PDA

View Full Version : Macbook or Powerbook.




dogbone
Dec 22, 2006, 06:58 AM
What would be a better buy, a second hand powerbook G4 1.67 with 100mb drive and 1 gb of ram, for Australisn $1500 or an almost new macbook 1.8Ghz 512 RAm, for about the same price?



Abstract
Dec 22, 2006, 07:59 AM
A new MB for a student costs $1575. I'd think that you'd be able to get a used MB cheaper than $1500.

The Powerbook is a 15", right? Meh, either way, get the MacBook and upgrade the RAM later.

twoodcc
Dec 22, 2006, 08:24 AM
i think it depends on what you're doing with it, and how much speed means to you?

i had that same powerbook, and i sold it to buy a macbook. now i love my macbook, but i also miss my powerbook very much ..... it's a tough one

pianoman
Dec 22, 2006, 08:58 AM
buy the MacBook. i don't think it makes any sense to spend that much money on yesterday's technology.

Unspeaked
Dec 22, 2006, 09:13 AM
buy the MacBook. i don't think it makes any sense to spend that much money on yesterday's technology.

Exactly. You're going to hit a cut-off date on what you can run a lot quicker on the PB than the MB... doubly so because of the Intel vs. G4 thing. Taking the future into consideration, it makes the most sense to get the latest model.

dornoforpyros
Dec 22, 2006, 09:40 AM
buy the MacBook. i don't think it makes any sense to spend that much money on yesterday's technology.

ditto, after testing the photoshop CS3 beta I see no reason for anyone to purchase PPC based machines anymore.

extraextra
Dec 22, 2006, 10:48 AM
Too late for Powerbooks now, 6 months ago it might've still been ok. Go for a Macbook.

dogbone
Dec 22, 2006, 06:14 PM
OK, thanks for the replies. I should have mentioned that I am talking about $1500 Australian.

I'll only be running CS2 not CS3. The main reason I was looking at a powerbook is the 17" screen against a 13" for the macbook. A new macbook here is 1750 AUD, but I can get an almost new one for 1500 but then it won't have a superdrive.

tuartboy
Dec 23, 2006, 01:24 AM
OK, thanks for the replies. I should have mentioned that I am talking about $1500 Australian.

I'll only be running CS2 not CS3. The main reason I was looking at a powerbook is the 17" screen against a 13" for the macbook. A new macbook here is 1750 AUD, but I can get an almost new one for 1500 but then it won't have a superdrive.

I'll be honest, I'm leaning towards the PB. The screen will be a huge boost to productivity and will likely mean a lot more to your workflow than cutting your gaussian blur time in half. You will also get a much more powerful dedicated graphics card and will be able to use more GPU intensive apps (Aperture).

You will want to upgrade to CS3 someday, but honestly, Photoshop speed isn't bad and RAM is more important than CPU in general responsiveness in that app.

The CPU is yesterday's technology, but the rest of the package may more than make up for it. Keep that in mind.

dogbone
Dec 23, 2006, 02:12 AM
I'll be honest, I'm leaning towards the PB. The screen will be a huge boost to productivity and will likely mean a lot more to your workflow than cutting your gaussian blur time in half. You will also get a much more powerful dedicated graphics card and will be able to use more GPU intensive apps (Aperture).

You will want to upgrade to CS3 someday, but honestly, Photoshop speed isn't bad and RAM is more important than CPU in general responsiveness in that app.

The CPU is yesterday's technology, but the rest of the package may more than make up for it. Keep that in mind.

This is the way I've been thinking but I thought I'd get some other opinion. However I am surprised that you say the graphics card in a late model powerbook would be better than a bottom range macbook. If this is the case then I guess I would definitely go for the bigger screen powerbook.

So just to confirm the card in a 15" 1.67 powerbook would be better than the current 1.8 macbook?

