[MrMiyagi]

Hey there,

Have any of you noticed how slow the bus is on the Powerbook G4? I'm looking at buying the new 15" 1.33 GHz, and it's like something terrible like 167Mhz or something like that.

This compares to some of the Sony Vaio 150 (similar price) at 400Mhz. Is there something different about the Powerbook's architecture that I should know about that would account for the huge difference in bus speeds?

http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/ser...09n32160n47540

Please no flames! I'm an iBook owner right now, but need some justification for the amount of cash I want to dole out on a new powerbook.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by MrMiyagi:
Hey there,

Have any of you noticed how slow the bus is on the Powerbook G4? I'm looking at buying the new 15" 1.33 GHz, and it's like something terrible like 167Mhz or something like that.

This compares to some of the Sony Vaio 150 (similar price) at 400Mhz. Is there something different about the Powerbook's architecture that I should know about that would account for the huge difference in bus speeds?

Yeah, the P4 uses a quad pumped 100Mhz bus to get 400 Mhz. In theory, it's a little slower than a true 400mhz bus....

But, either way, bus speed makes little (under 10%) performance impact alone. It's the whole package that makes the performance what it is.

[kafoochy]

This is a limitation of the current Motorola G4 chip. Even the last gen MDD G4 towers running Dual 1.42Ghz G4s had a 167Mhz bus speed. Yes, G4s then have to use a higher multiplier than P4s, but you need to think about the final result. What if the G4 had a higher bus and lower multiplier? Who cares? You can't compare them and you need to live with this. The PBs are great machines and the G4 can multiply quite well, which is why even though the bus has only increased by 67Mhz in the last five years, every speed bump is noticeably faster than the previous model. If you're worrying about bus speed, you're worrying too much. The Sony looks very nice, so if you want to run XP, if you don't care that your laptop will have no battery life (1.5-3.5 hrs quoted!!!) and has an inferior graphics chipset (9200 vs. 9700, hey if you're thinking about bus speed because of the longevity of the computer, both OS X Tiger and Longhorn will heavily tax your graphics chip and a 9200 won't cut it). If you like the Sony get it and someday you'll suffer when XP grinds to a halt. Half of the PB owners on these forums are professionals, programmers, graphic designers, artists, animators, etc. If this isn't a better indication of how irrelevant bus speed is, I don't know what is. It would be nice to have more, and I very excited about G5 PBs, but that's not for today.

Oh and the bus isn't " terrible like 167Mhz or something like that." its just 167Mhz.

[MrMiyagi]

Hehe. I've only got a one track mind: bus speed!!

Thanks for the explanation. I am not just looking a bus
My performance criteria, however, are not just limited to Bus speed. After initially deciding on going to the G4 Powerbook, and then looking around at other laptops, I am wondering more and more if I should maybe go elsewhere. The Powerbook is the prettiest and thinnest I've seen so far -- bar none but there are other factors too.

The lack of choice when it comes to displays (I'd love to have a 12" with a better resolution than 1024x768 or a 15" with an SXGA screen) lack of L2 cache (the Opteron seems to have 2MB vs. 512K for the G4), and (haha) low bus speed all are kind of forcing me to look around a bit more. I'm not saying I won't get the G4 powerbook, but the competition is *very* strong in terms of price and performance.

And, quite frankly, like it or not..Windows XP is getting better...much better than it used to be in terms of robustness and usability. I still prefer OS X's prettieness though.

Originally posted by kafoochy:
This is a limitation of the current Motorola G4 chip. Even the last gen MDD G4 towers running Dual 1.42Ghz G4s had a 167Mhz bus speed. Yes, G4s then have to use a higher multiplier than P4s, but you need to think about the final result. What if the G4 had a higher bus and lower multiplier? Who cares? You can't compare them and you need to live with this. The PBs are great machines and the G4 can multiply quite well, which is why even though the bus has only increased by 67Mhz in the last five years, every speed bump is noticeably faster than the previous model. If you're worrying about bus speed, you're worrying too much. The Sony looks very nice, so if you want to run XP, if you don't care that your laptop will have no battery life (1.5-3.5 hrs quoted!!!) and has an inferior graphics chipset (9200 vs. 9700, hey if you're thinking about bus speed because of the longevity of the computer, both OS X Tiger and Longhorn will heavily tax your graphics chip and a 9200 won't cut it). If you like the Sony get it and someday you'll suffer when XP grinds to a halt. Half of the PB owners on these forums are professionals, programmers, graphic designers, artists, animators, etc. If this isn't a better indication of how irrelevant bus speed is, I don't know what is. It would be nice to have more, and I very excited about G5 PBs, but that's not for today.

Oh and the bus isn't " terrible like 167Mhz or something like that." its just 167Mhz.

[Link]

Yeah for only 2 additional pounds you get 2x the bus speed and a crappy plastic case

[Luca Rescigno]

It's just a property of the G4 chip. It's too bad, but it shouldn't have too great an effect on actual performance. The G4 is still very efficient and gives good performance per MHz. Also, remember that the G4 is a seven-stage pipeline. The Pentium 4 has a 20-stage pipeline. Even the G5 has something like 16 pipeline stages.

I guess the point is that there are a zillion small things you can look at when comparing computers, but you can't just look at one. You have to look at all sorts of factors, and the usability of the OS and the design of the case are both important considerations.

However, the next revision of PowerBooks is going to get a new chip of some kind. The current chip, the 7447, will not be moving much past 1.5 GHz, so it'll get either a 7448, a modified G3, or a G5. In any case, it could quite possibly get a faster bus speed and more L2 cache. But it might not come out for months yet.

[kikkoman]

From my experience the hard drive is going to be the bottleneck on any laptop, mac or windows. We had these Dell laptops someone speced out with some crappy 4200 rpm hard drives and the 2GHz P4 and the fast FSB was just wasted.

[hldan]

Originally posted by MrMiyagi:
Hehe. I've only got a one track mind: bus speed!!

Thanks for the explanation. I am not just looking a bus
My performance criteria, however, are not just limited to Bus speed. After initially deciding on going to the G4 Powerbook, and then looking around at other laptops, I am wondering more and more if I should maybe go elsewhere. The Powerbook is the prettiest and thinnest I've seen so far -- bar none but there are other factors too.

The lack of choice when it comes to displays (I'd love to have a 12" with a better resolution than 1024x768 or a 15" with an SXGA screen) lack of L2 cache (the Opteron seems to have 2MB vs. 512K for the G4), and (haha) low bus speed all are kind of forcing me to look around a bit more. I'm not saying I won't get the G4 powerbook, but the competition is *very* strong in terms of price and performance.

And, quite frankly, like it or not..Windows XP is getting better...much better than it used to be in terms of robustness and usability. I still prefer OS X's prettieness though.

Your point is completely valid about the L2 cache differences especially the new Dothan processors in the PC notebooks having 2MB L2 cache and I can't understand the processor designs well enough to explain why it's that much larger than the G4 chips at 512k L2. Just the specs being 2MB L2 would make anyone want to consider the new Sony PC notebooks. Also keep in mind that the G5 also has 512k L2. There must be some type of math or just marketing scheme to understand why the Centrino notebooks need or have 2MB L2 Cache.
I know it makes the Apple computers look out of date but there must be more to it.
Anyone with more to add about the cache size differences go for it.

[Snake]

It was my understanding that the more L2 cache present, the longer it takes for the chip to chip to check it all before retreiving data. Im only talking about nanoseconds here, but it does make a difference.

