[Simon]

This AI article offers some speculation and rumors about the upcoming Intel iBooks. They claim the iBook will get a 13" widescreen to replace the 12" and 14" models.

I'm wondering at what resolution the screen will run? The 15" PowerBook's old res 1280x854 is probably too high at 118 ppi.

And will they finally uncripple the iBook's video-out?

Will the iBook be the first to go Intel or will the mini beat it?

[mduell]

The iBooks are currently 91dpi (14") and 106dpi (12"), so 1280x800 (113dpi) or 1152x720 (102dpi) on a 13.3" widescreen would be a good guess. 1280x854 is a weird non-standard resolution that Apple was using; it's slightly oversquare compared to most widescreens (15:10 instead of 16:10).

If the 12" PowerBook is axed, I think we will see DVI or spanning on the iBooks, but not both.

The mini will beat it.

[ghporter]

What do you mean by "uncripple the iBook's video-out?"

[phazedowt]

Originally Posted by mduell

1280x854 is a weird non-standard resolution that Apple was using; it's slightly oversquare compared to most widescreens (15:10 instead of 16:10).

While it was non-standard for widescreen computer displays, 3:2 was exactly the aspect ratio of a 35mm film frame.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ghporter

What do you mean by "uncripple the iBook's video-out?"

Umm, for starters re-enabling spanning, DVI, S-Video (through dongle).

Basically give the iBook the output capabilities of the Mac mini. If there's no 12" PowerBook around the cannibalized sales argument should no longer be a problem.

[ghporter]

OK. That makes sense-as long as they give the card more VRAM. One reason to disable spanning and DVI is that they take a lot more memory-and let's face it, the iBook's video card doesn't have enough memory as it is.

[havocidal]

WOOHOO... 20 - 25% thinner... so itz like 2cm???? OMG...

[harrisjamieh]

I swear that was the 15" powerbook that was 20-255 thinner.....

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

OK. That makes sense-as long as they give the card more VRAM. One reason to disable spanning and DVI is that they take a lot more memory-and let's face it, the iBook's video card doesn't have enough memory as it is.

DVI certainly does not use any more VRAM than VGA.

As for VRAM amount: yeah, splitting 32MB would be bad for gaming. But for desktop usage, 16MB per screen is just fine, even if it will make some effects a little choppy.

Have you actually used a recent iBook in spanning mode (thanks to the hack)? If you had, you'd know that real-world performance in spanning mode is more than adequate.

tooki

[ghporter]

I was thinking of the high resolutions you can get with DVI requiring more VRAM, not DVI as such requiring more. And doesn't S-Video take some extra RAM above screen buffer size to translate?

While we haven't had any issues with our early 2004 iBook's video performance, I haven't had the need (or time to play) to check out the spanning hack, so I'm just going from experience. And while I have a lot of Windows video experience, I'm finding that it doesn't always translate directly to Macs.

Oh, and having choppy effects is something that's always been a Bad Thing for anyone whose computer I supported, so i tend to err on the high side in terms of video performance.

(Did that sound enough like I wasn't really interested in games? )

[Rob van dam]

On a side not does anyone know who manufactures the ibook.I just saw this sweet asus notebook called the u5.In black and white with a 12" screen and ways 1.4kg.It could be a sign of things to come for the ibook.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000853067113/

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Rob van dam

On a side not does anyone know who manufactures the ibook.I just saw this sweet asus notebook called the u5.In black and white with a 12" screen and ways 1.4kg.It could be a sign of things to come for the ibook.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000853067113/

ASUSTeK builds the iBooks; they just got the contract in June of this year (previously Quanta was building them). ASUSTeK also builds some of the iPods (Inventec is the primary iPod builder).

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by mduell

ASUSTeK builds the iBooks; they just got the contract in June of this year (previously Quanta was building them). ASUSTeK also builds some of the iPods (Inventec is the primary iPod builder).

ohh i see.Well i belive asus manufactures the PB.Anyway that small 12.1 may be a sign of things to come with the move to intel.

[production_coordinator]

I'll be interested to see a widescreen 13"

I would have to play with one before commenting.

[slugslugslug]

Drool.. I so want a 13" iBook. I just started going back to school and want to take a laptop with me, but I worry about the broken hinge on my Ti. Plus, I realize I want smaller if I'm gonna be lugging a Mac around with all my books and papers and such. For web, mail, and note-taking on the go, a wide iBook'd be the perfect complement to the iMac that stays home. Is it ridiculous of me to buy 2 Macs in less than a year? (If I do, I'm gon' have to come up with a kick-ass birthday present for the girlfriend in May)

[HWA AFI]

When they said first out the door with dual core does that mean we're going to see dual core yohna based ibooks :O

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by HWA AFI

When they said first out the door with dual core does that mean we're going to see dual core yohna based ibooks :O

Nope. That article is mostly about PowerBooks and iMacs coming out first, then iBooks. Apple would gain nothing by putting a dual-core chip into their entry-level laptop.

