The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

Featured Article: Editorial - Apple is in Deficit, September 9 Event Needs a Treat

First on TMO - Apple VP: PowerBook G5 "the Mother of All Thermal Challenges"

by , 8:00 PM EST, January 12th, 2005

When Rob Steerum of Fulcrum Global Partners asked Tim Cook, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations, about the chances of a G5-based PowerBook anytime soon, Mr. Cook admitted Wednesday such a project "would be the mother of all thermal challenges."

When asked if he meant there will never be a G5-powered PowerBook, Mr. Cook said, "I don't want to go further in the comment."

The comments came during Apple's conference call Wednesday discussing its first quarter fiscal earnings with analysts.

Mobile users have already been waiting a year and a half for Apple to pack the processor that powers its pro towers into Apple's pro laptop. It took Apple two years, however, to find a way to take the G4 processor and pack it into portable form.

In September of 2003, Spanish Web site CincoDias quoted Apple CEO Steve Jobs as saying he hoped Apple could release a PowerBook G5 "by the end of [2004]."

Two months later, in November, Dave Russell, director of product marketing for portables and wireless at Apple, told Computerworld that Apple "would like" to fit a G5 into a PowerBook, but that the biggest obstacle was cooling the processor. One only needs to watch how liquid cooling (QuickTime 1.6MB) enables the G5 processor to survive in the aluminum Power Mac tower to realize that packing such a system into a laptop is a daunting task. "We certainly want to [offer a PowerBook G5]," Russell said at the time. "But it's going to be a while. We think the G4 has a very long life in the PowerBook."

In February of 2004, Peter Glaskowsky of the Microprocessor Report told MacMinute that IBM's PowerPC 970FX--the latest iteration of the G5 processor found in today's high-end Power Mac G5 systems--offers the basic power consumption features needed for a laptop. At the time, Glaskowsky said he believed a PowerBook G5 would debut by the summer. It never did.

In an April 19, 2004 interview with BBC News, Apple VP Greg Joswiak commented that, "In the very long run, the G5 is part of our long term processor roadmap, but it will be some time before that processor will be in a notebook."

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
View Name:Guest
Subject: If only Apple thought like Dell...
Close Name:spxyu02 Posts: 1214 Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Subject:

This is just like, "DUH." If you watched any of the stuff when the G5 tower came out, it was obvious cooling was an enormous issue, and I think it's silly of anyone to think that they can get that happening in a powerbook any time soon. I'm just glad someone at apple has said it, maybe that will quiet people down for a while.

Of course, I'm probably biased; I don't want them to crush the specs of my 17" pb from this summer yet

Close Name:Mace Posts: 9185 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject:

The earliest we can expect a PB G5 would be WWDC.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:kenaustus Posts: 601 Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Subject: Would you take a dual core G4?

If it came in at, say 1.8 to 2.0 and had a faster FSB and all the other goodies?

We might be in a situation where Freescale works some magic before IBM can deliver a G5 chip that Apple OKs for the PB.

Right now I'm not too unhappy with the fact that Freescale is free of Moto and can compete head to head with IBM. I think that Mac users will be better off in the long run.

As for now, max out the memory on a PB and it's not too bad at all.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject: How dense is everyone...
Close Name:jimothy Posts: 596 Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Subject: Re: Would you take a dual core G4?

Heck, I'll bet a lot of people would snatch up a lot of single-core G4 Powerbooks at 1.8GHz to 2.0GHz. That'd be a 20-33% increase in speed, which isn't too shabby.

I wouldn't be surprised if we never do see a G5 Powerbook. Apple may stick with souped-up G4s from Freescale until the "G6" is ready. And that might not be such a bad thing. The G4 still has legs and is a rather power efficient processor.

P.S. Me thinks somebody missed a "</i>" tag.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:Biff Posts: 1479 Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Subject:

Quote
Mace wrote:
The earliest we can expect a PB G5 would be WWDC.
Wasn't that from the same source who said we would get refreshed Powerbooks at MacWorld? Don't hold your breath.

