Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wireless Buddy

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 8, 2007
199
0
Baltimore, Maryland
Yes, I know, a little late, but I still use this computer and I'm bored, so here we go.

- 14" iBook feels thinner.

- While the 14" iBook and the 12" iBook have the same resolution, the 14" iBook has a bigger screen so text is easier to read.

- The 14" iBook is easier to use because the keyboard isn't jammed up against the side of the laptop.

- The 14" iBook looks better because everything (speakers, trackpad, keyboard) isn't crammed onto the surface. The 14" looks/feels comfortable and natural. The 12" looks/feels crowded.



Feel free to add to the list.
 

heatmiser

macrumors 68020
Dec 6, 2007
2,431
0
- While the 14" iBook and the 12" iBook have the same resolution, the 14" iBook has a bigger screen so text is easier to read.

I'd rather have the 12" than the 14" for precisely this reason. In the same vein I prefer my 13" 1280x800 laptop to either of the 15.4" 1280x800 laptops I previously owned.
 

Tom B.

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2006
1,459
0
London
- 14" iBook feels thinner.
But isn't.
- While the 14" iBook and the 12" iBook have the same resolution, the 14" iBook has a bigger screen so text is easier to read.
12" has higher pixel density, and 14" has bigger pixels, meaning the 12" screen is sharper.
- The 14" iBook is easier to use because the keyboard isn't jammed up against the side of the laptop.
How does that affect ease of use?
- The 14" iBook looks better because everything (speakers, trackpad, keyboard) isn't crammed onto the surface. The 14" looks/feels comfortable and natural. The 12" looks/feels crowded.
Or you could say the 14" is unnecessarily large with no real benefits over the 12" model. :)
 

Wireless Buddy

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 8, 2007
199
0
Baltimore, Maryland
But isn't.
It may be the same thickness, but it feels and looks thinner, and that's important. If you don't care how thin your laptop looks, use a circa 1997 ThinkPad.

12" has higher pixel density, and 14" has bigger pixels, meaning the 12" screen is sharper.
It may be sharper, but the text is still smaller, so some people would prefer this over the smaller text of the 12"

How does that affect ease of use?
You can spread out your hands. Have you ever used a 14"? It is easier.

Or you could say the 14" is unnecessarily large with no real benefits over the 12" model. :)
I disagree.
 

mosx

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2007
1,465
3
And my MacBook is better than both 12" and 14" iBooks put together, so? :rolleyes:

Unless you want to play a game or do some 3D rendering. The last generation of iBooks with the Radeon 9550 will mop the floor with any of the MacBooks and Mac minis thanks to the horrible GMA 950 and X3100.
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,731
63
Russia
Unless you want to play a game or do some 3D rendering. The last generation of iBooks with the Radeon 9550 will mop the floor with any of the MacBooks and Mac minis thanks to the horrible GMA 950 and X3100.

Sure, but thanks to the horribly slow G4 processors iBooks run some games at the same speed and some much slower (Knights of the Old Republic, UT2004) than MacBooks.

Tried and tested :) But you are right: in terms of the pure GPU performance in 3D Radeon 9550 > GMA.
 

wordmunger

macrumors 603
Sep 3, 2003
5,124
3
North Carolina
The 14-inch iBook (which I have) is better as a desktop-replacement computer. But now that I have an iMac as my primary computer, I find myself wishing the iBook was smaller. Since I don't have to stare at that screen all day, I wouldn't mind it being a little smaller (with the same resolution).

Now I'm just waiting for it to die so I can get myself an MBA. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) that probably won't happen for another couple years.
 

idonotliketostu

macrumors 6502
Feb 28, 2008
398
0
Yes, I know, a little late, but I still use this computer and I'm bored, so here we go.

- 14" iBook feels thinner.

- While the 14" iBook and the 12" iBook have the same resolution, the 14" iBook has a bigger screen so text is easier to read.

- The 14" iBook is easier to use because the keyboard isn't jammed up against the side of the laptop.

- The 14" iBook looks better because everything (speakers, trackpad, keyboard) isn't crammed onto the surface. The 14" looks/feels comfortable and natural. The 12" looks/feels crowded.



Feel free to add to the list.

:D

-Your 14" feels heavier.
-While they have the same resolution, the 14" in blurrier.
-The 12" is easier to use because its oh so portable
-12" looks better because it comes in a sexy tiny package much like the sexy 12" pb. The 14" looks bloated.

You should change the title to why i THINK my 14 is better than 12
because this is so subjective
 

OrangeSVTguy

macrumors 601
Sep 16, 2007
4,127
69
Northeastern Ohio
Yes I prefer the 12" as well. Kinda weird how apple would put the same guts into a larger package? Doesn't that really go against technological advances when putting the same electronics into smaller packages?

Besides a 2" bigger screen is measured diagonally so the vertical increase isn't really that much so your bigger text isn't so much bigger and the dot pitch is actually bigger so I think images and/or text will look more jagged.
 

mosx

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2007
1,465
3
Sure, but thanks to the horribly slow G4 processors iBooks run some games at the same speed and some much slower (Knights of the Old Republic, UT2004) than MacBooks.

Tried and tested :) But you are right: in terms of the pure GPU performance in 3D Radeon 9550 > GMA.

I haven't had the same experience.

I had a 1.1GHz Celeron (Coppermine core) overclocked to 1.2GHz (blazingly fast 112MHz FSB) and a Radeon 9550.

UT2004 was able to pull off 60fps at 800x600 full details. HL2 ran the same.

However, my MacBook w/C2D at 2.16GHz, GMA 950, XP SP2 with Boot Camp 2.0 drivers can't even choke out 30fps at medium settings and 800x600 resolution in UT2004. HL2 will only run if I use a bunch of different commands to force different DirectX modes and tone the details down. But even then, low settings at 800x600 equals a slideshow in many cases. The videos on youtube of people playing Half-Life 2 are all a fluke. They show the "good" scenes where there are no performance drops and fail to mention the awfully low detail settings.

The last generation iBook is definitely a better "gaming machine" than ANY generation of the MacBook or Mac mini.
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,731
63
Russia
I haven't had the same experience.

I had a 1.1GHz Celeron (Coppermine core) overclocked to 1.2GHz (blazingly fast 112MHz FSB) and a Radeon 9550.

UT2004 was able to pull off 60fps at 800x600 full details. HL2 ran the same.

However, my MacBook w/C2D at 2.16GHz, GMA 950, XP SP2 with Boot Camp 2.0 drivers can't even choke out 30fps at medium settings and 800x600 resolution in UT2004. HL2 will only run if I use a bunch of different commands to force different DirectX modes and tone the details down. But even then, low settings at 800x600 equals a slideshow in many cases. The videos on youtube of people playing Half-Life 2 are all a fluke. They show the "good" scenes where there are no performance drops and fail to mention the awfully low detail settings.

The last generation iBook is definitely a better "gaming machine" than ANY generation of the MacBook or Mac mini.

What map/number of bots and benchmarking app did you use for UT2004? I would like to try it on my MacBook.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.