Macbook or Powerbook.

[eXan]

The actual graphics processing does not rely on the GPU, but the Aperture UI does. I have used it on a 1.5 ghz 12" PB with the geforce 5200 (hex edit) and at 1.25ghz 15" PB (don't know the graphics card exactly) and the UI was significantly more responsive on the 15" even though the CPU was slower.

Aperture is pretty much unusable on the 12".

GeForce 5200 in a 12" is not THAT much slower than Radeon 9600 in a 15". Maybe your 15" had more RAM?

MacBook every time.

1. You can run windows applications (if you need to).

2. The processors are faster, much faster. The speed gains will get more and more noticeable as more and more developers move across to universal binaries.

3. They separate the speaker volume and the line out volume (headphones).

4. You can boot from a hard disk connected via USB 2, not just firewire.

5. Built in iSight.

6. Apple Remote / Front Row.

7. Longer battery life, brighter screens and better airport reception.

Far more future proof if you ask me. Although Apple will support the PPC chips for years to come, it seems to be a silly investment.

It really is a black or white decision.

1. If he wants to get a PowerBook, Windows is useless for him.

2. Performance is better only in UB apps that dont rely on GPU

3. Why do you need that?

4. PowerBooks had USB 2 since 2003 when 12 and 17" were released and 15" became aluminium. + PowerBook has FW800 port

5. How often and what for do you actually use that iSight? I bet occasionally and just for fun

6. Even if the OP needs it, it can be enabled using FrontRow enabler. You can use mobile phone or just keyboard to operate it.

7. True, but PowerBook has a 17" 1680x1050 screen, MUCH more appealing casing, backlit keyboard and it doesnt get dirty as much as a MacBook does.

 

[eXan]

Irrelevent. Dogbone is a photographer.....a Nikon one at that. Software like PS doesn't rely on the graphics card at all, so it's really the processors that are going to make a difference. Well, processors, and whether you're going to run PS under Rosetta/emulation. Look at the tests Barefeats did. Is he going to play recently released 3D games like Doom and Quake 4? If you're running CS2 and doing other common non-gaming, non-3D animation tasks, then PS will likely run just as fast or faster on the 17" PB.

However, if you plan on eventually getting PS CS3, get the MacBook and an external monitor. The MacBook will be much much faster with PS CS3 than the 17" PB. The GMA950 integrated graphics in the MacBook can run large external LCDs just fine.

The guy asked if the PowerBook's video card is better than MacBooks. I showed him the benchmarks. I didnt say anything like "Photoshop would fly with Radeon 9700, compared to GMA!". This is nonsense, I get sick of people that say MacBook Pro can render video way faster than MacBook because it has a great video card The same with photography.

But I was just showing that Intel graphics is nothing compared to even old 9700. Even Core Image tests show that.

Then why does the MacBook Pro handle Aperture so much better than the MacBooks when the other specs are essentially the same, or similar enough? It doesn't make sense. Aperture is slow on both systems, but there is still such a large disparity in performance that the video card must help somehow.

Can you give me a link to where MB and MBP are compared in Aperture? Thanks