[brokenjago]

But the customers would gain everything .

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

1. I was thinking of the high resolutions you can get with DVI requiring more VRAM, not DVI as such requiring more. 2. And doesn't S-Video take some extra RAM above screen buffer size to translate?

While we haven't had any issues with our early 2004 iBook's video performance, I haven't had the need (or time to play) to check out the spanning hack, so I'm just going from experience. And while I have a lot of Windows video experience, I'm finding that it doesn't always translate directly to Macs.

3. Oh, and having choppy effects is something that's always been a Bad Thing for anyone whose computer I supported, so i tend to err on the high side in terms of video performance.

(Did that sound enough like I wasn't really interested in games? )

1. Ah! Then that's what you should have said!

2. Nope. It's done in the GPU.

3. Yeah, but it's fast enough to be reasonably responsive for everyday use.


tooki

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

While we haven't had any issues with our early 2004 iBook's video performance, I haven't had the need (or time to play) to check out the spanning hack, so I'm just going from experience. And while I have a lot of Windows video experience, I'm finding that it doesn't always translate directly to Macs.

What from the Windows world of video performance doesn't directly translate to the Mac world of video performance?
Faster GPU => better performance, faster VRAM => better performance, more VRAM => sometimes better performance, and more display area => need better GPU/more RAM is true on both platforms.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

What from the Windows world of video performance doesn't directly translate to the Mac world of video performance?
Faster GPU => better performance, faster VRAM => better performance, more VRAM => sometimes better performance, and more display area => need better GPU/more RAM is true on both platforms.

Those generalities are of course directly analogous. But how some issues are handled, such as video paging, manipulating images, and other details aren't. Windows likes to use system memory to manipulate images unless the program is built to directly interface the video card-and some programs default to using system memory unless you specifically tell them to see if they can handle the video card (and the specific card firmware version sometimes) that you have installed. And a lot of games do what they can to bypass Windows entirely and directly manipulate the video card, which is why some games specify which video card (sometimes only ONE) that they support.

It's this kind of detail that makes me hesitant to step into some discussions; I step on my own feet more often than not because I assume more is common between the two platforms than truly is.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

And a lot of games do what they can to bypass Windows entirely and directly manipulate the video card, which is why some games specify which video card (sometimes only ONE) that they support.

That may have been true a decade ago, but can you name one game on the shelves today that won't work with any of the DX9-compatible cards based on ATI or nVidia chipsets?

[Simon]

Yonah iBook in Januray!

ThinkSecret is confirming an early release of the first Intel Mac which they claim will be the iBook. The article says it could be announced at MWSF in January.

It should come with Yonah, although it's not clear if it will be the dual-core version (which Intel announced for January) or the single-core version scheduled to be released somewhat later than the dual-core.

A price-drop is being rumored as well.

Sounds like very good news.

[Eug Wanker]

There's no way an iBook would get a dual-core CPU. It'd have to be a single-core chip. 1.66 GHz probably, if you go by Intel's roadmaps.

And if that happens, the PowerBooks would be updated at the same time or soon afterwards (with dual-core chips), possibly minus a 12" model.

I'll wait for the version B i(ntel)Book though. I'll let you guys be the guinea pigs.

[andreas_g4]

I second your thoughts on dual vs. single core chips. But I think I will be a guinea pig…

The TS article seems reasonable. The have been wrong before, the have hit it exactly before. I hope they are right.

But I don't see Apple lowering prices as much as some analysts see it. The most I can imagine is an 899 price tag, with a focus not on being cheap, but feature-rich (iSight, new technologies etc.).

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

That may have been true a decade ago, but can you name one game on the shelves today that won't work with any of the DX9-compatible cards based on ATI or nVidia chipsets?

Here's a quote from id's Doom 3 hardware requirements (bold added for emphasis):

DX 9.0 compatible 3D card w/ 64MB RAM*
MS Windows 2000/XP
Pentium 4 1.5 GHz or Athlon XP 1500+
384 MB RAM
8x CD-ROM
2.2 GB of HD space
Broadband (for multiplayer)
*Supported 3D Graphics chipsets:
ATI: Radeon 8500, 9000, 9200, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800
NVIDIA: GeForce 3, GeForce 4MX, GeForce 4 Titanium, GeForce FX, GeForce 6

What it comes down to is that now, instead of specific cards, games want specific chipsets-and if you get a "special edition" card with limitations on how it works, such as those found in laptops, then you still won't get the quality you want.

