I want a powerbook that can run osx and xp perfectly, would a G5 powerbook be able to

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by DavidCL23, Jan 22, 2002.

  1. DavidCL23 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    I want a powerbook that can run osx and xp perfectly, would a G5 powerbook be able to? When I fork $3000 over for a laptop I expect it to last my 4 years at college, and I don't believe the current 667mhz g4 powerbook will.
     
  2. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #2
    I don't think XP is available in a "Virtual PC" type of release....?

    why do u want to have the ability to run XP on a PowerBook?
     
  3. DavidCL23 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    I want one computer to use for every task, which includes XP. I have a 1.6ghz athlon XP at home, and it screems in XP while my labs dual 800mhz g4 is unbearably slow.
     
  4. IndyGopher macrumors 6502a

    IndyGopher

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #4
    XP installs on Virtual PC 5 without much bother. It is, however, agonizingly slow... at least under Mac OS X. (Which is certainly not an XP-only problem) However, I don't believe Connectix has a OS Pack that includes Windows XP, so it's a manual install. If you are intent on doing this, though, I would strongly recommend getting Connectix' Windows 2000 pack and using an XP upgrade on it. This will put all the additions and tweaked drivers in there. (the wide screen mode for the G4 powerbooks and Cinema displays, though, don't seem to survive the upgrade. After the upgrade my PBG4 now thinks "full screen" is 1024x768. I haven't cared enough to see if I can fix that.) It's probably wiser to let Connectix do their own XP pack before making the jump. XP doesn't offer enough "new" stuff to make the switch from 2000 worth the manual hassle.
     
  5. mozez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    #5
    one, the g5 power book will not come out for a long time, talking maybe a year or more, second, yes, motorolla owns amd, which has put forth most of the architecture of the new g5, making it more windows compatible, same with ram and board, so the rumor is that if you have a 1 ghz g5, it should run xp in virtual pc, which they do have!! cause i have it, (it runs beyond slow ok, beyond, but recognizes my dvd player) at the same clock speed comparitively, like 1gz g5 = 1 ghz pIII cause virtual pc doesn't use the risk processing
     
  6. DavidCL23 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #6
    How long ago did motorolla buy AMD? Also how much did they pay?
     
  7. colocolo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    #7
    A couple of things here:

    Motorola does NOT own AMD.

    I still don't get why would you possibly want to run XP, unless its for a specific application. In fact, you may want your computer to run a specific program maybe, but in no case a specific OS. And in what sense is your Athlon so much faster than the dual 800 G4? In what specific task?

    Let's try to bring this long argument about speed and put some numbers on it so that we may all discuss this with facts :)
     
  8. mac_airport macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    san mateo, california
    #8
    perhaps mot bought amd after the close of regular trading today?...oh my, what will sanders do now?...i doubt his taste in clothes will go over well at mot...

    on a serious note, mot just reported earnings today; here is a link to a reuters story:

    http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020122/tc/tech_motorola_earns_dc_4.html

    note the following from the story:

    "...motorola...is in the process of slashing almost a third of its work force...":eek:
     
  9. j763 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Location:
    Champaign, IL, USA
    #9
    win xp emulation on a mac.

    XP emulation on a mac is S-L-O-W. That's fine if you're going to be running small apps on XP. If you want to run games or more resource-hungry programs -- forget about it. You have to think about what you want to do with your machine, instead of just saying "Oh, i want a laptop that runs xp and osx"...
     
  10. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #10
    VPC is great for like MP3 sharing or doing webpage tests...but don't expect to do regular 3DSMAX work in it :D
     
  11. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #11
    gee you are a newbie
    xp won't run 3d apps, it barely runs solitare (in os x)
    how did you get into college
     
  12. DavidCL23 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #12
    Well, I want to have xp on my system for divx files (over 1000 on my skewls network) and games.
     
