PDA

View Full Version : What's faster: 1.2ghz Ibook 14" or Inspiron 1000 Dell laptop (whatever that is)


California
Sep 11, 2005, 10:56 PM
Anyone know what laptop would be faster -- an INspiron 1000 dell laptop with 256mgs of ram or a 1.2 14" G4 ibook with 1.25gb of ram? What if ram were equal? What ARE Dell Inspirons, anyway?

mad jew
Sep 11, 2005, 11:04 PM
Faster for what exactly? We may need more info before we can really say which is faster since the term "faster" is so broad. I'd say the iBook would run OSX better, which is really all that matters. :p


What ARE Dell Inspirons, anyway?


Dell Inspiron (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/vanity/inspiron?c=us&l=en&s=gen) site, albeit without the Inspiron 1000. :)

California
Sep 11, 2005, 11:10 PM
[QUOTE=mad jew]Faster for what exactly? We may need more info before we can really say which is faster since the term "faster" is so broad. I'd say the iBook would run OSX better, which is really all that matters. :p


Which is faster for Word and surfing net? Not games or anything...

mad jew
Sep 11, 2005, 11:12 PM
Well, the Dell will be faster for both Office and surfing the net. These are two examples where Windows really does do better than OSX. Having said that, I find my 800MHz iBook G4 to be perfectly fast enough for both of these uses. The speed difference will only really be marginal since any new computer will do both of these tasks very fast. So really, it's the difference between really fast and really very fast.

California
Sep 12, 2005, 12:04 AM
Dang. Well, I wanted a slight speed bump in the 1.2 over the Inspiron 1000. Wonder if i drop a 7200rpm hard drive and full 1.25 gig of ram in it -- you think it would be faster than the Dell?

mad jew
Sep 12, 2005, 12:07 AM
The difference between the two for Office and browsing is going to be negligible, maybe not even really noticeable. A faster hard drive will speed things up but you probably don't really need it - they are very expensive. There are other gains that you will get from an iBook over a Dell due entirely to OSX but unfortunately the only two major aspects where OSX is slower than Windows is in Office and browsing but I can't emphasise enough that the difference really is tiny.

Hell, with a bit of a placebo effect, you may even think the iBook is faster. :D

SummerBreeze
Sep 12, 2005, 12:33 AM
The Dell might be faster, until it gets so bogged down with spyware that it runs like it has 32 mb of ram and loads up a viagra website everytime you mispell a URL. Although, with that big a difference in RAM, I don't know if the Dell would be faster at all. Maybe if it was running Linux...

California
Sep 12, 2005, 02:08 AM
Do you guys know if Word for Mac OX original is faster or slower than the newer Word for Mac 2004? I think i heard that the original Word is faster to use...

Mord
Sep 12, 2005, 02:45 AM
it's not about speed, internet speed is mostly dependent on your connection and word speed really does not matter unless you find and replace 100 times a day, the benefit with the ibook would be it would never bog down like wintel notebooks do.

cube
Sep 12, 2005, 04:46 AM
Who cares?

Passante
Sep 12, 2005, 05:25 AM
Which is faster for Word and surfing net? Not games or anything...[/QUOTE]

Just how fast can you type? :D

bgd
Sep 12, 2005, 05:49 AM
XP will run on 256 ram, but not well. You would need to add more memory.

Peter Griffin
Sep 12, 2005, 06:23 AM
XP will run on 256 ram, but not well. You would need to add more memory.

I can't imagine running XP on 256. I use 512 and it's barely tolerable.

Chundles
Sep 12, 2005, 06:45 AM
On my old POS 633MHz Celeron with 256 RAM, XP ran very well, stable, fast.

Mind you, Tiger runs rings around it.

No matter what you get today it will be more than fast enough for internet/word processing/watching movies etc so don't look at the GHz rating, look at what you can get feature-wise for your money and get the best you can afford.

An iBook is going to be a much more fulfilling purchase than a cheapo Dell.

mad jew
Sep 12, 2005, 06:49 AM
No matter what you get today it will be more than fast enough for internet/word processing/watching movies etc so don't look at the GHz rating, look at what you can get feature-wise for your money and get the best you can afford.

An iBook is going to be a much more fulfilling purchase than a cheapo Dell.


Listen to Chundles. :)

It's like comparing two F1 cars. One will be faster than the other but both are so fast at what you want them to do (the Office or browsing part) that it really is irrelevant. Okay, kinda bad analogy. Sorry. :o

Chundles
Sep 12, 2005, 07:07 AM
Listen to Chundles. :)

It's like comparing two F1 cars. One will be faster than the other but both are so fast at what you want them to do (the Office or browsing part) that it really is irrelevant. Okay, kinda bad analogy. Sorry. :o


Thanks mad jew.

