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

kherdin

macrumors member
Sep 25, 2003
31
0
Naysayers, read this.

Let's take the PowerBook 1.67's SpeedMark 3.3 scores, and the PowerMac G5 1.8 SP SpeedMark 3.3 scores (macworld didn't have the 1.6's speedmark 3.3 scores, only 3.2 which differ).

Sources:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/02/11/pbg4benchmarks/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/reviews/singlecpupowermac/index.php

PB G4 1.67 Score: 142
PM G5 1.8 Score: 165

Score/Ghz PB: 142/1.67 = 85.0
Score/Ghz PM: 165/1.8 = 91.7

So you can see the G5 is more efficient per mhz, but by how much?

91.7/85.0 = 1.079

That's right, the monstrous tower PowerMac G5 with 9 fans and a huge FSB and super fast memory, is only ~8% faster for the same speed than a PowerBook G4 which is running an ultra energy-efficient G4, in a one inch case.

Sounds like the G4 is still a pretty good chip, contrary to what people think. Scale it up, a little bit more, and you have something which could give the mobile-G5 that IBM is working on a run for it's money!
 

Surreal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2004
515
30
kherdin said:
That's right, the monstrous tower PowerMac G5 with 9 fans and a huge FSB and super fast memory, is only ~8% faster for the same speed than a PowerBook G4 which is running an ultra energy-efficient G4, in a one inch case.

Sounds like the G4 is still a pretty good chip, contrary to what people think. Scale it up, a little bit more, and you have something which could give the mobile-G5 that IBM is working on a run for it's money!

except...when i run logic. or protools. or..well, i think you know what kind of applications i would say.

the g4 is NOT worthwhile in it's current form. 200 mhz fronside bus? pc laptops have 533...then imac has 300 MIN and the g5 tower...oh my. these benchmarks show that they may be comparable. the benchmarks do NOT establish the simply scaling a G4 is all that needs to happen.

as someone who wants to use my computer for pro level audio, i have to consider how a computer will run the latest versions of programs. a 3000 dollar computer should eat anything i can throw at it without a hiccough. powerbooks are not currently capable of that. i have tripped powerbooks up teaching garageband.
 

maya

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)


I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.

The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)
 

mcgarry

macrumors 6502a
Oct 19, 2004
616
0
maya said:
This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)

I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.

Ok, this is getting silly. Do you really believe what you are writing--that this is "crazy"-- even in light of that fact that the current lifespan of the G4 in a PB is well within the normal bounds of Mac history when it comes to such things (see my previous post in this thread)?

The "power" line, furthermore, is relative. A PowerMac is relative to an iMac. A PowerBook is relative to an iBook. And in that sense, the P in PB withstands scrutiny (see my previous posts in this thread). You may not like that there is a mismatch between the top desktops and the top laptops ... fair enough, but guess what, that's the way it's been for almost all of the last 20 years of Mac-land; this is not some new and dastardly plot.

Some people here might have legitimate performance gripes based on their specific needs, but may I humby request that we put an end to the pointless bashing please.

maya said:
The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

Yeah, they'll kick themselves-- unless they bought a computer to do what they needed it to do, when they needed it to do it. Yeah, that's nuts!

maya said:
I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)

If the PB is crap, then really the whole Apple laptop lineup is crap-- especially if its the G4 and a slow FSB that makes something crap-- since the PBs are noticeably better-equipped than the iBooks, and while I don't necessarily disagree with you in the abstract ("crap" is not the word I would choose), let's at least be fair about this.
 

cemil

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2005
21
11
Sydney, AU
mcgarry said:
The "power" line, furthermore, is relative.
-snip-
If the PB is crap, then really the whole Apple laptop lineup is crap-- especially if its the G4 and a slow FSB that makes something crap-- since the PBs are noticeably better-equipped than the iBooks, and while I don't necessarily disagree with you in the abstract ("crap" is not the word I would choose), let's at least be fair about this.

Ahh McGarry, there's the rub. The iBook is aimed at a completely different market. There is nothing crap about it for its market. The trouble is, although the iBook and the PowerBook are aimed at completely different markets with completely different needs, they have basically the same capabilities.

Compare the iMac to the PowerMacs. Single Processor, slower FSB, slower Video Card, etc in the iMac. No problem. You don't buy an iMac if you NEED dual processors. Clearly differentiated lines aimed at different markets.

