PDA

View Full Version : Buy a 17" Powerbook Right Now. You'll Love It


mrbenbob
Jul 17, 2003, 04:11 PM
The 12" is too small, the 17" is too big, but the 15" is just right...? WRONG! After playing with my 17" for 10 minutes, I was enormously satisfied with my purchase. I held out as long as I could for an updated 15" powerbook, but when the Joz of Life* failed to deliver yesterday morning, I finally popped. I went straight to the apple store, bought a spanking new 17" powerbook and plenty of apple care protection...

Yah i dunno where i was going with that... but my point is, I can't believe i ever wanted a 15". The "goldilocks display" at the apple store can be deceiving, slanting the average consumer towards the medium-size computer. Once I got my 17" home, I thought the size was perfect. I appreciate being able to fit a full web page, 2 instant messages and my buddy list on the screen at once. As stated in another post, the big screen is the easiest thing to get used to. If you need a new computer for school, stop killing yourself waiting for apple to deliver. I'd buy my 17" again in a second. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

*I forget who said "Joz of Life" but i thought it was hilarious

Rezet
Jul 17, 2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by mrbenbob
The 12" is too small, the 17" is too big, but the 15" is just right...? WRONG! After playing with my 17" for 10 minutes, I was enormously satisfied with my purchase. I held out as long as I could for an updated 15" powerbook, but when the Joz of Life* failed to deliver yesterday morning, I finally popped. I went straight to the apple store, bought a spanking new 17" powerbook and plenty of apple care protection...

Yah i dunno where i was going with that... but my point is, I can't believe i ever wanted a 15". The "goldilocks display" at the apple store can be deceiving, slanting the average consumer towards the medium-size computer. Once I got my 17" home, I thought the size was perfect. I appreciate being able to fit a full web page, 2 instant messages and my buddy list on the screen at once. As stated in another post, the big screen is the easiest thing to get used to. If you need a new computer for school, stop killing yourself waiting for apple to deliver. I'd buy my 17" again in a second. If you have the means, I highly recommend it.

*I forget who said "Joz of Life" but i thought it was hilarious

Knock it off. 17" is too big for me because I need mobility and I dont believe 17" really spells mobility. It won't even fit into my bookbag.
Secondly, I'm sorry but $3,300 for an outdated computer is way too much. Considering you will get student and developer discound it will still be around $2800.

There is no reason to go 17" if you are waiting for 15" update unless you crave airport extreme and FW 800. You might as well just buy current 1ghz 15" Pbook. for around 2100

WinterMute
Jul 17, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Knock it off. 17" is too big for me because I need mobility and I dont believe 17" really spells mobility. It won't even fit into my bookbag.
Secondly, I'm sorry but $3,300 for an outdated computer is way too much. Considering you will get student and developer discound it will still be around $2800.

There is no reason to go 17" if you are waiting for 15" update unless you crave airport extreme and FW 800. You might as well just buy current 1ghz 15" Pbook. for around 2100

The 17" goes into my Hacker backpack and gets shipped accross London every day, there is nothing wrong with this machine as a portable, it's light and sturdy, I've used PowerBooks since the 165, and this is the best machine Apple have ever designed in terms of portability and performance. Editing video and DVD authoring are excellent on the screen, and it makes running ProTools for location recording a dream.

Go buy one now, you know size matters:D :D

morgan-e
Jul 17, 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by mrbenbob
Yah i dunno where i was going with that... but my point is, I can't believe i ever wanted a 15". The "goldilocks display" at the apple store can be deceiving, slanting the average consumer towards the medium-size computer. Once I got my 17" home, I thought the size was perfect. I appreciate being able to fit a full web page, 2 instant messages and my buddy list on the screen at once.

tabbed browsing, and tabbed IMs in adium allow me to do this flawlessly with a 12". if i DO ever need the space for using say, illustrator or photoshop, i run dual display over a 19" CRT. so, although you have an impressive machine, i think you got seriously played.

bwawn
Jul 17, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by morgan-e
if i DO ever need the space for using say, illustrator or photoshop, i run dual display over a 19" CRT.

Sounds like your 12" isn't too portable any more when you want to do that kind of work.

Kwyjibo
Jul 17, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Knock it off. 17" is too big for me because I need mobility and I dont believe 17" really spells mobility. It won't even fit into my bookbag.
Secondly, I'm sorry but $3,300 for an outdated computer is way too much. Considering you will get student and developer discound it will still be around $2800.

There is no reason to go 17" if you are waiting for 15" update unless you crave airport extreme and FW 800. You might as well just buy current 1ghz 15" Pbook. for around 2100

I'm really glad he jsut pulled the trigger, i'm also glad hes happy. The 17" pb isn't that immobile...iff you have a ag that fits it, its only as heavy as the average PC laptop....so why can't it be as portable as you want it....good Luck with your powerbook, glad to see this thread rather than another when will the 15" be updated

chazmox
Jul 17, 2003, 08:21 PM
The 17 is prob what I'd go with although I'm really waiting on the 15 inch... The 12 inch screen, lack of L3 cache, and lack of DVI out are of concern to me.

Actually bought a 12 but sent it back...

Lazarus Long and Ferris Bueller quoted in the same thread... cool!!!

plutnicki
Jul 17, 2003, 08:32 PM
BenBob is right, only I'll expand and say that if you're ready to buy a laptop, just buy one and start enjoying yourself. The 17 is definitely the most future-friendly, but the 15 and 12 are great machines that will easily serve anyone well for many years to come.

I'm like a kid at christmas waiting for my 15" PB next week. Some call it outdated, I call it mature.

:)

...Jim

morgan-e
Jul 17, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by bwawn
Sounds like your 12" isn't too portable any more when you want to do that kind of work.

I said 'if,' which is not often. Buying a premium professional notebook for $3,000+ and using it for chatting, email and web is incredibly excessive and frankly hightens the typification of mac users as elitist snobs.

gopher
Jul 17, 2003, 10:12 PM
The 17" is more portable than my Powerbook G3/233 with 512k backside. Lighter by a pound and thinner by an inch. Plus I have a nice Jeep bag I bought at Syms which I'll add foam padding to whenever I get a 17". But right now I'm happy with my Flat Panel iMac.

bellis1
Jul 17, 2003, 10:21 PM
I have been fortunate to own both the 12" and 17" because of circumstance. I let the 12" go but not by choice. I liked that computer a lot and thought I was going to miss the small size. But as I sit here on the 17" I cannot complain a bit. An outdated computer I think not. You can wait for your 15" G5 for years and I will still have this screen I have come to love. It fits in a backpack without a problem unless you're trying to fit it in a purse or one of those one strap shoulder bags. The thiness of it makes it seem a lot less obtrusive. You will not be disappointed with the 17". You wont be disappointed with the 12" if you get a memory upgrade and don't mind the heat issue (which really is not that bad). I hope everyone likes that 15" PB when it finally does comes out, long overdue, but don't be intimidated by the size of the 17 because it is a beauty. Just my two cents.

Flowbee
Jul 17, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by morgan-e
I said 'if,' which is not often. Buying a premium professional notebook for $3,000+ and using it for chatting, email and web is incredibly excessive and frankly hightens the typification of mac users as elitist snobs.

Say what? Who is possibly going to know what he, or anyone for that matter, is using his computer for? And what business is it of theirs? You think that if someone sees him sending an email from a 17" Powerbook, that they'll think "Typical Mac user. Bought a $3000 computer to send email. What an elitist snob"???

I don't understand what's elitist about wanting a bright, wide screen and a fast processor. Regardless of the work you do on your computer.

vwcruisn
Jul 17, 2003, 11:06 PM
I agree with this post... i had placed an order when the 17" pb was announced. After all the delays, I cancelled... and decieded to wait for a g5 pb. When I found out it was not going to come as soon as I had thought, I purchased my 17" PB about 2 weeks ago. I LOVE this thing and carry it to school everyday. People say this thing is too big to carry around.. in reality the dimensions of a 15 inch are 9.5" x 13.4" and the 17 inch are 10.2" x 15.4"

So the 17 inch is only .7 inches longer and 2 inches wider.. this will not make or break portability... I dont understand why everyone makes such a big deal out of a couple inches... is it really THAT big of a deal? (I realize in a world of insecurity.. a couple inches may be a big deal for some men :D ) And as for weight it is only 1 pound heavier.... eat a couple less donuts for breakfast... it will all even out ;)

thebossisback
Jul 17, 2003, 11:33 PM
i realy would buy a 17 incher, but im on an ibook budget

zuggerat
Jul 17, 2003, 11:41 PM
i was gonna buy a 15 PB but i think im gonna shell out the extra cash for a 17...how does it relate in size to a 8500 inspiron

Rezet
Jul 17, 2003, 11:57 PM
Sorry but paying $3300 for a laptop that loses (from a hardware point of view) to well made PC that is around $2200 (and 2x faster), is a suicide. Atleats for me. I'd consider 12" maybe but definately not 17".

ibookin'
Jul 18, 2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Sorry but paying $3300 for a laptop that loses (from a hardware point of view) to well made PC that is around $2200 (and 2x faster), is a suicide. Atleats for me. I'd consider 12" maybe but definately not 17".

I wouldn't do that. The PC does not run OS X, which is worth the performance hit and extra price to me. My iBook is a fine machine, and a PC laptop I would've bought around the same time probably would've bitten the dust by now (I was looking at a Compaq, a Dell, and an HP). Plus, my iBook weighs 4.9lbs, and has a built in Combo drive. The PCs I was looking at weighed something like 8 or 9 lbs AT LEAST. No thanks, I'll go with the Mac. Even the 17" weighs only 6.8lbs.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by ibookin'
I wouldn't do that. The PC does not run OS X, which is worth the performance hit and extra price to me. My iBook is a fine machine, and a PC laptop I would've bought around the same time probably would've bitten the dust by now (I was looking at a Compaq, a Dell, and an HP). Plus, my iBook weighs 4.9lbs, and has a built in Combo drive. The PCs I was looking at weighed something like 8 or 9 lbs AT LEAST. No thanks, I'll go with the Mac. Even the 17" weighs only 6.8lbs.

