> Travis Butler wrote:
>> On 2/1/05 at 8:37 AM, x
xman.org (Christopher Smith) wrote:
>> but to summarize, they can't realistically put a G5 in a notebook
>> without either making it a relative monster (big, heavy, loud, low
>> battery life) or clocking it so slow that it wouldn't be any faster than
>> a G4. So where does that leave us?
>
> Intel managed to find a way to make their older generation architecture
> (the same core as the Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Pentium III) perform very
> well in the mobile space with Pentium M. Indeed, while it keeps the
> power consumption down it manages to in many cases outperform their
> desktop chips. Given the traditional notion that the PowerPC had a power
> consumption advantage over it's x86 breatheren, I'd have expected
> something similar.
Um... Re-read what you said above.
Intel is a chip maker.
Apple is not a chip maker. IBM and FreeScale (nee Motorola) are chip makers.
Apple can beg, bully, cajole, browbeat, or hold its corporate breath until
it turns blue, but when it comes down to it, Apple's dependent on what IBM
and FreeScale come up with. This is not the best situation for Apple; right
now, it sucks. But it's reality. Apple can't wave a magic wand and make an
SSOI production line suddenly appear, debugged, on IBM's PPC factory floor.
Even if Apple wanted to pour some of its cash hoard into trying to improve
the situation, I doubt it would do much good; I would be surprised if IBM
doesn't already have the cream of the available expertise working on the
issue, and Apple isn't exactly an expert in microprocessor design.
>> Faster spindle-speed hard drive... mixed feelings, and I'd want to see
>> power consumption figures before making any decisions. I'd take an extra
>> half-hour of battery life over a somewhat faster drive in a heartbeat;
>> the whole reason for a laptop in the first place is portability, and
>> battery life is a key element of that.
>
> You're right, it's very much a trade off. Apple did recognize the
> importance of hard drive performance with this update by switching
> to 5400rpm drives, but the PC market did that ages ago, so it didn't
> impress me much that they were finally getting around to it.
>
> While some people have the same priorities you do, there are certainly
> those who would not (particularly in the multimedia fields). In the PC
> space, you can make a choice between the 7200rpm drives and the slower
> ones. With PowerBooks you have to use after market drives. It would be
> nice to be able to get it from Apple and not have to worry about
> warrantees and support.
Up to a point, I'd agree. However...
I think this is a good spot to bring up a general issue. Apple under Jobs
has focused, usually with laser sharpness, on product simplification. Two
main target markets, desktop/portable, relatively few build-to-order
options. It's debatable how much of a good thing this is, and to what degree
things should be simplified; fewer options means a machine can't be tailored
as exactly as one might want, but it also means less complexity in
manufacturing, sales and support. I think it's worth noting in this context
that the era with the most product options is also notorious for not only
product confusion but also the most buggy machines. (Performa 6200? PowerMac
5300? PowerMac 4400?)
There's also the retail factor; Dell sells everything mail-order and can do
all customization at the factory, but Apple sells a lot of their machines
through either retail stores or third-party dealers. In either case, Apple
has to ship machines in some standard configuration - and the more
customization there is, the more customer unhappiness there is by being
stuck with the standard configuration at retail. (Look at the Mac Mini for
an example; I've talked to a number of people annoyed because they can't
walk in and pick one up off the shelf with 512 MB of RAM or
Airport/Bluetooth.) However, trying to make multiple configurations
available through retail doesn't work very well; that was one facet of the
Performa debacle (several of the variously-labeled Performa models were just
different configs of the same basic machine), and is a hassle for the
dealers. (I remember hearing that the fruit-flavored iMacs were a cause of
the Apple/Best Buy breakup at the time, because BB didn't want the hassles
of stocking all five models.) I'd want to check to make sure, but the
impression I got the last time I walked through the laptop sections of
MicroCenter or Best Buy is that PC laptops sold at retail had the same basic
limited options as what Apple sells.