Now, lets look at iBooks. Slower processor, FSB - less video. Thats fine for the market its aimed at. No problem at all. Most consumers would be MORE than happy with the iBooks, as it is MORE than sufficient to do 90% of tasks. On the other hand, the PowerBook is aimed at a prosumer/professional market. For these people, MORE power is required. The problem is, the gap between the iBook and PowerBook is not enough. Thats why you won't hear me complaining about iBooks being underpowered (because I don't think they are for their market) but I will bitch about the PowerBooks being underpowered. If I'm going to pay that kind of money for a laptop, I expect TOP-NOTCH performance out of it, because that is why I'm buying it. If I just want something to cruise the net, do iPhoto, etc - I'll get an iBook. I need more. I need a mobile workstation. I need this computer to be able to handle intense compiling sessions while encoding DVDs, etc.

This is the problem with the PowerBook. It doesn't suit the aims of its target market, unlike the iBook.
 

swissmann

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2003
797
82
The Utah Alps
ZildjianKX said:
Really shows how lackluster of an update this really was...
As far as processing performance but price drops and some added features is where the real update is. I agree with many other posts that we need a different processor in there be it dual core or G5 or whatever is better than these.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,637
3
Considering what many people use their PBs for, a 1.67 Ghz G4 is plenty powerful for everyday tasks, including encoding videos and making DVDs. I'd just like to see the chips transitioned to a 90nm process to balance battery life with performance.
 

cemil

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2005
21
11
Sydney, AU
Lacero said:
Considering what many people use their PBs for, a 1.67 Ghz G4 is plenty powerful for everyday tasks, including encoding videos and making DVDs. I'd just like to see the chips transitioned to a 90nm process to balance battery life with performance.

Lacero,

None of us (as far as I can tell) dispute that the CPU is fast enough. The G4 is a good CPU. On the other, the FSB is nowhere NEAR fast enough. Combine a 1.67 G4 with a 833 FSB and you'll have a TERRIFIC lappie (maybe toss in more L2 as well).
 

mcgarry

macrumors 6502a
Oct 19, 2004
616
0
cemil, you honestly believe that there is not enough separation within the laptop line? By what standard, the i-PowerMac standard? You honestly believe that the difference between an iMac and a PowerMac is substantively worlds apart from the i-PBook difference? I'm sorry, to me that flys in the face of reality, but admittedly gains some traction when you throw in DP. Even though I might want to agree with you on the DP point, there is a long history of top-of-the-line Mac desktops having features forever absent in the concurrent top-of-the-line laptops. At the moment, we can wish it was different, but I don't think it's fair to act like this is some huge problem. And by the way, where are the DP laptops in PC-land?

So I'll agree to disagree again. And to leave price aside for a moment, to repeat, if a PB is so woeful, the iBook is only still more woeful, with even slower G4s and slower FSBs. Now back to price: what kind of savings is that less-woefulness worth ... I don't know, maybe $300/20%? hmmmm. and again, hard to compare the 15" and 17" (please don't whip out the $500 number again-- laptops with 1/2 the HD and 1/2 the Ram are not comparable)

As for target markets, I don't disagree. But again, the price difference is fairly relative to the spec difference. If there were the same percentage differences, but the laptop line was on G5s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be looking at this thread.

So I'll say it again, the current Mac laptop situation is not "crazy," especially in light of Mac history. Is it ideal? is it perfect? That's not what I'm talking about. It is a crisis of mammoth proportions? No. People have legit reasons to be pissed that the Mac laptops are not more powerful, but this needs to be kept in the proper perspective.
 

cemil

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2005
21
11
Sydney, AU
mcgarry said:
cemil, you honestly believe that there is not enough separation within the laptop line? By what standard, the i-PowerMac standard? You honestly believe that the difference between an iMac and a PowerMac is substantively worlds apart from the i-PBook difference? I'm sorry, to me that flys in the face of reality, but admittedly gains some traction when you throw in DP. Even though I might want to agree with you on the DP point, there is a long history of top-of-the-line Mac desktops having features forever absent in the concurrent top-of-the-line laptops. At the moment, we can wish it was different, but I don't think it's fair to act like this is some huge problem. And by the way, where are the DP laptops in PC-land?
-snip-

So I'll say it again, the current Mac laptop situation is not "crazy," especially in light of Mac history. Is it ideal? is it perfect? That's not what I'm talking about. It is a crisis of mammoth proportions? No. People have legit reasons to be pissed that the Mac laptops are not more powerful, but this needs to be kept in the proper perspective.

