1.5 vs 1.67 PBs - maccentral suggests little difference

jsw · Feb 12, 2005

John Rivers said:
So, should I just jump on these new powerbooks now and enjoy the final G4 powerbook in all its updated revised and perfected glory, or wait a few months till a *new* powerbook be released and take my chances there? Opinions? Thanks

I think the fun of using it for six or more months before any announcement will more than outweigh the joy of waiting forever to receive the Rev A release of a fundamentally new PB. Of course, you can always sell your G4 PB and buy a new one later on.

deputy_doofy · Feb 12, 2005

bbyrdhouse said:
I ordered my very first Mac on February 7, 2005. And it was a Powerbook 15", 1.67 maxed out with edu pricing. I have been like a kid waiting on Christmas ever since I ordered it, but as I read these threads I begin to wonder if the $2,500.00 I just spent was a waste.

But I read other threads and folks are as excited about the new releases as others are diappointed.

Since this is my first Mac I for one have decided that I will be excited and happy.

You definitely should be happy. Most of the people who are upset are/were hoping for desktop alternative Powerbooks, which of course, don't exist yet - any may not exist for some time.
The current crop of Powerbooks are definitely a good offering for someone new to the Powerbook line.
For someone linke me who has a 12" Powerbook @ 1GHz (133MHz FSB), there's no significant reason to upgrade.
I will tell you, though, that I love this Powerbook. And that makes me think you will like your that much more. It's got many more cool features.

berner · Feb 12, 2005

sortof

BenRoethig said:
The 7448 is a regular G4 with another Bus bump. There won't be much of speed increase until the 8600 series or another all new design is fielded.

you are right, its not a new chip or anything, its is a slightly optimized g4 with 200mhz bus, the best part though is it is manufactured using the 90 nm process. this i'll be a clue that the e600 chips are on their way. also smaller process means less power consumption and heat (something that matters to me as a laptop user) and a bit more room to ramp up the clock speed( at least ti'll the power consumption and heat profile get back into the present ballpark of the 7447a).
i am as anxious as the rest of you to be blown away by the next generation PB, i just would have liked the 7448 to finish the line for this gen. of g4 PBs

billystlyes · Feb 12, 2005

I know everyone wants the G5 in the Powerbook. Apple and news reports have blamed heat but what about battery life? What kind of battery life would the G5 get? Moving forward I bet they pop a Dual-Core G4 in it before the G5. These updates were nice but there was no big performance upgrade. The G4 looks stretched out to it's end with performance.

Mainyehc · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
Therefore, what exactly is the $500 difference between the ibook 12" and the pbook 12"?

Lets see:

Same resolution screen

Wrong! The 12'' PowerBook's screen resolution is actually the same as the 14'' iBook...

manu chao · Feb 12, 2005

berner said:
you are right, its not a new chip or anything, its is a slightly optimized g4 with 200mhz bus, the best part though is it is manufactured using the 90 nm process. this i'll be a clue that the e600 chips are on their way. also smaller process means less power consumption and heat (something that matters to me as a laptop user) and a bit more room to ramp up the clock speed( at least ti'll the power consumption and heat profile get back into the present ballpark of the 7447a).
i am as anxious as the rest of you to be blown away by the next generation PB, i just would have liked the 7448 to finish the line for this gen. of g4 PBs

To repeat myself, a 2.0 Ghz 7448 based Powerbook with 20% faster FSB (2.5 Ghz Dual has a 25% faster bus, and everybody says this is quite noticeably) in about 4 - 5 months from now would be very welcome (to me at least). Much better than a 11% faster processor with the same FSB in 9 months.

But I guess some people in this forum would not be too happy.

manu chao · Feb 12, 2005

Mainyehc said:
Wrong! The 12'' PowerBook's screen resolution is actually the same as the 14'' iBook...

All the iBooks and the 12" Powerbook have the same resolution 768x1024. But as others have pointed out, it is $300 not $500 if account for bigger harddrive etc.