So when you start talking about all these specialized setups that should be
made an option - faster hard drives, higher-res screens, better graphics
chips, etc. etc. - I have to start wondering where to draw the line. Faster
HD's seem reasonable, since it's a plug-and-forget item that doesn't affect
any other aspect of the design, and Apple already offers different HDs as a
build-to-order option. But different screens mean alterations to the case
design and possibly the logic board; different graphic chips would
definitely require multiple logic board versions. Does anyone else see this
as potentially developing into a service/support nightmare?
>> What would you define as 'the cutting edge'? Seriously? And talking in
>> terms of what Apple could actually do in terms of real hardware, and not
>> pipe dreams?
>
> Sticking to stuff that is currently available in the PC space in similar
> form factors to the Powerbooks (the PC laptops with desktop CPU's and
> chipsets are clearly for a select few users who really just want a
> smaller desktop ;-), and not talking about CPU speed because I've
> already mentioned that, here's what I see:
>
> 1) PCI Express support. Alvisio laptops have this, which allows you to
> have higher performance video cards and peripherals. It also makes a big
> difference if you are using gigabit ethernet.
>
> 3) DDR2 memory. There is some debate as to whether this provides better
> performance, but there is no question that it reduces power consumption.
> Alvisio adds support for that.
>
> 4) Fast system bus. Despite working with a chip architecture whose
> original bus interface was a pokey single channel 66MHz bus, Pentium M
> laptops have a dual channel 400MHz bus, and now with Alvisio a dual
> channel 533MHz bus. This helps Pentium M laptops to perform almost as
> well as systems based on desktop processors.
I covered this last post, but I'll restate it: all of these came into the
Mac line through the G5 chip, which among other virtues has a very fast/wide
pipeline to the rest of the computer. The G4 has a much narrower pipeline.
Given this, how much of a real performance improvement could we expect from
any of these options? 10%? 5%? 1%? And on the flip side, how much
engineering effort would go into taking these items designed for the G5
architecture and making them work with the G4 in a laptop configuration? How
much would they add to production costs? My suspicion is that it just wasn't
worth it, and won't be worth it until they get a higher-performing CPU that
is happy in a laptop.
> 2) Faster graphics cards. This is a big deal, particularly with Tiger's
> new graphics engine coming down the pipe. The integrated graphics
> support in Alvisio is easily faster than the 12" Powerbook's graphics
> card, and arguably faster than the cards in the 15" and 17" Powerbooks.
> It also consumes less power. PC laptops are also shipping with ATI Radio
> 9800 and a number of the models even have ATI's X600 (of course, that
> requires PCI Express...). Many also support up to 256MB of RAM (which
> admittedly is mostly of interest to gamers). Apple used to lead in this
> area.
What I remember from past discussions of Powerbook graphics chipsets is that
power is definitely *not* an insignificant consideration. (And considering
the double-slot fan-cooled monster cards that are out now, it doesn't sound
like anything's changed. For that matter, running Neverwinter Nights, the
most graphics-intensive program I have, is enough to keep the battery from
gaining any charge.) Just like the hard drive issue, I'd instantly trade a
more powerful graphics chipset for an extra half-hour of battery life. And
as I suggested above, I don't think this is something that can reasonably be
made a configurable option. So I think this is an area where Apple has to
make a compromise that will satisfy the greatest number of users. We can
argue where the compromise needs to go, but I don't think the need for
compromise is debatable.
I think that's probably the core of my feelings, right there: Apple can't be
all things to all people. There's too many conflicting demands to be
perfectly satisfied by one design, and Apple's shown a poor ability to
handle too many 'tweaked' design variations. So while we should expect as
few compromises as possible, there are going to be compromises, and they
will be biased towards satisfying as many users as possible.
> 5) Options for higher resolution displays. PC laptops have options for
> display resolutions as high as 1920x1200. Again, not for everyone, but
> very handy for anyone working with HDTV. At the very least I'd like to
> see the 17" doing 1680x1050.
This is one I will fight tooth-and-nail. As I said last post, I think Apple
is already pushing resolution past the comfortable limit with the 12". And I
think I establish above why Apple isn't likely to (and probably shouldn't)
make multiple screen sizes an option. (The last time I remember Apple making
them an option was with the Wallstreet models - and one of their few
'common' flaws was screen-related, the video cable/hinges on the 13"
screen.) So the most likely scenario for a higher-res display is switching
the entire line, which I find unacceptable until and unless Apple can make
OS X truly resolution-independent.