Here's a good car analogy:

Which is faster? A lamborghini or a zonda?

Answer: Too fast for a normal person to take to the limit anyway so who cares.

bgd
Sep 12, 2005, 07:07 AM
I can't imagine running XP on 256. I use 512 and it's barely tolerable.

I did it for a couple of months when the laptop was replaced by insurance. It was a very 'painful' experience not to be repeated. Adding an extra gig turned it into a new machine.

Abstract
Sep 12, 2005, 07:16 AM
This thread is so......well......I won't say.

How fast can I use Word? I don't think Word will run faster than it already does. It will always work faster than I can work, no matter which system I use. They'll both be equal for surfing the net and typing documents in Word as far as I'm concerned. The difference is academic.

wordmunger
Sep 12, 2005, 07:22 AM
This thread is so......well......I won't say.

How fast can I use Word? I don't think Word will run faster than it already does. It will always work faster than I can work, no matter which system I use. They'll both be equal for surfing the net and typing documents in Word as far as I'm concerned. The difference is academic.
Actually, Word is slow as molasses. It can barely keep up with my typing. It's rather pathetic that after all these years, MS word on a 1.33 GHz machine is no faster than it was on my SE/30. In fact, Neooffice is faster (not to load, but once it's running), which indicates that it IS possible to make a usable word processor for Mac OS X.

ReanimationLP
Sep 12, 2005, 07:26 AM
Actually, Word is slow as molasses. It can barely keep up with my typing. It's rather pathetic that after all these years, MS word on a 1.33 GHz machine is no faster than it was on my SE/30. In fact, Neooffice is faster (not to load, but once it's running), which indicates that it IS possible to make a usable word processor for Mac OS X.

Thats probably because M$ bogged it down so you'd think Macs are slower than PCs. ;)

Abstract
Sep 12, 2005, 07:28 AM
Word on my 1GHz G4 runs fine.

joecool85
Sep 12, 2005, 07:41 AM
Word works great on my 867mhz PB, never bogs down. I type at 75wpm, I dunno how fast you guys are.

California
Sep 12, 2005, 09:14 AM
Word is slow for me on all my recent macs; that's why I asked that question -- and I wanted to get my partner to switch from Windoze to Mac permanently by falling in love with this 1.2 ghz iBook, off the Dell laptop. Thus the comparision.

I'm Mac proselytizing. And Word sometimes will just not react as fast as I'm writing; it is a bummer but still probably better than the Dell.

dmw007
Sep 12, 2005, 09:41 AM
M$ Word runs fine on my 2.3GHz DP Power Mac G5 & I would imagine that it would run fine on the iBook G4 in question. In addition, I also use M$ word on a 1.6GHz iMac G5 w/512MB RAM and it seems to run just as smoothly (and I can type fairly fast) as on my Power Mac G5.

Go with the iBook over the Dell! :)

wordmunger
Sep 12, 2005, 10:40 AM
Two suggestions for speeding up MS Word in Panther (can't speak for Tiger yet):

1. view page in Page Layout view, not "Normal"
2. Enable Quartz smoothing

These very counterintuitive changes make it at least semi-usable, and these days I do find myself using it more often than NeoOffice.

Quartz Extreme
Sep 12, 2005, 10:44 AM
The iBook is way faster.

Windows XP will cripple any decent machine.

California
Sep 12, 2005, 10:38 PM
Yeah, I kinda thought it was going to be faster - - I think somewhere on this site someone said that a good rule is to double the CPU speed on Mac and you get a real feel for the actual way the machine works. Doubling a 1.2ghz gives me a 2.4 Pentium and I think the Inspiron has a 2.2 Pentium chip? Can't recall.

shadowmoses
Sep 13, 2005, 08:05 AM
Rest assured the iBook will be faster than a 2.2ghz Pentium especially if the pentium we are talking about is a celeron,
If you really want a good speed increase put 1gb RAM in the iBook and you will have a very handy little machine....

ShadoW

plinden
Sep 13, 2005, 10:35 AM
Remember also that out of the box, XP has something like 35 unnecessary background processes running, that eat up CPU and RAM. The disk indexing service is particularly bad.