Mainyehc · Feb 12, 2005

therevolution said:
Then stop whining and buy another laptop.

Oh, shut up! You should have said instead "Then stop whining and buy a PeeCee laptop"... He's right, you know?

Everyone goes like this "oooh, Apple is very innovative and always ahead of the pack, and blah blah blah...". Ok, Apple pioneered FW 400, and USB, and now BT 2.0, and they were the first to kill floppy drives, etc... But hey, I'm seeing more and more cheap-O Wintel boxes equipped with Dual-Layer DVD burners... WTF?? How exactly is Apple ahead of its competition on that one?

I can accept that most Macs have smaller HDs than most PCs, yes. I can accept that the iPod's battery life is shorter than that of many other competitores, yes. I can even accept that most Macs come with less RAM than they should (since you can add cheaper, 3rd party RAM), yes. And I can even accept that Apple has SuperDrives slower than most DVD burners (mine is 4x, when most at that time were at 8x). But you know, making people wait SO LONG for a standard like that to appear on high-end products is not a great idea, IMHO.

Sure, 2005 will be the year of HD... How about DUAL-LAYER SuperDrives?? Will they skip those and go with BluRay or HD-DVD instead? Honestly, I don't care... Do you know that some G5 PowerMacs actually come with Dual-Layer SuperDrives, crippled by their firmware? HA...

And you know, I'm a Mac user and I expect that I won't buy a desktop or laptop PC anymore... But that doesn't make me an Apple zealot or something. In this case, I'm with those that think these upgrades are ridiculous, not because of the speed but because of the features. Those are what supposedly make up for the paltry speed bump, but I most digress, they aren't *enough*.

/rant

manu chao · Feb 12, 2005

Mainyehc said:
Oh, shut up! You should have said instead "Then stop whining and buy a PeeCee laptop"... He's right, you know?

Everyone goes like this "oooh, Apple is very innovative and always ahead of the pack, and blah blah blah...". Ok, Apple pioneered FW 400, and USB, and now BT 2.0, and they were the first to kill floppy drives, etc... But hey, I'm seeing more and more cheap-O Wintel boxes equipped with Dual-Layer DVD burners... WTF?? How exactly is Apple ahead of its competition on that one?

I can accept that most Macs have smaller HDs than most PCs, yes. I can accept that the iPod's battery life is shorter than that of many other competitores, yes. I can even accept that most Macs come with less RAM than they should (since you can add cheaper, 3rd party RAM), yes. And I can even accept that Apple has SuperDrives slower than most DVD burners (mine is 4x, when most at that time were at 8x). But you know, making people wait SO LONG for a standard like that to appear on high-end products is not a great idea, IMHO.

Sure, 2005 will be the year of HD... How about DUAL-LAYER SuperDrives?? Will they skip those and go with BluRay or HD-DVD instead? Honestly, I don't care... Do you know that some G5 PowerMacs actually come with Dual-Layer SuperDrives, crippled by their firmware? HA...

And you know, I'm a Mac user and I expect that I won't buy a desktop or laptop PC anymore... But that doesn't make me an Apple zealot or something. In this case, I'm with those that think these upgrades are ridiculous, not because of the speed but because of the features. Those are what supposedly make up for the paltry speed bump, but I most digress, they aren't *enough*.

/rant

O.k. Apple was slow to offer 100 GB drives (as they were easily available even to end-users already last summer), but that is they only example, I can think of, of them having smaller HDs on offer than the competition.

I also don't know whether slot-loading Dual-Layer drives are already available.