[kafoochy]

As much as it is nice to have a thin, light laptop, as I mentioned before, half the people on these forums are power users. I'm glad that you're not just looking at bus speed, but in general you're comparing specs and not looking at the useability of the system. Firstly, no 12" laptop should have a resolution greater than 1024x768, it just isn't good for the eyes. There are some times when I would like a little more resolution on my 15", but I don't think anything that much greater would enhance the user experience. When I have my laptop on a stand on my desk, the resolution is more than high enough and I find myself increasing the text size in many browsers to not strain my perfect vision. You can't look at bus speed and L2 cache (you're also leaving out the faster L1) and compare them between chipsets, especially between CISC and RISC. The architecture is completely different and they utilize cache differently.

You can compare cars on horsepower alone but unless you look at the performance figures, you're not getting a representation of the final performance, which is the only thing you're going to experience. You're cheating yourself by comparing specs that you can't completely understand.

On that note, I must completely disagree on your comment about Win XP. We have some Win XP systems where I work and it is easy for me to sit down, go to the start menu and do what I want to. This pleasant experience lasts about 5min. After that, when I try to play a CD I receive a message that there isn't a sound card, even though its built onto the system board and drivers are loaded.

The real circus act starts whenever I put in any removable media and I get an obnoxious dialog box asking what I want to do. This is of course after waiting for XP to go through it's process of "discovering" what the device is that I've added. With OS X within a 2 sec period, I have my flash memory card loaded on the desktop, while XP is giving me messages telling me how excited it is that it found that the device is a SanDisk Cruzer Mini. Even on our new Dells OptiPlex towers I have enough time to applaud XP for telling me what I just put in the computer, as if I didn't know. The general feeling that I get from XP, is that when it runs, it can run well, but in general its a little clunky and its consistent over-thinking is an insult to my intelligence.

Then there is the issue of longevity. We have a one old B&W 400Mhz G3 that must be 4 years old as well as an IBM which I believe is a 667Mhz P3. Each OS X update saw a marked increase is speediness of the operating system. That isn't to say that Photoshop is a whole lot faster in 10.3 than it was in 10.1, but there has been an improvement. We currently use this system as a front end for a very small FMP database and it runs flawlessly. Tiger, 10.4, is supposed to be even quicker, ever for old systems. On the other hand, the upgrade from Win 95, to Win 98, to 2000, to XP Pro has seen our IBM go from adequate for most tasks to unbearably slow for everything except basic non-image laden websites. This is with all the nice XP visuals off.

What I am illustrating (in a very verbose manner) is that the bottom line is not bus speed or cache size (the XBrite screens are very nice though) but how usable the system is. You mentioned that XP has become more robust and OS X is pretty. I don't think it matters that OS X is pretty. What matters to me is that I can accomplish my work faster, more efficiently with less headaches and more reliability on Macs. If you know windows well, can be your own tech person and value a couple more Mhz, KB cache, and LCD pixels than by all means get the Vaio. I even think it looks nice, really nice actually. If it were given to me as a business machine, I'd use it, but for my own sanity, both now and in the future, I'd have to choose a PowerBook, especially with Tiger coming out much before Longhorn. The Vaio would allow me to be a pretentious nerd and value the material and specs more than the experience and usability. If you want people's opinions, that's mine (and a freakishly long one at that-sorry!)

[ibook_steve]

Also, as a side note, a bigger L2 cache doesn't necessarily mean a faster machine. As stated earlier, your returns on performance as you increase the cache size eventually are reduced because the size of the cache makes it harder to find the needed cached data. Also, the PowerPC probably manages its cache much better so not as much is needed.

Steve

[MrMiyagi]

You are right that a bigger L2 cache doesn't mean a faster machine, but that's not my argument.

What I'm arguing is that, feature for feature, the Powerbook 15" isn't as good as it could be, for the price they're charging. This isn't an *old* machine -- t came out only in April. And, for the same price, I could get a much better equipped PC laptop which actually doesnt' have that bad a form factor. That is all I'm saying.

Just shop around, and you'll see what I mean. I still am not convinced about not buying a mac: I've owned macs for many years...but if Apple's gonna charge me the equivalent of one of my kidneys for a machine that isn't somewhere near top of the line, then I'm going to have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, it's pretty, but it's got to be at least somewhat cost effective too.

Originally posted by ibook_steve:
Also, as a side note, a bigger L2 cache doesn't necessarily mean a faster machine. As stated earlier, your returns on performance as you increase the cache size eventually are reduced because the size of the cache makes it harder to find the needed cached data. Also, the PowerPC probably manages its cache much better so not as much is needed.

Steve

[Link]

One thing to keep in mind is that this 15" laptop this guy is bragging about, is 7.3lbs...

The 15" powerbook weighs like 5.6lbs. *sigh* Problem is either you get a really light laptop or a heavy laptop

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by Link:
One thing to keep in mind is that this 15" laptop this guy is bragging about, is 7.3lbs...

The 15" powerbook weighs like 5.6lbs. *sigh* Problem is either you get a really light laptop or a heavy laptop

This guy is talking about the specs in a machine that's a few months old not being very up to date. Though for $3849 (15 inch) and $3999 (17 inch) you can configure the Powerbook to have mostly everything currently available in cheaper configuration on the PC side. Wieght aside.

Apple made a lot of bragging about being the first 64 bit desktop, but on the PC side there are Athlons 64 bit chips for laptops available. Would it be so hard for Apple to include a fast (5200RPM) drive in the base configuration-instead of it being a $125 option for a faster drive and an extra 20 gigs? Could they be more flexible in memory implementation to allow you to replace the 256 MB card yourself and add more memory in the other slot? Since the same keyboard is used throughout why don't they include the backlighting option for the 12" I know the answer for many of these questions (money), and these are just questions to illustrate a point that Apple should be the innovator not only in looks, but in features to remain competitive with the competition. Especially in light of the many issues in the recent Titanium Powerbooks and the Rev A's for the Aluminum version.

Where's an X-brite display for Apple laptops? Better sounding speakers, the ones included are a pour showing for a company so dedicated to music currently? I am seriously considering a Powerbook, but I don't want to spend a premium, unless there are premium features offered. Industrial design is nice for sure, but where is the substance that keeps the Powerbook competitive? I agree with the poster in this regard.

DRM

[sniffer]

.. but on the PC side there are Athlons 64 bit chips for laptops available.

So where is the OS that utilize the 64 bit power? And what good is 64 bit CPU if all you use it for is emulating 32 bit software. We are not all 64 bit linux users.

[JKT]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
This guy is talking about the specs in a machine that's a few months old not being very up to date. Though for $3849 (15 inch) and $3999 (17 inch) you can configure the Powerbook to have mostly everything currently available in cheaper configuration on the PC side. Wieght aside.

Apple made a lot of bragging about being the first 64 bit desktop, but on the PC side there are Athlons 64 bit chips for laptops available. Would it be so hard for Apple to include a fast (5200RPM) drive in the base configuration-instead of it being a $125 option for a faster drive and an extra 20 gigs? Could they be more flexible in memory implementation to allow you to replace the 256 MB card yourself and add more memory in the other slot? Since the same keyboard is used throughout why don't they include the backlighting option for the 12" I know the answer for many of these questions (money), and these are just questions to illustrate a point that Apple should be the innovator not only in looks, but in features to remain competitive with the competition. Especially in light of the many issues in the recent Titanium Powerbooks and the Rev A's for the Aluminum version.

