I suppose most of the excitement from MacWorld Expo has died down by now, but I'd still like to talk a little about two new Mac laptops introduced at the show-- Apple's own 17" MacBook Pro, and Axiotron's Modbook Pro, a tablet computer made by repackaging the components from Apple's 15" MacBook Pro along with some new parts.
Axiotron's Modbook Pro tablet computer
(Credit: Axiotron Corp.)First, the Axiotron product. Externally, the ModBook Pro is radically different from the Apple notebook that provides most of its component parts.
In this publicity photo, the Modbook Pro's beveled edges are apparent. The shape is functional, making it easier to hold the device in one hand while writing on it with the other. The shape also facilitates picking up the machine from a flat surface as well as flush-mounting the Modbook Pro in a rotating mount to create a modern version of the traditional animation desk.
The base unit of the Modbook Pro. Clockwise from lower right: the 2.5-inch hard disk, the battery, the motherboard (with I/O connectors at left and two fans for the CPU and GPU), and the optical drive.
(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)Inside the Modbook Pro's base unit, the original MacBook Pro components are mounted to an aluminum baseplate. The angled side pieces, machined out of a single piece of aluminum, connect that baseplate to the display and touchscreen assembly above. The result is a very solid assembly, but one that is rather heavy. The system's target weight is 6.9 pounds, though the prototype shown here was somewhat heavier. The other benefit of this assembly method is that the Modbook Pro can take any CPU-GPU combination that can go into a MacBook Pro, unlike most Windows-based Tablet PCs, which are thinner and lighter but can't handle the fastest, hottest chips. Axiotron says the Modbook Pro is the fastest tablet computer on the market (or will be, I suppose, when it ships), and as far as I know, that's true.
The new unit is scheduled to ship by June, 2009. In the meantime, Axiotron is also selling an updated version of its original Modbook, which is made from an Apple Macbook. The custom Axiotron software on the Modbook will carry over to the Modbook Pro, including the "Synergy Touch" feature which is optional on the Modbook and will be standard on the newer system. Synergy Touch provides translucent on-screen icons that can be used to control applications while the user is simultaneously drawing with the digitizer pen. It looks like an effective enhancement to the usual tablet user interface, and better for some applications than the usual combination of keyboard plus mouse or stylus.
The Modbook Pro is aimed at professional users and is priced accordingly: $4,998 and up for turnkey systems (which includes the price of the new MacBook Pro that Axiotron must buy in order to make the machine), or $3,049 and up if you send Axiotron your own MacBook Pro to be turned into a tablet.
Apple's new 17" MacBook Pro
(Credit: Courtesy of Apple)Apple's new 17" MacBook Pro
The other big notebook news from MacWorld Expo was Apple's new 17" MacBook Pro, joining the previously announced 15" MacBook Pro and 13" MacBook systems that I reviewed in October (see "The new MacBooks: Beauty more than skin deep" and "Hands-on with the new MacBook Pro").
The 17" model has the same type of milled aluminum unibody chassis introduced with the other systems in October. Like them, it also has a sheet-aluminum bottom cover. But that cover is also the first indicator of the big difference between the 17" MacBook Pro and its 15" sibling: there's no battery cover because the battery in the 17" model isn't removable.
Instead, Apple built in a 95 watt-hour lithium polymer battery featuring two kinds of new technology: new chemistry developed by Apple's own "team of scientists and electro-chemists" (according to the page on Apple.com about the 17" MacBook Pro battery) and a more advanced battery-charging circuit also developed by Apple.
I'm familiar with the basic principles of this technology from my time at Montalvo Systems, where I led the company's system architecture work. Most notebooks treat lithium batteries as if they contain just a single cell, even though internally they consist of multiple cells in series-parallel connections.
For example, the most common six-cell notebook battery arrangement is two parallel strings of three cells in series. This produces a battery with an effective output voltage around 10.8 volts (3.6V per cell times three cells, sometimes also marked as 11.1 volts depending on the average cell voltage) and twice the current capacity of a single string of cells.
(Incidentally, while I'm on the subject: please, all you OEMs, stop referring to the ampere-hour specification of an assembled battery. This is a meaningless figure without also knowing the number of cells and the average cell voltage. It's impossible to compare amp-hour figures directly. Just state the energy capacity in watt-hours. That number is far more useful.)
When such a battery is charged only through its outermost connections-- the ground and 10.8V points-- it's inevitable that one cell will become charged before the others in each string, and one string will be fully charged before the other. Eventually, some of the cells wear out before the others because of overcharging, and some cells aren't used to their full capacity because others discharge first.
Good manufacturers do the best they can to match the cells in each battery pack, but this only goes so far. This is why some battery packs will age much faster than others even though they have the same basic components-- their individual cells weren't as well matched.
