15inch PowerBooks Ready?

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by MacBandit
I personally believe that unless LCDs change dramatically I will always have a CRT for a main monitor. I'll use it for games and whatever else that requires resolution changes also you just can't beat the pixels/inch that you get with a CRT especially for the dollars.

You know in an office environment, and unless you really need the ability to change screen res, TFTs are definitely better. Power, heat dissipation (strain on A/C), footprint and (supposedly) radiations. But I guess we have all heard those arguments before...
At work and at home I use only TFTs now, and I don't see any problem at all (I play games too). I just wish we could have more and more pixel density. I don't care if the fonts are small, as long as they are detailed enough. When working on your computer you are never away from your screen more than a couple of feet so small fonts don't really matter. We need more desktop space!! (Before you tell me to get more screens I am running 3 Formac Gallery 2010 LCDs... but I want more, more!!).

NicoMan

 

[jackburton]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I find that highly suspect. It places the 15" well outside what has been the target update cycle for the PowerBooks (as it's right at update time now), and even pushes the 12" and 17" beyond what would would be expected. Now, that being said, I'll also stand by my earlier statements that the longer we have to wait for the updates, the more likely it is that we will see a processor upgrade and not just a speed bump (which it's questionable if they even could do that with the current G4s).

That seems like a fair assessment to me especially if, as my friend says, ALL the PBs will have a new update in the FALL. To me this sounds like they will have a entirely new processor.

Still, I am tempted by the lower price of the current tibooks. I figure I don't really need any super speeds, and aluminum, titanium won't make any difference to me. FW800, don't got any. etc. only problem is the cash. I would have to wait a few months anyways.

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by jackburton
That seems like a fair assessment to me especially if, as my friend says, ALL the PBs will have a new update in the FALL. To me this sounds like they will have a entirely new processor.

Still, I am tempted by the lower price of the current tibooks. I figure I don't really need any super speeds, and aluminum, titanium won't make any difference to me. FW800, don't got any. etc. only problem is the cash. I would have to wait a few months anyways.

I'll tell you what: the TiBook is a great buy at those prices. And I don't see how, considering the little room for manoeuvre Apple have, they can make the new Alu 15" much better. Screen? Unlikely (It's been rumoured to be of a lower rez). Graphics card? We are all hoping for a radeon 9600, but who knows. DDR? The speed increase (if any) is minimal. Airport Extreme and the 'tooth? If you really need them. CPU? Great, now you could have 1.25GHz G4 instead of a 1GHz... Brilliant...Hmmmmm

Conclusion: unless we get a 970 in the 15" at WWDC (doubtful but possible IMHO), the TiBook is the bargain of the moment.

My 0.02¢.

NicoMan

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by NicoMan
...
Conclusion: unless we get a 970 in the 15" at WWDC (doubtful but possible IMHO), the TiBook is the bargain of the moment.

My 0.02¢.

NicoMan

Well put. Something I'd like to add to my earlier post is that, if we don't see an update for several months yet, there is the possibility that we'd see, not a 970 PB, but a 7457 G4 PB. I'm still dubious about this, but the longer we have to wait for the update, the greater the possibility that Moto could get their new chip up and running...

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by NicoMan
You know in an office environment, and unless you really need the ability to change screen res, TFTs are definitely better. Power, heat dissipation (strain on A/C), footprint and (supposedly) radiations. But I guess we have all heard those arguments before...
At work and at home I use only TFTs now, and I don't see any problem at all (I play games too). I just wish we could have more and more pixel density. I don't care if the fonts are small, as long as they are detailed enough. When working on your computer you are never away from your screen more than a couple of feet so small fonts don't really matter. We need more desktop space!! (Before you tell me to get more screens I am running 3 Formac Gallery 2010 LCDs... but I want more, more!!).

NicoMan

See besides being fixed at a resolution (at least for quality) that is the biggest problem of LCDs. I could have bought 3 nice 19" monitors for the price of 1 of your 2010s and each of those monitors would have had nearly twice the desktop space also because of the high resolutions they can run.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by MacBandit
See besides being fixed at a resolution (at least for quality) that is the biggest problem of LCDs. I could have bought 3 nice 19" monitors for the price of 1 of your 2010s and each of those monitors would have had nearly twice the desktop space also because of the high resolutions they can run.

