Motorola 1.5GHz G4... G4 PowerBooks?

[macdong]

you are absolutely right, that OS 9's GUI works faster than OS X.
however, OS 9 also slows down considerably when you have a lot of extensions loaded.
and if you take into account of all the animation OS X performs when opening and closing windows, it's actually not that much different.
plus, these two operating systems have totally different structures.
so, what do you say let's stop comparing them already?

edit: by the way, woolfgang, it really isn't appropriate to discuss IQ.

First off, if you want to discuss IQ, you might try spelling the word "accept" correctly rather than using its homonym "except." This is aside from the fact that, in IQ terms, I'm in the top 1% of the population. Speaking of showing one's hand, it's rather ignorant of you to assume that because I use a colloquial term you associate with people of lesser intelligence that I myself am unintelligent. A class in logic would do you some good.

Enough about IQ. You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the GUI (that's an acronym that stands for graphical user interface). The Finder is, for all intents and purposes, a GUI. It translates the UNIX command structure for you, the user, into a pretty interface.

Now really, you can't argue that OS X's GUI is faster than OS 9's GUI on the same machine. You're the first person I've ever encountered that has even tried to make this argument. Most OS X supporters respond that OS X makes up for its slower GUI by speeding up other tasks, its use of preemptive multitasking, its lower incidence of crashes, etc.

If you're in doubt, why don't you try some experiments yourself? There is a program called "Let1KWindowsBloom" -- you can download it here:
http://www.vgg.com/rob/WindowsBloom.html
The program does as you might expect from its name: it opens and closes a window 1000 times. Compare OS X to OS 9. Windows opening and closing is a function of the GUI.

Next try taking 10,000 small files and putting them into a folder. Do it on OS 9 and OS X. Scroll through them in each OS. That, too, is a function of the GUI.

Now try making an alias of your hard drive and put it in an accessible place (the Apple menu in OS 9, or the Dock in OS X. Or you can use FruitMenu in OS X if you like). Go through the hierarchical menus in each...try going a few layers deep. Especially try a folder with lots and lots of items in it. Or better, a folder with a lot of folders in it, with each folder having a lot of items in it. Again, this is all a function of the GUI.

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about, and they are well documented. I am not arguing that OS X does not offer productivity gains for some individuals. What I am arguing is that file browsing and navigation is a well-known and documented shortcoming of OS X compared to OS 9, which is why programs like NetFinder have a substantial following.

 

[gopher]

you are absolutely right, that OS 9's GUI works faster than OS X.
however, OS 9 also slows down considerably when you have a lot of extensions loaded.
and if you take into account of all the animation OS X performs when opening and closing windows, it's actually not that much different.
plus, these two operating systems have totally different structures.
so, what do you say let's stop comparing them already?

edit: by the way, woolfgang, it really isn't appropriate to discuss IQ.

I might add file navigation in Mac OS X is quicker. Multicolumn Finder for me is much faster than having to open triangles on folders, or double clicking folders ad infinitum. And thanks to Panther's file searching, finding files is quicker through the toolbar. People who have trouble with Panther's GUI slowing them down find that it really requires more optimization on older machines:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

but once optimized can get the GUI running just as fast as 9.

 

[ionas]

The Centrino undoubtedly consumes much less power than a G4, especially when in idle. But with everybody claiming (doesn't mean it's true) that the system controller, the graphic card and the screen (everybody knows that dimming it helps a lot) also contribute considerably to the power consumption (maybe as you said, the harddrive is not important, but the iPod's harddrive is parked during each song to save energy), I'm asking myself whether part of that big energy consumption reduction of Centrino notebooks also comes from a much more efficient and maybe less powerful graphic card.

Just saying, please compare the battery time of Centrino-based notebooks using the same graphic card as a Powerbook/iBook to said Apple products.

1. less powerfull gfx card? do you mean the 5200 is faster than ati 9000 / 9200? you are wrong then.

2. more power consuming? while the 9700 mobility takes a lot more power and produces a lot more heat it seems, the 9600mobility is not that hungry,
there are normal x86 notebooks (based on pentium-m/centrino) out that use the 9600mobility (by compaq/hp, asus and other brands) - those run maybe half an hour less (so 5 1/2 and not 6 hours; how long does a powerbook run again?

the talk about those hotty x86 notebooks that run on battery only one hour are one year old and older, and still ppl clain this. - it is just not true anymore, you can get systems from 1000-2000 eur that perform very well - just the OS sux a lot (yes and linux sux too for normal end users))

 

[john123]

I might add file navigation in Mac OS X is quicker. Multicolumn Finder for me is much faster than having to open triangles on folders, or double clicking folders ad infinitum. And thanks to Panther's file searching, finding files is quicker through the toolbar. People who have trouble with Panther's GUI slowing them down find that it really requires more optimization on older machines:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

but once optimized can get the GUI running just as fast as 9.