HEHE. Nah buddy, don't switch from hardware to software. I specifically mentioned: "From the hardware point of view".
Some people are so ignorant about what's really out there that they sit in their own little belief riding on by their own bias.

I don't know about what kind of laptops you are talking about that weight 10 punds. but here is one that you may want to check out. It's 1.6 Ghz Centrino, loaded with everything including DVD-R. that is only .96" think and weights with the battery, get this : 4.6 pounds. And price? Ohh yeah, $2200.
Note, I'm not talking about operating system. If PCs ran OSX, trust me, I wouldn't be on this site. :)
OSX what makes macs shine. BUt sorry, backlit keyb doesn't cost extra $1100.

http://www.gateway.com/home/prod/hm_200xl_proddetail.shtml

That's my opinion.

Wren
Jul 18, 2003, 12:35 AM
I've had my 17 AluPowerbook since it came out in the middle of March. After 4 months I am still in awe each time I look at it. I never regretted my purchase. i still LOVE my 17" Powerbook. It is the best laptop on the planet!!:D

MacAztec
Jul 18, 2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
HEHE. Nah buddy, don't switch from hardware to software. I specifically mentioned: "From the hardware point of view".
Some people are so ignorant about what's really out there that they sit in their own little belief riding on by their own bias.

I don't know about what kind of laptops you are talking about that weight 10 punds. but here is one that you may want to check out. It's 1.6 Ghz Centrino, loaded with everything including DVD-R. that is only .96" think and weights with the battery, get this : 4.6 pounds. And price? Ohh yeah, $2200.
Note, I'm not talking about operating system. If PCs ran OSX, trust me, I wouldn't be on this site. :)
OSX what makes macs shine. BUt sorry, backlit keyb doesn't cost extra $1100.

http://www.gateway.com/home/prod/hm_200xl_proddetail.shtml

That's my opinion.

And whats it made out of? And how big is the screen? And what ports does it have? And how long will it last? And when will it become obselete? And what is the graphics card? And does it have bluetooth? VGA Out...old technology!

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
And whats it made out of? And how big is the screen? And what ports does it have? And how long will it last? And when will it become obselete? And what is the graphics card? And does it have bluetooth? VGA Out...old technology!


Dude, it's 14"1 screen. Battery life is 6 hours. casing is plastic. Sorry iron, probably would make it weight more. LOL
It has 2 USB 2.0 which isnt bad for the size of the computer.
Don't know about how long it will last, that's a subjective thing that is hard to measure. You can get crappy apple and good PC and vice versa.It is blue tooth ready.
I do know that - it is 2x faster than 17" pbook, smaller, lighter with better battery life and ohh yeah, little thing, it costs $1100 less.
VGA out, ohh yeah, thats big minus. blah.
And how long before it becomes obselete? Well, I cant say that. From point of view what will cost less on ebay, yeah PC will, but from point of view that it will run games like Half Life 2 which 17" Pbook won't, make Pbook already obselete in a sense right? I know you dont buy laptop for games, but power is power, and geames are one of the best ways to measure it.

ibookin'
Jul 18, 2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
HEHE. Nah buddy, don't switch from hardware to software. I specifically mentioned: "From the hardware point of view".
Some people are so ignorant about what's really out there that they sit in their own little belief riding on by their own bias.

I don't know about what kind of laptops you are talking about that weight 10 punds. but here is one that you may want to check out. It's 1.6 Ghz Centrino, loaded with everything including DVD-R. that is only .96" think and weights with the battery, get this : 4.6 pounds. And price? Ohh yeah, $2200.
Note, I'm not talking about operating system. If PCs ran OSX, trust me, I wouldn't be on this site. :)
OSX what makes macs shine. BUt sorry, backlit keyb doesn't cost extra $1100.

http://www.gateway.com/home/prod/hm_200xl_proddetail.shtml

That's my opinion.

If you'll note I was also talking about hardware in my weight comparisions.

On the Gateway, beside the fact that it is a Gateway, which used to be a great computer company back when the 486 was hot stuff, I don't see a 17" Widescreen display on that machine. In fact, I don't see a display that can even produce true 24 bit color on that machine. I don't see a graphics card on that machine. What I do see is not a machine that should be compared to the PowerBook. These things alone are worth an extra $1100 to a lot of people. Plus, you're getting a much better designed, more durable, and all in all better machine for your extra money. It's also really nice to look at, something I can't say about the Gateway.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by ibookin'
If you'll note I was also talking about hardware in my weight comparisions.

On the Gateway, beside the fact that it is a Gateway, which used to be a great computer company back when the 486 was hot stuff, I don't see a 17" Widescreen display on that machine. In fact, I don't see a display that can even produce true 24 bit color on that machine. I don't see a graphics card on that machine. What I do see is not a machine that should be compared to the PowerBook. These things alone are worth an extra $1100 to a lot of people. Plus, you're getting a much better designed, more durable, and all in all better machine for your extra money. It's also really nice to look at, something I can't say about the Gateway.


The video card is good enough. Sorry but putting Radeon 9800 Pro into 1ghz machine wont make it any more powerful ok? And you see, you start going back to insulting the company. Again that is spinning and is your subjective opinion on how good you think company is. You look at that it has 18bit colors and not 24, but forget to mention that Pbook top fps in q3 is around 70 while that tiny computer can get 86. And honestly, I could give less crap if it is wide screen or not.
It's not 17", true. But if you compare 15" Pbook, it will get raped from hardware point of view in every single parameter as well.
OS X and G5s that is what Apple's beauty is all about. Not outdated and over priced G4 laptops. Sorry.

If you buy a lpatop to look at all day and admire the beauty, but not work, maybe you have something there coming.
But from what i heard, Ti books look like crap very quickly because of a crappy paint.

Flowbee
Jul 18, 2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
HEHE. Nah buddy, don't switch from hardware to software. I specifically mentioned: "From the hardware point of view".
Some people are so ignorant about what's really out there that they sit in their own little belief riding on by their own bias.


What's the point of comparing 'hardware only' when we're talking about 2 different platforms? If I want to run OS X, why should I care 'what's out there' in the PC world? What's your point? (Wait a minute, I really don't care.)

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
What's the point of comparing 'hardware only' when we're talking about 2 different platforms? If I want to run OS X, why should I care 'what's out there' in the PC world? What's your point? (Wait a minute, I really don't care.)


My point is that apple is selling overpriced and outdated laptops to people who praise them for what seems no reason at all if you look at the competition.

Let me put it that way, If apple was selling 450Mhz G4 laptops right now as their top laptop technology for $3300, you'd still be praising it as the best hardware out there. Because its a mac and runs osx.
It's like you dont give a damn about hardware at all?
"It can't freaking run half applications out there, but who cares it's a mac, and has backlit keyboard. Buy it NOW!"

rudimus
Jul 18, 2003, 01:48 AM
I've had the 17" for a few months and I can't really understand why people sit there and hold their breath for the next big thing. If you want to sit there and wait til the 20 ghz G8 powerbook with 3d display and robot technology,then by all means go ahead. As for myself I'm set for a few years until the G5 powerbook with OLED and 3ghz comes out.

MacQuest
Jul 18, 2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
HEHE. Nah buddy, don't switch from hardware to software. I specifically mentioned: "From the hardware point of view".

HEHE. You can't separate the hardware from the OS genius, because one can't work without the other.

TOGETHER they make...say it with me...a "computer" and create the "computing/user experience".


Originally posted by Rezet
...but here is one that you may want to check out. It's 1.6 Ghz Centrino, loaded with everything including DVD-R. that is only .96" think and weights with the battery, get this : 4.6 pounds. And price? Ohh yeah, $2200.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...

http://www.gateway.com/home/prod/hm_200xl_proddetail.shtml

BLAH

Okay, say this with me in regards to Gateway [to Hell]..."bankruptcy".

Go ahead and buy that [P]iece o' [C]rap. Have fun getting repairs honored when they're out of business next year.

Let's see, they've changed their advertising campaign at least 4 times in the past year, changed their logo, and have resorted to selling televisions to try and generate foot traffic in their crappy cow $h!t stores.

Hmmm... only $2200 you say?

Here's another one for ya..."Liquidation Sale".

Yup. I was actually surprised to hear that Gateway even had 76 stores left to shut down this past March, since they have been closing their doors consistently since 2001. :D

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2132088,00.html

MOO.

ibookin'
Jul 18, 2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
The video card is good enough. Sorry but putting Radeon 9800 Pro into 1ghz machine wont make it any more powerful ok? And you see, you start going back to insulting the company. Again that is spinning and is your subjective opinion on how good you think company is. You look at that it has 18bit colors and not 24, but forget to mention that Pbook top fps in q3 is around 70 while that tiny computer can get 86. And honestly, I could give less crap if it is wide screen or not.
It's not 17", true. But if you compare 15" Pbook, it will get raped from hardware point of view in every single parameter as well.
OS X and G5s that is what Apple's beauty is all about. Not outdated and over priced G4 laptops. Sorry.

If you buy a lpatop to look at all day and admire the beauty, but not work, maybe you have something there coming.
But from what i heard, Ti books look like crap very quickly because of a crappy paint.

Gateway:
I go insulting the company because I watched their quality deteriorate into what they are today. Older Gateways like 486s and early Pentiums were some of the best PCs (for their time) I've ever laid eyes on. However, I've dealt with a lot of recent model Gateways and nearly every single one had some kind of problem, and this was over 40 machines. Not to mention their financial problems. Apple is a solid company with (I believe) $4 billion in the bank, virtually no debt, and profit in this rough tech economy.

Graphics:
It's INTEGRATED VIDEO. It is not good enough for games and graphics work. I'm also going to disregard your comment about how putting a Radeon 9800 Pro in a 1GHz machine will not make it any more powerful. It all depends on what you do. That graphics card will be worth the world on games, for one.

