[escher]

I have to say upfront that I am overjoyed that I was just able to order Mac OS X public beta from the Apple Store.

The iBook announcements are impressive. I didn't expect DVD on the SE and they've solved the video out problem for presentations. To me, key lime looks more like puke green, with some new version of Pepto Bismol mixed in.

But there was no PowerBook G4 (aka Mercury) announced in Paris.

I am quite sad even though I realize that it's probably good that Apple resisted the temptation to have another shipping delay fiasco.

Escher

------------------
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
We need a real computer that is truly portable!

New iBook is almost as fast as 400 PB, and has more HD space. Apple has to have a new powerbook somewhere. How soon is soon you think?

[Don Pickett]

But there was no PowerBook G4 (aka Mercury) announced in Paris.

I am quite sad even though I realize that it's probably good that Apple resisted the temptation to have another shipping delay fiasco.

"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you." We need a real computer that is truly portable!

I think Steve didn't announce because the suckers aren't ready yet, not just because of shipping. I think we'll see them at San Francisco.

Not sure what you mean by your .sig. Implying that the Pismo isn't a "real computer" is ridiculous - it's about as fast as the lower end G4s and creams any other laptop in serious processing power. Sure, I'd love to have a G4 laptop, denying the Pismo's strengths doesn't jive with the truth.

Don

[SpiffyGuyC]

What the HELL is Apple thinking? So much for no internal competition. Low-end PowerBook sales are going to get CRUSHED by the 466mhz iBook - hell, the price may steal some 500mhz users away! Apple has had its head up its ass trying to push this Mercury thing out the door, when what they really needed was a Pismo update to keep it competitive with the iBook for prosumers as well as high-end users. And my guess would be that Apple's only choice is to push Mercury, because imagine having a 700mhz G3 portable that can easily outpace their desktops on most tasks. How embarrassing. Who will buy a 400mhz PowerBook now? Something went wrong in the last moments, had to - this is starting to look like serious trouble. Let's hope for some kind of Apple event stateside SOON.

What's with the expectations for a new PowerBook at Paris? I said weeks ago that it was unlikely to happen because what could they possibly do? Bump the speed past 500MHz? If so, they would have portables faster than any of their desktop models. No way that was going to happen.

We knew there wouldn't be new PowerBook models about NY Expo came and went and the desktops didn't get any faster (except for multiprocessors). At the time, there was disappointment over this, but a realization that Apple hadn't been able to get their hands on faster chips in quantity yet.

As soon as this happened, it doomed any chance of faster PowerBooks in the immediate future. If they couldn't speed up the desktops, how were they going to speed up the PowerBooks? And since the market forces that were preventing them from getting faster chips hadn't changed (unless Motorola has released some but refused to tell anyone, or unless Apple and IBM have made a deal but are keeping it quiet for some un-PR-like reason), the reasons for no new PBs coming out haven't changed.

Maybe we'll see an announcement about new chips in the weeks or months ahead. If so, and only in that case, might we see speed-bumped desktops and PBs. If no new chip announcements occur, look for new PBs in January.

I suppose they could come out with the new form factor PB (Mercury), but with the same old chips. But that would not go over well in the market, and I would be surprised to see it. I really think the order has to be: 1) new chips; 2) new PBs.

Because of the above reasoning, I was sure there would be no PB announcements in Paris.

PrivateCitizen

"What the HELL is Apple thinking? So much for no internal competition. Low-end PowerBook sales are going to get CRUSHED by the 466mhz iBook"

Some sales, perhaps, but it won't get crushed. The screen resolution is still inadequate on the iBook, and the look is still unacceptable to the business world. Yes, even the graphite. The PB look has "professional" written all over it. The iBook has "fun" written all over it. Businesspersons are far too insecure to buy anything that looks like "fun." PBs will still sell well in their market.

Note, my characterization of businesspersons refers to the stereotype. There are, of course, individuals exceptions to the rule. So if you are a businessperson who uses an iBook, more power to you!

PrivateCitizen

[Don Pickett]

Compared to the PowerBook, the iBook has a slower bus, less memory expandability, no PC card slot, less video memory, fewer ports,less cache, and less speed. The two models are not in competition with each other.

I never even considerd getting an iBook - running Photoshop would crush it. Apple has positioned the iBook at the top of the consumer portable heap, which is a good thing. But they have not let it eclipse the PowerBook; it simply lacks the features.

Pismos still rock.