In the new MacBook Pro, according to the figures on that battery page, the built-in battery pack is configured as four cells in series by two parallel strings. But the charging circuit can sample the voltages between each cell in the pack and adjust the charging current so that each cell is charged in the best possible way. Apple's website refers only to intelligent charging, but this optimization could in principle extend to the discharge side as well, allowing the power supply to cut out each cell as it becomes drained, avoiding the stress that goes with being pushed past that point.
Once Apple decided to go with this kind of charging circuit, it may have been persuaded to make the battery non-removable simply because the battery connector would have been huge-- as many as ten high-current contacts just for the cells (the two endpoints plus three internal nodes for each string of four cells) plus more for the usual temperature sensor.
Whatever the exact mechanism, Apple says that the combination of better chemistry and better charging technology gives the 17" MacBook Pro far better battery life-- and lifespan-- than other notebooks. Apple says that the model with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M GPU can run up to 8 hours from a single charge. That corresponds to an average power consumption of less than 12 watts.
At Montalvo, I tested the power consumption of many commercially available notebook, and in my experience, 12 watts is a very good figure for a 17" system. My own 15" MacBook Pro--now a couple of years old--consumes significantly more power than that.
More significantly, Apple claims the battery in the 17" MacBook Pro can go through 1,000 full charge cycles before its capacity drops to 80% of the original figure. Since a charge cycle is the equivalent of a 100% discharge--such as two cycles to 50%, or four cycles to 75%--this specification suggests these built-in batteries should easily last five years for most users without a substantial reduction in the battery life per charge.
Of course, in real life, this potential may be reduced if the charger causes the battery to cycle slightly while the machine is plugged in. High temperatures can also reduce battery longevity. So we won't really know how effective Apple's technology is until users have had these systems for a while.
Apple users may be interested to know that the "System Profiler" application will actually report the remaining charge capacity of a battery on the Hardware, Power page. On my MacBook Pro, the original battery-- which I leave in the system essentially all the time-- now indicates a maximum charge capacity of 1,364 mAH at 10.8V, or 14.7 WH-- a decline of over 75% from the original rated capacity. System Profiler also reports that the battery's cycle count is just 61 cycles. That's probably about right, since this battery usually sustains the machine only in standby mode for the time it takes to get from home to work and back each day.
This is a far cry from the promise on Apple's website that "a properly maintained battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 300 full charge and discharge cycles." Perhaps that promise applies only to current systems, not my one-generation-back machine, but still, I recommend taking Apple's battery-life claims with a grain of salt.
If I were in charge of Apple's battery strategy, I would think differently. I'd fit the 17" MacBook Pro for the same removable battery found in the 15" model... and also build in a smaller battery using an entirely different battery chemistry such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP) that provides inherently longer cycle life.
An LFP battery can be charged faster than a regular lithium-polymer battery, and can have twice the cycle life when properly maintained--long enough not to be a factor in the notebook's mean time to failure.
This combination would convey the additional benefit of allowing the machine's removable battery to be swapped while it continues to operate normally, even if the user is away from an AC outlet-- a substantial advantage for business travelers. No other notebook on the market has such a feature.
The battery compartment on a 15" MacBook Pro (previous generation)
(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)I'm sure there's enough room in the 17" chassis to support such a combination. It's significantly larger than the 15" model (15% more plan area, or 21 square inches), but with essentially the same internal components. Apple says that omitting the battery packaging and retaining hardware saves a lot of space, but from my own examination of the battery compartment in a scrapped MacBook Pro case assembly, I don't think that's as big an issue as Apple says.
In this photo from the "inside" of that lower case assembly with one of my auxiliary batteries installed, you can see that the MacBook Pro battery compartment and battery casing together occupy less than a quarter of an inch around most of the battery and about a half-inch on the fourth side where the power connector is located. It adds up to a reduction in plan area of about five square inches--significant but not exactly a severe loss. Even the new 17" system must have some internal protection around the battery, if only to stop foreign objects from falling in and shorting out the cells.
Other than the battery, the new 17" MacBook Pro looks very nice, just like the earlier unibody models. Plus, it's available with an optional anti-glare display. I don't know how this effect is achieved; I've used both matte-finish displays as well as CRTs with a glass-smooth face plus an anti-reflection coating. Whichever method Apple uses, it has to be better than the high-glare effect of the standard screens on the 17" and 15" MacBook Pros. I've seen these machines in various real-world conditions now, and I just couldn't live with that level of reflectivity no matter what it does for the black levels of DVD movies.
I expect I'll be in the market for a new MacBook Pro in the coming year, and at the moment, there's no doubt in my mind--it's the new 17" for me.
