[runejoha]

Hi, lately I have been curious about the macs and I find them quite interesting. Currently I am using Compaq notebook with Linux and XP, but the macs seems to behave better in certain ares (I have not yet been able to compare on all my user areas)

There are so manye arguments agains and for macs and pc and vice versa.

My question is the following:

Why is the resolution on the Powerbook so "bad" in constrast to the PCs?

If I am going to buy a Powerbook, should I go for the G4 or wait for the G5? Will the G5 be very different? If so, when will Apple release this computer?

My userares are many when I am currently finishing my Master of Science in Computer tecs. Many PC users thinks that macs are only for graphics etc. but i am not convinced, therefore this question to you macfreaks )

Another thing is that so many people says that PC are so much better than macs, and other the opposite, what are really the "truth"?

Regards
Runejoha

[AssassyN]

Hi, and welcome to the MacNN Forums!

Currently, Apple only sells G4 PowerBooks...don't expect a G5 PowerBook for at least a year or so.

The resolutions on Macs aren't "worse" than on PCs, they're just typical a little lower, but to many, that's a benefit in that they can see what's on the screen more clearly. Also, all Apple PowerBooks come w/ DVI/VGA/S-Video/RCA out so you can connect your PowerBook to nearly any external monitor source for extra screen real estate. It's next to impossible to find DVI-out on a Windows laptop.

Don't be swayed, any app. you need is almost surely made for Mac as well as PC...and if not, there's an app. called "Virtual PC" that'll run Windows apps. on your Mac.

What exact programs will you be needing?

One platform isn't better than the other really, they're just different and it boils down to perference. I perfer Macs for their experience, it's much more fun and enjoyable (and less frustrating) than on PCs. Let us know any other Qs!

[madhu]

Hi,

I had the same ques earlier, but out here, I had all my ques answered...
I have decided for a 12" PB with additional 512 MB RAM. I'll be receiving it by this friday....the wait is killing me though...

The dealer has been kind enough to give me a 12" iBook to use temporarily till I get my PB.....
Over all, Mac is fascinating and nice to use....it adds on to the sophistication and a class to use when amidst regular PC users.

Yes, it is widely known for its uses in teh graphical world...but its versatility and convenience is far beyond comparision...trust me....I have been a PC user for the past 8 years and this experience has been nice and enjoyable.

The battery lasts much more than regular PC Laptops and it weighs just the same..(maybe a little less)...
its pure beauty trust me....(i can hear all others echo the same words...)

[bigben1024]

I'm planning on buying a mac because of the programming aspects.
I have spoken with some of my classmates (CS grad school) who bring their powerbooks to class every time. They told me that using the mac has been good for them. Also, mac os x is built on unix. Macs come with a lot of developer tools.
If you get panther, it comes with a tool that lets you modify code and see results imediatly.
I'm excited about the time I'm going to save when I finally get it...

[Scooterboy]

Another benefit is the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X. If you need UNIX, and not just Linux, a PowerBook is an excellent UNIX protable.
I just turned a Linux user into a PowerBook user when I showed him Terminal and Single User Mode.

[runejoha]

Hi, thanks for good answer!

I have some more Qs, yes

>>he resolutions on Macs aren't "worse" than on PCs, they're just typical a little lower, but to many, that's a benefit in that they can see what's on the screen more clearly.<<

Many apps could need better resolutions, and high resolution is never a bad thing. You can just adjust it lower if you need it. Apple could also make things "bigger"(graphical objects) and then make the resolution higher for better "look and feel".

Even dough I do agree in your statement, I cant see this is a argument for Apple not to have better resolution to compete with PCs(?)

Steve Jobs said that the interest for the G5 powerbook is very high, it might be a chance that Apple takes this opportunity to take more of the PC marked? The G5 did awake my interest for apple to a level that will make me switch if not a necessary new buy before the release of the G5 force me to continue with the PC. (Or i figure out that the G4 is good enough)

Vitual PC is very slow ))

Anyway, I develop and use Java,C, assembly, VHDL (Xilinx etc.), develop of bioinformatic programming language (algs) and would not be sad to have a few games (Doom3, Half Life2, etc.) I also use the computer for a 5 Megapixels with photoshop etc. (a hobby) and digital camera. Maybe this list "screams" Intel Pentium, but I would hope to try a Mac!