Don

[SillyPooh]

I agree with PrivateCitizen. Business people will make the difference between fun and professional.
And don't forget that we already knew that nothing would come out for us in Paris. We will sadly have to wait for next January and that's it. That said, Apple will now have to boost its professional desktop line at the same time (who wants to buy a 500MHz machine today???? - no one). So, imagine for a second, new desktop line, new powerbook line... my guess is that they have a bunch of things to do right now!!!

Even though I got milked Apple computers at birth, I think this whole processor speed story has doomed the company... Why don't they get rid of Mot for God sake! I'm a long time Steve Jobs enthousiast, but if he doesn't get it quickly, the apple will sink! (and stink)

[Don Pickett]

Even though I got milked Apple computers at birth, I think this whole processor speed story has doomed the company... Why don't they get rid of Mot for God sake! I'm a long time Steve Jobs enthousiast, but if he doesn't get it quickly, the apple will sink! (and stink)

Part of Apple's charm is that they are frequently doomed, yet never go under.

I wouldn't worry about them. You can bet on oen of two things. 1) We will see shippable quantites of much faster G3s/G4s by early next year, or 2) Apple will switch processor manufacturers. They will either go with IBM and their faster G3s/G4s (and maybe some of IBMs really hot server chips!) or will pick another manufacturer. Some combination of OpenStep/OS X will run on almost any processor out there, from PowerPC to Intel to Alpha to who knows.

Steve Jobs is too ambitious and too smart to let Apple go under, and he has the balls to pull off such a switch. Lately I trust him, because he seems to be doing good things. Considering the fast proccessor drought, they have done remarkably well in the past year, and I don't think they will disappear any time soon.

No matter what happens, I hope they release a full version of OS X for Intel-based machines. The more people running OS X, the better.

Don

[Don Pickett]

Compared to the PowerBook, the iBook has a slower bus, less memory expandability, no PC card slot, less video memory. . .

Just checked www.apple.com/ibook and saw that the new iBooks ship with the same graphics chip(s) as the PowerBooks, so, uh, ignore what I said earlier about less video memory.

Still only comes with a 12 inch screen, tho.

Don

[jaguarandi]

Originally posted by escher:
The iBook announcements are impressive. I didn't expect DVD on the SE and they've solved the video out problem for presentations.

They have not solved the video-out problem for presentations. Composite video looks like doo-doo at anything over 640x480 (don't know what resolutions it will support). Good projectors will take up to XGA, which is what is needed for large-scale presentations.

It doesn't even have S-Video out....I'm not biting.

/jaguarandi
/pb 2000/400
/G4 AGP/400

[This message has been edited by jaguarandi (edited 09-13-2000).]

[pete]

Isn't it kind of nice that we aren't following the mhz craze of the windows world? I know it's not intentional but still. We already have a hell of a lot of power as it is in the present product line. The vast majority of users don't need more. For me at least it also makes me feel better since my product isn't immediately outdated. I think one speed bump per year would be fine. Imagine buying a pc laptop running at 400mhz p2 just a year ago. Today they're running at 750 P3! I was looking at used thinkpads that a year ago, or less, cost over 4000 dollars. Today the owner would be lucky to get half that. A powerbook on the other hand that cost 2500 a year ago will sell for around 1800-1900 which isn't bad. The difference between a 333 and a 400 or a 400 and 500 is not that noticeable and for most needs won't matter. Heck, my girlfriend's 266 is a speed demon too! What I'm saying is that people tend to get blinded by those mhz when in fact, our machines are already so fast. From what I understand the G4 isn't really that much faster either, only for very specific applications that take advantage of its altivec technology - whatever that is...

[Don Pickett]

Altivec technology is Motorola's name for what is essentially a DSP (digital signal processor) built into the chip. This does wonders with applications which can use this feature - Photoshop, video, etc. Rumors are that OS X also makes use of Altivec, which will make the OS run faster.

My interest with the megahertz wars is not so much that my machine is faster (not that I mind) but knowing that Apple has to compete in a wider market in which megahertz is ofetn used as a measure of performance by consumers who are not as well versed in the minutae of processer vs. processor, CISC vs. RISC, etc. It's the same reason why car manufacturers release new models every year when the only changes may be color and trim options. If Ford didn't do it, GM would, and in wider perception GM would be ahead fo Ford, when in fact it's all smoke and mirrors.

Apple has to stay compettitve in the eyes of people buying computers and not only in the real world. For this reason, Apple needs to be able to say "1 GHz G4" in their ads.