Where's an X-brite display for Apple laptops? Better sounding speakers, the ones included are a pour showing for a company so dedicated to music currently? I am seriously considering a Powerbook, but I don't want to spend a premium, unless there are premium features offered. Industrial design is nice for sure, but where is the substance that keeps the Powerbook competitive? I agree with the poster in this regard.

DRM

At least get your prices right when you do these comparisons - the 5200rpm drive in the PowerBook is CDN$70 more, not CDN$125 and you get 80GB by default no matter what the speed (that Sony only has a 4200rpm drive anyway).

I've just visited the Sony site linked above and specced the Sony to be as similar as possible to the base 15" 1.5GHz (with no optional extras = CDN$3,299) and guess what, it's CDN$3,199. The software package on the Sony is also much worse than that on the PowerBook, and it only has a 60GB 4200 rpm drive, a worse graphics card, and no backlit keyboard.

I don't get your comment about the RAM - both slots are user replaceable in the 15" and 17" PowerBooks and the Sony's above also only come with 2x256MB chips just like the base PB. "X-brite" is a Sony technology so where is the surprise that it is only offered on Sony's?

That seems mighty competitive for a machine that is already half way through its life cycle to me and hardly constitutes a premium of any description whatsoever.

Edit: My bad - it seems to me that you were comparing the 12" PB to a 15" Sony by the look of your comments - which makes no sense to me - but it is where your pricing comes from...

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by ibook_steve:
Also, as a side note, a bigger L2 cache doesn't necessarily mean a faster machine. As stated earlier, your returns on performance as you increase the cache size eventually are reduced because the size of the cache makes it harder to find the needed cached data. Also, the PowerPC probably manages its cache much better so not as much is needed.

Steve

My information is a bit dated (it's been a few years now since I've had to work with processor architectures), but PPC processors generally have shorter pipelines then the Pentium family. In order to really get your money's worth out of the performance of a Pentium processor, you've got to have lots of instructions in flight on every clock cycle. And the only way to do that is to have all those instructions readily accessable in cache. Pentiums have big caches because they need them to get good performance numbers. Since PPC's generally have fewer instructions in flight, they can get away with smaller caches and still get most of the performance out of the architecture.

(incidentally, one of the things driving this architectural difference is that Intel has placed a marketing priority on clock speeds, so they engineer their chips to have more pipeline stages that each have less logic in them to meet their specs. It doesn't hurt that they have world-class fab technology, either...)

Besides, large on-chip caches are not always what you want in a portable computer, anyway. Large caches draw more power. Maybe someone with more knowledge of recent Intel architectures can confirm this for me, but I'm willing to bet that if you look at Intel's chips that are specialized for laptops, you'll see that they knocked down the cache to save on power.

(I really need some way to convince my boss to spring for the Microprocessor Report...)

[kafoochy]

Originally posted by MrMiyagi:
but if Apple's gonna charge me the equivalent of one of my kidneys for a machine that isn't somewhere near top of the line, then I'm going to have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, it's pretty, but it's got to be at least somewhat cost effective too.

lol! Sorry, but this slight delusion is starting to amuse me. We're not trying to argue that PBs are better than PC laptops, what we're saying is that they are just as competitive. If all you want is speed, go for an Inspirion 9100/XPS. If all you want is portability go for an Inspiron 700m or any other sub-notebook. If you want both, get a Powerbook. Yes, we have compared the specs and we can get a PB that has just as much speed, faster hard drive, faster video card (the best currently shipping in any laptop today) as well as the highest amount of VRAM you can get, decent battery-life for a powerful machine, excellent external connectivity, good screens, and a small sleek case. You can configure any windows laptop to be a compromise for either speed, price or size. You're paying for a low-compromise design with an Apple PB, but the premium is very low if not existent when comparing some machines. Oh and there's this little thing called an operating system; it's what harnesses the power of the system and provides the actual user experience. I feel very confident installing Tiger and any forthcoming OS X update on my computer, knowing that besides being easy and will probably provide a speed increase, it will be robust. Goodluck getting any speed out of Longhorn when you try to install it, have you even done research to look at the required specs? You'd probably have problems running it on the PC laptops you've mentioned. Although if you wanted to argue against this you could say it doesn't matter because you're going to be using XP until at least 2006 when longhorn will come out. Great argument there.

[hldan]

Originally posted by MrMiyagi:
You are right that a bigger L2 cache doesn't mean a faster machine, but that's not my argument.

What I'm arguing is that, feature for feature, the Powerbook 15" isn't as good as it could be, for the price they're charging. This isn't an *old* machine -- t came out only in April. And, for the same price, I could get a much better equipped PC laptop which actually doesnt' have that bad a form factor. That is all I'm saying.

Just shop around, and you'll see what I mean. I still am not convinced about not buying a mac: I've owned macs for many years...but if Apple's gonna charge me the equivalent of one of my kidneys for a machine that isn't somewhere near top of the line, then I'm going to have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, it's pretty, but it's got to be at least somewhat cost effective too.

If that's your only mentality when buying a new computer is the "feature for feature" thing then I am sorry for you. That's complete ignorance. As it has been mentioned several times here that your computing experience is entirely up to the OS. If you notice about PC's, in general they either play the "features" game like Sony or they will play the "low cost" game like Dell.
PC companies know that they don't have much to fight for because the Windows operatiing system has been targeted so much by hackers and out of the box customers are forced to spend a good deal of money on internet security software and yada yada yada.
The Windows experience hasn't really changed much over the years. If you are an experienced Windows user it's very obvious that XP has a face change for the better and some plug and play enhancements but it's still the same ole difficult and frustrating computing experience.
Computing should be elementary and it's not with Windows.
Simple stuff like dragging an unwanted file to the trash without thinking, The Mac OS will do it but Windows will give you an error message stating that you may damage other programs by removing this file!

Sometimes uninstalling doesn't completely remove the software. It gets frustrating with Windows. You really need to think about actually using the machine and not feature for feature.

One last thing, feature for feature the Apple comes out ahead even in the iBook.
The Powerbook's all metal casing, slot load drive, backlit keyboard, S-video, FW800, FW400 DVI out are not even available on the Sonys. Some of them are only on the docking station.
Speaking on computing experience again the iPod is another consideration. It easier to use it on the Macs.
Figure out what you are willing to tolerate but don't judge feature for feature alone in accordance to the price. Sony's aren't any cheaper.
It probably doesn't matter what we say, if you want a PC go buy one, it's no crime, it won't affect my computing experience.

[webb3201]

Don't even think about specs. You will not be running benchmarks everyday, rather you will be trying to get work/play accomplished on the machine. A current Powerbook running OSX will be a much more effecient platform than any Wintel machine running XP. I have a top of the line Thinkpad from the office and I prefer my 18 month old Titanium powerbook anyday. Also, the resell value is extremely high and will bring much more than any other maker. The Titanium 400mhz models are still going for around 600.00 and they are pushing four years old.

k

Originally posted by MrMiyagi:
Hehe. I've only got a one track mind: bus speed!!

Thanks for the explanation. I am not just looking a bus
My performance criteria, however, are not just limited to Bus speed. After initially deciding on going to the G4 Powerbook, and then looking around at other laptops, I am wondering more and more if I should maybe go elsewhere. The Powerbook is the prettiest and thinnest I've seen so far -- bar none but there are other factors too.