Before I move on to other topics for a while (next week is Siggraph, the coolest trade show of the year as far as I'm concerned), I want to describe some of the ways in which the Apple Newton fell short. I'll also explain how these deficiencies relate to today's similar devices-- PDAs, smartphones, and tablets.
As with my post yesterday, these comments are drawn from notes I made during the seven years I used a Newton MessagePad 2100.
Peter's MessagePad 2100
(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)• Very early on in my Newton experience, I made a simple comment: "Yes, it's too large." The MP2100 was huge, nearly the size of ... Read the full post at CNET's CES 2010 blog
Since the iPhone's June 29 launch, we've seen several teardown reports--some from professionals, some demonstrating more enthusiasm than skill, and some that are just awful (but funny).
What's inside? Well, you can read the details in reports from various analyst firms, but it breaks down like this:
(Credit:
Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks)
- A microprocessor
- A 3D graphics controller
- DRAM
- Flash memory
- An LCD
- A touch sensor
- A cell phone module
- Wi-Fi and Bluetooth controllers
- An audio chip
- A microphone and a speaker
- An accelerometer
- A camera module
- A SIM card
- Assorted other interfaces, connectors and buttons
- A lithium-ion battery
- Power-supply circuitry
All these components weigh less than 5 ounces and fit into a space less than 5 cubic inches. That's just amazing to me.
What could we make by adding, removing, or changing components?
- A mini Newton: drop the cell phone module, add stylus support
- iGame: Drop the cell phone module, add a joystick and more buttons
- A wide-screen iPod: swap out the cell phone module for a 1.8-inch hard disk
- A smaller cell phone: substitute a smaller LCD, simpler software, no Wi-Fi
- A smaller iPod: the smaller cell phone without the cell phone module
- An Internet tablet à la the Nokia N800: use a 5-inch LCD, drop the cell phone
- A Newton: use that 5-inch LCD, add stylus support and Apple's Inkwell software
- An auto navigation system: use the 5-inch LCD, drop the cell phone, add a GPS receiver
- A UMPC: use a 7-inch LCD, add iLife, and iWork
- An education laptop: use a 12-inch LCD, add a keyboard and educational software
- A mobile companion à la the Palm Foleo: the same, but with business software
- A tablet Mac: use that 12-inch LCD, a faster x86 processor and the full Mac OS X
Now that Apple has developed this platform, with a custom version of Mac OS X that runs on an ARM processor, it would be silly for the company not to use it in other products where ultralow power consumption is critical. These are my favorite ideas. What are yours?
UPDATE: My friend Kevin Krewell points out that I really should have made a Transformers joke in here. To make up for that omission, I'd like to mention the Monty Python "Pet Conversions" skit, which I was thinking about when I wrote this.
By the way-- if you're looking for something to do in Silicon Valley this weekend, Saturday's Ron Paul rally at Charleston Park near Google in Mountain View, CA begins at 10:00 a.m. I'll be there probably 30 to 45 minutes earlier if anyone wants to drop by and chat about iPhones, Macs, private jets, politics, or anything else I've mentioned here. Or even things I haven't.
Before the rally, I'll be at the Electronics Flea Market at De Anza College in Cupertino. This month's event is sponsored by the Palo Alto Amateur Radio Association. Come on over and check out all the new, old, surplus, collectible, neat and junky stuff for sale!
Today the iPhone is the alpha gizmo, the one item of consumer electronics that dominates all the others.
But in 1993, the hot new gizmo was Apple's Newton, and it was a whole different thing.
Not very many people had Newtons. Apple sold fewer Newtons over the whole life of the product than it sold iPhones the evening of June 29.
Also unlike the iPhone, the first Newtons weren't even very useful. Although called "personal digital assistants" (PDAs), using a Newton was significantly more difficult than using a Day-Timer. The original MessagePad had very poor handwriting recognition, and there was no practical alternative to using it, no on-screen or slide-out keyboards. With patience, one could make notes, manage an address book and a calendar, and even send and receive faxes.
But honestly, it wasn't very good at any of these things. The return on the total investment, including the up-front costs and the time and effort of learning to use the device, was not so good.
Apple introduced several minor upgrades of the original MessagePad-- four new models in two and a half years-- addressing some of the hardware and software issues, but it wasn't until the MessagePad 2000 came out in 1997 that the Newton finally realized its full potential.
I had been watching the progress of the Newton very closely, trying to persuade IDT (Integrated Device Technology, where I was working during those early years of the Newton) to bring out a MIPS-architecture processor for this new PDA market. In 1995, I even made my own wooden prototype PDAs to show just how small a PDA could be using the technology of the day-- unaware that Palm's Jeff Hawkins had done the same thing the year before to help get the Palm Pilot project off the ground. (When the Pilot came out in 1996, I was entirely uninterested. Graffiti was a crippling defect, as far as I was concerned.)