An example of how these can slow down your machine: I'm a Java programmer, and I do a lot of compiling on my PC laptop. Using the default configuration with virus checker on, my 1.6 GHz Pentium-M was something like 30% faster than my colleague's almost three year old 1GHz PowerBook at compiling the same project (not only do I have a faster CPU, I have a faster HD and 1.5GB RAM vs 1GB RAM, and javac is faster on x86 than on PPC). After removing the unnecessary services (especially disk indexing - compiling involves lots of disk access), and turning off the on-access virus checker, my PC is 2x faster at compiling. (Edit: we just rechecked, it's closer to 2.5x faster)

As for Word, Office 2000 worked fast enough on my previous 350MHz PIII laptop with 256MB RAM, but it was running Windows 2000, not XP.

But anyway, for a fair comparison, you need to give the specs of the Inspiron. Download Belarc Advisor and run it. It'll tell you all you need to know about the PC.

Edit:
A 1.6GHz Pentium-M is roughly equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4.
A 3GHz Celeron is roughly equivalent to a 2GHz P4 (although, I don't think there are any 3GHz Celerons)

Reckless
Sep 13, 2005, 11:16 AM
Sorry to ask what is probably a stupid question but why is web browsing slower on a mac?

mad jew
Sep 13, 2005, 11:22 AM
It predominantly comes down to the fact that the Mac is a minority and many websites are set up specifically for Windows and Internet Explorer 6.0 but there are other more convoluted reasons.

Mord
Sep 13, 2005, 11:24 AM
webkit displays things in chunks but IE displays the page as it comes so you may notice things dont function properly untill the whole page is loaded.

plinden
Sep 13, 2005, 11:35 AM
Sorry to ask what is probably a stupid question but why is web browsing slower on a mac?
IE is quite a bit faster with IIS servers because it cheats. The browser doesn't send the full "handshake" when accessing a site, but IIS servers recognize this and don't go "hunh?" like non-Microsoft servers do. So response is faster.

And like someone else said, different browsers render differently - IE /seems/ faster because the way the page is displayed makes it /seem/ faster. But Firefox can be made to be as fast or faster as IE (if not actually to seem faster than IE) by some tweaks to the configuration.

beatle888
Sep 13, 2005, 12:09 PM
The difference between the two for Office and browsing is going to be negligible, maybe not even really noticeable. A faster hard drive will speed things up but you probably don't really need it - they are very expensive. There are other gains that you will get from an iBook over a Dell due entirely to OSX but unfortunately the only two major aspects where OSX is slower than Windows is in Office and browsing but I can't emphasise enough that the difference really is tiny.

Hell, with a bit of a placebo effect, you may even think the iBook is faster. :D


ive used macs all my life and know that windows is faster when browsing the internet. if hes use to the windows web experience he might get frustrated with the mac. for some reason macs hang. and this is with any browser...except for when safari first came out. for sme reason its slowed down now days. but in general the mac does seem to process web pages slower...i think this has something to do with DNS look up or something like that.

gco212
Sep 13, 2005, 02:13 PM
Yeah, I kinda thought it was going to be faster - - I think somewhere on this site someone said that a good rule is to double the CPU speed on Mac and you get a real feel for the actual way the machine works. Doubling a 1.2ghz gives me a 2.4 Pentium and I think the Inspiron has a 2.2 Pentium chip? Can't recall.

That's sort of true, but not the whole story. A "Pentium chip" means absolutely nothing. A Pentium 4 or M, on the other hand, means a lot. As I recall, you can add roughly a third of the GHz of a G4 to compare to a Pentium 4.

Mord
Sep 13, 2005, 02:24 PM
things are greatly effected by bus cache and weather it's a G4 or G4e, it's rather complex flame wars have been fought over it for eons it's fast enough for anything your going to do dont worry about it, i'm posting this from a 600MHz G3 which i pretty much depend on to run my whole life.

California
Sep 13, 2005, 04:04 PM
Yeah, Hector I agree with you. Well I love macs, and at moment, I own nine of them -- two ibooks, four Tibooks from 400 to 1 ghz, one iMac G3, etc.. But let me tell you my only anti Mac secret: I was in love with my old 145b Powerbook bought new in 1994 that ran 7.5 I believe. In LOVE. Loved its keyboard, sturdiness, "large" hd 120mbs! and I had upped the ram to 8mb from stock four I think. it was my Word processing machine that got me through school and I was working on all my projects on it. Using Word 5.0 for Mac.

Well, the "lifetime"Kingston ram that I'd put on the machine conked out. And the year was now 2001. Kingston couldn't "find" replacement ram for me to use. I was on the internet at the time on a webtv machine that ran pretty good and kept my work life on the computer away from the internet, if you know what I mean. The only solution Kingston had for me was that they would give me a free stick of ram for a new powerbook. So the Apple tech at University offered me a free 128mb stick of ram for a new Tibook. *that was worth like 100 bucks back then.