The lack of choice when it comes to displays (I'd love to have a 12" with a better resolution than 1024x768 or a 15" with an SXGA screen) lack of L2 cache (the Opteron seems to have 2MB vs. 512K for the G4), and (haha) low bus speed all are kind of forcing me to look around a bit more. I'm not saying I won't get the G4 powerbook, but the competition is *very* strong in terms of price and performance.

And, quite frankly, like it or not..Windows XP is getting better...much better than it used to be in terms of robustness and usability. I still prefer OS X's prettieness though.

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by sniffer:
So where is the OS that utilize the 64 bit power? And what good is 64 bit CPU if all you use it for is emulating 32 bit software. We are not all 64 bit linux users.

I didn't realize that OSX was 64 bit--oh wait it isn't yet either. At least you can utilize the chip on the PC side with Linux, IBM and Apple can even get this to work for an Imac or any smaller than a refrigerator till September much less a portable version. My point was that Apple likes to brag about innovation (as do their zealots) yet they are not the only ones breaking down barriers--I don't agree with the premium for that innovation at times. IMHO

DRM

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by hldan:
If that's your only mentality when buying a new computer is the "feature for feature" thing then I am sorry for you. That's complete ignorance. As it has been mentioned several times here that your computing experience is entirely up to the OS. If you notice about PC's, in general they either play the "features" game like Sony or they will play the "low cost" game like Dell.
PC companies know that they don't have much to fight for because the Windows operatiing system has been targeted so much by hackers and out of the box customers are forced to spend a good deal of money on internet security software and yada yada yada.
The Windows experience hasn't really changed much over the years. If you are an experienced Windows user it's very obvious that XP has a face change for the better and some plug and play enhancements but it's still the same ole difficult and frustrating computing experience.
Computing should be elementary and it's not with Windows.
Simple stuff like dragging an unwanted file to the trash without thinking, The Mac OS will do it but Windows will give you an error message stating that you may damage other programs by removing this file!

Sometimes uninstalling doesn't completely remove the software. It gets frustrating with Windows. You really need to think about actually using the machine and not feature for feature.

One last thing, feature for feature the Apple comes out ahead even in the iBook.
The Powerbook's all metal casing, slot load drive, backlit keyboard, S-video, FW800, FW400 DVI out are not even available on the Sonys. Some of them are only on the docking station.
Speaking on computing experience again the iPod is another consideration. It easier to use it on the Macs.
Figure out what you are willing to tolerate but don't judge feature for feature alone in accordance to the price. Sony's aren't any cheaper.
It probably doesn't matter what we say, if you want a PC go buy one, it's no crime, it won't affect my computing experience.

So you say that shopping feature by feature is "complete ignorance" than go on to list the features that are not available on Sonys. Are features important or not? One would argue (and you certainly seem to as well) that the OS would be a feature to consider when spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a product. Your argument is weak in that every computer vendor touts their features as sales points, not some sort of warm fuzzy feeling that you apparently think is more important. That's what I gather from your post.

Doing reasearch and discovering the divide between platforms in price and features is not ignorance, it's called doing your homework.

DRM

[sniffer]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
I didn't realize that OSX was 64 bit--oh wait it isn't yet either. At least you can utilize the chip on the PC side with Linux, IBM and Apple can even get this to work for an Imac or any smaller than a refrigerator till September much less a portable version. My point was that Apple likes to brag about innovation (as do their zealots) yet they are not the only ones breaking down barriers--I don't agree with the premium for that innovation at times. IMHO

DRM

970FX/970 can utilize 64 and 32 bit code side by side natively (if you know what that imply; neither Intel or AMD have the technology to do the same) and you can incorporate 64 bits code into your apps today and run them on any modern Mac supporting OS X trough fat binaries. The Mac platform is already benefitting from the advances from 64 bit technology, Windows users aren't even close, so what's your point again?

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by JKT:
At least get your prices right when you do these comparisons - the 5200rpm drive in the PowerBook is CDN$70 more, not CDN$125 and you get 80GB by default no matter what the speed (that Sony only has a 4200rpm drive anyway).

.... "X-brite" is a Sony technology so where is the surprise that it is only offered on Sony's?....

That seems mighty competitive for a machine that is already half way through its life cycle to me and hardly constitutes a premium of any description whatsoever.

I used the dropdown menus at the Apple store USA for my prices and configurations. Sorry if I took exception to spending $125 for basically an upgrade to the harddrive. You can almost buy a seperate notebook harddrive for that price point (I found one for $168 at Pricewatch). I wasn't comparing Sony's individually, but PC's offerings in general. X-brite, W-XGA, Hi-Definition displays all the newer display technology and Apple display seems a little dated.

As far as life cycle is concerned, do we need to wait for Powerbook Cobalt to see a difference in some of the technology available in these machines, better speakers, better display, faster processor (G5). Apple is the only company putting laptops out with chips they are no longer actively developing while you can find the newest fastest chips available in portables on the other side of the room. I guess that's to much to ask being a consumer.

DRM

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by sniffer:
970FX/970 can utilize 64 and 32 bit code side by side natively (if you know what that imply; neither Intel or AMD have the technology to do the same) and you can incorporate 64 bits code into your apps today and run them on any modern Mac supporting OS X trough fat binaries. The Mac platform is already benefitting from the advances from 64 bit technology, Windows users aren't even close, so what's your point again?

Windows is working on one for use with the Athlon's that will work with their chips in laptops (by the end of the year, before Tiger from the rumors) and they already have a 64-bit OS for the Itanium (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...y/default.mspx). Regardless explain to me how 64-bit technology in OSX benefits Powerbook owners saddled with yesterdays G4 (32-bit)?

It seem like Apple's ahead with software and the PC's are ahead in hardware (par for course) which was the initial discussion basis: is Apple playing catchup with a weaker bus, etc., are PC laptops a better technology buy?

DRM

[sniffer]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
Windows is working on one for use with the Athlon's that will work with their chips in laptops (by the end of the year, before Tiger from the rumors) and they already have a 64-bit OS for the Itanium (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...y/default.mspx). Regardless explain to me how 64-bit technology in OSX benefits Powerbook owners saddled with yesterdays G4 (32-bit)?

It seem like Apple's ahead with software and the PC's are ahead in hardware (par for course) which was the initial discussion basis: is Apple playing catchup with a weaker bus, etc., are PC laptops a better technology buy?

DRM

The first and foremost reason why 64 bit code is the future is for much higher memory addressing. But other than that, practically, there is nothing the home user will benefit from to-day. The lack of a CPU that can handle both 32 and 64 bit natively on the same platform is the big pitfall on the x86 side for this decade. I mean, come on! What worth is you 64 bit CPU and 64 bit OS if your software still runs in 32 bit? Apple/IBM is far beyond the dilemma; its a pure none-issue as its already solved! There will be no issues what so ever buying a G4 to day. That's a major difference. I am sorry to say so, but buying a 64 bit X86 is nothing but believing in the hype. Good luck with that.

[Graymalkin]

Save for a few well informed posts this thread hurts me on the inside. I really can't believe some of the stuff posted here.

