Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Apple kills iBook' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Apple kills iBook
Authored by: radfordr on May 07, '02 07:47:43PM

With the new hardware requirements for a fast OS X, Apple has killed the iBook as an OS X machine. Who is going to buy a computer that Apple has already announced that it will not support in the future?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Apple kills iBook
Authored by: sfn on May 07, '02 10:27:26PM

It is supported. It runs OS X just fine. It will only get better with Jaguar. For extra performance you'll want a better machine. That has how it has always been with the Mac or any computer.

Who knows maybe regular old Quartz will get some hardware acceleration too, just not anywhere near the level of Extreme.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Apple kills iBook
Authored by: radfordr on May 08, '02 09:26:43AM

By announcing graphics card acceleration of OS X, Apple is admitting that OS X needs a speedup beyond what Apple can do with simple CPU speed. Previously Apple said for us to wait for optimization. Now they are saying that machines they are currently shipping are not good enough. Who is going to buy a computer that even the manufacturer says isn't good enough to run the operating system?



[ Reply to This | # ]
I completely disagree...
Authored by: robg on May 08, '02 11:29:07AM

I use my iBook with OS X a ton. I have zero speed complaints about it. Could window resizing be a bit quicker? Sure it could. Does it affect my using the system? Not in the least.

It's not like the iBook won't benefit from the multi-threaded Finder, new compiler, and other tweaks that are going into Jaguar. They'll all help, and these new features will be very nice to have on any machine.

By your logic, the iBook was dead the day Apple announced that OS X had native multi-processing support and Altivec acceleration. The poor old iBook has but one processor, and it's a G3 -- so it can't take advantage of either of those speed enhancing technologies, either. Shouldn't it have been declared dead the day OS X shipped? Just like those two technologies, Quartz Extreme is a speed enhancement available on those machines which are capable of supporting it.

If you really want to declare your iBook dead, though, go ahead -- I'll buy it off you cheap if you want to sell!

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Logic ..
Authored by: BuD-TheDude on May 08, '02 11:51:53AM

<rant>
This is silly. Ever used a dual 1GHz? It runs aqua *just* fine. Even going down to a slower, single CPU; that runs aqua *just* fine. Apple is admitting nothing. They did promise optimizations: remember 10.0.0 -> 10.1.4? I have full faith that Jaguar will make similar leaps and bounds, perhaps not as drastic. I am sure I don't have to state the obvious that those are optimizations at an incredible level. A new iBook will run Jaguar quite speedily ... but inherently not as fast as whatever the current Pro line offers.

Apple is just offloading some tasks to the GPU to free up the CPU. This is not a confession to the slowness of OS X, but rather its commitment to Apple's dedication to keeping improving OS X in every way possible. This is *innovative*(although I think NeXT needed this too).

So the situation at Apple is: Just developed a new OS that is incredible in every way, jumping leaps and bounds beyond anything Classic could *ever* do, all with great speed. Now they have developed a method to speed up the OS even more. WHAT SHOULD THEY DO WITH THIS? Should they hold off on a technology because some of their models wont be supported? Or should they release it and let a select and large group of people reap the benefits?

Answer: release it.

Answer me this: Why should they not have released Quarts Extreme?

If they did not release it, you would have the idea in mind that Jaguar would run wonderfully on an iBook. But since they did, you think an iBook is too slow. The masses are .. silly.
</rant>

-Dude



[ Reply to This | # ]