Veritas&Equitas
Dec 23, 2006, 02:25 AM
So just to confirm the card in a 15" 1.67 powerbook would be better than the current 1.8 macbook?
Yes, based purely on the fact that the Macbook's graphics card is an integrated GMA950, whereas the Powerbook has an dedicated graphics card.

dukebound85
Dec 23, 2006, 02:27 AM
This is the way I've been thinking but I thought I'd get some other opinion. However I am surprised that you say the graphics card in a late model powerbook would be better than a bottom range macbook. If this is the case then I guess I would definitely go for the bigger screen powerbook.

So just to confirm the card in a 15" 1.67 powerbook would be better than the current 1.8 macbook?

well the macbook doesnt have a dedicated gpu. the macbook pro does though

dogbone
Dec 23, 2006, 03:08 AM
OK thanks for that info. I had no idea that the macbooks did not have a dedicated card. So it looks like a late model rammed up powerbook it is then.

iW00t
Dec 23, 2006, 04:10 AM
OK, thanks for the replies. I should have mentioned that I am talking about $1500 Australian.

I'll only be running CS2 not CS3. The main reason I was looking at a powerbook is the 17" screen against a 13" for the macbook. A new macbook here is 1750 AUD, but I can get an almost new one for 1500 but then it won't have a superdrive.

Try eBay. 2.0ghz Macbooks go for fairly cheap these days, A$1500-A$1600 should get you one with the superdrive easily. I'd expect a small flood of Macbooks entering the market after Christmas as people received new Macbooks as presents :)

Willis
Dec 23, 2006, 05:10 AM
I would actually say get the PB. PB are damn good computers, and 17" screens are beautiful. I Like my Macbook, but the screen size does bother me sometimes.

Get the PB, it will best suit your needs for CS2. Just max that ram. Even though it is only 2Gb Max. 1GB will do the job, but you can feel 2Gb is needed. (just havent got round to do it yet haha)

Abstract
Dec 23, 2006, 06:26 AM
OK, thanks for the replies. I should have mentioned that I am talking about $1500 Australian.

I'll only be running CS2 not CS3. The main reason I was looking at a powerbook is the 17" screen against a 13" for the macbook. A new macbook here is 1750 AUD, but I can get an almost new one for 1500 but then it won't have a superdrive.

Oh, it's a 17"? If you're running CS2, I'd get the 17" PB if you don't own an external monitor.

iW00t
Dec 23, 2006, 06:35 AM
You can get a used 17" MBP for around A$2400 or so.

It is quite a bit more but at least it would be good enough to see you through for another few years, plus universal applications would fly on it.

eXan
Dec 23, 2006, 07:45 AM
This is the way I've been thinking but I thought I'd get some other opinion. However I am surprised that you say the graphics card in a late model powerbook would be better than a bottom range macbook. If this is the case then I guess I would definitely go for the bigger screen powerbook.

So just to confirm the card in a 15" 1.67 powerbook would be better than the current 1.8 macbook?

ANYTHING is better than MacBook's GMA950!!! See benchmarks here: http://barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

Just look at MacBook 13" and PowerBook 15" lines in each test. Since 15 and 17" last rev. Powerbooks were equal in performance, this page should give you an idea of MacBook's graphics performance.

You will also get a much more powerful dedicated graphics card and will be able to use more GPU intensive apps (Aperture).

Actually, Aperture doesnt realy heavily on the GPU. Quote from this page (http://barefeats.com/aper01.html):

The speed of the graphics processor (GPU) was not a factor in TEST ONE and TWO and was only a slight factor in TEST THREE. We are experimenting with some other repeatable and quantifiable tests to see if they do more to stress the GPU.

pianoman
Dec 23, 2006, 09:48 AM
after seeing that you're going to be using CS2, i'd say just wait and get a MBP.

i still see the PB as yesterday's technology and it'll become obsolete (and unusable) more quickly than anything you buy new or refurb from Apple. the MB would not be good for anyone doing anything related to graphics, as it lacks a dedicated graphics card.

i think you should keep saving and get a MBP, even if it is a refurb.

tuartboy
Dec 23, 2006, 11:13 AM
Actually, Aperture doesnt realy heavily on the GPU. Quote from this page (http://barefeats.com/aper01.html):

The speed of the graphics processor (GPU) was not a factor in TEST ONE and TWO and was only a slight factor in TEST THREE. We are experimenting with some other repeatable and quantifiable tests to see if they do more to stress the GPU.