G4
The G4 in its current incarnations is not able to fully utilize DDR memory. The memory controller of the systems can fully utilize DDR however. This means that the communication between the processor and memory controller is at 167MHz while the communication between the memory controller and RAM is at 333MHz. The processor as such can only talk to the RAM at half of the RAM's total bandwidth. However, the memory controlleri s no slouch and can read and write data from other system devices (Firewire, ethernet, AGP card) at the same time as the processor. On G4 systems the unused memory bandwidth is taken up by data between peripheral devices and main memory.

L2 Cache
The G4s in the current Powerbooks have a 512KB cache. The cache is used to store instructions and data close to the processor so it doesn't need to hit main memory in order to get at it. On many G4s a larger L2 and L3 cache is used to offset the slower speed of the front side bus (FSB). A larger L2 cache does not for some magic reason take longer to "search" through than a smaller cache. The only drawback to larger L2 caches is the higher power requirement of the processor. A large cache requires much more power to drive than a small cache. A cache is basically a high density memory chip strapped to the side of a processor.

Pentium M
These are processors Intel packages as part of their "Centrino" rig. Centrino is a brand name for a combination of a Pentium M processor, Intel PRO Wireless, and the Intel 855 chipset. Many times laptops will only have the Pentium M and the i855 chipset without the Intel PRO WiFI. The Pentium M runs quite a bit slower than their Mobile Pentium 4 counterparts but are just as effective. The Pentium Ms have shorter pipelines so they can get away with a lower clock speed to get the same amount of work done. They're fully compatible with Pentium 4 features like SSE2.

Pentium M vs. G4
These two processors are around the same clock speed. Their performance is also comparable. A 1.5GHz G4 is no slouch despite what Mac naysayers will have you believe. In arbitrary benchmarks the G4 might not have the raw throughput power of the Pentium M but they can get their fair share of work done. A G4 and Pentium M of similar clock speeds will have comparable if not similar raw performance.

Laptop vs. Laptop
If you want to compare two laptops you have to take them each as whole packages. The 15" Powerbooks are light and pretty quick. They also come loaded with a lot of extras most PC laptops don't have. Most lightweight PC laptops have crappy video cards and some even lack internal disc drives. More featureful laptops tend to be much heavier than the Powerbooks. For its size and weight the Powerbook is a very capable system.

It rarely does much good to directly compare FSB or processor clock speed directly between Macs and PCs. MacOS and Windows use the hardware differently. The Macs running OSX have slower processors than most PCs, so Apple offloads the compositing of the GUI elements off to the graphics card. Quartz Extreme acts as a force multiplier for the slower processors in the Macs.

[wuzup101]

There are very few PC laptops that can compare with the 15" powerbook in every catagory at the same time. Some are faster, some are lighter, some have better this or that. Very few have everything equal. If you want PC like that have a look at the IBM thinkpad T42 series featuring a Dothan Pentium M w/ 2mb or L2. These machines come in both 14 and 15" models with fast processors and lots of goodies. They feature 128mb fire GL video or 64mb 9600s. High resolution screens and very well built casings round off the package. And guess what... if you configure one of them to have very similar specs as a 15" powerbook it's going to cost MORE! If you want a HIGH end portable notebook you have very few choices. Apple, Dell, and IBM all offer high end notebooks... you'll pay upwards of $2500 for any of them.

BTW... yes dell does offer some nice notebooks... but you wont find the inspiron name on any of them. Have a look at a latitude D800 or V505 or something along those lines... and you'll pay a pretty penny...

Now I agree there are somethings that apple needs to improve on. I'd love to see a higher resolution screen on the current books. Something like the xbrite screen would be great. Many of you don't seem to care or speak against these screens. But for someone using their PB screen without an external monitor most of the time they are a blessing. I'd also like to see more battery life. I don't think it's too much to ask to get a solid 3 hours per battery charge even while watching a DVD. 4.5 hrs like many PC (centrino) books are getting would be very nice. The bottom line is you get what you pay for. This is my first mac and I've been a PC user all my life. I currnetly own 8 PCs from various erras and 1 mac...

[hldan]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
So you say that shopping feature by feature is "complete ignorance" than go on to list the features that are not available on Sonys. Are features important or not? One would argue (and you certainly seem to as well) that the OS would be a feature to consider when spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a product. Your argument is weak in that every computer vendor touts their features as sales points, not some sort of warm fuzzy feeling that you apparently think is more important. That's what I gather from your post.

Doing reasearch and discovering the divide between platforms in price and features is not ignorance, it's called doing your homework.

DRM

You are misunderstanding the point I was making about shopping feature for feature being blatent ignorance. I'm speaking about the post made ealier about shopping only feature for feature. It is ignorance if one shops soley on the Intel processor, the graphics solution or the L2 cache which really matters to no one and some other PC features. Then you get the machine home and Windows may drive you nuts trying to understand its way of thinking.
Then one tends to get frustrated that it's difficult to operate and too much maintainance in terms of security.
Then a friend of yours has a Mac and brags about the ease of use and then you try his Mac out and fall in love with OSX and begin to wonder why Windows XP isn't this easy then you wish you had a Mac. Then you get frustrated that you bought soley on features or specs and not the most important aspect which is the OS.

Now that's just a scenario but my point is shopping on feature for feature is so ignorance without considering the OS first and foremost. If you have already considered the OS then comparing features won't help. There are features on PC's I wish my Mac had but oh well and there are features on Macs that I cannot believe are not on PC's yet but oh well. The L2 cache size or bus speed should not be a reason to consider a PC over the Mac.

Also in regards to PC manufacturers touting features as sales points, well that's completely true. How often do you read a review of a PC and the review complements on how wonderful this PC is because it comes with easiest and most user friendly Windows OS? Not too often I'll bet.
But even the cheapest Dell machine will throw the Intel processor speed and the software bundled in your face to make you buy.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Save for a few well informed posts this thread hurts me on the inside. I really can't believe some of the stuff posted here.

G4
The G4 in its current incarnations is not able to fully utilize DDR memory. The memory controller of the systems can fully utilize DDR however. This means that the communication between the processor and memory controller is at 167MHz while the communication between the memory controller and RAM is at 333MHz. The processor as such can only talk to the RAM at half of the RAM's total bandwidth. However, the memory controlleri s no slouch and can read and write data from other system devices (Firewire, ethernet, AGP card) at the same time as the processor. On G4 systems the unused memory bandwidth is taken up by data between peripheral devices and main memory.

L2 Cache
The G4s in the current Powerbooks have a 512KB cache. The cache is used to store instructions and data close to the processor so it doesn't need to hit main memory in order to get at it. On many G4s a larger L2 and L3 cache is used to offset the slower speed of the front side bus (FSB). A larger L2 cache does not for some magic reason take longer to "search" through than a smaller cache. The only drawback to larger L2 caches is the higher power requirement of the processor. A large cache requires much more power to drive than a small cache. A cache is basically a high density memory chip strapped to the side of a processor.

Pentium M
These are processors Intel packages as part of their "Centrino" rig. Centrino is a brand name for a combination of a Pentium M processor, Intel PRO Wireless, and the Intel 855 chipset. Many times laptops will only have the Pentium M and the i855 chipset without the Intel PRO WiFI. The Pentium M runs quite a bit slower than their Mobile Pentium 4 counterparts but are just as effective. The Pentium Ms have shorter pipelines so they can get away with a lower clock speed to get the same amount of work done. They're fully compatible with Pentium 4 features like SSE2.