So here I go from a 145b Powerbook with NO ram and NO hd and dinky Word and I buy new Word for Mac, get on the new g4 powerbook (i had skipped like four generations of powerbooks in the seven years I held on to my old machine) and I expect the g4 TO FLY on Word.

Nope.

Even the G4 TItanium at 256mg 400mhz was just about as mopey and same speed as the 145b Powerbook. From 1993-94 era.

I called Apple, panicky at the 2400 dollars I had just laid out for a big new machine and tried to figure out the problem.

Everything that has been stated here in this current post is just about what they said at that time. No one really cares to make Macs run fast on Word. I don't get it. I bet if I fired up that old Pb it would seem plenty fast. I hear the author Dean Koontz got wise to this upgrading thing a long time ago and that he writes all his novels on a 1993 LCII machine with ancient Word because he likes it and doesn't want to affect his creative flow.

Kinda admire that.

But the point of my last post is that I know not to expect total miracles where Word and internet surfing are concerned; however -- I wanted to know if there is any difference between a pc laptop and a Mac one, as i have been on Macs since 1989.

BrianKonarsMac
Sep 13, 2005, 04:34 PM
Anyone know what laptop would be faster -- an INspiron 1000 dell laptop with 256mgs of ram or a 1.2 14" G4 ibook with 1.25gb of ram? What if ram were equal? What ARE Dell Inspirons, anyway?
dude...3ghz will smoke that web page loading like you have no idea...omg and email...forget about it.

plinden
Sep 13, 2005, 04:53 PM
Ok, this is a review of the Inspiron 1000 - http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_Inspiron_1000/4505-3121_7-30904533.html?tag=tab
... it's the slowest 2.0GHz Celeron notebook that CNET has tested.
Even CNET, which never gives Dells less than 8/10, gave this 6.3 - read the user comments too, it gets 5.3/10 user rating.
Slower than my IBM 700 Mhz and conked out on me in less than a year. Dell would not cover under warranty for some incomprehensible reason. Please Folks, Stay away from Dell. They are not the company they used to be.
I bought this machine less than a year ago. It is pretty pampered and just sits on a desk all day. A few weeks ago the screen went from working fine to not working at all. I didn't drop, bump or even move it. I figured since it was under warranty this would be only a slight annoyance. Boy was I wrong. Dell accused me of damaging the screen and refused to replace it under warranty. They wanted $300 to fix it! I patiently explained that I hadn't even moved the machine, it had simply stopped working. They were insistent that it was my fault and that I would have to pay for the repair. I was incredulous.

To add insult to injury they shipped the laptop back to me with the screen only partially reassembled and one of the screws cross threaded.

This is the worst form of customer support I have ever seen. I am so sorry that I ever bought a Dell laptop. I am even more sorry that I ever recommended their hardware to my customers and friends. No more Dell for me!

Be warned! If you buy a Dell expect poor customer service!
It's an old Dell (review was May 2004), with a Celeron 2GHz (equivalent to about 1.3GHz P4 or about 1GHz G4), 15" screen with 1024x768 resolution, 1.6 inches thick, 6 1/2 pounds, battery life of 2 hours 20 minutes, max RAM 512MB, 40GB HD.

So why do you want to know which is faster?

Mord
Sep 13, 2005, 04:58 PM
personally i dont get peoples bitching about word, 2004 runs fine on my 600MHz ibook g3, when ichat jumps it'll lag for a second but i rarely watch what i'm typeing as i use it at school when i'm looking at the teacher, excel however is a dog, i just use the appleworks spreadsheet.

California
Sep 14, 2005, 11:15 AM
Ok, this is a review of the Inspiron 1000 - http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_Inspiron_1000/4505-3121_7-30904533.html?tag=tab

Even CNET, which never gives Dells less than 8/10, gave this 6.3 - read the user comments too, it gets 5.3/10 user rating.


It's an old Dell (review was May 2004), with a Celeron 2GHz (equivalent to about 1.3GHz P4 or about 1GHz G4), 15" screen with 1024x768 resolution, 1.6 inches thick, 6 1/2 pounds, battery life of 2 hours 20 minutes, max RAM 512MB, 40GB HD.

So why do you want to know which is faster?

Thanks for this informative reply, Plinden. The 1.2ghz iBook will be replacing this (what looks like) piece o crap Dell that belongs to my biz partner. I just wanted the iBook to have some speed bump over the Dell, it certainly will have looks and style over it, though we've had to watch dvds on the Dell and it performed pretty well. I just want it to be a happy gift that feels like a trade up, not trade down.

One final thing -- does any one know if the Dell screen is the same size as the 14" iBook or is it larger?