  13. mozez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    #13
    for colocolo
    first, motorolla is a "parent company" to amd, amd is a subsiderary, i think i spelled that wrong, of motorolla, basically, motorolla is like a big investor, has say on the board and such, and amd also has a dual, so don't try and say athlon versus dual 800, no, dual athlon versus dual g4, and since i am comparing i will note what i use a computer for, dvd ripping, graphics, games, and 3d work (i'm a maya animator so yes i am sorta biased) now, for photoshop i use my powerbook, aftereffects, powerbook, fun, powerbook, but everything else, amd, there is no question, games, faster, 3d, no question, dvd rip, no contest even when you tell it to use altivec. but, my point is apple is smart, they see a good idea and want to make their computers better, as they should, they want to always look at pcs and laugh. i'm all for apple using good hardware ideas, it benifits you ya know. let me guess though, you just can't believe that a pc chip maker had an idea that apple didn't and that apple atually wants to use it. grow up. pc technology is alot better than you think, and if you question it, just know that apple is a pc, now more than ever, you wanna bash ms, fine, but don't bash the chip makers and hardware makers. cause apple uses the same ones you see in dell, ibm, hp and everyone else. in specific task, maya, frame rates aren't even close, it can't handle dual processor support on the mac, yet(i can't wait for it to be bteer don't get me wrong ok) it can't support the newest features so it's a version behind on the mac, it's also dreadfully slow compared to even older pcs in render times. that's me though, that's what i use my stuff for, maybe you don't even use maya and so it doesn't matter. so start the bashing, be kind
     
  14. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #14
    i got 3dsmax to run on win 2000 in VPC..and it was very...very slow
    VPC4 BTW

    for divx, there's a mac divx player at mac.divx.st if that helps
     
  15. colocolo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    #15
    mozez:

    i think you are way off the line with your post.

    If teh fact is that Motorola owns AMD as you claim, then ok, its my mistake and thanks for the correction. It comes as a surprise at me though, and i even checked the amd site for any clue of what you were saying before stating that they weren't related. Guess I didn't look so hard.

    As for the rest of your post, come on man, try and relax a little! :)

    I just asked for "numbers", as I see claims from many sides giving antagonizing information about which system is faster. I just thought it would be good to start posting facts so that we can see what does everyone mean when saying this is a lot faster than the other. Just to add credibility nd to help the common knowledge base, you know.

    Try to cool up and don't read so much between lines please, ok? It's surprising all the stuff you have to say about a simple request to post numerical comparisons!! :D :D

    So, i ask again, i hope you get the idea now, I'll try to be as nice as possible:

    can you give us some kind of benchmark when stating your athlon system (single-dual-quad- whatever, I NEVER said anything about it not being capable of dual processors!) and the dual 800, both computers you say you use?

    I just ask this to everyone who posts things like "this system is faster than this other one" so that we can try and get an idea of the real deal
     
  16. DavidCL23 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #16
    Thanks, that is what I was looking for, this divx player rocks!
     
  17. colocolo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    #17
    You can do a lot more things on the mac than people tend to believe, david!
    that's why you should always look for the kind of stuff you want to do instead of just trying to run a specific OS, in the first place.
    About the games, there are tons of cool games out there for the mac, most of the better ones aren't even the ones that get the bigger publicity from Apple.
    But if you have a set of favorite games that do not exist for the Mac, then you will have no choice there, and no way of running them on Virtual PC. If you really "need" them, I guess the only solution would be to get a PC(I can't believe I'm saying this!:) ), or just change your gaming portfolio
     
  18. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #18
    I am curious.. Has anyone done comparisons with VPC (either 4 of 5) with win2k, and either xp (for extra profit to m$), or w98??

    For VERY simple tasks, and I am talking from very little experience/use, vpc4 with win98 was ok (at best) on a G3 powerbook (upgraded to 512MB of RAM). I have not yet used vpc5 at all, so I do not know how it compares. According to Connectix it is supposed to be faster, but we all know how software makers claims should be taken (with a bag of salt most of the time). I haven't heard from the person that the software was installed on, mainly because she is in CA most of the time, and I am in MA.

    Once upon a time, I picked up the emulator called 'realpc' since I was told by the store that I bought it that it was faster then virtual pc (was on the same shelf and version 3 I believe). It was dog slow on just about anything, and had extreme problems with allowing me to go online from within the pc part. I upgraded the RAM, the processor, and put in a pair of Seagate Cheetah hard drives. Just about everything I could do to eek out a bit more performance from the computer. I couldn't notice any difference in speed even after all that (on realpc, I did notice improvements on the Mac side).
     
  19. mozez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    #19
    colocolo, see, you missed my point, for each application and what people use their computers for, numbers will go back and forth, this is better than this, but, what is fair? what would you conisder a "fair" fight, you go to some pc website and they put dual 2.2ghz xeons with 2 mb backside caches and 15,00 rpm scsi drives and 2 gigs of ram against a 733 and say look we are faster, and then apple on their own site put a dual 800 with scsi drives, and maxed on ram against a lower class, single pentium 4 with standard ram. now, i have to set this up so agree on it first, it's gonna take my boss's approval but that's fine, he's cool. want to do this by price or what. because if i put 3500 worth of equipment on one of our dual athlons, it's kinda unfair ya know, honostly, i mean we'd be talkin totally different hardware specs. if you want to go spec for spec i'd have to go lower in technology, so how can i do that? how does that prove anything. numbers don't work, they never will. if you want i just flat out list the stats of the systems and give you frame rates and scene files, is that ok? like 4 viewport fps, rendering fps, shaded and textured view fps, that i can do tomorrow if you want, but it's still not really fair. you're talking a maya that has for years been optimized on a pc and a new unoptimized older version of maya on a mac, if that's what you want don't be pissed when you see the results. it's comparing two things that can't be compared, the results in numbers won't prove anything, but if you want em, fine.
     