The actual graphics processing does not rely on the GPU, but the Aperture UI does. I have used it on a 1.5 ghz 12" PB with the geforce 5200 (hex edit) and at 1.25ghz 15" PB (don't know the graphics card exactly) and the UI was significantly more responsive on the 15" even though the CPU was slower.

Aperture is pretty much unusable on the 12".

acoustics940
Dec 23, 2006, 01:26 PM
I would say get a Powerbook if you want a powerbook. I am getting ready to buy a ibook g4 myself. I just cant see spending $1000 more just because its an intel. Its not like if you get a powerbook it will suddenly crash and be a pos because it isnt an intel it will be fine. If you dont want to spend the extra on a new one then get an old one and be happy. Everyone on the forums will always tell you to spend an extra $1000 to get a brand new. Some people cant get that so they get used ones which are fine.

mick4394
Dec 23, 2006, 01:53 PM
I would say get a Powerbook if you want a powerbook. I am getting ready to buy a ibook g4 myself. I just cant see spending $1000 more just because its an intel. Its not like if you get a powerbook it will suddenly crash and be a pos because it isnt an intel it will be fine. If you dont want to spend the extra on a new one then get an old one and be happy. Everyone on the forums will always tell you to spend an extra $1000 to get a brand new. Some people cant get that so they get used ones which are fine.

Where are you getting this $1000 difference. The prices of Powerbooks versus Macbooks are actually very comparable. Actually You can get a Macbook cheaper than a 12" Powerbook in many cases.

Killyp
Dec 23, 2006, 02:04 PM
PowerBook all the way IMO.

I heard someone say on Thursday (who really does know his stuff about computers) that his 12" PowerBook feels snappier than the MacBook (which is true, it really feels blazingly fast, wheras there's something a little bit sluggish about the MacBook only in comparison).

I really prefer the PowerBook/MacBook Pro design over any of the other Mac laptops anyway...

elppa
Dec 23, 2006, 04:25 PM
MacBook every time.

1. You can run windows applications (if you need to).

2. The processors are faster, much faster. The speed gains will get more and more noticeable as more and more developers move across to universal binaries.

3. They separate the speaker volume and the line out volume (headphones).

4. You can boot from a hard disk connected via USB 2, not just firewire.

5. Built in iSight.

6. Apple Remote / Front Row.

7. Longer battery life, brighter screens and better airport reception.

Far more future proof if you ask me. Although Apple will support the PPC chips for years to come, it seems to be a silly investment.

It really is a black or white decision.

Abstract
Dec 23, 2006, 06:49 PM
ANYTHING is better than MacBook's GMA950!!! See benchmarks here: http://barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

Just look at MacBook 13" and PowerBook 15" lines in each test. Since 15 and 17" last rev. Powerbooks were equal in performance, this page should give you an idea of MacBook's graphics performance.

Irrelevent. Dogbone is a photographer.....a Nikon one at that. ;) Software like PS doesn't rely on the graphics card at all, so it's really the processors that are going to make a difference. Well, processors, and whether you're going to run PS under Rosetta/emulation. Look at the tests Barefeats did. Is he going to play recently released 3D games like Doom and Quake 4? If you're running CS2 and doing other common non-gaming, non-3D animation tasks, then PS will likely run just as fast or faster on the 17" PB.

However, if you plan on eventually getting PS CS3, get the MacBook and an external monitor. The MacBook will be much much faster with PS CS3 than the 17" PB. The GMA950 integrated graphics in the MacBook can run large external LCDs just fine. :)

OK thanks for that info. I had no idea that the macbooks did not have a dedicated card. So it looks like a late model rammed up powerbook it is then.
Again, I suggest you go for the 17", but not because of the graphics card. There are a lot more reasons to get that 17" PB than to get a used MacBook IF you are running CS2 and not CS3. This is coming from a MacBook user who also happens to do photography. The 13" MB screen just doesn't cut it with respect to colour accuracy or vertical viewing angle.