Regards Runejoha

[gator]

Random comments before I take a nap (I'm sure Assassyn will fill in more later):

Apple tends to be pretty stringent about displays and UI, so don't expect the PB to adopt vastly high res screens (i.e. 1600x1200, 1900x1200) soon... I think where Apple's screens are currently at is indicative of their opinion for usability/visibility.

While interest for a PB G5 is understandably present, I think it is feasible to expect a G5 PB sometime late next year, as Assassyn has already mentioned. I think Steve has already said sometime around there as a hopeful date, though I forget in which interview.

Most of your developer needs should be met by an Apple, though I'm not too sure what assembly/VHDL stuff is available, might be some stuff that will run in X11 (see here: http://www.gmvhdl.com/mac-dv.html for VHDL software).

[s0litude]

Hi! That's cool you are thinking about getting a Mac. Actually, after reading what you have listed, I think you should go for a Powerbook as opposed to the PC. I'm a grad student in Computer Science, focusing on Computer Information Network Security, and so far i've taken java and c++ courses. These programs work great on the mac, and with Panther coming out, it will be even easier to code and be able to compile and "see" your results right away. Also with the unix substructure, i've been able teach myself some basic unix administration. All the guys here at work that do unix network admin love coming over to check out the Terminal. Its also a big hit with some of the IT guys that have Linux boxes at home.

Also, on top of that, I play Unreal Tournament on my apple and it works great. It runs smooth and the wireless capability of the powerbook is bar none. I even play Warcraft 3 at our university library and log onto battle.net to play with other people.

Lastly, and I'm with you, I'm a huge photo and video person, and nothing caters to these more than Apples. It comes with iMovie, iDvd, iMusic, and iPhoto. All these tools are useful in editing your media. I just recently purchased a digital camera and its amazing what the powerbook can do with the pics i take. I've even been able to port some of my home videos to dvd. Also, using iMusic to burn music is a must have. Its a portable media making monster!

If you look at the features you get on the Apple and compare it to PC's, you'll find you get more value from Apple with the awesome hardware and the software tools you receive, especially if you are in school (You get an education discount). One last thing, I've been using PC's all my life, so when i first got my powerbook i was completely lost (I still get lost though ), but you get the resource of this huuuge community that loves to answer questions regardless of how basic the question may be. Hope that helps!

[icruise]

Originally posted by runejoha:

Many apps could need better resolutions, and high resolution is never a bad thing. You can just adjust it lower if you need it. Apple could also make things "bigger"(graphical objects) and then make the resolution higher for better "look and feel".

That's not really true. Unfortunately both Windows and OS X don't have completely scalable GUIs, and web pages are often hard-coded for use in a particular resolution. This means that if you have a very high-res monitor they can be rather difficult to see. I would like to see Apple allow build-to-order systems with higher-res screens, but as long as they are going with the "one size for everyone" approach, I think it's a good idea to be more conservative.

[runejoha]

This is like saying that a Pentium 4 is to fast No..

But they could support higher res like "other people" and then it is up to the user to choose the res. If I can say something "bad" it has to be the res! A good res is an advantage as well as good performance If you need less it is easy to lower the level, 4 clicks in XP (!) Start - controllpanel - display - properties.

It is not my purpose to talk bad about the macs, indeed I am here because I think Apple is better for many tasks and wanted some information, but I think it is necessary to try to find the arguments behind the drawbacks of mac to find all the answers.

The prosessingwork with high resolution is a problem for the cpu and the performance, and a RISC architecture might be a bottleneck. The great amount sales of the Intel and AMD processores makes it cheaper to produce cpus with higher performance for less price. This is not facts but reflecsions/thoughs.

Another problem as well could be that a RISC arch. requires more space each programm (more instruksions) in contrast to a CISC and takes more HD space, so it COULD be better to make programs with less information.

So my question is. Are the standards of macs only because of external reasons?

