Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

arkitus · May 20, 2003, 01:21 AM

Hi,

I have a couple of questions in mind:

(1) Will the 12" PB be as responsive in OSX navigation as an AMD 1800+ is in XP? ( opening folders, changing settings and etc. )

(2) How long will the 12" last for me? Im a programmer, and i dont need anything particlular, other than OS snappy-ness.

(3) Is the 12" better or the 15" 867?

Thanks in advance.

dennis88 · May 20, 2003, 02:03 AM

I would wait for the new 15" al pb, if I where you.
That's what I'm doing.

arkitus · May 20, 2003, 02:13 AM

Yes, that is a good option too, but any answers to the questions?

geekwagon · May 20, 2003, 04:02 AM

I have a XP 1800+ running XP, and I have a 17" Powerbook. I have had (briefly) a 12" Powerbook so I am fairly familiar with those too.

1. It depends. I find that while things seem like they are happening faster on the XP machine, they often aren't really any faster than they are in OS X. Windows has always been like this, the GUI seems really responsive, but then you end up waiting for some folder to populate or something. I think it is due to Windows architecture where the GDI caches all the GUI elements and runs in kernel space or near to it (this is a total guess.

) In large folders, especially on network shares, the XP machine is going to smoke any OS X machine because the Finder is currently really slow in those situations. This is definately something I expect to get corrected in a future version of OS X though. In average folders, especially on local drives, I much prefer the finder though. List view simply is much better compared to the XP equivalent.

2. I think that if you maxxed the RAM, it should be good for at least 2-3 years. Apple tends to not leave its machines behind as fast with it's new operating systems. In fact, with Jaguar and the .1-6 releases that came later, it is probably the first time I have ever seen a company release upgrades that actually made their older machines *faster*, due to driver updates and such.

3. I have also had the 15" 867 and it is definately "feels" faster than the 12". While some of this is due to the 1mb cache that the 12" lacks, I think mostly it is due to the video card. The Radeon 9000 is far superior to the MX420 in the 12". The MX440 in the 17" feels much better and provides much better looking VGA out than Radeon 9000 though. I found the 12" VGA out to be horrible, however. Really blurry.

Hope this helps a bit.

MacNStein · May 20, 2003, 10:06 AM

3. I have also had the 15" 867 and it is definately "feels" faster than the 12". While some of this is due to the 1mb cache that the 12" lacks, I think mostly it is due to the video card. The Radeon 9000 is far superior to the MX420 in the 12". The MX440 in the 17" feels much better and provides much better looking VGA out than Radeon 9000 though. I found the 12" VGA out to be horrible, however. Really blurry.

Having used both machines in the last 24hrs, in OSX, I have to disagree. Performance wise, the two are very similar moreso than most would think. The TiBook 867 pulling down an Xbench of 82 and my AlBook 12 getting a 78.

fldsfslmn · May 20, 2003, 10:17 AM

tests at macspeedzone and elsewhere seem to confirm that both 867s (15" and 12") are quite close together in performance. the 867 15" does always outperform the 12", but by a margin so small i doubt it would be noticeable to the human eye ...

how does 82 versus 78 translate into seconds? it's probably a fraction of a second ...

MacNStein · May 20, 2003, 11:55 AM

The margin of error in Xbench is 3 pts. So a difference of 4 pts is almost non-existant.

arkitus · May 20, 2003, 12:10 PM

Thanks for the great replies, they are really helpful.

I cant afford the SD 15", and i want to buy a laptop in a months time. It seems that if nothing is released by then, the 12" would be a good choice?! Is the 12" screen TOO small? I have a 15" SyncMaster 152T on my PC, @ 1024x768. Will i feel comfortable with the 12"?

And will the 15" 867 last more than the 12"?

Thanks again!

killer_735 · May 20, 2003, 12:17 PM

I just picked up a 12" Powerbook, and I think that the screen probably won't be a problem. You can set the res up to 1024x768, which gives you a fair amount of real estate. I run Photoshop, InDesign, and painter 7 frequently, and though it's not as nice as working on a 17", it's definitely do-able. Remember, too, that it comes with a VGA adapter. I plug into a 19" VGA monitor if I need to do something serious. If you're on the road, you're likely not going to be doing layout for an 11x17" spread, so a 12" will usually work.

Spheric Harlot · May 20, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by arkitus:
Thanks for the great replies, they are really helpful.

I cant afford the SD 15", and i want to buy a laptop in a months time. It seems that if nothing is released by then, the 12" would be a good choice?! Is the 12" screen TOO small? I have a 15" SyncMaster 152T on my PC, @ 1024x768. Will i feel comfortable with the 12"?

And will the 15" 867 last more than the 12"?

Thanks again!

I'm slightly cramped with 1024 x 768, but a) at home, I can hook up an extra monitor (though I don't currently), and b) it is SO worth the small size of this machine.

The 12" is 54Mbit/s wireless LAN-capable and has Bluetooth built in, so it's more future-proof in these regards.

OTOH, it only has 100Mbit Ethernet (as opposed to Gigabit on the 15"), and only VGA rather than DVI. But I don't use the Ethernet port, and find VGA a lot more practical due to its widespreadedness.

And I really wanted built-in Bluetooth for my mobile phone, so...

-s*

buddhabelly · May 20, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm slightly cramped with 1024 x 768, but a) at home, I can hook up an extra monitor (though I don't currently), and b) it is SO worth the small size of this machine.

The 12" is 54Mbit/s wireless LAN-capable and has Bluetooth built in, so it's more future-proof in these regards.

OTOH, it only has 100Mbit Ethernet (as opposed to Gigabit on the 15"), and only VGA rather than DVI. But I don't use the Ethernet port, and find VGA a lot more practical due to its widespreadedness.

And I really wanted built-in Bluetooth for my mobile phone, so...

-s*

The 15" has a dvi to vga adapter that ships with it as well. Even with the 12" you have to use an adapter to hook up a vga monitor.

Personally if I were to buy right now, I'd get the 15". The screen size is worth it. The only advantage the 12" has right now is the WiFi. I won't be using bluetooth anytime soon.

puddle · May 20, 2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by arkitus:
Is the 12" screen TOO small? I have a 15" SyncMaster 152T on my PC, @ 1024x768. Will i feel comfortable with the 12"?

No, it's not too small, at least I don't think so. I love the 12" PB. The size and portability are excellent.

Since you're used to 1024x768, as I was with my 15" PC notebook and my 15" LCD at home, you likely won't notice much of a difference since you won't be sacrificing any real estate. Things will just be a little smaller. If your eyes are good, it won't matter.

PoisonTooth · May 21, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by arkitus:
Hi,

I have a couple of questions in mind:

(1) Will the 12" PB be as responsive in OSX navigation as an AMD 1800+ is in XP? ( opening folders, changing settings and etc. )

No. I find OSX to be somewhat sluggish even on 1 GHz PowerBooks with loads of RAM. An 1800+ on XP will feel much snappier.

My .02.

MacNStein · May 21, 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by PoisonTooth:
No. I find OSX to be somewhat sluggish even on 1 GHz PowerBooks with loads of RAM. An 1800+ on XP will feel much snappier.

My .02.

Interesting opinion. Most people I've encountered that felt OSX was sluggish had OSX poorly configured or had permissions problems. Or they simply had an agenda against Macs in general.

Besides, "feeling" snappier and actually getting work done are two very different things.