Actually, Aperture doesnt realy heavily on the GPU. Quote from this page (http://barefeats.com/aper01.html):

The speed of the graphics processor (GPU) was not a factor in TEST ONE and TWO and was only a slight factor in TEST THREE. We are experimenting with some other repeatable and quantifiable tests to see if they do more to stress the GPU.

Then why does the MacBook Pro handle Aperture so much better than the MacBooks when the other specs are essentially the same, or similar enough? It doesn't make sense. Aperture is slow on both systems, but there is still such a large disparity in performance that the video card must help somehow.

eXan
Dec 23, 2006, 07:22 PM
The actual graphics processing does not rely on the GPU, but the Aperture UI does. I have used it on a 1.5 ghz 12" PB with the geforce 5200 (hex edit) and at 1.25ghz 15" PB (don't know the graphics card exactly) and the UI was significantly more responsive on the 15" even though the CPU was slower.

Aperture is pretty much unusable on the 12".

GeForce 5200 in a 12" is not THAT much slower than Radeon 9600 in a 15". Maybe your 15" had more RAM?

MacBook every time.

1. You can run windows applications (if you need to).

2. The processors are faster, much faster. The speed gains will get more and more noticeable as more and more developers move across to universal binaries.

3. They separate the speaker volume and the line out volume (headphones).

4. You can boot from a hard disk connected via USB 2, not just firewire.

5. Built in iSight.

6. Apple Remote / Front Row.

7. Longer battery life, brighter screens and better airport reception.

Far more future proof if you ask me. Although Apple will support the PPC chips for years to come, it seems to be a silly investment.

It really is a black or white decision.

1. If he wants to get a PowerBook, Windows is useless for him.

2. Performance is better only in UB apps that dont rely on GPU

3. Why do you need that?

4. PowerBooks had USB 2 since 2003 when 12 and 17" were released and 15" became aluminium. + PowerBook has FW800 port

5. How often and what for do you actually use that iSight? I bet occasionally and just for fun

6. Even if the OP needs it, it can be enabled using FrontRow enabler. You can use mobile phone or just keyboard to operate it.

7. True, but PowerBook has a 17" 1680x1050 screen, MUCH more appealing casing, backlit keyboard and it doesnt get dirty as much as a MacBook does.

eXan
Dec 23, 2006, 09:11 PM
Irrelevent. Dogbone is a photographer.....a Nikon one at that. ;) Software like PS doesn't rely on the graphics card at all, so it's really the processors that are going to make a difference. Well, processors, and whether you're going to run PS under Rosetta/emulation. Look at the tests Barefeats did. Is he going to play recently released 3D games like Doom and Quake 4? If you're running CS2 and doing other common non-gaming, non-3D animation tasks, then PS will likely run just as fast or faster on the 17" PB.

However, if you plan on eventually getting PS CS3, get the MacBook and an external monitor. The MacBook will be much much faster with PS CS3 than the 17" PB. The GMA950 integrated graphics in the MacBook can run large external LCDs just fine. :)

The guy asked if the PowerBook's video card is better than MacBooks. I showed him the benchmarks. I didnt say anything like "Photoshop would fly with Radeon 9700, compared to GMA!". This is nonsense, I get sick of people that say MacBook Pro can render video way faster than MacBook because it has a great video card :mad: The same with photography.

But I was just showing that Intel graphics is nothing compared to even old 9700. Even Core Image tests show that.

Then why does the MacBook Pro handle Aperture so much better than the MacBooks when the other specs are essentially the same, or similar enough? It doesn't make sense. Aperture is slow on both systems, but there is still such a large disparity in performance that the video card must help somehow.

Can you give me a link to where MB and MBP are compared in Aperture? Thanks :)