Regards
Runejoha

Originally posted by Icruise:
That's not really true. Unfortunately both Windows and OS X don't have completely scalable GUIs, and web pages are often hard-coded for use in a particular resolution. This means that if you have a very high-res monitor they can be rather difficult to see. I would like to see Apple allow build-to-order systems with higher-res screens, but as long as they are going with the "one size for everyone" approach, I think it's a good idea to be more conservative.

[schmoe]

Changing the full-screen resolution of an LCD requires interpolation which results in a less clear picture.

Since the Mac does have a strong graphics/publishing niche it would be bad business to give professionals a choice between too small or blurry.

[fat mac moron]

Well, it all depends on what exactly you need your laptop for but, I dabble a bit in the following:

Digital Photograpy: People still have trouble emailing photo's? iPhoto does it in one click.

Music: iTunes destroys anything out there. There is nothing else even close.

Movies: Final Cut Express does everything I need, but I basically have a mobile movie studio to render my videos. Oh yeah, I can burn a DVD when I'm done too.

Mobile Platform: iSync, iCal, Bluetooth Phone, .Mac... Where ever I am, I can sync my phone to my mac, backup the information to .Mac and keep my life organized.

Dual Boot? On my PowerBook I run Mac OS X, Classic apps, Windows, Linux, OpenBSD, MySQL, PHP, Perl, C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby, Fortran, Applescript and much more. It's a developers dream...

Standards: Unix-Like core, SSH, sFTP, FTP, Apache, PDF, Samba, XML, Telnet... I've yet to be stumped by some oddball "standard."

[runejoha]

..Which is true, but we still remain with the question, why do not Apple have better resolution with bigger graphical objects? Then things do not get small OR blurry

Originally posted by schmoe:
Changing the full-screen resolution of an LCD requires interpolation which results in a less clear picture.

Since the Mac does have a strong graphics/publishing niche it would be bad business to give professionals a choice between too small or blurry.

[icruise]

Originally posted by runejoha:
This is like saying that a Pentium 4 is to fast No..

But they could support higher res like "other people" and then it is up to the user to choose the res. If I can say something "bad" it has to be the res! A good res is an advantage as well as good performance If you need less it is easy to lower the level, 4 clicks in XP (!) Start - controllpanel - display - properties.

Have you ever actually tried this on a laptop. It will look like sh!t.

This is true both in windows and OS X.

[Allenzi35]

Originally posted by schmoe:
Changing the full-screen resolution of an LCD requires interpolation which results in a less clear picture.

Since the Mac does have a strong graphics/publishing niche it would be bad business to give professionals a choice between too small or blurry.

The fonts are blurry at native res. anyway so what's the difference. Sorry, I had to.

I know nothing about graphics but I would think that higher resolution would mean better graphics. To me, the more you can fit on the screen the better. If you can't see it, get glasses. I can't wait for the day Apple offers at least SXGA.

[CobraNT]

Two words.....Buy One

[wallaper]

I think there is allot of good responses here and I know just how you feel about switching to a mac. I have worked in the graphics field for about 12 years now and have always worked on macs at work but have always had pc's at home. These are just personal preferences but I will tell you how I feel. I have 2 pc's at home as well as a 15al powerbook. The powerbook is without a doubt beautiful and light, its style cant be beat and its a great OS. When I step back to my pc's now they feel like they are flying and I really like xp. Not that the powerbook is slow its just not as snappy as my x86 machines. All my friends are also on Pc's so sharing apps and playing games together is something that I cant do with the mac either. It all depends on what you need to do with the machine. I personally will always have pc desktop and a mac laptop.

Hope that helps
Wallaper

[nobitacu]

YES!!!!!

Ming

[OKCutter]

There are 2 pc's and 2 mac's in my house (IBM desktop, Dell laptop, Powermac G4, and TiBook G4), and I prefer the Macs...hands down. Main reason? The Macs have ALWAYS been trouble-free... the PC's...not so much.

I'm a television cameraman/editor by trade, so I do a TON of video editing on my Macs. I also do a lot of still photography, though only as a hobby.

