G3/G4 performance when you switch between multiple applications or have a lot of apps open

[Simon]

Originally posted by xtal:
It is an unfair comparison to position an eMac against an iBook and say: why doesn't the iBook have AE. The premium an iBook owner pays is for portability. Notebook owners have known that to be the reason for their slower, and much smaller, machines.

Originally posted by polendo:
I completely agree with you. The premium the Ibook user is paying is the portability factor.

Guys, you are missing the point. Sorry.

This is not a comparisson between the eMac and the iBook. Sorry if it may have sounded so. It is out of question that you pay for portability.

The whole point of this thread is logical thinking (or better: the lack of it) on behalf of Apple.

The iBook is a nice inexpensive little computer. It is portable. That makes it a product that is very justified for having good, fast wireless capabilities. But strange enough, it doesn't.

The eMac is just evidence that you can have APE on an ultra-cheap Mac. Apple puts APE on it's most inexpensive el-cheapo (fugly) Mac.

And now for the 1 million dollar question: Why doesn't the iBook get APE?

Answer: The iBook is being artificially crippled because the 12" PowerBook is a wimp in the PowerBook league.

Now, could somebody explain why this had to be?

[polendo]

?nally posted by Simon:
Guys, you are missing the point. Sorry.

This is not a comparisson between the eMac and the iBook. Sorry if it may have sounded so. It is out of question that you pay for portability.

The whole point of this thread is logical thinking (or better: the lack of it) on behalf of Apple.

The iBook is a nice inexpensive little computer. It is portable. That makes it a product that is very justified for having good, fast wireless capabilities. But strange enough, it doesn't.

The eMac is just evidence that you can have APE on an ultra-cheap Mac. Apple puts APE on it's most inexpensive el-cheapo (fugly) Mac.

And now for the 1 million dollar question: Why doesn't the iBook get APE?

Answer: The iBook is being artificially crippled because the 12" PowerBook is a wimp in the PowerBook league.

Now, could somebody explain why this had to be? [/QUOTE]



Because , Simon... you would have to redesign the internal parts of the Ibook in order for it to accept the Ape thing you are mentioning. That redesign and new production then would cost monies, and I suspect that apple made its homework and didn't passed that ROI test given an x amount of extra sales because of the APE thing.

I don't see a big deal on Ibook to have APE. For starterts home users would have to buy Apple's APE base station to get use of it, otherwise if they use a linksys wifi they would be back at 11 mbits. Not even mentioning to hire the service of a higher broadband service. The use of APE, might in my way of seeing things work in offices.. but it will take some time for home users.

regards

[stace]

do the apple product line repairs continue?

ibook 900's got quite a harsh review from the cnet fellas,
em. em i wonder why?

i had the feeling that apple had alittle to do with what was said possible, so i'm a little disappointed. i've trusted those reviews for a long time.

stace;)

[Chimpmaster]

I just read the latest sub-notebook review in APC (Australian Personal Computer mag), and they rated the new 12" powerbook very highly in comparison with the vaio, dell and ibm thinkpad. In fact the powerbook was rated 4/5 and came in third behind the vaio and thinkpad. The only fault they could find was the "sludgy" trackpad, and they admitted that feature wise, with built in 802.11 and bluetooth, and the specs, it was one of the if the not best value sub notebook on the market.

The ibook, is a much less expensive option, and I believe it provides excellent value for money (especially for education buyers).

The radeon 7500 32mb video card, 14.1" screen (or 12), 802.11b and other features make it a top notebook for its price. I personally run a graphite 802.11b network from home, and its perfectly fast enough. I mean, lets face it,not many of us really need more than 11MB/s, and for those of us who can afford an internet connection faster than that, they can surely afford a powerbook. Also apple has reduced the price of the airport cards as opposed to the extreme cards. Admittedly, if they are still selling 802.11b cards, they should sell a cheaper option base station, like the previous snow or graphite base station to match it.

The g3 processor is sensible due to its low power consumption and decent performance in everyday operations, and it positions the ibook well against the new centrino pcs.

I personally think that the new ibooks are an excellent value for money machine, and if I had to buy a notebook tomorrow id probably buy the 14" model ibook.

[Michel_80]

I am choosing a laptop at this minute and you right, I can't really see enough daylight between the 900 Ibook and the PB12 to justify the price hike.

In future I can see however PB12 being so much more powerfull than the Ibook but not at the moment

[Raidiant]

The powerbook 12" is often rated down, because of the exclusion of good memory and airport card at such a high price. The ibook currently is suffering, because of the stupid 12". They should have made a new ibook and that would make everything better.

[Carl Norum]

Originally posted by polendo:
Because , Simon... you would have to redesign the internal parts of the Ibook in order for it to accept the Ape thing you are mentioning. That redesign and new production then would cost monies, and I suspect that apple made its homework and didn't passed that ROI test given an x amount of extra sales because of the APE thing.
[/B]

The redesign involved in putting APE into an iBook is pretty neglible I should think. I've been inside there many a time, and I don't see why it would matter much at all. It would even be *easier* to fit in APE, since the card is so much smaller.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Carl Norum:
The redesign involved in putting APE into an iBook is pretty neglible I should think. I've been inside there many a time, and I don't see why it would matter much at all. It would even be *easier* to fit in APE, since the card is so much smaller.

Carl, thanks for the clarification here.

So, that takes us back to the original question:

The iBook is being artificially crippled because the 12" PowerBook is a wimp in the PowerBook league.

Now, could somebody explain why this had to be?