I look at that it has 18 bit color instead of 24 because 24 is the absolute minimum anyone should use for graphic work. Games also look a lot better at 24 bit color than they do at 16 or 18. This machine is obviously not designed for demanding graphics applications, or it would have a better graphics card and screen.

I also don't care if it gets 16 fps more in Q3 than the PowerBook does. I buy a Mac expecting that kind of thing. Also, what kind of resolution is each machine running at? What color depth is each test performed at?

Professional Value:
You say that I may have a point if I buy my machine to look at, but not to do work on. However, I don't see getting serious, professional, graphics or video work done on the Gateway, whereas the PowerBook would handle it fine. What kind of wok does this leave? After all, there are a lot of professions that don't require graphics work. The required work for these is surely nothing the PowerBook can't handle. Many on this board even do 3D modeling on their 15" or 17" PowerBooks, and I use my iBook for programming for my development classes in my CS curriculum.

I still don't see your point, either.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by MacQuest
HEHE. You can't separate the hardware from the OS genius, because one can't work without the other.

TOGETHER they make...say it with me...a "computer" and create the "computing/user experience".




Okay, say this with me in regards to Gateway [to Hell]..."bankruptcy".

Go ahead and buy that [P]iece o' [C]rap. Have fun getting repairs honored when they're out of business next year.

Let's see, they've changed their advertising campaign at least 4 times in the past year, changed their logo, and have resorted to selling televisions to try and generate foot traffic in their crappy cow $h!t stores.

Hmmm... only $2200 you say?

Here's another one for ya..."Liquidation Sale".

Yup. I was actually surprised to hear that Gateway even had 76 stores left to shut down this past March 24th, since they have been closing their doors consistently since 2001. :D

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2132088,00.html

MOO.


Dude, If u noticed, I said G5 is fast, and that is where the real money are. And all this crap with gateway and bankrupcy. MOOO! First off, people told me they are GOING bankrupt since 2001. And still going and gOiNg ("bankrupt"). Number 2, you dont know sh.. for sure. You just speculate on nothing. Jut like those who speculated about 970 Pbooks to hit the stores on the 23 of july. They even found some crappy links to some garbage websites to satisfy their belief. (Do I spell out religion?)
And lastly, I dont give a damn about Gateway in particular. That was just an example. I can find you a similar computer from your favorites. Dell, toshiba, sony? you name it.
Atleast 12" PB cost decent price. But if you are a billion-ere, i can see why you wouldn't care about spending $3300 on slower technology.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by ibookin'
Gateway:
I go insulting the company because I watched their quality deteriorate into what they are today. Older Gateways like 486s and early Pentiums were some of the best PCs (for their time) I've ever laid eyes on. However, I've dealt with a lot of recent model Gateways and nearly every single one had some kind of problem, and this was over 40 machines. Not to mention their financial problems. Apple is a solid company with (I believe) $4 billion in the bank, virtually no debt, and profit in this rough tech economy.

Graphics:
It's INTEGRATED VIDEO. It is not good enough for games and graphics work. I'm also going to disregard your comment about how putting a Radeon 9800 Pro in a 1GHz machine will not make it any more powerful. It all depends on what you do. That graphics card will be worth the world on games, for one.

I look at that it has 18 bit color instead of 24 because 24 is the absolute minimum anyone should use for graphic work. Games also look a lot better at 24 bit color than they do at 16 or 18. This machine is obviously not designed for demanding graphics applications, or it would have a better graphics card and screen.

I also don't care if it gets 16 fps more in Q3 than the PowerBook does. I buy a Mac expecting that kind of thing. Also, what kind of resolution is each machine running at? What color depth is each test performed at?

Professional Value:
You say that I may have a point if I buy my machine to look at, but not to do work on. However, I don't see getting serious, professional, graphics or video work done on the Gateway, whereas the PowerBook would handle it fine. What kind of wok does this leave? After all, there are a lot of professions that don't require graphics work. The required work for these is surely nothing the PowerBook can't handle. Many on this board even do 3D modeling on their 15" or 17" PowerBooks, and I use my iBook for programming for my development classes in my CS curriculum.

I still don't see your point, either.


Yeah, ilooking, too bad the topic wasn't about the company that makes pcs, but about pcs themselves and how they stick to macs from the hardware point of view. Switching and insulting the company only makes your point more obscure.
I can use dell example if u like them more.
That computer is faster and smaller. maybe it doesnt have the best video card, sure, but still whoops Pbooks at most tasks.
That's the key. Pbooks have their advanatges. But not for the price that 17" are. At what point would you stop saying that Pbooks still are good value? if they were 4k? Or 5k? Maybe $6k?
My point is this. You can't convince people to use macs who just look at raw numbers and dont know anything about small, but im sure very nice things like backlit keyb.
They see this: MHZ, FSB, Weight, Batery life, popularity, how popular company is, and ofcourse, the price.
some other things too, but do you not agree that 3300 is abit too high for a laptop that is perhaps 5 times slower than its own "buddy" Dual G5 who retails for $300 less?
Maybe I just dont see something you see.

MacQuest
Jul 18, 2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
...but from point of view that it will run games like Half Life 2 which 17" Pbook won't, make Pbook already obselete in a sense right?

Wrong.

If you're so concerned about an all around better computer [complete hardware, OS, and software solution] like the PowerBook costing $1100 more, then I've got a real bargain for ya!!

It's $2000 dollars less than that Crapway!!

RUN!! HURRY!!

http://www.playstation.com/

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by MacQuest
Wrong.

If you're so concerned about an all around better computer [complete hardware, OS, and software solution] like the PowerBook costing $1100 more, then I've got a real bargain for ya!!

It's $2000 dollars less than that Crapway!!

RUN!! HURRY!!

http://www.playstation.com/


Maybe if meant www.xbox.com, i'd take you seriously.
I dont think Ps2 with its hardcore 294mhz can cut hardcore graphics.
But you should read more of what I said. I said that games is a decent way (and is one of the official ways) to measure computer power.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 02:33 AM
Geez, these mac fanboys get so defensive all of the sudden when you tell them the truth they are afraid to hear.
Sorry. I'm not so square, my life don't evolve around praising Macs 24/7. I try to be fair and balanced given the information from all sides.

MacAztec
Jul 18, 2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Dude, it's 14"1 screen. Battery life is 6 hours. casing is plastic. Sorry iron, probably would make it weight more. LOL
It has 2 USB 2.0 which isnt bad for the size of the computer.
Don't know about how long it will last, that's a subjective thing that is hard to measure. You can get crappy apple and good PC and vice versa.It is blue tooth ready.
I do know that - it is 2x faster than 17" pbook, smaller, lighter with better battery life and ohh yeah, little thing, it costs $1100 less.
VGA out, ohh yeah, thats big minus. blah.
And how long before it becomes obselete? Well, I cant say that. From point of view what will cost less on ebay, yeah PC will, but from point of view that it will run games like Half Life 2 which 17" Pbook won't, make Pbook already obselete in a sense right? I know you dont buy laptop for games, but power is power, and geames are one of the best ways to measure it.

Battery life is 6 hours theoretically or in the real world?

USB 2.0 takes up no extra space, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say "for the size of the computer". I bet the next powerbooks have USB 2.0

And how the hell is it 2x faster then the powerbook? In WHAT? I don't understand. Could you show me where it is two times faster?

It will become obselete very quick. PC laptops usually go crap within 2 years. Macs usually stay good for 3-4

And, maybe if HalfLife 2 was ported to the mac (not just ported, but ported GOOD, unlike most games) the mac would be superior. That gateway has an Intel Extreme Graphics card. Ohhh, that is WONDERFUL :rolleyes:

Dude, PC laptops straight out suck. Im not trying to be a zealot, but they just suck. My friend has 1 that his parents bought him. Its like a 2.4GHz P4 w/ 14.1" Screen and stuff.

Its horrible. It feels like crap, the trackpad sucks. Networking is horrible too (Windows).

I DO think that PC Desktops have a place in the world (Gaming), but a PC laptop is just...bleh. Why would you even play games on a 14.1" Screened Crap Ass Graphic Card Laptop?

The only games I would play are Solitaire and stuff. That is why I built a gaming PC, for games. My mac is still far superior in ever other thing I do. Hardware and Software

MacAztec
Jul 18, 2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
perhaps 5 times slower than its own "buddy" Dual G5 who retails for $300 less?
Maybe I just dont see something you see.

5 times faster? WTF?!?

Dude, I don't know where the hell you get you numbers.

"Oh, the Gateway is 2x faster then the powerbook!"

In what, might I ask. I don't want the answer "Common Tasks".

Common tasks are email, typing, chat, etc. I dont think it does any of those faster. And games?

Why dont you use Quake as the benchmark.

If I can get 110FPs on my G4 500MHz w/Radeon 8500, I think that powerbook can get 170.

MacQuest
Jul 18, 2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Dude, If u noticed, I said G5 is fast...

Damn Skippy!! There may be some hope for you yet...may...

Originally posted by Rezet
And all this crap with gateway and bankrupcy. MOOO! First off, people told me they are GOING bankrupt since 2001. And still going and gOiNg ("bankrupt").

No one said that the one thing that they could do right would happen over night...but just like the junk OS they run, "If at first you don't succeed...you must be crashing WinBlows." Don't worry, I, along with most Wall Street analysts, feel confident that Gateway will reach their goal really soon.

Originally posted by Rezet
You just speculate on nothing. Jut like those who speculated about 970 Pbooks to hit the stores on the 23 of july.

Personally, I never bought into those rumors...

Originally posted by Rezet
I can find you a similar computer from your favorites. Dell, toshiba, sony? you name it.

Favorite? Windows computer?! LOL!!

Here ya go.

Some recently published educated information from an unbiased 3rd party:

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=305449&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162693&bmUID=1054224175175

Those results are why you pay more for Apple products.


Originally posted by Rezet
Atleast 12" PB cost decent price. But if you are a billion-ere, i can see why you wouldn't care about spending $3300 on slower technology.