McGarry,

I don't believe there is enough separation in the laptop line at all. I think the difference between what a consumer needs and what a prosumer/professional needs is quite large, and I don't see that difference in the current laptop lines. Frankly, most consumers would be fine with a 500 MHz processor, let alone a 1.2 or anything else. On the other hand, professionals needs more because they are using cutting edge software that pushes the limits of hardware.

The thing about iMacs and PowerMacs is this: The difference isn't great, but thats because the iMac is quite overpowered for its target market. I would not be complaining about an iMac with a G4 - because that is probably enough for the target market.

On your point about DP PC laptops: No, there aren't any - but almost all PC laptops these days come with P-M processors with 533 FSB, high speed RAM, etc. A G5 1.6 would probably be somewhat close to a P-M 1.6 in performance, so that would be great. Also, a P-M 1.6 runs neck and neck with a much higher clocked P-4. Therefore, the gap in performance on the other side of the fence between laptop and desktop isn't really that great, until you start counting other things like RAID which you can't really do in a lappie anyways.

I do understand that some things aren't possible. Clearly, Apple couldn't put a G5 or DC G4 in the PowerBook. If they could've, they would've. On the other hand, throwing us a real bone would have been nice. Full Gig of ram on one stick standard, maybe upping the resolution on the screen, etc.

Also, I do believe this is a bit of a crisis, if only for the following reason: How does Apple now update the iBook line? The Buyer's Guide suggests we should see updates in the next 2 months or so. Are these gonna be bumped to 1.33/1.5? What will be the difference in the lines then? Because the G4 in its current incarnation CAN'T go any faster. We're already pushing the upper limits.

At this point, I'd be much happier with the following:
iBooks: 1.33/1.5 with 512 MB of ram standard. same prices.
PBooks: 1.5/1.67 with 1 GB of ram, HUGE, fast, large cached HDs, top-of-the-line video cards, higher res screen, etc. drop price another 250 or so. This would own up to the lack of CPU differentiation but make it worth the difference in other areas, while not limiting the iBook.

Anyways, good, civil discussion is always good. :)
 

matticus008

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2005
3,330
1
Bay Area, CA
cemil said:
At this point, I'd be much happier with the following:
iBooks: 1.33/1.5 with 512 MB of ram standard. same prices.
PBooks: 1.5/1.67 with 1 GB of ram, HUGE, fast, large cached HDs, top-of-the-line video cards, higher res screen, etc. drop price another 250 or so. This would own up to the lack of CPU differentiation but make it worth the difference in other areas, while not limiting the iBook.

Anyways, good, civil discussion is always good. :)

Look, I'm with you on the PowerBooks not having the power pro users need. I know that they currently do not. If I were in the marker for a pro notebook last year, this would have fit the bill nicely. I agree with McGarry, though, about the historic delay in getting the PowerBooks onto newer desktop hardware. They've tended to average about 2 years behind, which does still give them a few months to go G5. The only problem is that the G4 lasted longer than many other CPUs on the market, and stuck with a single-clock 133MHz max FSB with no actual support for DDR. When released, these were great forward-looking abilities. But since 2002, we've had DDR-enabled notebooks from other manufacturers while FSB has increased dramatically. The G4 processor does what it needs to do (I draw parallels between it and the P3-based Pentium M, which also works extremely well for what it does), but the bus speed and the memory system just choke on the large files pros need to manipulate. Regardless of Apple's history of lagging, they need to recognize that they held on to old technology too long and now it's hurting them. If the G4, like the Athlon, had scaled to faster bus speeds and full DDR, the G4 would still be competitive. Not embracing faster bus speeds would have killed AMD as Intel pulled ahead on clock speeds, and likewise it's given Motorola reason to fear for its future with Apple. Apple has the saving grace of not being in direct competition with any other manufacturer on the consumer PowerPC platform and the fact that the G4 is a sturdy performer, which allowed people to overlook its ignorance of changing trends and demands for a while. But they've pushed their luck too far, and they know it.