Close Name:Dave -   TMO Staff Posts: 223 Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Subject:

Quote
jimothy wrote:
P.S. Me thinks somebody missed a "</i>" tag.


Well, it was actually a "</EM>" tag, but hey, who's counting. Thanks for pointing it out.

View Name:Guest
Subject: If only x86?
View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:AFCdtLoeb Posts: 2533 Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Subject:

If Apple could nail down a combination of alloy metal heat sinks and a very small, yet simple and reliable liquid cooling system, they might be in business. The back of the monitor is exposed to the air more than anything else and is the coolest part of the machine, and just begs to be used as a radiator.

Close Name:Steve W Posts: 482 Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: If only x86?

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
I have to wonder what life would be like if Apple used x86 chips.

Apple would be dead, just another software company trampled by the MS/Dell rhino and left for dead by the side of the road.

View Name:Guest
Subject: Dual Core G4
Close Name:pyxl8 Posts: 171 Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Subject:

Quote
AFCdtLoeb wrote:
If Apple could nail down a combination of alloy metal heat sinks and a very small, yet simple and reliable liquid cooling system, they might be in business. The back of the monitor is exposed to the air more than anything else and is the coolest part of the machine, and just begs to be used as a radiator.


Cool idea (no pun intended)! Once you get the heat out from underneath the base area you're home free. The technical difficulties to move liquid throught the lid hinge (without leaks) and into the lid might be daunting, but a true "aqua" G5 Powerbook with a glowing liquid-filled (and bubbling?!) Apple logo would freak out our PC notebook friends!

-Ken P

Close Name:Jyakku Posts: 34 Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Subject: Dual Core G4?

It sounds like it will take quite a while to get the G5 into a laptop. How much heat would a dual core G4 generate? I have been waiting long enough on my 667 Tibook that I would probably get that if it came out rather than wait for the G5.

Close Name:AFCdtLoeb Posts: 2533 Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Subject:

With the dual core G4, the problem switches from heat to power draw. The only way to make a dual core work would be to have it default to one chip, and then "burst" and activate the second when needed.

Close Name:Sydde Posts: 1821 Joined: 30 Aug 2001
Subject:

Quote
pyxl8 wrote:
Quote
AFCdtLoeb wrote:
The back of the monitor is exposed to the air more than anything else and is the coolest part of the machine, and just begs to be used as a radiator.


Cool idea (no pun intended)! Once you get the heat out from underneath the base area you're home free. The technical difficulties to move liquid throught the lid hinge (without leaks) and into the lid might be daunting, but a true "aqua" G5 Powerbook with a glowing liquid-filled (and bubbling?!) Apple logo would freak out our PC notebook friends!

-Ken P


Perhaps a divided-channel system where heat exchange between the two parts occurs in the hinge area?

And why bubbling? Why not the Apple LavaBook?

View Name:Guest
Subject: Re: If only x86?
View Name:Guest
Subject: Heat from a Dual Core G4
Close Name:Steve W Posts: 482 Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: If only x86?

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Quote
Steve W wrote:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
I have to wonder what life would be like if Apple used x86 chips.

Apple would be dead, just another software company trampled by the MS/Dell rhino and left for dead by the side of the road.

Why? All the other hardware is the same technology as PCs. Why couldn't Apple have done what they've done but with a different CPU.

Apple makes hardware. If they used x86 parts they'd be just like every other PC company except for the operating system. Dell could kill them just because they're the WalMart of computers; they're willing to trade profit margin for sheer volume and don't care how well it works. My personal opinion, however, is that Apple would never have had the chance to compete with Dell in the x86 business, because Microsoft would have killed them first.