Besides, I have no problem with 1 GHz G4s. I hope to be able to put one in my Pismo one days and speed along.

Don

[SpiffyGuyC]

Don - I couldn't agree more about releasing OSX for Intel. With Apple's pricing being as competitive as it is these days, who wouldn't buy these great-looking, speedy systems from the manufacturer of the OS - they'd still work better than those by cost-cutting PC manufacturers. The next step should be the attempt to get Microsoft where it hurts - the OS. Given the option of having both Windows and X on your machine, wouldn't you pick up a copy? Great way to win converts . . .

[Don Pickett]

Xactly.

Don

[Misha]

Personally I think SF is too far away for Apple to introduce a new PowerBook, but there is no major event between now and then apart from QuickTime Live! in early October, and that's never been a venue for new hardware introduction (although Apple may surprise us).

Still, it's hard to really figure out where Apple goes from here... obviously a G4 PowerBook is in the works, and MWsf makes sense, even if it's far off (which will only hurt sales; it'll be like the iMac incident in April/May/June all over again).

Let's see what Apple could introduce at MWsf... new iBooks are out of the question. Faster Power Mac G4s? Perhaps, if they're available. I think the Cube will be as is, maybe a price cut or something. Obviously OS X will be the big product, and of course a new PowerBook It only makes sense.

Looks like I keep my Pismo for 4 more months until it goes up on eBay...

[Don Pickett]

I'd say new PowerBooks are a pretty good shot for San Francisco, and I mean whole new powerbooks � processors, enclosures, etc.

Don

[escher]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Not sure what you mean by your .sig.

Don: You clearly misunderstood my signature. Note that it asks for a "real computer" that is "truly portable". In my opinion and for my personal needs, the most recent PowerBooks are large and heavy and thus not truyly portable. I want a 3 lbs AirPort compatible subnotebook to replace my PowerBook 2400c.

Further, my signature implies that any Tablet or PDA type device that Apple makes should run a full version of OS X, i.e. be a "real computer."

If you want further explanation of the meaning of my signature, please read any of my posts to the Future Hardware forum over at AppleInsider.

NB: Pismo is great. Mercury will be even better. Mercury may be so nice that I will fall for it. But the fact remains that anything that is larger than my 2400c will not fulfil all of my needs.

Escher

------------------
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
We need a real computer that is truly portable!

[Don Pickett]

NB: Pismo is great. Mercury will be even better. Mercury may be so nice that I will fall for it. But the fact remains that anything that is larger than my 2400c will not fulfil all of my needs.

Then I think yer outta luck, cause the Mercury will be a full-featured portable in the vein of the Pismo - ports, DVD, etc.

I agree that a 2400-sized machine capable of running OS X would be great � I might even buy one. Perhaps Apple will make one someday, but I don't think it will be any time soon. I imagine that the missing sixth slot in their hardware matrix will be filled by some kind of PDA, or left unfilled.

Don

"Isn't it kind of nice that we aren't following the mhz craze of the windows world?"
--Pete

Yeah, for a while I was worried that Apple might announce an 800MHz PMG4! Thankfully, they kept it at 500MHz...

------------------

[SillyPooh]

This whole story made us a little touchy about CPU speed - it still is the first argument in a wintel advocate preach.

Having OS X run on wintel machines will be a delight! Now, the only trouble is, will we still stick with Apple built machines??? Is Apple ready to become a software company *just like Micro$oft* ? What will be the special spice that will make us buy Apple machines? Design? Maybe! But it obviously won't be the processor speed!!!
This is left to be found... is OS X on wintel really a good thing?

[Don Pickett]

Good question.

I am of two minds on this. One wants Apple to survive and prosper, because I think their hardware kicks serious butt.

The other thinks a world in which you can buy any machine you want and run the best OS X no matter what would be great. This is basically what was being planned with the CHRP platform before it tanked.

Don

[Don Pickett]

This whole story made us a little touchy about CPU speed - it still is the first argument in a wintel advocate preach.

The MHz races aren't all smoke and mirrors. Motorola has no excuse for not being able to goose processor speed for over a year � it's ridiculous that a company of their stature can't keep up with [i[Intel[/i], the people who brought you USB and Pentiums that can't add. If Motorola can't do the job, Apple should find someone who can, and CPU speeds are a symptom of those larger problems.

Don

[denim]

Then explain why IBM can't do it either? Moto isn't at fault here. They're pushing the state of the art. That's not easy.