Pentium M vs. G4
These two processors are around the same clock speed. Their performance is also comparable. A 1.5GHz G4 is no slouch despite what Mac naysayers will have you believe. In arbitrary benchmarks the G4 might not have the raw throughput power of the Pentium M but they can get their fair share of work done. A G4 and Pentium M of similar clock speeds will have comparable if not similar raw performance.

Laptop vs. Laptop
If you want to compare two laptops you have to take them each as whole packages. The 15" Powerbooks are light and pretty quick. They also come loaded with a lot of extras most PC laptops don't have. Most lightweight PC laptops have crappy video cards and some even lack internal disc drives. More featureful laptops tend to be much heavier than the Powerbooks. For its size and weight the Powerbook is a very capable system.

It rarely does much good to directly compare FSB or processor clock speed directly between Macs and PCs. MacOS and Windows use the hardware differently. The Macs running OSX have slower processors than most PCs, so Apple offloads the compositing of the GUI elements off to the graphics card. Quartz Extreme acts as a force multiplier for the slower processors in the Macs.

Finally... Thank you.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:

Pentium M vs. G4
These two processors are around the same clock speed. Their performance is also comparable.

I doubt it. The G4 comes close to the original P-M's performance but the new Dothan generation is even faster. Yesterday I was checking out some Vaios on display. They all had design faults, one was too chunky, the other had a poor keyboard, etc but they were very powerful. A Vaio A117 with 1.7Ghz Dothan and Radeon 9700 64MB was running a game called Far Cry at 1920x1200 32bit color with all features on. There's no chance a similarly clocked G4 could do that. They have trouble enough running Unreal 2004 at 1400x900 at 32bit. Far Cry is far more graphically intensive that Unreal. The A117 was also £500UK cheaper than the Powerbook 17".

Barefeats also concurs that the Pentium-M is faster than a G4 at Photoshop.

[hldan]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
I doubt it. The G4 comes close to the original P-M's performance but the new Dothan generation is even faster. Yesterday I was checking out some Vaios on display. They all had design faults, one was too chunky, the other had a poor keyboard, etc but they were very powerful. A Vaio A117 with 1.7Ghz Dothan and Radeon 9700 64MB was running a game called Far Cry at 1920x1200 32bit color with all features on. There's no chance a similarly clocked G4 could do that. They have trouble enough running Unreal 2004 at 1400x900 at 32bit. Far Cry is far more graphically intensive that Unreal. The A117 was also £500UK cheaper than the Powerbook 17".

Barefeats also concurs that the Pentium-M is faster than a G4 at Photoshop.

I don't know what type of quality you are expecting from the Apple computers when it comes to playing Unreal. I play UT2004 on my PB 17 1.33Ghz and it plays fantastic at all the highest settings and it's not choppy. I have the 64MB Radeon 9600 graphics card. In fact the only time I experience choppy play at all is when I play online and I am certain that any PC with great gaming hardware will experience the same online since online gaming quality is dependent upon other gamers internet connection.
Honestly I don't know why gaming is so important on a computer, is there something wrong with buying an Xbox? I play most of my games on it. The only reason I play UT2004 on my Powerbook is because I don't have to pay online gaming fees.
Sony Dothan notebooks are fantastic machines if you are a Windows lover, however I was visiting the Sony Metreon in SF last week and I took a good look at the 15" A series. The salesman there was playing tunes on it so I tried it out by opening Photoshop Elements on it and it slowed to a crawl while opening Photoshop because it was playing music.
Of course this could be due to the machine only having 512MB ram but I multitask while playing iTunes on my Powerbook and it runs smooth.

Now while the Sony Xbrite screen beats anything hands down including the Apple Powerbooks I couldn't get past the reflective glossy screen. I hated it.
As mentioned before, you can't shop soley on processor and cache features alone. How can you quantify that the Dothan Sony's are faster than the 1.5 Ghz Powerbooks? They only increased the cache size as well as raising the speed to 2Ghz. If Barefeats says they are faster then so be it but for real world everyday use how much difference will it make especially with different operating systems? Is it really gonna matter?

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by hldan:
You are misunderstanding the point I was making about shopping feature for feature being blatent ignorance. I'm speaking about the post made ealier about shopping only feature for feature. It is ignorance if one shops soley on the Intel processor, the graphics solution or the L2 cache which really matters to no one and some other PC features. Then you get the machine home and Windows may drive you nuts trying to understand its way of thinking.
Then one tends to get frustrated that it's difficult to operate and too much maintainance in terms of security.
Then a friend of yours has a Mac and brags about the ease of use and then you try his Mac out and fall in love with OSX and begin to wonder why Windows XP isn't this easy then you wish you had a Mac. Then you get frustrated that you bought soley on features or specs and not the most important aspect which is the OS.

Now that's just a scenario but my point is shopping on feature for feature is so ignorance without considering the OS first and foremost. If you have already considered the OS then comparing features won't help. There are features on PC's I wish my Mac had but oh well and there are features on Macs that I cannot believe are not on PC's yet but oh well. The L2 cache size or bus speed should not be a reason to consider a PC over the Mac.

Also in regards to PC manufacturers touting features as sales points, well that's completely true. How often do you read a review of a PC and the review complements on how wonderful this PC is because it comes with easiest and most user friendly Windows OS? Not too often I'll bet.
But even the cheapest Dell machine will throw the Intel processor speed and the software bundled in your face to make you buy.

All computer vendors including Apple talk features for buyers to compare. As far as that goes I would consider the OS a feature and today they are pretty similar in that Photoshop runs the same way on both, etc.

Please don't take my arguements the wrong way, I am considering a powerbook (and I have a G4 upgraded to 1.33 too) and thats why I'm hear and just jumped in because I do think features are important. It's frustrating to look at where Apple could improve their line (not even dependant on outside manufacturing) to compete more soundly against the PC brands. I love the look of the Powerbook, but there are limitations in my opinion. I may need to wait another revision before I get one.

DRM

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
I doubt it. The G4 comes close to the original P-M's performance but the new Dothan generation is even faster. Yesterday I was checking out some Vaios on display. They all had design faults, one was too chunky, the other had a poor keyboard, etc but they were very powerful. A Vaio A117 with 1.7Ghz Dothan and Radeon 9700 64MB was running a game called Far Cry at 1920x1200 32bit color with all features on. There's no chance a similarly clocked G4 could do that. They have trouble enough running Unreal 2004 at 1400x900 at 32bit. Far Cry is far more graphically intensive that Unreal. The A117 was also £500UK cheaper than the Powerbook 17".

Barefeats also concurs that the Pentium-M is faster than a G4 at Photoshop.

No need to doubt. Be sure that the new P-Ms are much more powerful than any G4 available on the market now. The latest P-Ms or Dothans come with up to 2 GHz clock frequency and 2 MB L2 cache. Here is a summary of their technical caracteristics. Plus, they are based on 90 nm technology.

Dothans benefit from a substantially more advanced design than the G4, one perhaps could argue that they would challenge even a G5, and it is not a surprise that they beat badly the G4 in virtually every benchmark. Except, perhaps, the ones that rely heavily on Altivec.

Now, what one obtains as a total package in a notebook purchase, is another discussion, and the Powerbooks are perhaps the better deals out there if all factors are taken into account.

[hldan]

Originally posted by Pierre B.:
No need to doubt. Be sure that the new P-Ms are much more powerful than any G4 available on the market now. The latest P-Ms or Dothans come with up to 2 GHz clock frequency and 2 MB L2 cache. Here is a summary of their technical caracteristics. Plus, they are based on 90 nm technology.