My photography workflow is as follows: I shoot my pictures on a Mamiya 645 1000s (Medium Format) camera, have the negatives professionally scanned at 2549(w) x 2048(h), and edit them on my mac for use on my website (www.ourbabystory.net).

Just today, I completed a total makeover of my website, using photoshop, dreamweaver and quicktime on my 1ghz, titanium powerbook G4. LCD resolution aside, I have to give the nod to the mac. The photos and videos on my site just look better on my macs (your mileage may vary). On my mac computers, the photos are sharper, the color is more saturated, and the videos play smoother than on my Dell laptop (I haven't tested this on the IBM desktop...it crashes too much).

Long story short...if it matters, I'm gonna do it on a mac! (just my humble opinion)

[Saleo]

I'm a graphic design student and have been using PC's since a child. I also worked as a computer tech for most of my high school life and early college. It was at school that I first got introduced to apple.
Earlier in the summer I recently bought a desktop PC. And while a few people label PC's problems as their reason for switching, since I built most of the PC's I've owned myself I've never experienced any big problems with my PC's. Even Windows usually ran fairly well, and I've had no problems with XP since switching to it.

Well I recently decided to buy a notebook to make life easier. I immediately logged onto the apple site and bought myself a 15" 1.25GHZ powerbook.
I honestly don't know my major reason for finally switching to mac. Like I said, I've never experienced any problems using my PC's. And if anything the lab in our school should've turned me off the macs more then turn me on to them. Something about the OS thought really appealed to me. OS X just felt more intuitive, it ran like I felt an OS should run and a computer in general. So I figured it was time to make the switch.

For yourself I really think you need to do some research, try them out. Find out if the switch is really right for you. Don't jump into buying one right away because you may find it hard to break some of those PC habits. But if you do I'm sure you'll find macs run the way computers should run.

[nate_02]

I would buy a MAC over a PC if MACs resolution was 640x480 and PCs were 1024x768.

[forcelite]

I have a apple laptop and a home built pc desktop.

I have worked for Apple and am currently working for a mojor PC company (the biggest one)

I can say that if I could only have one computer (which will never happen but IF) I would have a PC.

I like Mac's better in almost every way. In fact the only thing I can think of is that I am a mojor gamer and games tend to take 2-3 months longer to come to mac. That is the only reason. But since I live in america and I am free to do what I want I will always own a mac and a Pc.

OS X is very stable, much more than XP. I have a niche to make OS's crash so even though both (XP and OS X) are stable I can make anything crash, but OS X crashes ALOT less.

That being said I have worked all over the board as far as computers. Apples are way more classy in every aspect. 98% of the things you can do with a PC you can do with an apple, most even better.

Seriously I have heard it all and trust me when I say that you are not the first, nor the last to come up with a few downfalls of apple. One can come up with just as many for PC.

It really comes down to what you want and I personally like using an os that is geared towards getting things done easily, not me having to tinker with it to get the same task done. Back in the day when I had ample time on my hands I had my PC apart all the time, tweaking with this and that while downloading updated drivers everyother day to get things to run smoothly. These days I am much buisier so I prefer to jump on my mac and get it done without hassle.

Again personal preferance

[zanyterp]

Originally posted by runejoha:
[B]<snip>TAnother problem as well could be that a RISC arch. requires more space each programm (more instruksions) in contrast to a CISC and takes more HD space, so it COULD be better to make programs with less information.
[B]

maybe it's because i don't study processor architucture, and perhaps i should because of this, but wouldn't RISC be faster than CISC, as the R is for "reduced instruction set computing", right? what am i mising here that would make RISC need more instructions than CISC? thanks!!

[nagromme]

I think you'll be glad you chose a Mac!

* PowerBook displays are great. Some PC laptops have ultra-high-res options like 1600x1200 that sound neat on paper but are much less usable (for most people). It's really a specialty option, not generally useful, because it makes everything very tiny and hard on the eyes if you use your laptop for long. Also, with OS X 10.3 Panther's Exposé feature, you essentially have a giant high-res display any time you need it, with a flick of the mouse to a hot corner. Just one of the ways Macs manage windows better, lessening the need to cram a lot of pixels into a small space.