Frankly sir, I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

[SillyPooh]

My guess is that, if given the choice between a $2500 powermac G4 450 and a $1800 1GHz AMD wintel machine, the people - you, me, the semi-professional - will go for the cheaper (and the faster *grin*).

Lets face it, making the OS cross-platform, will remove the fame out of the mac, not that it wouldn't benefit Apple though. Could Steve possibly kill his own child...?

Then again, it will be somehow difficult for the pc users to radically shift to OS X (you can't possibly call it *Mac* OS X anymore) because of the software, so I believe, the majority of OS X users on pc will be old mac users.

This whole thing sounds really odd to me...

[SillyPooh]

Denim, calm down...
IBM has big chances of getting thru this. Moto, with all its fame and its spiffy technology, has not the streaming power of IBM. I recall that IBM was the first to unveal a 1GHz chip, even though it was a proto, way back in 97! IBM has the technology to produce G3s and G4s at a higher pace than Mot. They have made internally faster G4s - rumors say mind-blowing speeds - but do not have the right to use Altivec, owned by Mot.

I don't believe Motorola to be *state of the art* as you say, even though they have been up to the race for a number of years. They cannot even manufacture their own chips, with their own technology!!! Have a look at the chip you have in your laptop, its IBM!

[Don Pickett]

[quote[Then explain why IBM can't do it either? Moto isn't at fault here. They're pushing the state of the art. That's not easy.

Frankly sir, I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.[/quote]

Sorry, dude, but I do.

To amplyfy what SillyPooh said, IBM made 700+ MHz G4s weeks/months ago, and they have a much better handle on their manufacturing process than do Motorola - they've had no problems rolling out all those chips for their server side.

The reason we haven't seen these chips are 1) Motorola was Apple's main supplier and 2) Motorola owns the AltiVec stuff and wouldn't/won't let IBM produce chips with it, even under license. We haven't seen IBMs chips because of business and political reaons, i.e., Motorola trying to save its position as Apple's #1 supplier.

Seeing IBMs new G3s in the iBook could change everything. Not only do these chips offer superior performance, lower heat and lower power consumption at equal speeds than Motorola's, they have also been produced in shippable quantites at speeds up to 750 MHz. Why didn't we see the faster chips this time? Two business reasons 1) Apple can't have the iBooks faster than the PowerBook, and 2) Apple can't have any laptop faster than it's desktops, still stuck using (Motorola) 500 MHz G4s.

I have nothing against Motorola. In fact, I almost don't care what chips Apple uses � I would love to see a Graphite Tower running OS X and a screaming fast Alpha � but the fact remains that Motorola has dropped the ball for a year now, and if they can't get their act together, Apple should go IBM. I know that 500 MHz G4s don't give up that much to GHz Pentiums/Athlons, but there's no reason for us to have to worry about that when the issue is implemenatation and not technology.

Don

[Don Pickett]

Then again, it will be somehow difficult for the pc users to radically shift to OS X (you can't possibly call it *Mac* OS X anymore) because of the software, so I believe, the majority of OS X users on pc will be old mac users.

The whole thing sounds like a sacrifice fly to me.

Assuming this happens � and that in itself is an enormous assumption � it would be a way for Apple to lose the battle but win the war.

Why is Microsoft the behemoth it is? Because it's OS runs on most of the world's computers. There's no hardware involved. No hardware maker has near the monopoly Microsoft has, and given the history of Wintel box makers (remember when Compaq was going to take over the world?) the odds that Dell being eclipsed by somone else five years from now are pretty good.

But is a large percentage of people switching to cross-platform versions of OS X by their own free choice would radically alter the computer landscape, bringing Apple into areas it has heretofore been excluded from and drawing developers who haven't thought seriously about the Mac. Pretty amazing idea.

Personally, even if that happened, and Apple retained their hardware division as a boutique maker, I would still buy their hardware for the integration and superior design. I know it's possible to build a Wintel machine as good as anything as Dell can put together for less money, but, even if the same option existed for the Mac, I wouldn't want to do it.

I have the technical expertise to pull this off, but I don't want to be bothered. I want to open the package, plug the machine in and have it all work instead of making sure that my sound card works with my DVD drive and on and on. I know this isn't everyone's way of doing things � some people love to get their hands dirty and have that level of control � but not me. I have straightened out enough tangled SCSI chains in my day to not want to have to think about it any more, and, by the way, I feel the same way about operating systems. If I have to know the inner workings of my OS to get it to function properly, someone ain't doing their job.

Besides, no one makes prettier machines than Apple.