[mduell]

So they say DX 9 compatible, and then procede to list all of the DX 9 compatible cards (at the time the game was released) just to eliminate any confusion for non-techies. I've played Doom 3 on a "special edition" laptop card and it worked fine.

[ghporter]

It's not just DX9-it's specific issues with hardware implementation too. I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but that the details aren't as clearcut as we'd both like. A high-powered game that will only work with a handful of chipsets means that the game relies on specific hardware manipulation to work. And instead of the game coders depending on their own wits and cleverness, they tie into DX9's toolbox, which still sidesteps Windows' own video manipulation if you look at it that way, as DX9 compatibility is not needed for most Windows programs.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

There's no way an iBook would get a dual-core CPU. It'd have to be a single-core chip. 1.66 GHz probably, if you go by Intel's roadmaps.

Ok, so since all old PPC apps will use Rosetta, we'll see a significant spped drop. Estimates are that Rosetta will slow down PPC apps by 30%.

Does anyone know how the speed of a single-core 1.2 GHz Jonah processor compares to the 1.33 GHz G4 used right now ?

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Ok, so since all old PPC apps will use Rosetta, we'll see a significant spped drop. Estimates are that Rosetta will slow down PPC apps by 30%.

Does anyone know how the speed of a single-core 1.2 GHz Jonah processor compares to the 1.33 GHz G4 used right now ?

1.2Ghz seems unreasonably slow for Jonah/Yonah. The only way to get a clockspeed that low with the current Dothan chips (which Jonah/Yonah is based off of) is to buy the (relatively pricey) low-power variant. I'd expect to see the iBooks start at 1.66 - 1.83Ghz single-core Jonah/Yonah.

Barefeats did some benchmarks to compare the G4 to Dothan (effectively single-core Jonah/Yonah).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell

1.2Ghz seems unreasonably slow for Jonah/Yonah.[/IMG]

Sorry, I guess my post was not clear.

The 1.2 GHZ is theoretical after the 30% speed loss due to Rosetta JIT compilling of PPC apps. The 1.66 GHz becomes 1.2 GHZ EFFECTIVE speed.

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777

The 1.2 GHZ is theoretical after the 30% speed loss due to Rosetta JIT compilling of PPC apps. The 1.66 GHz becomes 1.2 GHZ EFFECTIVE speed.

With Apple already starting to send out Universal Binaries (see the recent Java update), I think there is a good chance that all of Apple's apps will be native on the day the hardware is released.
IOW, Rosetta will be used much less than previously thought.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell

With Apple already starting to send out Universal Binaries (see the recent Java update), I think there is a good chance that all of Apple's apps will be native on the day the hardware is released.
IOW, Rosetta will be used much less than previously thought.

Well, I'm not worried about Apple SW. More about Office for Mac and other 3rd party apps.
These are already no speed rockets, and with Rosetta, might be feeling real slow...

-t

[andgarden]

I have direct personal experience with Rosetta. A, um, friend, has the Dev Kit software running on a machine almost identical in hardware. Don't take Apple's promises too seriously: PPC software feels like it's running on a 500-800 Mhz G3. . .

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andgarden

I have direct personal experience with Rosetta. A, um, friend, has the Dev Kit software running on a machine almost identical in hardware. Don't take Apple's promises too seriously: PPC software feels like it's running on a 500-800 Mhz G3. . .

I guess I pass.

I'm looking for an iBook for my parents, who would be switchers. I'm just not sure if I should wait and take the risk of a Rev A Intel iBook...

-t

[Simon]

Ha, you guys are a bunch of wusses!

Of course I'll take a rev A Intel iBook or Mac mini (whatever's first). Just for the fun of it. If it's good, I'll put it in my little museum (see sig), if not, off it goes to Ebay.

I've survived the PowerBook 5300 and the PowerMac 4400. It can't be worse.

[Eug Wanker]

Heh. Yep I'm a little bit of a version A wuss. Actually part of the reason is that I just bought my iBook a few months ago. I can wait a year. Maybe by that time it'll get a Merom 64-bit single-core derivative. By that time Photoshop and Office might just be Intel OS X native too.

I'd more strongly consider a version A Mac mini though, since I don't currently have one and I've been toying with the idea of adding one to my home theatre system, once it gets a nice CPU that can handle at least 720p material. I'd much prefer a machine that could handle 1080p material though, but that would take a dual-core CPU, and I don't think the Mac mini is going dual-core.

[Simon]

Well, just to see where this Intel business is going to take us, I picked up a mini today. I don't really know what I'm going to do with it (other than hook it up to my projector), but that way, I can pick up a rev A Intel mini in January and have a direct comparison.

[turtle777]

^^^ You got too much money, eh ?

-t

[Simon]

Well, maybe. I buy through the university I'm employed at so I get it with some special rebate. It really didn't cost much.