* The G5 will be different--probably groundbreaking--but nobody knows when. Apple has only said "not soon"--and there are technical challenges to be solved first. I'd guess next summer at the earliest. I've decided I can't wait--I'll get a PBG4 now, and then in 2005 or 2006, replace it with a PBG5 or G6.

* Macs are the minority, and thus, many people think they know about them when really they don't. I have to say Mac OS X is the best OS ever created, by far, for nearly any purpose. It's UNIX, as you probably know, and highly regarded by many programmers. And IT folks are coming around to Mac as an alternative to Windows in Linux too. For instance:

http://www.infoworld.com/reports/SRapple.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...OPcurve_1.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...nection_1.html

* Lastly, Macs are much more secure. There are ZERO viruses for Mac OS X.

BTW, order after this week, so you're more likely to get Panther included and not have to send away for it.

[runejoha]

Originally posted by zanyterp:
maybe it's because i don't study processor architucture, and perhaps i should because of this, but wouldn't RISC be faster than CISC, as the R is for "reduced instruction set computing", right? what am i mising here that would make RISC need more instructions than CISC? thanks!!

RISC prosessors use "microinstrukctions" instead of advanced instructions. This requires more instructions to for example realise a loop, while in CISC(x86) they migh have one instruction to to the whole thing. Intel and AMD have started to implement more "RISC instructions" because it is better for prediciton in pipelining and superscalars etc. So it is faster for some operations because it is a easy solution.

Because RISC programms have more instructions than CISC they do take more space on the HD. A programm written in for example C has to use all this small instructions to realise the machinecode, while in CISC it can use bigger instructions which may cover a whole loop etc. This instruction takes more space than one RISC instruction, but often less than all the RISCS necessary to realise it.

Lately RISC prosessorer use more CISC instructions and CISC more
RISC instrucs. A mix of this is the best!


Regards
Runejoha

[runejoha]

Thanks very much for many good answers!

Originally posted by nagromme:
I think you'll be glad you chose a Mac!

* PowerBook displays are great. Some PC laptops have ultra-high-res options like 1600x1200 that sound neat on paper but are much less usable (for most people). It's really a specialty option, not generally useful, because it makes everything very tiny and hard on the eyes if you use your laptop for long. Also, with OS X 10.3 Panther's Exposé feature, you essentially have a giant high-res display any time you need it, with a flick of the mouse to a hot corner. Just one of the ways Macs manage windows better, lessening the need to cram a lot of pixels into a small space.

* The G5 will be different--probably groundbreaking--but nobody knows when. Apple has only said "not soon"--and there are technical challenges to be solved first. I'd guess next summer at the earliest. I've decided I can't wait--I'll get a PBG4 now, and then in 2005 or 2006, replace it with a PBG5 or G6.

* Macs are the minority, and thus, many people think they know about them when really they don't. I have to say Mac OS X is the best OS ever created, by far, for nearly any purpose. It's UNIX, as you probably know, and highly regarded by many programmers. And IT folks are coming around to Mac as an alternative to Windows in Linux too. For instance:

http://www.infoworld.com/reports/SRapple.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...OPcurve_1.html

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/...nection_1.html

* Lastly, Macs are much more secure. There are ZERO viruses for Mac OS X.

BTW, order after this week, so you're more likely to get Panther included and not have to send away for it.

[djjava]

Just buy one, you'll never turn back to the PC hell....

heck, if you do.. that is what Virtual PC is for.

[benb]

Originally posted by runejoha:
The prosessingwork with high resolution is a problem for the cpu and the performance, and a RISC architecture might be a bottleneck. The great amount sales of the Intel and AMD processores makes it cheaper to produce cpus with higher performance for less price. This is not facts but reflecsions/thoughs.

Another problem as well could be that a RISC arch. requires more space each programm (more instruksions) in contrast to a CISC and takes more HD space, so it COULD be better to make programs with less information.

You are thinking way too much about this.

