[damnyooneek]

or did the highest priced 12" powerbook get its price lowered?

[ism]

Yep, that's it

[kafoochy]

I noticed the hard drives are all 5400rpm across the board, is this the same as before (at least in the 12")?

[ism]

I think the 12"s went to 5400rpm with the revCs

[iREZ]

nope...rev D's went 5400 for the 12", rev C's added more VRAM and frontside bus.

[Simon]

iRez got it right.

Here's a quick 12" revision rundown

rev A: 867MHz/133MHz FSB, 256MB RAM (128MB on board), 40GB 4200rpm HD, 32MB GeForce4 420 Go
rev B: 1.0GHz/133MHz FSB, 256MB RAM (256MB on board), 40GB 4200rpm HD, 32MB GeForce FX Go5200
rev C: 1.33GHz/167MHz FSB, 256MB RAM (256MB on board), 60GB 4200rpm HD, 64MB GeForce FX Go5200
rev D: 1.5GHz/167MHz FSB, 512MB RAM (256MB RAM on board), 80GB 5400rpm HD, 64MB GeForce FX Go5200

[iomatic]

Great info, Simon. I'll be defecting from the 12". For the 15".

Anyway, totally silly; bear with me. Just had to chime in on the usage of "Rev." because it bugs me. Revision implies -- no -- means that it has been revised, so in this context the second PowerBook would be "Revision A". Better, would be to start with "Version A, Version B, etc.". I know, I know: nit-picky, but if you're going to swing a bat, swing it right.

[ism]

Iomatic, that kind of usage is not uncommon. In the engineering world documents and drawings always get issued at rev 1 or A and then each revision the number of letter is increased.

Looking at that revsion rundown: it's not been very good has it?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by iomatic

Great info, Simon. I'll be defecting from the 12". For the 15".

I did too. I went from a rev B 12" to a rev C 15". The 12" form factor is unmatched. I'd go back to a 12" for the size anytime. It's just that Apple choses to use different specs/quality between the 12" and the 15"/17"; some of them are show stoppers for the 12" IMHO (GPU, screen quality).

Anyway, totally silly; bear with me. Just had to chime in on the usage of "Rev." because it bugs me. Revision implies -- no -- means that it has been revised, so in this context the second PowerBook would be "Revision A". Better, would be to start with "Version A, Version B, etc.". I know, I know: nit-picky, but if you're going to swing a bat, swing it right.

You're right in the sense that rev A should be the second version, since the first version isn't yet a revision. The topic has been discussed many times on this board in the past. I personally still use rev A for the first version. Not because I think it's right, but for the sake of consistency with others and to avoid confusion.

[Simon]

BTW, when it comes to PowerBooks real rev confusion starts with the fact that the 15" has a different rev than the 12" and 17" of the same generation. This is because when the first generation of the 12"/17" Al PowerBooks came out, the 15" was still a Ti.

So while the last PowerBook generation had the rev D 12" and 17", the 15" was still rev C. With the updates last week things have become even more bizarre since Apple chose to not update the 12". So we now have the rev D 12" and 15", but the rev E 17".

In case somebody got really confused now, here's a little table to clear things up:
Jan 2003: 12" and 17" rev A, 15" is still Ti
Sep 2003: 12" and 17" rev B, 15" goes Al too (rev A)
Apr 2004: 12" and 17" rev C, 15" rev B
Jan 2005: 12" and 17" rev D, 15" rev C
Oct 2005: 12" stays at rev D, 15" gets updated to rev D, 17" gets updated to rev E

I wonder how Apple teaches this mess to newly employed support staff.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ism

Looking at that revsion rundown: it's not been very good has it?

Unfortunately not. Compared to the other PowerBooks the 12" has been left somewhat unattended. Assuming the current 15" is the best Apple can do in terms of CPU/GPU, you still wonder why the 12" can't have 1.67GHz or a 9700 Mobility. Of course people will mention heat and that could be an issue. However, in the past each higher 15" clock came to the 12" one rev later, so I'm relucatant to fully buy the heat argument. The GPU is another story however.

IMHO, Apple could do a lot of good (w/o increasing the cost much) by using 7200 rpm HDs across the board. The HD speed translates immediately to perceived speed in everyday tasks. Faster GPUs only make sense if the CPU can feed them sufficiently. I don't know if it makes sense to replace the 9700 Mob as long as the 7447 sticks around.