But this again refers to efficiency of the user experience, not the speed of the mechanical operations themselves...

 

[spook]

I agree with what John is saying, thou I waver slightly between both camps, I'm a long time user of the Mac OSX, pre-system 7 and have only just really started using OSX in the last month

I do find somethings better in OSX but I think the simplicity of Mac OS is sometimed easier, but when switching between them both Mac OS does look dated, but that is LOOKS.

Multi column viewing, looks great again and for somethings, is great, eg viewing different file types, creation modified dates, but for other things it can be a pain in the arse especially when navigate many folders but that could just be my inexperience

 

[diggy]

12"er's

can't believe the 12 " PBS still have no FW 800...
you'd think if there could only be one FW
they would make it 800 with an adapter(I know)
to use 400....

I was ready to sell my 15" but now no.

 

[patriotn11]

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE $$$$$$

can't believe the 12 " PBS still have no FW 800...

I was ready to sell my 15" but now no.

12" loaded--756 total 256 & 512, S/D, Mac Office 2004, extended warr.

15" loaded-512 1 slot, 128vr, 80g 5400, ext warr, Mac Office 2004 b/l keys

17" loaded-512mem 1 slot 128vr, 80g 5400, ext warr, Mac Office 2004 b/l keys

don't really travel, dvd watching, web, book writing, photo, burning, couch surfin........

is the unev latch on the 15" really a bad thing
is the non-800 fire on the 12" that bad
is the screen on the 17" to big and a long turn warr issue

any advice, I'm going for the plunge today, joining the following

 

[~Shard~]

can't believe the 12 " PBS still have no FW 800...
you'd think if there could only be one FW
they would make it 800 with an adapter(I know)
to use 400....

I was ready to sell my 15" but now no.

Just curious, what peripheral do you use that requires a FW800 connection, and why do you need to use it with a laptop?

 

[patriotn11]

could this be better the the 15"

hows this compared to the loaded 15" incher


PowerBook 1.33GHz/SuperDrive (12.1" TFT) $1,712.00
Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
256MB DDR333 (256MB built-in) 512 from crucial 129+change
AirPort Extreme Card
80GB Ultra ATA drive @ 5400rpm
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
.Mac Promotional Bundle $69.95 $69.95
Office 2004 for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition $149.95 $ APP for PowerBookEnrollment Kit $239.00
$2,170.9

 

[Sun Baked]

This is probably quite close...

Originally posted by M.Isobe:
From the frequency and voltage specification, we can speculate the grade and the power number of the chips used in each PowerBook model.

                                               Power [W]
   Model          Part#             Vdd     Typ.  Max. 
   PB17"/1.5GHz   MC7447AHX1500YB   1.28V   ~20   ~29
   PB15"/1.5GHz   MC7447AHX1500WB   1.25V   ~18   ~27
   PB15"/1.33GHz  MC7447AHX1333WB   1.18V   ~16   ~23
   PB12"/1.33GHz  MC7447AHX1333XB   1.15V    14.5 ~20
   IB14"/1.2GHz   MC7447AHX1197VB   1.15V   ~13   ~19
   IB12"/1.0GHz   MC7447AHX1064VB   1.15V   ~10   ~15

 

[MikeAtari]

This is probably quite close...

Why does the 17 inch 1.5 cpu use more power than the 15 inch?

 

[tpjunkie]

it appears to be a different model 7447, the YB instead of the WB

 

[Naimfan]

it appears to be a different model 7447, the YB instead of the WB

Any idea why? Not earth shattering, obviously, but I'm curious.

Best,

Bob

 

[aswitcher]

Why does the 17 inch 1.5 cpu use more power than the 15 inch?

MMmm. No idea. Of course the machine itself uses more for graphics/screen but I thought the processor was the same...

 

[thatwendigo]

Any idea why? Not earth shattering, obviously, but I'm curious.

My guess is thus:
The YB looks like it's higher power, and so it probably has a less efficient design. It clocks the same, but most likely is the less expensive of the pair. In order to keep the power the same across the line, they'd put the lower heat chips in smaller form factors, and put the higher heat one in a larger space that could dissipate better.