 |
 |
Cool PB article [from macnn home page listing]
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
(Last edited by SEkker; Jun 18, 2004 at 01:51 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I find myself in almost the same boat, but with my 15". I was considering a 12" model for my next upgrade, but I may wait and get a (possibly refurb) 15" instead so as to not lose the screen real estate I have now. 
Voch
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
That can't be possible though. There is no way that a stock 17" can beat out a loaded one with better graphics card, faster harddrive, and more than twice the memory. I love the article, but come on, there has got to be something wrong with it, why would people buy the extra stuff if it didn't make a difference, let alone be slower?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think it is possible the unloaded 17" could be faster. There seems to be an ongoing belief that added RAM makes your powerbook go faster as well as allow you to run more apps at the same time, and I always read posts of people advising others to just buy more RAM, but I never really believed the run faster part. The 5400 RPM vs the 4200 HD sounds rather odd though. The 128 MB video RAM has been already tested on Barefeats and is old news.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PatsPalace24:
why would people buy the extra stuff if it didn't make a difference, let alone be slower?
Maybe now they'll think twice before they do.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm certainly no expert, but I've read many articles claiming that many "speed" and performance tests have to be taken with a grain of salt. In particular, xBench tests are notorious for giving different results each time you run them on the same machine. Others have pointed out that real world use will give you a better idea of what is fastest for a particular user's need.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by reneb:
Others have pointed out that real world use will give you a better idea of what is fastest for a particular user's need.
That's right. Better technical specs don't always mean better real-world performance for the actual tasks you perform on the computer. I also think that people generally spend way too much on upgrades (hard drives, graphics cards, etc.) when they could be saving for an entirely new machine.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Semi Posting Retirement *ReJoice!*
Status:
Offline
|
|
ijust hope the 512 i added isnt wasted on this 12incher .. seems faster, and i looking at the ram i have left on the monitor, i never totally run out like before. although after heavy usage, sometimes it gets pretty close...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wouldn't there be a bottle neck from HD to processor/RAM/etc due to the relativley slow system bus speed? Maybe that's where the "leveling of the playing field" comes into play? Just a question/guess.
|
BlackBook 2Ghz C2D, 2GB, 120GB HD | Black 80GB iPod 5.5 | 8GB Red iPod Nano |
Check out my personal and classroom sites!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