A little extremist don't ya think?;)

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
5 times faster? WTF?!?

Dude, I don't know where the hell you get you numbers.

"Oh, the Gateway is 2x faster then the powerbook!"

In what, might I ask. I don't want the answer "Common Tasks".

Common tasks are email, typing, chat, etc. I dont think it does any of those faster. And games?

Why dont you use Quake as the benchmark.

If I can get 110FPs on my G4 500MHz w/Radeon 8500, I think that powerbook can get 170.



1.6 centrino is around 2.6 P4. Even on laptops it will smoke any current G4. Give me a break.
Second PBook pushes out 75 fps in q3, it even says on apple website. so get quiet there with your 170.
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html

And PC dies 1-2 years LOL, you really dont know crap then. I know people who are still using 166mhz p1 laptops ok?
And, C'mon tell me that Pbook is faster for games than centrino. I dare you to say and prove that. Damn crappy Unreal Tournament requires G4 733 and runs like **** on on 733.
While if you have 850Mhz Athlon, you can smoke people in that game no problem.
PC laptops > Mac laptops
From speed factor.
And if you just refuse to realize and see that. We don't even need to continue that conversation. Feel they way you want. Im standing behing everything I said.
Period.

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by MacQuest
Damn Skippy!! There may be some hope for you yet...may...



No one said that the one thing that they could do right would happen over night...but just like the junk OS they run, "If at first you don't succeed...you must be crashing WinBlows." Don't worry, I, along with most Wall Street analysts, feel confident that Gateway will reach their goal really soon.



Personally, I never bought into those rumors...



Favorite? Windows computer?! LOL!!

Here ya go.

Some recently published educated information from an unbiased 3rd party:

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=305449&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162693&bmUID=1054224175175

Those results are why you pay more for Apple products.




A little extremist don't ya think?;)


macquest, that's an interesting website u got there from consumer reports. I'd have to check that out in detail in order to comment on that, which i dont have time right now, but i certainly will tomorrow.
Well, for extra $1200, i can fix it many many times over anyways :) J/k

MacAztec
Jul 18, 2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
1.6 centrino is around 2.6 P4. Even on laptops it will smoke any current G4. Give me a break.
Second PBook pushes out 75 fps in q3, it even says on apple website. so get quiet there with your 170.
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html

And PC dies 1-2 years LOL, you really dont know crap then. I know people who are still using 166mhz p1 laptops ok?
And, C'mon tell me that Pbook is faster for games than centrino. I dare you to say and prove that. Damn crappy Unreal Tournament requires G4 733 and runs like **** on on 733.
While if you have 850Mhz Athlon, you can smoke people in that game no problem.
PC laptops > Mac laptops
From speed factor.
And if you just refuse to realize and see that. We don't even need to continue that conversation. Feel they way you want. Im standing behing everything I said.
Period.

First, where does it say a 1.6GHz Centrino is like a 2.6GHz P4? Or did you just hear this?

Second, Apple is wrong. My friend with a Powerbook 667 can get 75FPS easy, and he has a 32MB Graphics Card. With a certain setting (forgot the name), it doubles your framerate (just about), and the game looks the same.

I did not say the PC dies in 1-2 years, it just becomes useless. People consider it slow, it gets problems, etc.

And, can you compare a game that is actually ported to the mac under a good port? Quake 3 is currently THE benchmark. And I CAN prove to you that the PowerBook will keep pace with the Centrino.

And, how are PC laptops greater then Mac laptops? Even if it is just speed factor*. Seriously, my brother has an iBook 900. His friends with the new PC laptops want to sell them and get the iBook because of its superior design, size, looks, feel, capabilities, etc.

*They are not faster in anything BUT games, and not all games are they faster in. I bet you Photoshop runs faster, editing video, and just about everything else. Stop referring to games, we are talking about LAPTOPS. Nobody uses a laptop as a gaming machine. Its not even a benchmark (laptop wise).

MacQuest
Jul 18, 2003, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
macquest, that's an interesting website u got there from consumer reports. I'd have to check that out in detail in order to comment on that, which i dont have time right now, but i certainly will tomorrow.
Well, for extra $1200, i can fix it many many times over anyways :) J/k

Cool.

FYI, this report was also done about 9 months ago.

Since that report last year, Apple has gone up in all categories while the distant 2nd place Dell continues to decline in all categories.

The bottom line? the reason that Apple is a DISTANT 1st place while all the Windows computers are [kind of] bunched all together can best be described by the old saying, " You're only as strong as your weakest link."

Windows is the weak link that all Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, AlienWare [no matter how cool the case looks ;)], etc. share.

You can have a really fast car, but if you put junky gas in it...You can be a body builder, but if you got AIDS...well, you get the idea.

Just like you can't judge a book buy it's cover, you can't judge a computer by it's parts, because the problem is Windows.

Windows is the AiDS in the cool AlienWare enclosure.

Take it easy Rezet. :)

Rezet
Jul 18, 2003, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
First, where does it say a 1.6GHz Centrino is like a 2.6GHz P4? Or did you just hear this?

Second, Apple is wrong. My friend with a Powerbook 667 can get 75FPS easy, and he has a 32MB Graphics Card. With a certain setting (forgot the name), it doubles your framerate (just about), and the game looks the same.

I did not say the PC dies in 1-2 years, it just becomes useless. People consider it slow, it gets problems, etc.

And, can you compare a game that is actually ported to the mac under a good port? Quake 3 is currently THE benchmark. And I CAN prove to you that the PowerBook will keep pace with the Centrino.

And, how are PC laptops greater then Mac laptops? Even if it is just speed factor*. Seriously, my brother has an iBook 900. His friends with the new PC laptops want to sell them and get the iBook because of its superior design, size, looks, feel, capabilities, etc.

*They are not faster in anything BUT games, and not all games are they faster in. I bet you Photoshop runs faster, editing video, and just about everything else. Stop referring to games, we are talking about LAPTOPS. Nobody uses a laptop as a gaming machine. Its not even a benchmark (laptop wise).

Yeah, I'm sure apple is wrong on their own website trying to advertise its own product. One thing I've learned is that apple never lies about things that it doesn't benefit from. If they lie, you can be sure the lie is gonna be on their side, not competitor's. :))
As for that 1.6 centrino = 2.5ghz P4, It is a fact. GO to intel's website and find out for yourself. I'm actually surprised you didn't know that. Centrinos also do have better battery life than Pbooks. That also is a fact.
Power books are slower than Centrinos in almost everything, my friend. I doubt even apple's favorite Photoshop tests would save it. I DON'T doubt that Macs have superior OS, and that apple sure knows how to make more or less reliable computers, back it up with stylish design and very nice small fetures that underline apple's "difference". But by raw numbers, PCs win (unless of course it is a Dual G5 :) ).
Aztec, dont get me wrong dude, Im not here to bash macs. I like macs, i was waiting for 15" Pbook update since February. And even though it's slower, I would still buy it if they updated the series a little bit.

As for your ibook, well you started the sentence saying that macs don't loose in speed, but ended the sentence by saying your friends wanted to switch because of every single reason BUT mac's "superrior" power.
If you start an independent poll here in the forum asking which computer is faster 1.6 Centrino or 1Ghz Pbook, stay assured, even most mac fans will admit that PCs have more raw power.

But ohh well. Stay with your opinion. I don't care that much really.
I haven't made up my mind on which portable to buy, and I wouldn't askyou for advice on "what's better PCs or macs".

I'm done with this post. You can have a last word if you want.

Cheers!

HasanDaddy
Jul 18, 2003, 03:47 AM
I hope you guys don't mind me getting involved ---

For $3,300, this is what I can do on a Mac -

1. Edit videos over FCP, the BEST video editing software in the world!

2. Catalog photos on iPhoto and easily post them on the web

3. Catalong my tunes on iTunes and easily buy music from the Music Store

4. Burn an AWESOME DVD with professional iDVD backrounds

5. Plug my computer into the Television, through S-VIDEO, and admire my filmmaking over the Big Screen!

6. Have an AWESOME wireless internet DISTANCE (thank you Airport Extreme)

7. Create my own music over SoundTrack

....and more

For $2,200, this is what I could do with a PeeCee:

1. I could attempt to edit videos.... first I would have to purchase a $1,000+ software, if not more..... and take forever to learn an awkward, PC, interface of video editing

2. I can't even catalog photos on a PeeCee --- I could keep them in a folder though, and make the thumbnails look like pics, and pretend that its iPhoto Beta

3. Catalog music on a PeeCee??? I haven't even figured out how to encode a CD on those things! And there is no music store - I'll have to fiddle with Gnuttella

4. Burn a CD? First I'll have to buy Toast or something..... but that doesn't even have the professional themes of iTunes.... plus, Apple's DVD-R's are the most universal, according to DV.com....

5. I don't know of any PC laptop that I can plug into my TV, through a simple S-Video cable....

6. Yes we have wireless on these computers..... but their distance doesn't seem to be very good

7. I can't create ANY unlicensed music on WinDoZe!!!

So yes --- for $2200, you do get a faster computer, but you lose out on -

1. Better applications/software

2. More options and more inputs (S-Video)

Lastly --- sure its fast..... but I can see myself wasting time trying to get the PC to work right, then I would waiting for my Mac to render a video.......

In my opinion, Macs make my productivity MUCH MORE faster --- and with processor speeds in mind, that makes all my work much faster

plutnicki
Jul 18, 2003, 07:17 AM
How this devolved into a PC vs. Mac debate. Frankly, I can't believe there is such a thing. To me, PC and Macs are two totally different animals due to OS X and Windows. I'm willing to pay a premium to not have to use Windows, and I think most Mac users are in the same boat.

As far as the 17" Powerbook thing. For me the 17 Powerbook just LOOKED a little too big, but the extra $600 really nailed it. Not that I *couldn't* have afforded it, but I wanted to spend that $600 on more memory and accessories for my incoming 15".