Now, to the main point for this post. There is no way that Apple could include 1GB of RAM on a single DIMM and drop prices any further. You can clearly see that prices for 1GB modules, though they've fallen, are still high. There is also no precedent for that amount of standard RAM. Most business-oriented notebooks from other vendors have a stock 256, with some offering 512 (almost always 2 DIMMs) standard. Apple's inclusion of a single-DIMM 512MB on the 15" and 17" models shows a strong commitment to maximizing performance with what they've got. They know the G4 can't be pushed any further, but they don't have an alternative ready. No amount of stretching reality can change that. What they can do, and have done, is upgrade the features that they can control and to drop prices. Could they have gone a bit cheaper? Yes. But then when the G5 is ready, they'd have to raise the prices again and deal with unrelenting negativity for not offering a 15" 1.8GHz G5 (or whatever it ends up being) for $1749 like its predecessor (following your wish for a further $250 cut).

As for hard drives, they've got about the largest capacity available. I've not seen 2.5" drives of more than 100GB. Yeah, there are 7200 RPM drives, but spinning faster means more power, which means less battery life, and people who want them can buy them and drop them in on their own. The resolution of the displays is not likely to change, either, as it would break Apple's 100dpi philosophy. I'd have liked to see a better video card, too, but they did make a few minor improvements, and the X800 wasn't ideal for the enclosure while the X700 wasn't available yet. The one thing that really bugs me about the updates is that I feel optical audio support should have extended to the entire line.

What they've done is satisfactory given their strangled hardware availability. When the next PowerBooks come, you can count on a new GPU, a new CPU, real DDR RAM, and hopefully an LCD panel with brighter colors, reduced pixel pitch, better viewing angles, and faster response (in other words, all around better, even if at the same resolution). I see it happening this year, because Tiger begs for a more powerful notebook showcase that supports all the features it has to offer, and because no one is going to accept the dead-horse G4 being dragged out another year. They've conveniently left the price points where they can transition easily and fortified the line with solid features and other components so that when they're ready, the redesigned shell with an all-new processing system can be the focus of the new models.

Until then, let's just all relax and accept that Apple did what they could do now, updating and adjusting prices, but in such a way that won't come back to haunt them when the new machines are ready. We all expect a further increase in standard features AND a G5/dual core G4/G30/Cell, all for the same price or less. This is not easy work, especially given the R&D costs involved in a project that has clearly taken longer than Apple anticipated. The updates are a definite improvement for cost/performance value, even if they are fairly unimpressive. I need more bus throughput and robust manipulation of large files for what I do, and many others do too. It will come, or we will make do with what is available when we can no longer wait. If the current PowerBooks don't meet your needs and you need to buy now, then you can either revise your needs or buy a PC notebook for the interim. Innovation doesn't always fit within our upgrade-cycle timeframes.
 

mcgarry

macrumors 6502a
Oct 19, 2004
616
0
cemil, again, I don't disagree with you on the PC comparison, but that is really a separate issue from the within-the-Mac-line comparison that has sidetracked us. For while I agree with you from an ideal-world, everything-is-roses standpoint, I can't agree with you in whole because you seem unwilling to accept 3 facts:

- Mac laptops have almost always lagged behind the desktops, and 2 years is within normal range for a chip/major architecture shift
- portability always carries a $ premium
- 20% is not a huge price difference, for starters (ok, this is just an opinion, but you get the point by now)

In other words, your call for "more separation" is understandable, laudable, and agreeable ... but goes against everything we know about Macs. The current separation, and indeed the whole laptop line itself, is sitting right where one might reasonbly expect it to sit based on how Macs have always been, NOT based on where PCs are. That is a different discussion than talking about the price difference between an iBook and a PowerBook. In one discussion I agree with you, but in the other, you have to acknowledge the 3 facts above. And though they are tied together, discussing the relative price of an iBook has little to do with it.

Also, your proposed laptop lineup does not differ, i-to-P-wise, from the current one. Ultimately, again, I think you are conflating the issue of overall Mac laptop weakness-- however historically normal it is-- with what you said is an inadequate difference within the lineup. These are different discussions.

How do they update the iBook line? maybe they don't; sorry, that is not a "crisis." The buyer's guide is just that, a guide, it doesn't dictate Apple product decisions, and anyone who wants to read it as such will get burned sooner or later. Useful, yes, definitive or determinative, no. Not being able to bump the iBooks is not a crisis, because as you said consumers only need 500 MHz, right?