Dothans benefit from a substantially more advanced design than the G4, one perhaps could argue that they would challenge even a G5, and it is not a surprise that they beat badly the G4 in virtually every benchmark. Except, perhaps, the ones that rely heavily on Altivec.

Now, what one obtains as a total package in a notebook purchase, is another discussion, and the Powerbooks are perhaps the better deals out there if all factors are taken into account.

The Dothan processors are much more powerful in terms of what though? You really have to be using the exact same app on 2 machines, one being a Mac notebook and the other a PC notebook. In this case the machines have to at least be in the same class.
You are not going to be running the same exact app on 2 different machines day to day. In most cases it will be either a Mac or a PC.
Don't take this the wrong way but I think this thread needs a real reality check. There's no way you will be able to tell the difference in speed in any 2 computers in the same class unless they are side by side everyday using the same apps at the same time.
Whatever speed differences there are it won't really make any difference if you have nothing to compare it to.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by hldan:
The Dothan processors are much more powerful in terms of what though? You really have to be using the exact same app on 2 machines, one being a Mac notebook and the other a PC notebook. In this case the machines have to at least be in the same class.

Stop being a whining apologist. We love Apple, fine, that doesn't mean we have to stick up for IBM or Motorola's failures. The Dothan is the most powerful 32bit chip clock for clock and even gives a couple of 64bit chips a run for the money. It is also the most energy efficient chip ever made. Case closed. We have to admit that the G4 will never be a Dothan simply because it has no true support for DDR and will never have a 400Mhz bus.

We might end up with a Powerbook G4 running at 2Ghz but by then Intel will be even further in front. If we don't get the G4 at that speed then the G5 will be the next step. But will it match the Dothan's power consumption and if by the end of 2005 Intel is shipping dualcore Dothan's for laptops as forcasted, how far behind will the G5 be then?

The solution would be for Apple to push IBM for dualcore low power G5s. But CPUs don't grow on trees unfortunately. IBM's supply problems better be solved fast.

[Pierre B.]

Originally posted by hldan:
The Dothan processors are much more powerful in terms of what though? You really have to be using the exact same app on 2 machines, one being a Mac notebook and the other a PC notebook.

OK then, take a look at this thread, where several machines, Macs and PCs, are tested with exactly the same code (calculation of the number pi wih FFT). You will be perhaps surprised to see a 1.8 G5 to perform as a 1.6 GHz P-M, in this test at least. Also, here you can see that the Dothans perform about like the Athlons 64-FX at the same clock speed. We talk about really powerful and efficient at the same time processors, perfectly capable to go into portable computers.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
All computer vendors including Apple talk features for buyers to compare. As far as that goes I would consider the OS a feature and today they are pretty similar in that Photoshop runs the same way on both, etc.

Please don't take my arguements the wrong way, I am considering a powerbook (and I have a G4 upgraded to 1.33 too) and thats why I'm hear and just jumped in because I do think features are important. It's frustrating to look at where Apple could improve their line (not even dependant on outside manufacturing) to compete more soundly against the PC brands. I love the look of the Powerbook, but there are limitations in my opinion. I may need to wait another revision before I get one.

DRM

Yeah, but does your feature rich, no brain, mugly portable make you scream: "OMFGBBQ!! THIS IS THE COOLEST ****ING COMPUTER I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!!"* .. just by unwrapping it? Probably not!? Apple is not competing head on head, feature for feature, for the lowest prices. They are in a different league, and you should be fair and compare them there by IMHO.

*Literally, that's what I did when I unwrapped my PB 12". My friends thought I was gone nuts.

[trancepriest]

What does the BBQ stand for? And for everyone comparing Apple PB's to PC laptops feature by feature... it's all about the OS stupid. A Sony can't get a girl to drool over my metal... hehe.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by trancepriest:
What does the BBQ stand for?

It stands for "barbecue". Hard to translate directly from my native what I said as the brain was shut down in the second it came out, so the "OMFGBBQ" is a good equivalent in my case to show the point.

[hldan]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Stop being a whining apologist. We love Apple, fine, that doesn't mean we have to stick up for IBM or Motorola's failures. The Dothan is the most powerful 32bit chip clock for clock and even gives a couple of 64bit chips a run for the money. It is also the most energy efficient chip ever made. Case closed. We have to admit that the G4 will never be a Dothan simply because it has no true support for DDR and will never have a 400Mhz bus.

We might end up with a Powerbook G4 running at 2Ghz but by then Intel will be even further in front. If we don't get the G4 at that speed then the G5 will be the next step. But will it match the Dothan's power consumption and if by the end of 2005 Intel is shipping dualcore Dothan's for laptops as forcasted, how far behind will the G5 be then?

The solution would be for Apple to push IBM for dualcore low power G5s. But CPUs don't grow on trees unfortunately. IBM's supply problems better be solved fast.

Not trying to be in denial that the Intel Dothan processors are blazingly fast because I'm certain that they are. Intel makes great processors. It's not Intel that concerns me.
It looks like you and some of the others in this forum who are touting how great the Centrino specs are against the Macs seem to have allowed the specs alone to blind you about the actual "Windows Experience".
All that Dothan speed can't overshadow the high maintanance Windows brings along with it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not at all anti-Windows but to be fair when comparing features with Powerbooks and PC notebooks you must also prove how much better Windows is over the Mac OS. All I have seen here is speed comparisons, where are the OS comparisons?

Now all things considered, if you can fairly say that Dothan PC notebooks are faster and the Windows OS is superior to the Mac OSX experience then your arguement that Apple needs to step up to the plate will make sense.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by hldan:

It looks like you and some of the others in this forum who are touting how great the Centrino specs are against the Macs seem to have allowed the specs alone to blind you about the actual "Windows Experience".
All that Dothan speed can't overshadow the high maintanance Windows brings along with it.

This might be true for people who aren't well versed in computing, but anyone fully computer literate is going to have no trouble with Windows. They aren't going to open dodgy Email attachments, etc. Even though I haven't had a PC for about 18 months I never prior to that had any trouble. Fact is, all a GUI involves is double clicking on your documents and then using them in your apps. Most apps work the same on both platforms. If anything, the Mac has a more user friendly interface but that is down to simplification. It's not always good. If you gave a Mac user a choice he would most likely like to see more some advanced panes and windows that Windows users have. Graphics and sound card settings for example.

Now if you're running Photoshop, or anything that requires rendering and fast feedback, on either OSX or Windows then you want CPU power. The current G4s can handle just about everything thrown at them but not the way a Dothan could. Remember the G4 is a five year old design that has only gone up by 1Ghz in 3 years and still has the FPU of a 604. That is seriously outdated. It's not power computing anymore and as we are talking about 'Powerbooks' we obviously need power along with all the great features we already have.

[hldan]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
This might be true for people who aren't well versed in computing, but anyone fully computer literate is going to have no trouble with Windows. They aren't going to open dodgy Email attachments, etc. Even though I haven't had a PC for about 18 months I never prior to that had any trouble. Fact is, all a GUI involves is double clicking on your documents and then using them in your apps. Most apps work the same on both platforms. If anything, the Mac has a more user friendly interface but that is down to simplification. It's not always good. If you gave a Mac user a choice he would most likely like to see more some advanced panes and windows that Windows users have. Graphics and sound card settings for example.