The general problem is that Apple updates its hardware only every 6 to 11 months. If some new technology becomes available inbetween these updates, Apple "cannot" incorporate them.
Reasons for this are:
- maintaining a simple, 'stable' product structure, in order not to confuse customers, making support and testing of new software easier and creating a clearly structured used computers market (fascilitating business for everyone,-> bigger market, possibly higher prices).
- helping marketing by having less but than rather 'big bang' announcements (who would write about adding BT 2.0 alone)
- simplifying logistics, reduced costs for fewer roll-outs of new computers

QCassidy352 · Feb 12, 2005

I agree that people are whinning and crying here for no reason at all. They are faster (if only a little), and have several other nice improvements all for less money than the previous generation. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

But I would also remind you that when the previous generation came out (1.33/1.5) people defending the upgrade said exactly the same things that are being said now - "not great, but a nice little bump; a good final revision before the G5s." Well, turns out that wasn't the final revision... dunno if this is, either. We can hope though.

mcgarry · Feb 12, 2005

edgarj said:
... [snip] The PC industry derives form from function, albeit with no attention to aesthetic or battery life. ...

edgarj, I do NOT disagree with your main points, at least in whole, but I just wanted to put an asterisk on this particular point. Historically, the PC industry also derives (their) form from (Apple's) form. Specifically, think of how hard it was to get a widescreen PC laptop before the TiBooks, or a 17" PC laptop before the AlBooks. None of the big guys, at least, were doing it, as best as I can remember. I just remember my PC-only friends in the laptop market and their inability to find these features in Dells, HPs, Sonys at the time, but do correct me if I'm wrong. I also remember DVD-burning in laptops being first in Apples, but again I could be mistaken. Maybe this all only applies to non-behemoth laptops or something-- I'm no PC history expert-- but I think there's at least some truth in this attempt of mine to muddy the waters. But yes, this is history, and I know you were more refering to the present.

My own limited experience with PC laptops (I've had two, but not since 2001), with a Fujitsu and a Sharp, is that their form also followed the function of being as cheaply made as possible. Or at least that's what I noticed when they were working.

So while I agree with you in general, I urge you to not cut it quite so cleanly when it comes to this form-follows-function stuff. For your uses, the PBs are inadequate, I am not disagreeing, but for other people, having a 17" laptop form that is 1" thick and gets reasonable battery life could actually be important parts of function, etc.

plinden · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
I agree though, we should definitely NOT compare ibook or powerbook to PC lappies, at which point they both look pathetic (and I'm an Apple fan). The next person to tell me that a G4 1.5 is anything CLOSE to a P-M 1.5 gets shot. Honestly.

It depends. No on would say that the G4 1.5 /chip/ is faster than the P-M 1.5 (or some would, but we can ignore them), but a computer is more than a chip.

I work mainly on an IBM T40p 1.6GHz P-M, doing mostly Java development, and in general I'm very pleased with it. But someone in another thread posted some Java compile times for some processors/OS combinations, and he got results something like 13 seconds for a T42P 1.6GHz (similar in specs to mine) running linux, and 26 seconds for a 1.5 G4 PowerBook

I ran the same compilation on my laptop, which uses WinXP pro, and guess what time I got - 28 seconds.

What the fsck? My laptop is slower at Java development than a 1.5 GHz Powerbook, even though Java on MaxOSX is generally considered to be slower than on other OSs?

The only way I could get the compile time lower was to switch off the virus checker - down to 17 seconds. But there's no way I'm connecting my PC to the outside world without a virus checker.

I don't really think I'll notice if the PB is slower than my current PC, and I'm very seriously considering getting one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I can persuade my wife (actually, I have a plan - I promised my wife a new laptop when she got a new job. She's close to that now, so I'll get her a 15" PB. If she doesn't like it, I'll take it. If she does like it, she'll insist that I get one too)

jsw · Feb 12, 2005

plinden said:
The only way I could get the compile time lower was to switch off the virus checker - down to 17 seconds. But there's no way I'm connecting my PC to the outside world with a virus checker.

That's why I'm getting a PB. Work provides me with a nice Dell with a beautiful screen. However, they also (a) buy 4200RPM drives for some unknown reason, (b) encrypt the whole thing, slowing it even more, (c) run God only knows what other stuff on it, and (d) wisely keep a virus checker on at all times. As a result, my fast laptop is a slow piece of crap.