I bought a MessagePad 2000 in April of 1997, and it was immediately useful to me. The handwriting recognition engine had been significantly improved on the MessagePad 120, but was still constrained by that model's 20MHz ARM610 processor. On the MP2000's 162MHz StrongARM SA-110 processor, the new recognizer was nearly flawless for me after just a few days of practice. Not everyone had this kind of success, but I usually saw no more than one error per paragraph of text, and it was very easy to correct those errors.
I did have to learn to print a little more neatly than I was used to, but not much. One problem continued to dog me as long as I owned the unit-- when I print a lower-case "g", I start at the top right and draw the circle counter-clockwise, and sometimes fail to close the circle before drawing the descender, especially if I was writing quickly. The Newton's recognizer often interpreted that shape as a lower-case "s".
Anyway, the MP2000 was a great fit for me. In 1996 I had joined the staff of Microprocessor Report. Attending conferences was a big part of my job, and the Newton was the perfect device for taking notes during interviews, presentations, and while visiting exhibition booths. The Newton also helped me manage my schedule. I didn't use it as my primary address book, though. I found it more convenient to use my PowerBook for that purpose, with phone numbers in my cellphone where I could actually use them.
In 1998 I had my MP2000 upgraded to the MessagePad 2100 configuration, which basically just took the RAM configuration from 1M to 4M. That gave me enough room to fiddle around with more of the third-party Newton software that was out there. There was actually a pretty good variety, mostly from very small companies that specialized in Newton software. The Newton wasn't easy to write software for, and Apple didn't support third-party developers as well as they could have, but there was some great software on the market.
I also experimented with using the Newton for Internet access. This worked pretty well with a Farallon Ethernet adapter, but wired Ethernet on a handheld device isn't a great combination. I also tried Metricom's Ricochet wireless Internet adapter. That seemed to work, but I discovered after a few weeks of testing that it was somehow corrupting the data being written to the Newton's flash memory. Either the power draw of the adapter was too great, or the Ricochet's radio transmitter was interfering with the Newton's electronics. I hadn't been making backups of the Newton as regularly as I should have, probably because it had always been almost perfectly reliable, so this Ricochet problem caused me a lot of grief.
Ultimately I decided I didn't have any strong need for Internet access on the Newton. It couldn't substitute for a laptop anyway, so I stopped worrying about it.
By 1999 or so, I stopped experimenting with the Newton entirely; I had a good software setup, the machine did everything I wanted, and it was totally reliable. I used the Newton until 2004, when I left Microprocessor Report. I had a Palm Treo by that time, and still do. It's not a complete Newton substitute by any means, but I can use it to take short notes-- or, conveniently, voice memos-- and it's a better device for calendaring and contacts because it's always with me.
In 2005 I got a Tablet PC (a Motion Computing LE1600) to fill in that note-taking gap at conferences. The Tablet PC handwriting recognizer isn't as good as the MP2000's, but it's tolerable. Tablet PCs are also huge and heavy by comparison with the Newton, but again, that's tolerable. In exchange, a Tablet PC runs a fully-featured operating system (I now have Vista on mine), mainstream applications like Microsoft Outlook and the Firefox browser, and I bought a Sierra Wireless AirCard 850 HSDPA wireless Internet card for it.
I could go on about the design elements Microsoft should have adapted from the Newton into the Tablet PC. I suppose I will, in some future column. Some of these features would be a good fit for a future evolution of the UMPC (Ultra-Mobile PC), which today is really just a Tablet PC with a too-small screen. In time, I expect the UMPC will be adapted to be a better fit for its form factor, and some of the Newton's features would help.
So far I've felt no urge to get a UMPC, which some believe bridges the gap between the Newton and Tablet PC. The forthcoming HTC Shift is very tempting, however. I've held one, but I'll have to wait to see what the final features and price are like.
Most people believe the Newton was a huge failure for Apple. I had the chance to ask John Sculley, who was Apple's CEO when the Newton project was launched, about that. He pointed out that although the Newton never paid off its development costs as a product, Apple's early involvement in developing the product category-- particularly its investment in ARM, the company that developed the original Newton microprocessor-- paid off handsomely.
It seems to me that today's technology would support the development of a fairly Newton-like device-- about 12 ounces with a 7" screen, thin and rugged, with integrated wireless Internet or Bluetooth to borrow the connection from a nearby cellphone, good handwriting recognition, and plenty of on-board storage, selling for around $400. I'd buy one, but who else would?
If you had a Newton, or have your own ideas about this product category, why don't you add a comment? Maybe we can get some hardware company interested once again.
- prev
- 1
- next