Now if you're running Photoshop, or anything that requires rendering and fast feedback, on either OSX or Windows then you want CPU power. The current G4s can handle just about everything thrown at them but not the way a Dothan could. Remember the G4 is a five year old design that has only gone up by 1Ghz in 3 years and still has the FPU of a 604. That is seriously outdated. It's not power computing anymore and as we are talking about 'Powerbooks' we obviously need power along with all the great features we already have.

I will agree with almost everything you say except the quote, "anyone fully computer literate is going to have no trouble with Windows". That's BS. I have been a Mac and Windows user for over 10 years and have a degree in computers and there are a lot of things about Windows that make the experienced user have a terrible experience. In the last 3 years there have been more viruses that are hard to prevent just because they are acquired just by surfing the internet. Spyware and other crappy things make even the experienced user irritated. Everyone wants an easy low maintanance experience with their computer. I can't imagine anyone that would prefer to spend more time consistantly maintaining the computer just keep it working.

Also keep in mind that most computer users are not all that "computer literate".

[sniffer]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
.. Remember the G4 is a five year old design that has only gone up by 1Ghz in 3 years and still has the FPU of a 604. That is seriously outdated. ..

I feel a little bad in my tummy when you put it that way. I mean is there no positive highlights in the tracks of the Motorola G4? I got a PB rev. C and I swear I could feed my 2 y.o. iBook G3 to the cats as my new BP dance around it like the devil. (The Xbench scores of the iBook is like 1/3 of the PB IIRC) Or perhaps it's the excellent memory management in OS X, AltiVec, and QE (GPU utilization) in combination that makes my new machine to appear so efficient? Beats me. I am aware the PB is anxious for a 970 like CPU from either Freescale (or that's perhaps not feasible this round?), or IBM. I also know the Motorola series have been lugging behind for years on the desktops (the 500 mark to mention something). But is the Motorola CPU (7447A?) found in to days PBs really that bad for usage in a portable?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by sniffer:
[B]Or perhaps it's the excellent memory management in OS X, AltiVec, and QE (GPU utilization) in combination that makes my new machine to appear so efficient?

Yes, AltiVec and QE are what makes the Powerbook perform better than your iBook G3, along with the increase in Mhz.

But is the Motorola CPU (7447A?) found in to days PBs really that bad for usage in a portable?

It's a very good mobile CPU. But the competition has surfed past it.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Yes, AltiVec and QE are what makes the Powerbook perform better than your iBook G3, along with the increase in Mhz.

Here is the data. Both figures are from Xbench 1.1.3.

IBM 750 G3 600 MHz, 10.3.3 (7F44):

Code:
	CPU Test	39.39	
		GCD Loop	55.83	2.18 Mops/sec
        Floating Point Basic	85.71	309.97 Mflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	16.33	253.44 Mflop/sec
         Floating Point Library	93.42	3.74 Mops/sec

Motorola G4 1.33 MHz (Power settings @ automatic IIRC), 10.3.3 (7G33):

Code:
	CPU Test	161.72	
		GCD Loop	153.66	6.00 Mops/sec
         Floating Point Basic	162.71	588.40 Mflop/sec
		AltiVec Basic	164.18	4.77 Gflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	168.13	2.61 Gflop/sec
        Floating Point Library	160.64	6.43 Mops/sec

I am not sure what all those numbers actually means, except the obvious AltiVec Basic. What does vecLib FFT and GCD Loop actually mean, and why are they more than 2x higher on the PB? Thanks.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Here is the data. Both figures are from Xbench 1.1.3.

IBM 750 G3 600 MHz, 10.3.3 (7F44):

Code:
	CPU Test	39.39	
		GCD Loop	55.83	2.18 Mops/sec
        Floating Point Basic	85.71	309.97 Mflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	16.33	253.44 Mflop/sec
         Floating Point Library	93.42	3.74 Mops/sec

Motorola G4 1.33 MHz (Power settings @ automatic IIRC), 10.3.3 (7G33):

Code:
	CPU Test	161.72	
		GCD Loop	153.66	6.00 Mops/sec
         Floating Point Basic	162.71	588.40 Mflop/sec
		AltiVec Basic	164.18	4.77 Gflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	168.13	2.61 Gflop/sec
        Floating Point Library	160.64	6.43 Mops/sec

I am not sure what all those numbers actually means, except the obvious AltiVec Basic. What does vecLib FFT and GCD Loop actually mean, and why are they more than 2x higher on the PB? Thanks.

Sometime some scores are not proportional. But if you look at the floating point work you'll notice that the G4 is in proportion with what you'd expect from a G3 running at the same speed. So in terms of its FPU the G4 has an old architecture. The G5 is better but there are benchmarks out there with the Dothan beating a G5 at the same clock speed too. I think there's a link to that somewhere in this discussion. Dothan won't run 64bit code though.

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Yeah, but does your feature rich, no brain, mugly portable make you scream: "OMFGBBQ!! THIS IS THE COOLEST ****ING COMPUTER I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!!"* .. just by unwrapping it? Probably not!? Apple is not competing head on head, feature for feature, for the lowest prices. They are in a different league, and you should be fair and compare them there by IMHO.

*Literally, that's what I did when I unwrapped my PB 12". My friends thought I was gone nuts.

Well I'm glad the unwrapping experience is wonderful, but then you have to use it. I'm just wishing the refrain "Windows sux" wasn't the most important reason to use the PB as hidan would have it or that it's just "really cool" as you do. As I said earlier I'll wait for the next revision to hopefully include better graphics (WXGA?), better speakers, perhaps better battery management too.

DRM

[JKT]

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
Well I'm glad the unwrapping experience is wonderful, but then you have to use it. I'm just wishing the refrain "Windows sux" wasn't the most important reason to use the PB as hidan would have it or that it's just "really cool" as you do. As I said earlier I'll wait for the next revision to hopefully include better graphics (WXGA?), better speakers, perhaps better battery management too.

DRM

In your position, I probably would too but that is because the PowerBook is already half way through its typical life cycle. However, this cycle could be longer than typical as I imagine that the next revision will be the G5 PowerBook and therefore it could face delays.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by JKT:
In your position, I probably would too but that is because the PowerBook is already half way through its typical life cycle. However, this cycle could be longer than typical as I imagine that the next revision will be the G5 PowerBook and therefore it could face delays.

Agree. I.E. the G5 iMac have been delayed a good time already, thought I have my doubts the length of the upgrade cycle will be equally delayed with the PB. The whole industry had problems with the transition from 120 to 90 nm technology, not only IBM. When also considering that a rev. C is a safer bet than a rev. A, I think the PB rev. C have at least one strong card. But yeah, the PB rev. C. is already on its last half-part of its life cycle. And PB G5 is the next big thing. Hopefully it will have what it takes to get a few jaw drops, not only for excellent built quality, OS and design, but also for raw knock out or on-pair performance. Realistically I think we could expect a G5 1.6 GHz and up with a decent FSB upgrade from the current 167 MHz, so it would not turn the world upside down, but it would certainly be a very good leap. For all its worth, I love my PB and it will last me several years without problems, but the top ends Apple needs to at least be on pair with the best out there performance wise. Being a top of the line and only decent performer doesn't cut it. I'll give drmcnutt that. But I don't share his view on the PB rev. C being kinda "absolute"; its an excellent OS X performer and a trustworthy work horse despite a CPU ground with bad karma. And getting a 970 in there is not a guarantied Holly Grail, but it will be a step in the right direction. Sorry for my zealotry.