Here's a list of alternate OSs MS has laid to waste: CP/M-86, DR DOS, GEM, OS/2, BeOS. I'm sure there are more, but those are just ones I can think of at the moment. All tried to compete with MS in the x86 arena and all were run over. It wasn't because anything MS had was better, that's for sure, because every one of those OSs were better than what Microsoft was selling at the time. It's not because Microsoft got there first, either, because CP/M-86 preceded it. Digital Research developed CP/M-86; Microsoft bought what became PC/MS-DOS for a pittance when asked by IBM to supply an operating system for the PC. Since they had no real development cost, they undercut Digital Research's price and most PCs went out the door with PC-DOS installed. When the clones came along, MS happily supplied MS-DOS, but if you were an OEM, it came with a licensing scheme which either stipulated that you had to use MS-DOS on every CPU you sold, or you had to pay Microsoft even if you put another OS on it. Guess what happened?

Apple would have had to become a software company only, and they would have been trampled. They chose not to use the x86 architecture for very good reasons, and using a different CPU is the only reason they survived.

Sorry you asked?

Close Name:Sydde Posts: 1821 Joined: 30 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: if only x86?

Quote
Guest wrote:
Why? All the other hardware is the same technology as PCs. Why couldn't Apple have done what they've done but with a non-different CPU.

In a form of its current incarnation, Apple did just that. They (NeXT) abandoned the 68040 in favour of the 80486. When they were acquired by Apple, NeXT was a foundering software-only company.

Lesson learned?

(And, unlike Apple, all the "other hardware" companies are essentially hardware-only clonemakers.

Close Name:Mace Posts: 9185 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject: Apple and PowerPC vendors work very closely ...

Currently Apple has as much influence over the fine-tuning of PowerPC CPU as Microsoft has over x86 CPU. If Apple shifts to x86, it would have hardly any influences. This is besides all the effort required to re-code and optimize the OS (+ drivers) for x86 architecture.

Close Name:Sydde Posts: 1821 Joined: 30 Aug 2001
Subject: Influence

The time for Apple to have influence over x86 architecture is 15 years ago. And even then, it was a crap-mire that was giving Intel engineers migraines and angina. Most of us who know a thing about CPU design are absolutely amazed that it has survived even this long - if only Intel had harnessed their brainpower to head off in a new direction to build the killer processor (selling 486s for pennies as a compatibility add-on for the transition), they would be unbeatable today.

In the end, neither x86 nor PPC will win, but for the moment, I put my money on PPC simply because, FWIW, it has so much more potential.

Close Name:Mace Posts: 9185 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject:

Computer has advanced to such a stage that I am wondering who are the guys (consumers) that need so much computing and graphics power.

An average consumer like me don't need at all. My iBook uses a 900 MHz G3 with 684 MBytes RAM and my self-assembled PC for games uses a 700 MHz Duron wtih 512 MBytes RAM.

Other than hard-core gamers and hobbyists, I really don't know who. I suspect many consumers buy computers mindlessly, for lack of a better word. For most of us, the cheapest computer available in the market suffices.

Close Name:Steve W Posts: 482 Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Subject:

Quote
Mace wrote:
Computer has advanced to such a stage that I am wondering who are the guys (consumers) that need so much computing and graphics power.

I've wondered about that myself. Not all of us are graphics pros or serious number crunchers doing fluid dynamics simulations.
Quote
Mace wrote:
I suspect many consumers buy computers mindlessly, for lack of a better word.

It's the "bigger is better and more is not enough" syndrome, I think.
Quote
Mace wrote:
For most of us, the cheapest computer available in the market suffices.

Last week, an eMac qualified, right?

Close Name:Sydde Posts: 1821 Joined: 30 Aug 2001
Subject:

Quote
Steve W wrote:
Quote
Mace wrote:
Computer has advanced to such a stage that I am wondering who are the guys (consumers) that need so much computing and graphics power.

I've wondered about that myself. Not all of us are graphics pros or serious number crunchers doing fluid dynamics simulations.


It is there for possibilities. Software that can, as I think Raena once put it, find that song for you if you just hum a few bars, improve your efficiency by dynamically adapting its own behaviour to better suit your habits (as opposed to the statically programmed assistance in, say, MS Office which has so often made me want to yell "stop helping me" at the screen) and ultimately support a non-wired machine-wetware direct interface.

