iBook - Is it any good? Is it worth waiting?

[zeebee]

Originally posted by Capt Underpants
I didn't think that the iBooks could have an 802.11b (airport extreme) cards in them. So it would only work if you have an 802.11b network, right? Anyways, I am also your age, and I have been wanting a mac for a couple of years (and have been saving my money up as well). As much as I would love to get a mac, I just don't see myself buying a cheapo model. I would consider myself a demanding computer user, and if I am going to spend my life savings on a computer, it had better be a darn good one. Now I don't know your situation, but if it was possible to wait and get the one with a CDRW drive in a few months (mowing yards, etc.), then I would wait.

Ok so you can't put an Extreme airport in the iBook but you can still use it with the original Airport card on a 802.11g network because they are backwards compatible with 802.11b

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

The iBook can only have the 802.11b AirPort card. However, 802.11g networks (AirPort Extreme) are backwards-compatible with 802.11b, so the iBook will work with both.

what ibm may or may not come out with will not be a g3. anyways g3's arent bad but g4's are better same goes for g4 isnt bad but g5's are better.

G3s running up to 550 MHz are the original PPC750. Since then, IBM has come out with three other incarnations of the PPC750 processor, the 750CX, 750CXe, and 750FX. The 750FX is the current incarnation of the 750 series of chip, which Apple calls the G3 chip for marketing purposes. The 750FX supports clock speeds up to 900 MHz. Any IBM PPC750-series chip is the G3.

IBM is about to release the PPC750GX, which will run at up to 1.1GHz. The next one (forget the letter designation) will run at up to 2.0 GHz.

The G3 is far from over.

 

[Matt01792]

Question

Ok, just a quick question. The hard drives on the iBook are currently 30Gb, after formatting and all the applications installed (the OS, iLife, etc...) how much space will actually be left?

Matt

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

The stock hard disks on current iBook models are actually 40 GB, with a 60 GB drive available as an option.

As a general rule, you lose 1.25 GB of space for every 20 GB of advertised space, so a 40 GB hard disk will be about 37.5 GB when formatted.

 

[tazo]

Re: Question

Originally posted by Matt01792
Ok, just a quick question. The hard drives on the iBook are currently 30Gb, after formatting and all the applications installed (the OS, iLife, etc...) how much space will actually be left?

Matt

Only the 800mhz/cd-rom model has a 30gig hard drive, the rest are 40 gigs and dont forget you can get a 60gig hdd as a bto option

 

[Capt Underpants]

Originally posted by zeebee
Ok so you can't put an Extreme airport in the iBook but you can still use it with the original Airport card on a 802.11g network because they are backwards compatible with 802.11b

Sorry.... I forgot.

 

[rhpenguin]

Seing as how i have an iBook, i just thought i would throw my two cents into the ring. I have the lowest model iBook available (800MHz model no combo drive) with maxed out ram. Its not really that bad. Handles simple photoshop tasks with ease, granted big filters take a long time its still pretty reasonable. I cant comment on Macromedia apps, because ive never used them on the Mac.

But my reason for buying the lowest model is that I have an external f/w HDD already, so hard drive space not an issue, and an external "superdrive" so burning is also not an issue. The combo drive would be nice so that i can burn on the fly. Also UPGRADE YOUR RAM. Max the beast out. OS X likes 512MB of ram to be totaly happy. I ran mine with 384MB for a few weeks and said nuts to this and went for the 512 stick.

I think you would be happy with the iBook. These things are nearly industructable and look pretty damn sweet.

Hope when you do make your purchase you will be satisfied. Also, welcome to Macrumors.com!

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by rhpenguin
Also UPGRADE YOUR RAM. Max the beast out. OS X likes 512MB of ram to be totaly happy. I ran mine with 384MB for a few weeks and said nuts to this and went for the 512 stick.

Is there such a huge difference? I have 384MB at the moment and have been wondering if going up to 640MB would make much difference. 512 sticks are quite a bit more expensive that 256 ones

 

[howard]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Is there such a huge difference? I have 384MB at the moment and have been wondering if going up to 640MB would make much difference. 512 sticks are quite a bit more expensive that 256 ones

i find that the ram makes a huge huge difference, i have full ram in my ibook and compared with other ibooks with less it does a lot better. os x takes up so much ram that unless you have enough your toher programs aren't going to get much.

 

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by howard
i find that the ram makes a huge huge difference, i have full ram in my ibook and compared with other ibooks with less it does a lot better. os x takes up so much ram that unless you have enough your toher programs aren't going to get much.

I suppose that makes sense as the harddrive in the ibook is pretty slow and the less paging it has to do the better.

 

[skychum]

cheaper RAM

It seems like people on this thread are exaggerating the price of a 512MB of RAM for the ibook. You can get one for about $100 here (OWC) and here (transintl).

[edit]:
and here (18004memory.com) for $90 (generic) or $100 ("hyperspeed")

 

[panphage]

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Macromedia-software is very messy on OSX. On XP you have fullscreen mode with all the pallets windows integrated in each other. This gives all possible space at all time. On OSX you have to rearrange pallets all the time, its a mess!

Really hope Macromedia will have the integrated windowsfeature in the next Flash and Dreamweaver versions.
/B]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. The only difference between the GUI of the two versions is that in Windows, you have a grey background and a window border around all the palletes, toolbars and the document window. Both have multiple palletes that can be kept in a single window on the side and expanded or contracted at need, torn off into a seperate floating pallete window, or closed entirely.

macromedia probably won't stuff everything into one single big window, it's against the Mac user interface guidelines. And there's no reason to, why do you want a single window constraining all your palletes? It doesn't gain you anything.