If I decide that I like laptops too much and my desktop sits unused, it'll get sold and I'll get a studio display, or sell both and replace with the 17".

I'm glad that Apple makes all these different laptops to fit all these different personalities...

HasanDaddy
Jul 18, 2003, 08:05 AM
well said Plut

on that note --- I originally wandered into this thread because I just purchased my own 17" laptop!!!

I can't wait!!!!

My LapZilla is gonna ROCK!!!!

niar
Jul 18, 2003, 08:32 AM
Rezet!

I did a search on internet to find a Dell or Sony or whatever with same screen.
It's hard to get into graphic specs since it's not the selling point for PC-s.
Still, I found that to get same screen resolution as TiBooks and 17" has, one has to pay as much, in some cases even more.
Centrino notebook with good Display costs about 2500-4000$!!!

for graphic pros, screen size, bitness and resolution does matter.

Try Photoshop on a 1024x768 and thousands of colours and You see

paj
Jul 18, 2003, 08:33 AM
Yep... I too purchased a new 17" PB yesterday. I've passed my 12" on to the wife.

I do have one complaint with the 17 incher:

There is so much empty space on that tray, it wouldn't have hurt to make the keypad a tad bigger. At the very least they could have moved the keyboard forward a bit instead of right up against the screen. I guess they wanted to save money by using the 12" one.

I have to remove my watch when using it as my wrists rest on the actual machine. I'm scared of scratching it. :)

nspeds
Jul 18, 2003, 08:54 AM
Several points discussed here are simply ludicrous...

I bought the 17inch even before Joswiak confirmed the availability of the G5 in PowerBooks.

I'm happy with it, its the best portable I've EVER used. Some people will say that I got pwned because I can get an Alienware for the same price. Thats bad because at the point in which Apple DOES want to announce the G5 PowerBook, the Alienware won't sell for more than 400$. At least on the 17inch, the resale value is A LOT better.

One person said here that we shouldn't go into software, I think we should because if it weren't for the software, there would be no use for the hardware.
Half of what makes PC users complain is not necessarely the hardware configs, its the OS they are using: Windows. In my opinion, after about a week of using a new PC with Windows, it gets that same old familiar feel that you get with other PCs, and it feels like junk. With my Mac, everytime I wake up, its like I'm staring at the same laptop I bough a couple weeks ago.

Although I DO agree with some that the 17 inch ISNT for just chatting, surfing, word but that's all I intended to do with my 17 inch when I BOUGHT it. Now, I'm using Ableton Live, Traktor DJ, and Photoshop. Once you purchase the 17inch, it opens you up to a lot of possibilites which I'm able to take advantage of.

ND

sedarby
Jul 18, 2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Geez, these mac fanboys get so defensive all of the sudden when you tell them the truth they are afraid to hear.
Sorry. I'm not so square, my life don't evolve around praising Macs 24/7. I try to be fair and balanced given the information from all sides.

Do you know what website you are posting on? Does MacRumors not tell you something? Of course, people here get defensive when PC snobs attack. Personally, keep your ultrafast PC from whatever manufacturer you want. I'll take my Rev A iMac over whatever Ghz PC you like because it does what I need and does it with style and stability.

nspeds
Jul 18, 2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Yeah, I'm sure apple is wrong on their own website trying to advertise its own product. One thing I've learned is that apple never lies about things that it doesn't benefit from. If they lie, you can be sure the lie is gonna be on their side, not competitor's. :))
As for that 1.6 centrino = 2.5ghz P4, It is a fact. GO to intel's website and find out for yourself. I'm actually surprised you didn't know that. Centrinos also do have better battery life than Pbooks. That also is a fact.
Power books are slower than Centrinos in almost everything, my friend. I doubt even apple's favorite Photoshop tests would save it. I DON'T doubt that Macs have superior OS, and that apple sure knows how to make more or less reliable computers, back it up with stylish design and very nice small fetures that underline apple's "difference". But by raw numbers, PCs win (unless of course it is a Dual G5 :) ).
Aztec, dont get me wrong dude, Im not here to bash macs. I like macs, i was waiting for 15" Pbook update since February. And even though it's slower, I would still buy it if they updated the series a little bit.

As for your ibook, well you started the sentence saying that macs don't loose in speed, but ended the sentence by saying your friends wanted to switch because of every single reason BUT mac's "superrior" power.
If you start an independent poll here in the forum asking which computer is faster 1.6 Centrino or 1Ghz Pbook, stay assured, even most mac fans will admit that PCs have more raw power.

But ohh well. Stay with your opinion. I don't care that much really.
I haven't made up my mind on which portable to buy, and I wouldn't askyou for advice on "what's better PCs or macs".

I'm done with this post. You can have a last word if you want.

Cheers!

Rezet, just by your presence on this board, you as a person serve as a performative contradiction to what you said above.

EDIT: Whoops! You serve as the contradiction to the "fanboys" post, not the one above, hehe.

ND

ibookin'
Jul 18, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Well, for extra $1200, i can fix it many many times over anyways :) J/k

Yeah, you better be kidding. Fixing a laptop ONCE will cost $1200. I dropped my iBook once and the repair bill was $700. The only reason I actually fixed it (the machine was working fine, it was a cosmetic/semi-functional issue) was because my credit card company reimbursed me for the repairs.

Now notice something about this. I dropped my Apple laptop from a height of 3 feet onto a concrete floor, and the machine was hardly damaged. Had I dropped an entirely plastic (despite having a plastic shell, the iBooks frame is magnesium), cheaply built PC laptop, I wouldn't be able to say the same.

I don't understand how you can say that I only focus on that Gateway is a bad computer company. I have given many reasons why the PowerBook is altogether a better computer than the Gateway, and is worth the extra $1100 to anyone who uses their computer for serious work.

So here's what I'm going to do for you. I'm going to compare the 15" PowerBook to a 15" Dell. Both have widescreen displays, and both are from companies known for good reliability.

The 15.4" Dell needs to be upgraded quite a bit to match the configuration of the PowerBook, and when the dust clears the Dell with a 2.2GHz P4, 64MB graphics card, 60GB hard drive, 512MB of RAM, Wi-Fi card, and DVD burner costs $2199. This is still less than the comparable 15" PowerBook (1GHz/SuperDrive) for $2599.

What the Dell has going for it:
-Price: Cheaper than the PowerBook
-Speed: Faster than the PowerBook. I'm not disputing this.

What the Dell has against it:
-Weight: It weighs "as little as 6.9lbs" (i.e. without the optical drive). The PowerBook weighs 5.3lbs with everything.
-Size: The Dell is bigger in every dimension than the PowerBook, and the difference is significant.
-Design: The Dell is ugly and feels clunky to use (and yes, I have used Dells) While this is a small point, it's nice to have a well designed laptop such as the PowerBook

And probably the worst:

OS: The Dell runs Windows XP Pro, which is not as nice to use as Mac OS X, not to mention stability and security issues in Windows.

In my opinion, the PowerBook is well worth the extra $400 considering only the hardware. I don't want a laptop that weighs 7lbs or more. If Apple can get a 15" screen into a 5.3lb laptop why can't Dell? It is a much better designed machine, and while there are some nice PC notebooks the PC manufacturers can never seem to get their stuff to look and feel as nice as Apples. Not to mention the OS issue with PCs.

WinterMute
Jul 18, 2003, 05:21 PM
Guys, please don't feed the trolls:D

It's obvious Rezet doesn't get the Mac imperitive, it's never really been about speed or price, it IS about productivity and style, both of which Apple has in spades right now.

Dell will spend the next 5 years trying to do what Apple has done this year.

orangefoodie
Jul 18, 2003, 08:50 PM
But that troll does have SOME valid points. With $3300 you can get... Let's see. A nice used car. A damn good saxamaphone. There really aren't that many things in life that costs $3300, and when you think about it, it really is kinda overpriced. Hell, $3300 would take off quite a bit in my college tuition fees. I'm just glad the money didn't come all from my pocket.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 17", and one would have to pry it from my cold, dead body to take it. But the fact remains that it IS relatively expensive. Perhaps the only other gripe I have with it is the low resolution ... 1440 x 900 for such a ginormous screen seems almost blasphemous for its potential. Note that the 15.4" dell (to give an example) has better dot-pitch resolution --- even the current 15" pb does.

macrat
Jul 19, 2003, 12:51 AM
Rezet is the same Troll disguised as PurpleX over at the TreoCentral.com.
He's been bashing the newly introduced Treo 600 (Palm OS) in favor of the Windows Pocket PC's. The truth is, I suspect he doesn't even own any Apple computer nor Treo PDA's at all!

Don't waste your time replying to his arguments.

Rezet
Jul 19, 2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by macrat
Rezet is the same Troll disguised as PurpleX over at the TreoCentral.com.
He's been bashing the newly introduced Treo 600 (Palm OS) in favor of the Windows Pocket PC's. The truth is, I suspect he doesn't even own any Apple computer nor Treo PDA's at all!

Don't waste your time replying to his arguments.

Macrat, don't accuse me of anything with out proof, that you dont have. I've never been to that website, nor do I give a damn about pocket Pcs. SInce I see you are a newbie here, I'll give you advice, for constructive criticism of mac's hardware, you wont get banned. But for personal attacks especially accusations without proof, you will get it faster. So shush!

ddohnggo
Jul 19, 2003, 03:20 AM
honestly i can see rezet's point of view. i'm a recent switcher, who purchased a 17" pb recently (typing this post on it) and feel that have gotten my money's worth with this machine.

the hardware specs on the machine are outdated (you can't really say anything about that), however, i haven't experienced any slowdown or problems with it. i think the machine is plenty fast, as i do music production and photoshopping, etc..., so i'm not the usual e-mail, aim type of guy. you can't really look at the hardware specs alone as most users don't even notice a difference at all.

the advantage i do find about the pb, is honestly os x. as cliche as that may sound it's the truth for me. the fact that it's bsd based is a dream and the fact that i can access the terminal to do tasks is very new to me as windows didn't really offer it. the look is sleek, as with the powerbook itself and i can't say i'm happier with a machine.

i didn't buy this machine because apple is "cool," but a lot of "hip" people seem to because it is the new fad and whatnot. there are a lot of mac elitists who are too eager to praise apple and it's pretty ridiculous. same goes with pc people who bash apple all the time. people have biases and opinions, so be it. it's not even an important topic. if you have the money to purchase a 17" powerbook, do so if you wish, i'm happy with my purchase and am going to be an apple enthusiast for some time.