Still, we've made progress-- you agree that the i-P difference is not wildly divergent in the desktop vs. laptop realms, and you agree a DP PB is unreasonable at the moment. You're merely asking for a bone. Fair enough. Just give them a little more time, while thinking of all those poor souls who waited back in 1994, only to finally get ... the 5300 (I know all too well).

---

matticus008, nice post.
 

cemil

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2005
21
11
Sydney, AU
mcgarry said:
cemil, again, I don't disagree with you on the PC comparison, but that is really a separate issue from the within-the-Mac-line comparison that has sidetracked us. For while I agree with you from an ideal-world, everything-is-roses standpoint, I can't agree with you in whole because you seem unwilling to accept 3 facts:
-snip-
Still, we've made progress-- you agree that the i-P difference is not wildly divergent in the desktop vs. laptop realms, and you agree a DP PB is unreasonable at the moment. You're merely asking for a bone. Fair enough. Just give them a little more time, while thinking of all those poor souls who waited back in 1994, only to finally get ... the 5300 (I know all too well).

---

matticus008, nice post.

Mcgarry,

I'll concede your three points except for this: The G4 was already getting long in the tooth 2 years ago when it was upgraded in the desktop line.

Also, logically, I believe you are right. Apple has done the best they can, and I now agree that 20% is not unreasonable. I suppose my initial reaction was a gut reaction that the lines aren't separate enough. After your convincing, I agree that the i vs P difference is OK.

I'll just stick with my G4 FSB sucks line and go crawl back under my pBook :).

Game, Set, Match to McGarry.
 

devman

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,242
8
AU
To McGarry and Cemil

Wow! A civilised debate brought to a sensible close. Well done to both of you.
 

propropro

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2004
144
0
Spain
maya said:
I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)
Maybe you don't think there is a lot of people that prefer a Rev. D PB G4 than a Rev. A PB G5. I'm talking about reliability. Or maybe I'm the only one that thinks that way :confused:
 

ltgator333

macrumors member
Jul 6, 2003
98
0
Albion, MI
Keep in mind if I were looking for a laptop this would be my obvious first choice (a powerbook), but really who else is tired of seeing clock speed bumps on the same old tired 74xx core, and not to mention nothing spectacular for a chipset either? A lot of people I can bet on that.
It seems as though IBM has been kinda flat lately, with the exception of Cell. Freescale has been flat since conception... seems like this would be an opportune time for one or both of them to come out with something that makes you say 'wow'. Powerbooks have been missing that 'wow' for some time....
 

GonzoRob

macrumors 6502
Sep 1, 2004
271
0
maya said:
I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months.

6 months! anyone who can put off buying a laptop that long doesnt really need one. As a full time journalist I needed something that was reliable, small and reasonably fast. A rev D powerbook was perfect .. i know its not going to screw up in the field and it'll last for ages.
Im looking forward to seeing the G5 PB's as much as the next guy .. but to wait *another* 6 months is just crazy ..
i'd advise anyone to buy one now - if you *have* to own a PBG5 sell it on ebay or something later on...
However, if you ask me the same question in 5 months time - my answer would be different .. then you should wait :)
Rob

PS: sorry, was a little bit of a troll :)
 

CaptainCaveMann

macrumors 68000
Oct 5, 2004
1,518
0
maya said:
This is great news, it signals the END of the G4 on the PowerBook line. No dual core or G5, maybe a Cell PowerBook. ;) :)


I still cannot believe that the G4 is still in a "Power" line, this is crazy and for so long. I remember when the PBG3 last rev only have minimal bumps and 6 months later the PBG4 Ti was released. I suspect the same regardless of what Apple says. They have lied in the past and I do not think different otherwise of them now.