If I bring another Windows system into work, it needs to have the same stuff on it or else I can't bring it in. If I bring a Mac in - at least now, before someone decides to muck with the policy - all I need to do is put any work items in an encrypted folder. 5400RPM drive (yes, yes, I know you can get faster PC disks, but not for me via work), no encryption on most stuff, no unknown services running, no anti-virus. As a result, my PB will run laps around a technically faster Wintel device. So, the new PBs at lower prices seem very attractive to me. Of course, I'd like dual-core and/or better screen res and/or a second mouse button, but I'll deal with it.

ThinkMatt · Feb 12, 2005

The Usual Comparisons

I see both sides of this discussion as viable. One thing that matters most is "how are you going to use it?" I saw one gentlemen compare his dual Xeon workstation to his PB. How is this remotely fair? Find me a PeeCee laptop that can even compare to that?

I also spec'd laptops at both IBM and Sony to find something comparable to a 17" laptop (as that is what I am sorta interested in right now). IBM couldn't come through as they didn't have anything that big. Sony was the closest. They had a 17" model and with a 1.7ghz P-M, 100gig hd, 1 gig RAM, etc. it was about $2700. With my edu pricing (and I know not everyone gets that, but for the sake of comparison), I can get a 17" PB with the same kind of specs for $2773.

The OS is really the intagible that makes this a coin toss. For MOST (not saying that ANY laptop can be a desktop replacement for high-end or dual machines) people either PC or PB laptops will suffice. If you want cheap, go with the iBook or low-end PC. If you want high end, there's a pretty good race between high end PC (laptops) and PB.

It's best to compare models (12" to 12", 15" to 15" and 17" to 17") to get a true feel of cost, features etc. I for one, am sold on the usage of the OS with my laptop. That's where the bargain and ROI is for me.

Oh, and a question? I have a 15", 1ghz TiBook. Would you recommend an upgrage this summer (education reasons) IF nothing better comes out at WWDC? (as i cant get it any sooner)

jsw · Feb 12, 2005

ThinkMatt said:
Oh, and a question? I have a 15", 1ghz TiBook. Would you recommend an upgrage this summer (education reasons) IF nothing better comes out at WWDC? (as i cant get it any sooner)

I'd wait at least that long. Your TiBook is slower than the current PBs, obviously, but not stunningly slower. If you wait, you know there will be an all-new PB out sooner or later. If there isn't one by WWDC, then there will be one in the fall, or winter, or whatever - but if you buy a new PB this summer (assuming no new releases up to that point), you'll kick yourself for not waiting. I have a 1999 400MHz G3 Lombard, so buying now works for me - I'm pretty sure I'll see a noticeable speed bump.

panphage · Feb 12, 2005

And I've got a 450Mhz Cube. I fell in love with the new EDIT: *i*Mac /EDIT (DOH!), but I just don't want a desktop anymore. So when the PB speedbump came out, I bit. I figure I'll get at least a year out of it, then unload it on ebay for whatever the "next generation" is--all I want is a faster bus! Oh, and actual DDR support.

And for those complaining about the speedbump, man, I've been using a 450mhz g4 and I've been damn happy with it. Of course, I'd probably be astounded by a Dual Opteron beastie...but I'm just not doing that much hardcore science.

Surreal · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
I personally couldn't care less about a G5 in a powerbook, but I >DO< care about a FSB increase. That is the real reason that a 1.6 G5 feels so much snappier than a 1.67 G4 (even though the G4 outperforms the G5)!
(cranky)

i reeally like what this one has to say. (it helps that i hold to this view

)

i will not buy a powerbook until the fsb is at least 533 for this very reason. i REALLY want one, but it wouldnt be a wise move on my part to buythis revision. while a rev a will have its issues, i work in audio and need the extra throughput for hard disc samplers and virtual instruments.

iTommy · Feb 12, 2005

New to the game

A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

cemil · Feb 12, 2005

plinden said:
It depends. No on would say that the G4 1.5 /chip/ is faster than the P-M 1.5 (or some would, but we can ignore them), but a computer is more than a chip.