Alte22a
Jul 19, 2003, 03:57 AM
Hey guys!! We are here for contructed crit.... just listen to others stand back and relax. I think the 17" PB is GREAT!! We are in Digital retouch. Since the arrival of the 17" PB gone are the days of Lugging G4 PM up and down studios. These babies save our lives as an assistant. I love them. Dont think they are too big or heavy and the screen is the perfect sizes. currently I am a 15"ownly not really tempted to get a new 17" but have been using them and find them superb. Not as bad as I imagine.

What I figure is either you go with Macs or PCs because shelling out on 2 sets of Software doesnt make sense. I mean why jump to PCs because they are offering a better offer at the moment, then switch back to macs when macs are having a goo day. Switching Software must be super expensive... and a pain in the arse!! what I work on and at my work place is just mac based, period. We dont give a monkeys what happens else where cause we dont (business sense). We only care about whats new from Apple...

temptatino
Jul 19, 2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by HasanDaddy
I hope you guys don't mind me getting involved ---

For $3,300, this is what I can do on a Mac -

1. Edit videos over FCP, the BEST video editing software in the world!

2. Catalog photos on iPhoto and easily post them on the web

3. Catalong my tunes on iTunes and easily buy music from the Music Store

4. Burn an AWESOME DVD with professional iDVD backrounds

5. Plug my computer into the Television, through S-VIDEO, and admire my filmmaking over the Big Screen!

6. Have an AWESOME wireless internet DISTANCE (thank you Airport Extreme)

7. Create my own music over SoundTrack

....and more

For $2,200, this is what I could do with a PeeCee:

1. I could attempt to edit videos.... first I would have to purchase a $1,000+ software, if not more..... and take forever to learn an awkward, PC, interface of video editing

2. I can't even catalog photos on a PeeCee --- I could keep them in a folder though, and make the thumbnails look like pics, and pretend that its iPhoto Beta

3. Catalog music on a PeeCee??? I haven't even figured out how to encode a CD on those things! And there is no music store - I'll have to fiddle with Gnuttella

4. Burn a CD? First I'll have to buy Toast or something..... but that doesn't even have the professional themes of iTunes.... plus, Apple's DVD-R's are the most universal, according to DV.com....

5. I don't know of any PC laptop that I can plug into my TV, through a simple S-Video cable....

6. Yes we have wireless on these computers..... but their distance doesn't seem to be very good

7. I can't create ANY unlicensed music on WinDoZe!!!

So yes --- for $2200, you do get a faster computer, but you lose out on -

1. Better applications/software

2. More options and more inputs (S-Video)

Lastly --- sure its fast..... but I can see myself wasting time trying to get the PC to work right, then I would waiting for my Mac to render a video.......

In my opinion, Macs make my productivity MUCH MORE faster --- and with processor speeds in mind, that makes all my work much faster

This is crap, dude. I have used many, many pcs to do all of the things you listed. You think a pc can't catalog a few photos?? (The good news for macs is that there is good software is built-in. The bad news is that you'll still be spending a few hundred to $1000 for the 'pro' versions.) The list goes on.. There are even many pc laptops with s-video output.

The real difference is not that the mac does things that a pc can't, or that it does them 'faster'.. It's that it does them without windows. Windows is what makes a crappy pc crappy. Windows is what crashes your software, resets your active desktop, drains your system resources, screws up your networking, screws up your files, screws up your life. Believe me, I've owned a lot of pcs and a lot of macs. My girlfriend still owns a pc (those she'd switch if she had that cash). That beast of a sony vaio belongs in a lake of fire for all of the frustration it causes her.

So I agree that the mac laptop is better, just don't lie about what a pc can do. People who use pcs will know that you're lying.

Daveman Deluxe
Jul 19, 2003, 11:22 AM
The 17" uses outdated hardware. There is no way to claim otherwise. However, OSX runs so clean and fast compared to Windows that it more than makes up for the difference in hardware power.

Something to chew on:
When on my iBook 700 doing nothing (no apps loading, not typing, like I'm reading a web page) the CPU is around 1-2%. On the Athlon 1.6 GHz (which SHOULD be a faster processor), under the same conditions (except I am using Windows), the CPU usage hovers around 15-20%, wich spikes into the 90% range every few seconds.

DHagan4755
Jul 19, 2003, 12:05 PM
It's not "outdated." It's just old. For all intents and purposes all of the PowerBooks are 9 months old, even though the 12- and 17-inch models use a faster system bus. The 867 and 1 GHz processors were introduced with the Titanium PowerBooks on November 6, 2002. So those processors have been around that long.

As far as the 17-inch PowerBook, you can now get it for $2,999 at the Apple Store for Education. But why get the 17-inch PB for $2,999 when you can get a Dual 2 GHz G5 + a Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 17-inch Flat CRT for $2,874 at the Apple Store for Education? Seems to me the price is still too high for the 17-inch PB given what it offers.

BWhaler
Jul 20, 2003, 07:49 PM
I agree with the original post.

I own the 17"PB, and it is amazing. I love the machine, the speed, the elegance. It always gets a reaction and a lot of questions where ever I take it.

I travel all the time. 100,000+ mile per year. I've got a good bag for it, and will gladly take lugging the extra couple of pounds through the occassional trek through the airport for the extra screen which I get to enjoy all the time.

Sure, it's not right for everyone, and a Mac is a personal choice. But in my experience, most people, including those in this thread, who say it is too big, don't actually own one.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 10:27 AM
The 17" Powerbook uses outdated hardware

Very funny. How outdated is Firewire 800? It can achieve 3200 Mbps with the proper length cable and is backward compatible to the original Firewire spec.

How outdated is Gigabit ethernet?

How outdated is a notebook that lasts 5 hours of battery on a 17" LCD without adding an external pad battery?

Only one other notebook offers a 17" LCD with 16 x 10 ratio and weighs 2 additional pounds and still doesn't offer the previous capabilities.

Bluetooth - built-in
IEEE 802.11g - built-in

On other points, both Firewire ports offer the ability to power external firewire devices without the 4 pin nonsense Firewire that Sony puts in their notebooks.

Superdrive is built-in though yes other companies offer built-in Superdrives in their notebooks. Still none is as easy to use as Apple's iDVD.

A Powerbook can run both Windows XP with emulation and Mac OS X. Also you can run XWindows without having to reboot.

A Windows PC, you may be able to run XP, but you can't run higher than Mac OS 8.1.

Ah yes, outdated hardware. If a PC notebook offered that many features in a package than is under 7 lbs, I'd go for it. But it doesn't at less than $3000.

And regardless of what you say, the 1 Ghz G4 is still faster than any PC processor out there. Just look at the MTOPs rating here:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Not to mention the Powerbook's software is able to get the job done quicker because it is easier to use.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by gopher
And regardless of what you say, the 1 Ghz G4 is still faster than any PC processor out there.


You just invalidated everything you said by making that statement.

The 1GHz G4 faster than a 3GHz P4? lmfao! Now that's funny.

I love the 17" Powerbook, but it's nowhere near the speed of a 3GHz Wintel laptop. Perhaps when the G5 laptops come out they might produce something faster, but right now, the G4 is slow.

That discussion has been had 100 times before and even Mac users (who've used a 3GHz Wintel laptop) admit that it's much faster than the 1GHz G4.

I was agreeing with everything you said up until that statement. If I were to choose, I would still buy a 17" PB over any Wintel laptop out there, but I certainly wouldn't be under the illusion that the 1GHz G4 would be faster than a Wintel 3GHz.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Source
You just invalidated everything you said by making that statement.

The 1GHz G4 faster than a 3GHz P4? lmfao! Now that's funny.

I love the 17" Powerbook, but it's nowhere near the speed of a 3GHz Wintel laptop. Perhaps when the G5 laptops come out they might produce something faster, but right now, the G4 is slow.

That discussion has been had 100 times before and even Mac users (who've used a 3GHz Wintel laptop) admit that it's much faster than the 1GHz G4.

I was agreeing with everything you said up until that statement. If I were to choose, I would still buy a 17" PB over any Wintel laptop out there, but I certainly wouldn't be under the illusion that the 1GHz G4 would be faster than a Wintel 3GHz.
That statement is true, and I'll stand by it. The benchmarks show that in everything except Adobe Premier it is faster.

beefcake
Jul 21, 2003, 12:33 PM
Last night I had the opportunity to play around with my friends Inspiron 5100 and can't say I would ever buy one myself. Although I wasn't running resource demanding programs, his 2.4 Ghz P4 didn't seem any faster than the 1.3 I have on my desktop. On top of that, the thing weighed over 8 lbs., was very bulky, and had a battery life of 2 hours.

It may have a fast benchmark, but I don't plan on playing Quake 3.

Likvid
Jul 21, 2003, 01:31 PM
Actually PC hardware is the winning factor between Mac and PC.

You can build a machine to your exact specifications with a PC.

Also, i don't really understand why people is saying the Apple Cinema Display range are so good, not even Apple is stating the specification for these displays, are they hiding the real response times for them?

I can buy Samsung 24" LCD which got much higher specifications than the Apple Cinema Display range, not to say the much lower response times.

I get the thinking that Apple users set the design as number one priority and performance second.

Design is not helping you to be more productive, performance does, and today a dual Xeon 3.06GHz machine with SCSI RAID is the workhorse to buy.

Correct me if i am wrong but i think i am telling some truth into it.

No doubt Apple got real nice design and the G5 is nice but you don't get the freedom as you get with a PC you built yourself.