Ah, yes, but each of those would also have taken up at least twice as much desktop space... Thus, the glory of the flat-panel display.

Also, I think that it's hard to argue that LCDs aren't more crisp and clear at their native resolution than any CRT.

However, all of this may well be moot, as the next generation in flat-panel displays may well be based on buckey tubes, having most of the good characteristics of the CRT (and some of the bad ones, too), while acheiving the dimensional parameters of an LCD. Can you imagine, a laptop that you can really use in sunlight?

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Ah, yes, but each of those would also have taken up at least twice as much desktop space... Thus, the glory of the flat-panel display.

Also, I think that it's hard to argue that LCDs aren't more crisp and clear at their native resolution than any CRT.

However, all of this may well be moot, as the next generation in flat-panel displays may well be based on buckey tubes, having most of the good characteristics of the CRT (and some of the bad ones, too), while acheiving the dimensional parameters of an LCD. Can you imagine, a laptop that you can really use in sunlight?

Yes the old desk space thing. Ah, to have a work area with huge desks so you can have a half dozen 24" CRTs on it but I don't have it and it's only a dream. As it is I don't have room for a wider monitor period. Though I do have the depth so I can have either a CRT or an LCD in the area a 17" screen will fit in. I think I'll stick to the CRT for now because I get such higher resolutions out of it. Yes LCDs are very very sharp for text and static images at their native resolution but I would argue that you can get a high end CRT for near the same price as an LCD that has a refresh rate exceeding 100Hz that would look nearly the same.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by MacBandit
Yes the old desk space thing. Ah, to have a work area with huge desks so you can have a half dozen 24" CRTs on it but I don't have it and it's only a dream. As it is I don't have room for a wider monitor period. Though I do have the depth so I can have either a CRT or an LCD in the area a 17" screen will fit in. I think I'll stick to the CRT for now because I get such higher resolutions out of it. Yes LCDs are very very sharp for text and static images at their native resolution but I would argue that you can get a high end CRT for near the same price as an LCD that has a refresh rate exceeding 100Hz that would look nearly the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. CRTs are a lot less expensive than LCD, even at the high end. So, you can get a really nice CRT, and still pay less than what you'd pay for an LCD. But, even the nicest CRT isn't quite as crisp as an LCD at its native resolution. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it may be good enough (and most of the time I'd argue that it is), but it's still not quite as good...

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. CRTs are a lot less expensive than LCD, even at the high end. So, you can get a really nice CRT, and still pay less than what you'd pay for an LCD. But, even the nicest CRT isn't quite as crisp as an LCD at its native resolution. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it may be good enough (and most of the time I'd argue that it is), but it's still not quite as good...

We can just say that: different needs for different people... Anyway we have veered slightly off-topic. Anyone care to talk about PowerBooks (G4 or G5)?

 

[rmac]

Rev A

So I've read a couple people in different threads expressing hesitation about getting a Rev A G5 Powerbook (whenever it should come out). I think they were referring to potential hardware problems (heat, faulty monitors, etc.) that have happened in the past. I got one of the first G4 systems and have never had any problems with it. So in my experience, the drawback of getting a Rev A system is that applications may not take advantage of its new technology for a year or so. In that years time, new systems arrive that are faster and/or cheaper that can immediately take advantage of that technology. If rumors come true about the 970 coming out before Panther, then buyers of these systems will not see the potential of their systems for a few months, at the least; Panther will probably bring a great deal of optimizations, but more would surely come in only later in the update cycle.

To look at it as "the glass is half full," the continual optimizations for G4s in OS X over the past few years have made my old G4 seem to get better with time. That and adding extra RAM. ; )

All that said, I would get a rev A Powerbook G5. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screen Resolution

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. CRTs are a lot less expensive than LCD, even at the high end. So, you can get a really nice CRT, and still pay less than what you'd pay for an LCD. But, even the nicest CRT isn't quite as crisp as an LCD at its native resolution. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it may be good enough (and most of the time I'd argue that it is), but it's still not quite as good...

It's all good. I'm not fighting I was just saying that I think a high end CRT is better for vide and a LCD is better for static images and text.