The G4 in a PB back then was also hot and got rotten battery life, yet they still released it. Apple will pull the same card once again and you can count on it. I feel sorry for those who bought this last rev PBG4, these people will kick themselves for not waiting for 6 more months. ;) :)

I bet the PB hardware dept is hanging they heads in shame for this craptacular release with the "Power" name, and also laughing that people are buying this crap. :p ;) :)
Another 6 months??? How can you even say that with a streight face. Hahaha How long did the last revision take? And for what? A minor speed bump and a price drop? Oh yea scrolling track pad and hd lock? Woopidy doo! The fact is you have no way of backing up what you said. You have no clue how long it will be untill the next pb revision. Could it be 6 months from now? Yes. Could it be a year and a half from now? Well, from the looks of Apples recent puncuality, absolutely.
 

mcgarry

macrumors 6502a
Oct 19, 2004
616
0
cemil said:
Mcgarry,

I'll concede your three points except for this: The G4 was already getting long in the tooth 2 years ago when it was upgraded in the desktop line.
...
Ahhh, the G4. Everyone's favorite chip. Even though it suits my needs just fine at the moment, I have to agree with you here on principle. It took, what, over 2 years for it to hit 1 GHz in the PMs, prompting the famous "megahertz myth" page at apple.com (it's no longer there, so if someone has it mirrored, please post the link). Thanks, Moto!
cemil said:
I'll just stick with my G4 FSB sucks line and go crawl back under my pBook :).
True to my fanboy roots, if the PBs are still on a 167 MHz FSB come '06, I'll join you on the barricades.

But to me, the worst thing would be another 5300 on our hands, far worse than another 6 months of this. If we're waiting in order to ensure this next rev A dosn't work like a ... rev. A, well, I think that's not so bad.
 

joshua_msu

macrumors regular
Aug 5, 2004
221
0
chicago (formerly detroit)
CaptainCaveMann said:
Another 6 months??? How can you even say that with a streight face. Hahaha How long did the last revision take? And for what? A minor speed bump and a price drop? Oh yea scrolling track pad and hd lock? Woopidy doo! The fact is you have no way of backing up what you said. You have no clue how long it will be untill the next pb revision. Could it be 6 months from now? Yes. Could it be a year and a half from now? Well, from the looks of Apples recent puncuality, absolutely.


Not only that, but once they do announce the new PB's, Apple is going to take months to make them readily available. Just look at how long the Rev. D's are taking to ship out.

Who is in charge here?
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,574
2,908
people complain about the PB range so much, this is my first personal mac and i'm loving it. its equally powered as my Gericom 3.06ghz P4 but with an extra 3 hours battery life. maybe you're all used to G5 shenanigans but for a first timer this machine has plenty of power. maybe it isnt super-powered, but its faster than an iBook.
 

jaw04005

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2003
4,513
402
AR
berner said:
Apple is at the mercy of the chip manufacturers here.

Actually it is Apple's fault for putting up with Moto for the past 6 years. The G4 has been plagued with problems since the beginning. Remember when it took almost 2 years to get the G4 from 500Mhz to 733Mhz, when Intel/AMD were pushing 1+Ghz? :mad: That is what it feels like now in the Powerbook line, although not as drastic.

Apple needs a new chip built from the ground up for mobile systems. The chip needs to come from someone who can deliver. Motorola can't deliver. They've had since 1999 to deliver, and have pretty much failed upon each incarnation. Apple needs a Centrino-like PowerPC chip.

Apparently, IBM is not having the best of luck either. With the G5 yield problems with the 90nm process. Apple's mobile lines might be the prettiest, feature some high-end features like FW800 and a back-lit keyboard, but they lack in pure performance and battery life.
 

Nemesis

macrumors regular
Powerbook is worth every penny you pay for it!

Yes, the 15" offers features that the ibook doesn't. It is also $700 more than an ibook 14". Yes the Powerbook looks better, yes its a >bit< faster but is that worth $700?

YES! It's worth. Big time! Five minutes in front of a new PowerBook 15" or 17" will make you rethink your opinion. I have a 17" PowerBook @ 1.5 GHz, 1GB RAM and it's AWESOME machine. Excellent value for the money.

You can do just almost everything on it, and it works great. Programming, surfing, typing, Photoshop for web graphics and web page design -- works like charm. For all portable needs it just amazing piece of equipment. Astounding. Excellent sound, excellent graphics.

The only thing I miss in my Powerbook and that new revision has is the new DVD+/-RW 8x.
 

Nemesis

macrumors regular
Horses for courses

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.

Uh, 533 Mhz have to be cooled down, my friend. And not to mention that such a machine would drain your batteries sooner.

It's so hard to design a good laptop machine. I'd never choose any PC laptop just because of the wonderful design ideas implemented in Powerbook and it's stunning 1" thickness.

For professional audio, desktop is still a way to go. Buy yourself a dual G5 and be happy.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.