> 6) Better quality screens. Sony, Toshiba, and even Dell have got their
> various display enhancement trademarks (XBrite, UltraSharp, etc.). The
> names aren't important, but the display quality is. Take a look at the
> displays on new Sony laptops. They'll take your breath away. Again,
> Apple used to be the clear leader in this area.
I swung by my local MicroCenter this weekend to take a look at the current
range of laptop displays. I can't remember a single display that impressed
me as being any better than the display on my 15" AlBook, and that includes
Sony and Toshiba models.
> 7) Support for dual-layer DVD burning.
Is that even available in a slot-loading laptop mechanism? Like the
processor, can't use it if they don't make it.
> There are small things too, like a built-in SD card slot, etc.
See my last post. There are just too friggin' many flash memory formats to
include all of them, and if you leave one out people are sure to bitch - and
be unhappy again when a new format comes out and their built-in support
won't handle it. The only way that makes sense and keeps everyone at the
same (if possibly grudging) level of satisfaction is to use a cheap, simple
external reader that can be easily replaced when standards change. (I've
gone through at least four different flash media standards in the last
couple of years - Smartmedia, Compact Flash, SD/MMC, and xD - so this is
something of a sore point with me.)
> The thing
> is though, I expect Apple to *lead* in this space, so I'd expect these
> features to be a given, and for Apple to introduce something impressive
> that the PC market won't have for 6 months.
Like what?
As I said, I'm very happy with the current AlBook design, and I'd be
hard-pressed to think of ways to improve it. There's improved speed,
storage, and battery life, but improvements there are always welcome, don't
change the actual design, and are dependent on external factors anyway. The
dual-finger scroll design caught my attention because it does address one of
the few annoyances I have in using a Powerbook, when none of the
alternatives on the PC side were satisfying either. Aside from being tempted
by micro-form-factor models, I can't think of a single thing I saw, browsing
through the PC laptops, that made me say 'I wish this were on a Powerbook'.
It also really ticks me off when a lot of the 'features are all' crowd
equate 'design' with 'fashion' - as if Apple making models that look good
somehow makes them shallow and superficial, whereas *real* machines cram as
many features in as possible. I see it in comments on the laptops, I see it
in comments on the iPod. And while I'm not going into transports over the
iPod's so-called 'cultural phenomenon' status the way some people do, I do
get some satisfaction from its success, because I see it as a sign that the
public still does value good design. Hopefully not in a fashion sense, but
in an ergonomic sense - making a machine that actually feels more
comfortable to use. This is something I feel the Powerbooks have always had
over PC laptops, dating back to the original 140/170 models; and while you
don't see the ergonomic disasters that were part of the PC world at the time
of the 170, they still aren't a match. Take my dad's Dell Inspiron laptop;
even when sitting out on an open counter, trying to get a cable plugged into
the Firewire port is a pain, because it's a tiny port set among other tiny
ports recessed into the side of the laptop.
> This is particularly
> important because the PC market updates their hardware several times in
> the time Apple updates it once. So if Apple's laptops aren't state of
> the art when they are launched, you can imagine how long in the tooth
> they'll be when they are finally updated. While Apple did provide some
> fairly unique features with this new lineup, they were comparitively
> minor incremental improvements, and that to me was a disappointement.
I'm not enthusiastic about the new lineup, but I'm not that disappointed
either, because frankly I wasn't expecting anything more. I don't see any
stunning design improvements for them to make. I don't see where Apple can
make any really significant performance improvements until IBM can solve the
problem of a G5 that can be used in a laptop. (Or if FreeScale manages to
prove the rumors true, and come out with a dual-core G4 design that has
enough bandwidth improvements that it can take advantage of an improved
system architecture.) And for the most part I'm content with that, because I
like the current AlBook design, and even my current 1.25 GHz 15" is fast
enough to make me happy 80% of the time.
![[F]](/Images/i7/site.gif){kind=small}
TidBITS 
TidBITS 