  20. Onyxx macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    #20
    start your burners...

    running xp on your mac to play divx mpeg 4 movies because you don't feel like actually looking around ( um like dude, try like google and stuff, huuuuuh [may i add that the first response on the google search engine under "mac divx" is a link to that divx player which has been around for a pretty long time]) and doing the minimal amount of research required to gleen an answer to your own question. two words. PeeCee User.

    Whoo that was a mouth full.
     
  21. xelterran macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    #21
    g5's

    lets face it, when g5's come out at around 1.4ghz - 2ghz duel or more processors they are going to wipe the floor with p4's xeon's and amd's.
     
  22. tadpole macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    #22
    mozez is right

    hey guys, i hate to tell you all, but the Moz man is valid. there is a lot of Mac "jingoism" going on here. If you want hard raw data, just check out the latest SpecInt numbers. as for me, I've been a lifelong PC man with a healthy respect for Unix boxes, I'm a biochem major, so we need fast brawny brutual machines to model proteins, i run linux, solaris, irix and xp. i was for the longest time hoping like the rest of you all for a nice cheap 64bit unix box from Apple (G5 with OSX sans the crappy UI) but alas, this may not be, and Sun is selling a 64bit box for $795 academic price with an UltraSparc processor. you know what my schtick with OS10 is? Its not a standard unix, I've been getting a lot of data from the boys down in the university networking/tech dept. and the concensus is, she's not entirely posix compatible. i would like to see a full on Unix OS from Apple, perhaps a pro version of OS10 without glitz of the wholly inefficient yet eye candy UI and a lot of the raw power that I can get from a tricked up version of Linux or standard Solaris (btw Solaris 9 is coming out, and she's a beautiful beast!). So lay off of Mozez, he's in his right to cut down on the uneducated consumers out there. Suck it up yo!
     
  23. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #23
    moz is right, but he's wrong

    Moz may be right about the tech specs, but he's way off base about the Motorola stuff.

    First of all, it's spelled "Motorola" not "motorolla". But that's just ticky-tacky stuff.

    AMD is not owned in whole or in part by Motorola. About the only things connecting the two companies are HyperTransport, the semi-conductor biz, and Hector Ruiz.

    Your arguments would be much more convincing if not for the obvious errors of such simple facts.
     
  24. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #24
    XP not required for DIVX

    I run a PBG4 500, and have no problems running Divx encoded files, in .avi, .mpg, .asf, or .mov. Using the latest DIVX drivers for Quicktime, and AVI to MOV certainly helps. And on my schools, dorm network, 90% of the PCs have NIMDA, so who wants a PC, even for games, I've had no problem, aside from having to boot into OS 9 for multiplayer games. (www.divx.com has the latest mac plugins)

    OSX....
    OSX is great, aside from no support for IPX, its excellent. Any one saying otherwise is off of his/her rocker.

    VPC
    My Mac runs Win 98SE in Virtual PC 4, and a friend of mine has VPC 5. We ran them side by side and his kicked mine's butt. We both were running idntical systems so I'd say VPC 5 is OK. And VPC 4, runs Win98SE faster than my home PC, K6-2/550, 512MB Ram, 14GB HD (BTW I'm at school now, so no pc for me :D )


    Thank God for Steve and Steve


    PowerBook G4 500Mhz, 20Gb HD, DVD, 256MB Ram, OSX 10.1.2, OS 9.2.2, Win 98SE (Via Virtual PC 4...soon to be 5)
     
  25. chicagdan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #25
    Could we please restore some sanity to this board ... AMD is not a subsidiary of Motorola, it is a PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATION. If it were a wholy-owned subsidiary, you wouldn't be able to buy stock in it.

    Does Motorola have an investment (which would mean holding non-controlling shares) in AMD? Perhaps ... after all, Microsoft holds non-controlling shares of Apple. But such investments merely get you a seat on the board, they don't equal managing control of the company.

    And I'm not even sure Motorola has invested in AMD. Whoever is spreading this god-awful, stupid information really should learn more and blather less.
     

Share This Page