Don

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Pickett:
[B]Compared to the PowerBook, the iBook has a slower bus, less memory expandability, no PC card slot, less video memory, fewer ports,*less cache*, and less speed. The two models are not in competition with each other.

The reason the cache on the iBook is smaller is because it isnt backside, its on processor and runs at the speed of the processor instead of half as fast.

[jholmes]

Doesn't Morotola seem to be a big part of the problem on a new PB? And to Apple in general? I realize that every Mac out there relies on Moto technology going back to the 68000s but the boys with the batwing are really holding Apple back right now.
Of course Jobs may be paying for his ability to cut off his nose to spite his face - He realy irked Moto when he yanked their license to build clones. Motorola was an all Apple organization before that. Now they don't even speak the name outside of the chip division and all their development outside of that is geared towards wintel.
But this has done two things. If Mot had their act together I don't think there'd be a multiprocessor desktop, and Apple wouldn't be working hard to get IBM chips in the line.
As a Mac diehard since the 512, I am having serious personality difficulties rooting for IBM to build chips so we can have better Macs, but if Big Blue can get the license to build the G4e for the PowerBook they'll come flying off the shelves.

About 10 minutes after I order my Pismo.

.

[Don Pickett]

As a Mac diehard since the 512, I am having serious personality difficulties rooting for IBM to build chips so we can have better Macs, but if Big Blue can get the license to build the G4e for the PowerBook they'll come flying off the shelves.

As long as we have better Macs, I don't really care who puts the chips in them, as long as it's not a certain company and their aging, CISC technology. . .

Don

[Heman]

out of tpic.
But nowadays, it's hard to classify a ship with CISC or RISC.

[denim]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
The reason we haven't seen these chips are 1) Motorola was Apple's main supplier and 2) Motorola owns the AltiVec stuff and wouldn't/won't let IBM produce chips with it, even under license. We haven't seen IBMs chips because of business and political reaons, i.e., Motorola trying to save its position as Apple's #1 supplier.

Okay, I guess I be wrong. I'm just so used to people who don't know anything about the semiconductor industry complaining about it...

[denim]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
As long as we have better Macs, I don't really care who puts the chips in them, as long as it's not a certain company and their aging, CISC technology. . .

I don't even care if it's Intel making the chips. I got over the situation that jholmes mentioned a few weeks ago when I seriously considered IBM for a printer replacement I was shopping for at work. What it comes down to is simple: does it work? does it fit my requirements?

Okay, so I don't care for Intel's attitude. And they've been known to make shoddy product. But they aren't all bad, honestly.

[Don Pickett]

What it comes down to is simple: does it work? does it fit my requirements?

Agreed. My logic is that, if Apple were to change chip suppliers, there are more capable/better designed chips than the Pentium series out there.

Don

[SillyPooh]

We can say RISC has been a really good thing for us and I agree we owe Mot a great deal of respect. Now, you can't stay on a ship that's sinking! Mot has disabled itself and Apple can't be held responsible for letting it go down.
Even though IBM has been Apple's main opponent for years - ah! remember the old days... - , I think it is the best thing that can happen to Apple right now.

I don't think Apple would ever let go the RISC technology because we still believe it is better than CISC. Since IBM is the last serious RISC chip maker standing, why don't we give it a try...?

but we are going too far off...

[Don Pickett]

We can say RISC has been a really good thing for us and I agree we owe Mot a great deal of respect. Now, you can't stay on a ship that's sinking! Mot has disabled itself and Apple can't be held responsible for letting it go down.
Even though IBM has been Apple's main opponent for years - ah! remember the old days... - , I think it is the best thing that can happen to Apple right now.

I don't think Motorola's a sinking ship. I think Motorola needs a good kick in the butt � they have the resources, they have the know-how, but it seems they lack the motivation � or something � lately.

If Motorola gets its act together, fine. If IBM supplies chips, fine. If Apple gives me a Cube for free just cause they like me, fine.

Don

[l008com]

I dropped my pager the other day, and the case smashed into two pieces, and well...

I think I know where all the 750MHz G4's are going!!!

------------------
I see dead people.

[seanyepez]

The PowerBook's graphics are quite good. I can't say they're any GeForce, but Quake III: Arena is playable. I went to a hotel a few months back, and they happened to have CAIS broadband Internet in every room, so I was fragging people from my hotel room in San Fransisco with a ping lower than fifty. With my handy MacAlly iSweetNet mouse, I topped the charts. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for most people. I consider myself a hardcore gamer.