-snip-

I don't really think I'll notice if the PB is slower than my current PC, and I'm very seriously considering getting one of the new 15" PowerBooks if I can persuade my wife (actually, I have a plan - I promised my wife a new laptop when she got a new job. She's close to that now, so I'll get her a 15" PB. If she doesn't like it, I'll take it. If she does like it, she'll insist that I get one too)

I agree wholeheartedly that the computer is more than a chip, and frankly - for me, OS X is a HUGE deciding factor. (I am, after all, a mac fanatic). On the other hand, a PB just can't hold a candle to new PC laptops, I'm sorry. First of all, compiling is not only a CPU test, but also an I/O test. Similar HDs will help equalize that test.

On the other hand, if you want to see what a HUGE difference FSB speed makes, check out a bottom-of-the-line iMac (1.6 G5) vs the TOP-of-the-line pbook (17" 1.67 G4). That G4 will, in theory, on CPU intensive tasks that fit in the cache, OUTPERFORM the G5. Sit down and just play for a while. Feel how much snappier the iMac feels. It just feels like a faster machine! Windows pop up faster, applications switch faster, it just feels much more responsive. Keep in mind that the bottom-of-the-line iMac isn't specced any better than the pBook (in fact, worse in many ways).

Really, I made a mistake in saying that the G4 doesn't stack up against P-Ms. What I meant to say was that the architecture on G4 PowerBooks does not come close to stacking up to the newer P-M laptops. (FSB, RAM speed, etc).

The G4 is actually a pretty good chip. Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

Surreal · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

we can dream, can't we?

that would be the day

mcgarry · Feb 12, 2005

iTommy said:
A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

Hi, and welcome.

I suggest that if a PB meets your current needs, and you want a new PB sooner than later, go for it. Browsing this forum will offer more good advice.

No one here can tell you when the next major revision will be exactly, what it will be exactly, or how it will perform exactly. We can complain (or not) about what the current ones aren't, but as I've tried to point out in my posts in this thread, the current Mac laptop lineup is in a good, or at least not unusual, place in terms of its relative pricing and Mac laptop history-- all within the context of Mac-land, at least, and that's what -land we're in if we want to buy a Mac.

devman · Feb 12, 2005

iTommy said:
A Powerbook will be my first Mac purchase. Being new to the game, I cannot compare past equipment to the new updates, but I do recognize a price drop as an opportunity. It's obvious there won't be many (if any) changes until a dual core G4 or the elusive G5 arrives in a new type PB. I'm leaning towards purchasing the current, revisioned model as the wrinkles would have been ironed out as opposed to buying a Rev A G5 and finding that the battery lasts 45 mins. Any advice to a newby?

That thinking is very sound (it's what I would do). But these things are hard to generalise - because they involve personal/individual value judgements.

devman · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
I have no trouble agreeing to disagree Basically we're looking at it from opposite sides of the same coin.

Now, how about this link:
Two Finger Scrolling

That link will enable the new "two finger scrolling" on older powerbooks. It's just a software feature anyways, not a hardware one.

Just thought everyone might like a little piece of the new pie.

That does work, but it's not just software it's both. It doesn't work as smoothly at different speeds without the new hardware.

Surreal · Feb 12, 2005

why do people say that the G5 is going to be power hungry?

isnt its watt consumptions something like 12 -18 watts...same as the dual core g4 and close to the g4 we know and...use.

Demon Hunter · Feb 12, 2005

cemil said:
The G4 is actually a pretty good chip. Bump that FSB up to 1/2 clock speed like the G5 and it'll be a monster of a chip.

Unfortunately, the G4 they are using only supports a 200 Mhz FSB I read somewhere.

1.5 vs 1.67 PBs - maccentral suggests little difference

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 65816

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 604

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 604

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 601

Moderator emeritus

macrumors newbie

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68020

Our Staff