If you are a non-technical person, go for Apple or PC, doesn't matter to you......;)


Not to mention the freedom to run almost any OS you want on your x86 hardware.

Actually you can make a screaming dual Xeon with FreeBSD better and faster than a Mac with MacOSX.

Don't mention Windows XP or any other alternative as i can agree with most of you that Windows is NOT freedom and it's boring to use, but Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft released compared to their older releases.

However, that doesn't make Microsoft any good.

You guys still use Microsoft software on your Macs, why?

If you have a Mac and run MacOSX, then you shouldn't install Microsoft Office or whatever, i don't get it:o

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
1.6 centrino is around 2.6 P4. Even on laptops it will smoke any current G4. Give me a break.
Second PBook pushes out 75 fps in q3, it even says on apple website. so get quiet there with your 170.
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/graphics.html

And PC dies 1-2 years LOL, you really dont know crap then. I know people who are still using 166mhz p1 laptops ok?
And, C'mon tell me that Pbook is faster for games than centrino. I dare you to say and prove that. Damn crappy Unreal Tournament requires G4 733 and runs like **** on on 733.
While if you have 850Mhz Athlon, you can smoke people in that game no problem.
PC laptops > Mac laptops
From speed factor.
And if you just refuse to realize and see that. We don't even need to continue that conversation. Feel they way you want. Im standing behing everything I said.
Period.
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but even though the Centrino at 1.6 smokes the PowerBook at 1.0 ghz, the integrated graphics chipset shares it's graphics memory with main system memory and will blow chunks on games compared to the ATI Radeon 9000 or GeForce 440 MX that is in the PowerBooks...

For raw processing power, sure, the Centrino kicks ass, but this system is not designed to be a gaming machine. It's designed to run MS Office and other 2D applications at a high rate of speed and still give you 6 hours of battery life. The PowerBooks are designed to be well-rounded notebooks, and Apple doesn't skimp on third-rate components like Gateway seems to do. At least compare Apples to well... Dells or something with a decent GPU chipset.

Oh, and chill out just a little bit... you'll live longer if you don't give yourself a brain aneurism at such a young age... ;)

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by HasanDaddy
For $3,300, this is what I can do on a Mac -
<snip>
For $2,200, this is what I could do with a PeeCee:
<snip>
Bad examples. You can do all of those tasks on a PC or a Mac. Just because you are more comfortable with one platform doesn't mean that other people work the same way.

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by gopher
That statement is true, and I'll stand by it. The benchmarks show that in everything except Adobe Premier it is faster.
Please, not this guy again... :rolleyes: Ohh... the humanity!

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Likvid

I can buy Samsung 24" LCD which got much higher specifications than the Apple Cinema Display range, not to say the much lower response times. [/B]

Yeah right. 24" LCD is NOT a notebook. This thread is discussing notebooks, not LCD machines. Oh and as for the Samsung, does it have Colorsync compatibility? Does it come with 1920 x 1200 resolution at $2000 for the consumer with a digital display adapter? Let's see here:

http://www.nextag.com/Samsung_24IN_LCD_27MM~2978087z0znzzz1zzsamsung_lcdzmainz2-htm

$2599
($2521 cash price at Infinity Micro)
1 inch more on the LCD costs $500 more? Come on now!

Same resolution as Apple's display yet over a wider area. Oh and yes, Apple actually uses Samsung to make their displays.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by gopher
That statement is true, and I'll stand by it. The benchmarks show that in everything except Adobe Premier it is faster.

Gopher, no it's not true.

I've seen benchmarks at xlr8yourmac.com where they tested a 800MHz G4 Powerbook vs an 800MHz P3 latop, where the G4 was marginally better than the P3 - Which is great! When it comes to MHz to MHz tests, the G4 wins. But a 3GHz Pentium smokes a 1GHz G4 and I'd love to see these Benchmarks of yours to prove otherwise.

Unless, that is, everything that you've been stating as "the truth" was merely "a lie".

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Source
Gopher, no it's not true.

I've seen benchmarks at xlr8yourmac.com where they tested a 800MHz G4 Powerbook vs an 800MHz P3 latop, where the G4 was marginally better than the P3 - Which is great! When it comes to MHz to MHz tests, the G4 wins. But a 3GHz Pentium smokes a 1GHz G4 and I'd love to see these Benchmarks of yours to prove otherwise.

Unless, that is, everything that you've been stating as "the truth" was merely "a lie".

Oh no, if a processor can handle that kind of floating point calculation, all the developer has to do is optimize for the processor. In those cases where benchmarks are not accurately portraying what the processor is doing, the developer needs to optimize their program better. If we are going to honestly consider what is a faster processor, faster, we need to look at where having a faster processor is of greatest advantage. If your floating point calculations are faster, then that is of great advantage. The 1 Ghz G4 is clearly faster in floating point calculations. A lot of slowdown you experience is either due to a mismatch in terms of how fast the program writes data to chip hardware vs. hard disks, or how long the process is stuck in the processor and unable to return to where it is needed, and that is by the program in memory. Both the shorter pipelines and fewer pipelines of the G4 give it a much greater advantage over any Pentium IV. Not to mention the fact that floating point calculations can be calculated a lot faster on a G4. If you find software that isn't optimized for the Mac, write the developer your dismay at their lack of programming effort to optimize for the Mac. Premier clearly was on the back burner for Adobe a long time ago when it came to Mac development as they let its optimization slide when compared to PCs. And now they are no longer developing Premier for the Mac thanks to Final Cut Express's undercutting Premier's price. Thus I would say that any lack of speed noticed on the Mac is due to developer's lack of optimization, and not due to the processor being "old hardware" as some people are trying to claim. The G4 is quite capable of outmuscling all Pentiums, even at 1 Ghz as the MTOP rating clearly shows. Are developers optimizing their code enough for the Mac? In some cases yes, and in some cases no. That is my whole argument is that the hardware is by no means outdated. Mac users have not demanded enough of the developers for them to listen all the time when their code does not meet the speed standards that Mac users want. We have to stop thinking in terms of Mhz, and start looking at the actual advantages the G4 and G5 give us, and demand from developers better code if we are to get code that is as up to date as our hardware.

Likvid
Jul 21, 2003, 02:39 PM
gopher:

Actually you are wrong, LG makes Apple's Cinema Displays and not Samsung.

Why are Apple not showing the specs for their displays?

If the response times are so great, why hide it for the customer?

If i buy the 23" Apple Display i want to know the real specifications, this is not a smart move from Apple for an eventual switcher.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Oh no, if a processor can handle that kind of floating point calculation...

I'm sorry, but:

1. Where are the links to the benchmarks you spoke of?

2. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

3. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

Likvid
Jul 21, 2003, 02:49 PM
This is interesting, i would love to see the difference in time it takes to compile the kernel on identical installed Linux notebooks, the G4 1GHz and the Centrino 1.6GHz.

Anyone here who can make this test, that way we know exactly how much slower the G4 is and we can make our descision based on that.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Source
I'm sorry, but:

1. Where are the links to the benchmarks you spoke of?

2. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

3. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

I gave those benchmarks earlier in the thread:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
gopher:

Actually you are wrong, LG makes Apple's Cinema Displays and not Samsung.

Why are Apple not showing the specs for their displays?

If the response times are so great, why hide it for the customer?

If i buy the 23" Apple Display i want to know the real specifications, this is not a smart move from Apple for an eventual switcher.
LG makes those displays? Hrmm...then what happened to Apple's displays being made by Samsung. I seem to remember that Samsung was making at least the Flat Panel iMac displays.

I checked the specs and you are right that they don't show response times. However they do show the color capabilities in the PDF documents at

http://www.apple.com/displays/

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is quite capable of outmuscling all Pentiums, even at 1 Ghz as the MTOP rating clearly shows.
Oh my god, please save us from this guy... Here he comes, emerging from the woodwork and spouting rabid zealotry as if he lives by the rule that "if you tell a lie enough times people will think it's the truth."

MTOPs are cleary Millions of Theoretical Operations per Second. Who gives a flying **** if the wheels on my car can spin at a theoretical 500 mph while it's up on blocks. All that matters is how fast it can go on real roads and real world situations.

To use the above example, if your car doesn't perform very well, do you call the government and complain that they should redesign all of the roads in the country so that your car can travel faster on them? Hell no.

Repeat after me: The only benchmarks that matter are the applications that you run on a daily basis.


mod edit...watch the language...this is your only warning...

ibookin'
Jul 21, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
Actually PC hardware is the winning factor between Mac and PC.

You can build a machine to your exact specifications with a PC.

Also, i don't really understand why people is saying the Apple Cinema Display range are so good, not even Apple is stating the specification for these displays, are they hiding the real response times for them?

I can buy Samsung 24" LCD which got much higher specifications than the Apple Cinema Display range, not to say the much lower response times.

I get the thinking that Apple users set the design as number one priority and performance second.

Design is not helping you to be more productive, performance does, and today a dual Xeon 3.06GHz machine with SCSI RAID is the workhorse to buy.

Correct me if i am wrong but i think i am telling some truth into it.

No doubt Apple got real nice design and the G5 is nice but you don't get the freedom as you get with a PC you built yourself.

If you are a non-technical person, go for Apple or PC, doesn't matter to you......;)


Not to mention the freedom to run almost any OS you want on your x86 hardware.

Actually you can make a screaming dual Xeon with FreeBSD better and faster than a Mac with MacOSX.

Don't mention Windows XP or any other alternative as i can agree with most of you that Windows is NOT freedom and it's boring to use, but Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft released compared to their older releases.

However, that doesn't make Microsoft any good.

You guys still use Microsoft software on your Macs, why?

If you have a Mac and run MacOSX, then you shouldn't install Microsoft Office or whatever, i don't get it:o

I use Microsoft software (Office) on my Mac because I have to be compatible with the thousands of PCs running Windows 2000 at my school.

The fact that I can build a PC myself is not enough reason for me to choose that over the Mac. I have built 2 PCs for my personal use and each one became a nightmare to use after 6 or so months. And, yes, they had dual boot Win 2K and Mandrake Linux.