Currently, all that power is being used for glitz such as Exposй, genie effects and PMT (five years ago, I could not do anything else while burning a CD, now it is routine to browse the web, check mail or do other medium level work while burning takes place in the background), not to mention reducing the rendering time for iMovie and other apps. This is because systems are straitened by serial-processing and the general ethos that the first path to power is speed; when real parallel processing becomes the norm, we may begin to see signs of the creativity described above.

View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:Intruder -   TMO Mac Specialist Posts: 3013 Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Subject:

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Quote
Steve W wrote:
Apple makes hardware. If they used x86 parts they'd be just like every other PC company except for the operating system.


Apple makes hardware?

They use the same video cards as PCs, the same hard drives, the same RAM, all from other companies. The CPUs come from IBM. The computers are assembled by other companies in Taiwan, just like PCs.

Apple certainly has better case designs than PCs, but those same designs would work just fine with an x86 CPU.

Everything in a Mac is the essentialy the same as in a PC except the CPU and Apple doesn't make any of it. Why does the CPU saying "IBM" instead of "Intel" make this drastic business difference that would cause the company to be bankrupt?


And Apple designs the motherboard and the ROMs that are on it. If you really want to break things down to their component parts, then it is the manufacturers of the resistors and diodes who are in charge and NOBODY manufactures computers.

Anyway, read the rest of Steve W.s post regarding why it would be death.

Mac OSX on x86 is the dream of those who are devoted to the Intel chip, not Apple.

View Name:Guest
Subject: Re: x86
Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.
Log in | Register | Having Problems? Reset TMO Cookies & Try Again
Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit   

You are not logged in, and this post will appear as "Guest." Log in with your username and password from the TMO forums. If you do not have a username, you can register here.
Please note that guests are limited to including a maximum of two URLs per post.


Post A Comment
  Subject


  Your Comments



Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.


Recent Headlines - Updated Saturday, September 6th, 2008

Sat., 3:45 PM
iPO Free on iTunes - Samurai Girl, Sonny Chiba, Tim and More
Fri., 5:30 PM
StrangeCharm - Particle Debris And No Soup For Microsoft (Week of Sep 1)
5:20 PM
User Friendly Blog by Ted Landau - Best Buy Polishes its Apple
5:05 PM
iPO The Back Page - Why Chrome? Think Apple
4:10 PM
iPodObserver - Nokia Warns of Weaker Q3, Global Economy and iPhone are Factors
3:30 PM
Apple Gaming News - Call of Duty 4 Embarks for Macs on September 15
2:30 PM
iPodObserver - Some iPhone Users Experiencing Syncing Problems via USB 2 Hub
1:45 PM
iPodObserver - TUNEWEAR Announces Clear Cases for iPhone 3G
1:10 PM
iPodObserver - MTS, Largest Russian Wireless Carrier, Lands iPhone Deal
12:00 PM
ATR: Low Expectations for Apple September 9 Event
10:10 AM
Hot Forum Topic - Reader Reactions: Seinfeld Microsoft Ad
9:15 AM
TMO Quick Tip - OpenDNS: Managing Your Internet Access
8:40 AM
CamSpinner 2 Improves FTP, AppleScript Support
8:05 AM
First Seinfeld Microsoft Ad Airs, Thin on Content
 

The Mac Observer Reader Specials

  • Special Report: WWDC 2008
  • Special Report: iPhone
  • __________
  • Help TMO Grow
  • Podcast: Mac Geek Gab
  • Podcast: Apple Weekly Report
  • TMO on Twitter!

Apple Stock Quote

  • AAPL: $160.18. Change Today: -1.04.
  • (Prices delayed up to 20 minutes.)
  • Discuss in our Apple Finance Board

Hot Topics

What's the buzz? These articles have TMO readers talking.

Apple iTunes

Top Deals From DealsOnTheWeb