[Ryan1524]

there's a reason why LCDs have a less flexible supported native res. resizing your screen on LCDs will result in distortions and blurriness or other 'bad' effects. and nobody wants that. and with those large screen in most PC notebooks, i find everything to be too small and when i enlarge them, they get blurry. as for making OS X's objects bigger to make it more visible under high res screens, some things would still be too small and as someone mentioned, a lot of web pages are hard written to be at a certain res. that's not gonna look pretty on a screen that's too big(small).

i've played around with both higher res LCDs and the ones Apple uses on their machines. trust me, they give you plenty of real estate. i was impressed at how spacious the screen feels even though the res seems 'low' (which is really not). and they are easy on the eyes. i find them to be just the right pixel density. not too big, not too small.

don't think too much about how apps should look like on it or how they would look on it, just go to a store and try them out yourself, those worries are gonna be out the window the second you tried them out. there is nthign to complain about. and if youj still want more space, there are plenty of high res, large LCDs out there to choose from. all of which are easily supported by the Powerbook's DVI/VGA out.


my advice is GO BUY ONE. you'll never regret it.

[runejoha]

I probably think to much about the res in theory without thinking about the practical use But I still believe that the main reason for the resolution is the costs, which makes a new question: How can for example Dell sell much cheaper pcs with higher res (and performance? Even dough they suck in battery life time, quality and have the worst design ever + are always in repair - hmm sounds like a answer to the question.)

Well, anyway! If I buy a Powerbook G4 now, will I get any money back if I sell this in 1 year (when the G5 comes). I have heard that used macs keeps the prices pretty good.. agg my english sucks today sorry!

Regards
Runejoha

Originally posted by Ryan1524:
there's a reason why LCDs have a less flexible supported native res. resizing your screen on LCDs will result in distortions and blurriness or other 'bad' effects. and nobody wants that. and with those large screen in most PC notebooks, i find everything to be too small and when i enlarge them, they get blurry. as for making OS X's objects bigger to make it more visible under high res screens, some things would still be too small and as someone mentioned, a lot of web pages are hard written to be at a certain res. that's not gonna look pretty on a screen that's too big(small).

i've played around with both higher res LCDs and the ones Apple uses on their machines. trust me, they give you plenty of real estate. i was impressed at how spacious the screen feels even though the res seems 'low' (which is really not). and they are easy on the eyes. i find them to be just the right pixel density. not too big, not too small.

don't think too much about how apps should look like on it or how they would look on it, just go to a store and try them out yourself, those worries are gonna be out the window the second you tried them out. there is nthign to complain about. and if youj still want more space, there are plenty of high res, large LCDs out there to choose from. all of which are easily supported by the Powerbook's DVI/VGA out.


my advice is GO BUY ONE. you'll never regret it.

[nagromme]

Dells are certainly more cheaply made, with far less innovation, R&D, and beneficial details compared to PowerBooks. In addition, if you look carefully at ALL the specs, a Dell that seemed at first to match a Powerbook is bound to be missing some things.

Firewire 800 is an obvious one

[forcelite]

I think I am very qualified to answer on the PC question.

Dell, HP, and others of that type actually make very little on their PC's and laptops. Its not until you start adding the higher end accessories that they start making any kind of margin.

Also if you notice companies like Dell offer a warranty for everything. And warranties statistically are big money makers.

They try to add on additional warranties to their low priced computers, warranties that used to be a standard service. There are warranties for accidental damage, ones for printers, ones installs, ones for this and that.

Lastly PC manufactures make most of their money on the non-price sensitive customers. Dell and HP really hate to sell their bottom of the line $799 laptop with no service or accessories. What they do like to sell is the more expensive computers where people are not so price sensitive. They can then charge a premium for the add-ons, and thus make profit. If you look at a Dell or HP, they do alot of snaping-on and screwing in parts, which is alot cheaper than integrating them into the system nicely.

The PC business as a whole is getting pretty bad as far as profit. All the companies are slashing prices which leads to lower margins. Now they have to rely on warranty sales and services to make any money at all.

With very little in profit there is no way that PC companies can invest in design and looks like apple does. If you see a PC that looks good it costs alot more.

And like many others pointed out the basic HP has almost nothing. When you start adding Wi-Fi and dvd-r's, then the price jumps considerably. Also many dont even have options for firewire or bluetooth, all standard in powerbooks.

BTW I know all of this to be true