These machines were Athlons, one 700MHz and one 1.46GHz (1700+), but the one that currently works (the 1700+) is not as enjoyable to use as my 700MHz G4 iMac or my 800MHz G3 iBook. I am more productive on my Macs because the OS is so much more fluid and intuitive. Sure, I can use Linux on my PC, but then I have to reboot or use WINE (or what have you) to run Office, which is essential to working in the Windows environment at my school. On my Mac, I have BSD and Office at the same time, both running natively.

What I do with my computer is helped more by a nice OS than it is helped by a Dual 3GHz machine. I need some power, but not that much.

You say that PCs are great because I have the freedom to run pretty much any OS I want, but PCs don't use the one OS I want to run the most, Mac OS X.

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
mod edit...watch the language...this is your only warning...
Sorry, didn't know it was inappropriate to use common misspellings of curse words.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Oh my god, please save us from this guy... Here he comes, emerging from the woodwork and spouting rabid zealotry as if he lives by the rule that "if you tell a lie enough times people will think it's the truth."

MTOPs are cleary Millions of Theoretical Operations per Second. Who gives a flying fsck if the wheels on my car can spin at a theoretical 500 mph while it's up on blocks. All that matters is how fast it can go on real roads and real world situations.

To use the above example, if your car doesn't perform very well, do you call the government and complain that they should redesign all of the roads in the country so that your car can travel faster on them? Hell no.

Repeat after me: The only benchmarks that matter are the applications that you run on a daily basis.

Not if those applications don't know how to utilize the processor in the most efficient way. We need to demand that the processor be used more and the hard disk less. Those MTOPS are good enough for the U.S. Government to consider whether or not to call the machines Supercomputers or not and allow or not allow export of those machines. It isn't as if those MTOPS are derived out of the blue. How else do you explain Genentech's Blast and RC5 going 4 to 5 times faster on a G4 than a Pentium IV? No, I'm sorry, but those theoretical calculations have been achieved in highly optimized applications. It is obvious programmers are not doing enough to optimize their applications. How long will it take before all applications are optimized for 64 bit? Well I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of the application benchmarks, because they are benchmarking applications that haven't done enough to be optimized for the G4s capabilities. Those that have, like Photoshop clearly have shown themselves superior in Apple's own benchmarks. And now with the G5, you have all the additional programs whose benchmarks proved faster at the WWDC conference. The more we get optimized applications, the less we can ignore the facts that the G4 is much faster than any Pentium IV or AMD and so is the G5. Inch for inch, those Apple desktop and notebook processors are much more efficient, and much faster than the PC counterparts at the same price. Unfortunately not enough software developers believe it enough to develop their code more for the G4 and G5. Granted how fast can you really type on a word processor (only as fast as you can type)? How fast can you really push a web browser (only as fast as the internet connection). There are variables for which the most common use of the machine is not determined by the processor, but the person behind the keyboard or the peripherals that are attached. You can attach faster peripherals to Macs, namely built-in Gigabit ethernet, built-in Firewire 800 on those 17" Powerbooks, and even Firewire 400 in everyday use is faster than USB 2, even though USB 2 is spec'ed higher. The point I'm trying to make is that if you really want to benchmark applications against hardware, you have to take the hardware to its most basic level, and what it can do at its most basic level. That's before any code attempts to program the process through. And if you don't believe the G4 is faster, that's your perogative, but nothing will make me believe otherwise.

eyelikeart
Jul 21, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Sorry, didn't know it was inappropriate to use common misspellings of curse words.

maybe u should read the rules that are posted at the top of every thread AND also linked up in each reply page...

arn
Jul 21, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
maybe u should read the rules that are posted at the top of every thread AND also linked up in each reply page...

this had become a touchy issue especially because in the past -- one user who kept pushing it, and eventually left (partially) because of my constant re-editing of his messages.

don't mean to sound harsh - but for consistency sake, we try to stick to it.

arn

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by gopher
I gave those benchmarks earlier in the thread:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Gopher, MTOPS mean nothing in real time terms - If you measure the actual speed of a 1GHz G4 vs a 3GHz P4, at running applications, you'll see that the 1GHz G4 is far far slower than a 3GHz P4.

Originally posted by gopher
We need to demand that the processor be used more and the hard disk less.

lmfao - Funny. Who are you going to demand to and why should they listen to you?

As I said before:

1. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

2. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

Sorry Gopher, but you've made it obvious that you're a Mac zealot who will believe anything you read with regard to Macs being 'faster' than PCs and disregard anything you read that says PCs are faster than Macs.

It's pointless in having a conversation with someone like you on this subject, because you have no proof to back up your claims, except an article that talks about theoretical speeds that don't work the same way in the real world.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Source
Gopher, MTOPS mean nothing in real time terms - If you measure the actual speed of a 1GHz G4 vs a 3GHz P4, at running applications, you'll see that the 1GHz G4 is far far slower than a 3GHz P4.



lmfao - Funny. Who are you going to demand to and why should they listen to you?

As I said before:

1. If a developer doesn't optimize their software for Mac, that's still a problem and still makes a Mac slower than a PC with that piece of software. Even with optimized software, a 1GHz Mac will be a lot slower than a 3GHz PC.

2. If Macs are still faster than PCs even with their 1GHz G4s vs the 3GHz Pentiums, why did Apple bother to make the change to IBM and the G5s?

Sorry Gopher, but you've made it obvious that you're a Mac zealot who will believe anything you read with regard to Mac being 'faster' than PCs and disregard anything you read that says PCs are faster than Macs.

It's pointless in having a conversation with someone like you on this subject, because you have no proof to back up your claims, except an article that talks about theoretical speeds that don't work the same way in the real world.

To answer #2 is quite simple. Enough Windows users are printing and saying FUD all over the place to claim that Mhz means everything. So Apple releases a G5 that has several specs that clearly are superior, and that is the 64 bitness of the G5, the faster 1 Ghz bus, the faster 8X AGP, the dual unidirectional buses preventing logjams from instructions going both directions simultaneously on the same bus, the upgradable to 8 GB of RAM and so many other facets, PC users are now jealous.

To answer number 1, that's where you and I disagree.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by gopher
To answer #2 is quite simple....

To answer number 1, that's where you and I disagree.

How can you disagree with the fact that when a PC and Mac run the same application, the PC runs the application faster. It's a fact, you can't disagree with it. lol

#2 - That's stupid. If Apple just thought people cared about MHz then why didn't Apple have a processor created that was 4GHz?

WilliamGates
Jul 21, 2003, 03:56 PM
My last 2 PC laptops were about $3200 each and they were 10 Lb "top of the line" plastic, 15" screen desktop replacement laptops. Areas of the plastic would melt due to the heat and they were fan blowing noisy. The 17" is the most fun laptop I have ever owned. Just wish I could run OS9.

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Source
How can you disagree with the fact that when a PC and Mac run the same application, the PC runs the application faster. It's a fact, you can't disagree with it. lol

#2 - That's stupid. If Apple just thought people cared about MHz then why didn't Apple have a processor created that was 4GHz?

And where was Apple supposed to get a 4 Ghz processor to stop fears of potential switchers that it had fallen behind? It never did fall behind. It is the switcher who was never informed enough to realize that G4s are faster. Apple saught a compromise, and a very good one at that I might add.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by WilliamGates
My last 2 PC laptops were about $3200 each and they were 10 Lb "top of the line" plastic, 15" screen desktop replacement laptops. Areas of the plastic would melt due to the heat and they were fan blowing noisy. The 17" is the most fun laptop I have ever owned. Just wish I could run OS9.

Congrats, man! I agree, It's an incredible machine, I hope you enjoy it. :)

Originally posted by gopher
And where was Apple supposed to get a 4 Ghz processor to stop fears of potential switchers that it had fallen behind? It never did fall behind. It is the switcher who was never informed enough to realize that G4s are faster. Apple saught a compromise, and a very good one at that I might add.

I completely agree with you that it was an excellent move by Apple to get together with IBM to release the G5. But if switchers only cared about MHz as you stated two posts ago, then that still doesn't answer why they only went for a 2GHz processor.

An Apple DID fall behind. Applications ran far slower on the fastest Mac when compared to the fastes PCs. That means that Macs fell behind.

Oh and you completely avoided question 1, but I don't blame you.

ZildjianKX
Jul 21, 2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by gopher
To answer #2 is quite simple. Enough Windows users are printing and saying FUD all over the place to claim that Mhz means everything. So Apple releases a G5 that has several specs that clearly are superior...the faster 8X AGP

Ummm... I've had 8X AGP for almost a year...

gopher
Jul 21, 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Ummm... I've had 8X AGP for almost a year...

Really? My system administrator friend of mine must really be behind the times. He was really surprised to hear of AGP 8X.

Source
Jul 21, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Really? My system administrator friend of mine must really be behind the times. He was really surprised to hear of AGP 8X.

Yah, that's a good point, actually. AGP 8X has been out for a very long time.

Rezet
Jul 22, 2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by arn
this had become a touchy issue especially because in the past -- one user who kept pushing it, and eventually left (partially) because of my constant re-editing of his messages.

don't mean to sound harsh - but for consistency sake, we try to stick to it.

arn


Isn't it a bit harsh to ban people for using curses that fit into context and are filtered anyways?
I personally don't care for curses at all, especially if all you see is "stars", but i didnt write the rules.
Maybe you could just silence people for lets say 24 hours if they used 2 or more curses in 1 thread?
Just a friendly suggestion...

arn
Jul 22, 2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
Isn't it a bit harsh to ban people for using curses that fit into context and are filtered anyways?

I don't mind if they are filtered. The filter is there for that exact purpose. And honestly, I personally don't care about most curses in general... but other people do... and it's not that much of a strain on people - since they don't really have to watch what they say (within reason) - since the filter catches it anyway.

The problem is when people go out of their way to circumvent the filter.

for example: fün instead of fun.

arn