Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

asodamiac · Mar 4, 2007, 08:53 PM

I know this might sound silly, but I was wondering if the newer Macbook's would outperform my 4th generation Powerbook (specs in sig). I really like my Powerbook (especially the screen size), but it is a bit sluggish. My Powerbook is my only machine and I use it for everything from taking notes in class to editing photos to watching movies, etc. I know that the Macbook will be able to handle the basic requirements, but not so sure how it will fare with photo editing.

I occasionally work with huge files (.psd files that are over 1 gig in size) needed for print and running filters (such as Smart Sharpen) take well over 10 minutes (maybe longer than 20! I'm never sure as I walk away for at least half an hour to find other things to do). However, these files are huge, so it is a bit understandable.

So basically, will the Macbooks be able to function somewhat "speedily" (or at least faster than my current Powerbook) in terms of photo editing? My only concern is the integrated graphics card. Hope this is the right forum (not sure if this belongs in the Macbook or Powerbook forum).

Thanks!

Bandit_Cloud · Mar 4, 2007, 09:34 PM

It's hard to say, but with the whole intel core duo thing going on, I'd say a macbook might outperform your powerbook( It doesn't have duo right?) in terms of speed. However, when it comes right down to it, it all depends on what's inside your computer. Just pimp out your powerbook!

asodamiac · Mar 4, 2007, 09:42 PM

The 4G Powerbooks are not Intel based. Hmm, I don't think theres much I can do to my Powerbook now. I guess I could get another gig stick of ram to bump up my total to 2 gigs, but I'm not sure how much performance gain I will get from that.

TheoCryst · Mar 4, 2007, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by asodamiac

The 4G Powerbooks are not Intel based. Hmm, I don't think theres much I can do to my Powerbook now. I guess I could get another gig stick of ram to bump up my total to 2 gigs, but I'm not sure how much performance gain I will get from that.

Probably not all that much. Assuming you use the Photoshop CS3 Beta (Universal, unlike CS2) and upgrade to at least a gig of memory, a Macbook will smoke your Powerbook. The Core 2 Duo chips (and even the older Core Duo) are significantly faster than any G4 and most G5s, so you will feel quite a big difference. Again though, you MUST use CS3 instead of CS2 if you want to feel a speed difference, as CS2 is a PowerPC-only build and runs through Rosetta, which slows processor-intensive programs to a crawl.

asodamiac · Mar 4, 2007, 11:04 PM

Thanks for that information Theo.

I understand that I will have to run CS3 in order to see true performance gains, but the reason I've been holding off on any Intel based Mac was because of software issues. I would have to purchase a new copy of CS3 and perhaps other universal applications.

Being the poor college student that I am, I'll have to save my pennies a bit more. I don't want to use the CS3 beta on the Macbook and not be able to afford the finalized version later and have to downgrade back to CS2

hldan · Mar 4, 2007, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by asodamiac

Thanks for that information Theo.

I understand that I will have to run CS3 in order to see true performance gains, but the reason I've been holding off on any Intel based Mac was because of software issues. I would have to purchase a new copy of CS3 and perhaps other universal applications.

Being the poor college student that I am, I'll have to save my pennies a bit more. I don't want to use the CS3 beta on the Macbook and not be able to afford the finalized version later and have to downgrade back to CS2

Nearly all apps that you use are most likely Universal Binary versions now so a MacBook will shine at this point. If your primary uses contain MS Office then yes, it will be slower on the MacBook then your PowerBook. Photohop3 Beta runs great! I use it everyday. There are thousands of apps for the Macintosh just as there are thousands for Windows and yet we (the consumer) get brainwashed that MS Office and Photoshop are the only ones in existence. I say this to say don't let a couple of apps stop you from buying a MacBook.OSX by itself runs considerbly faster on the Intel Macs.
Now, not to entirely flame you but this label of "Poor College Student" is old, tired, unnecessary and lame and not to mention a bit rude. Some people on this forum are still running old G3 Macs and you (the poor college student) has not an iBook but rather a PowerBook G4 which is a pro-line Apple Macintosh. Not everyone can afford that Mr. College Student. I support 3 college students and all have iBooks.

silverflyer · Mar 5, 2007, 02:00 AM

Guys, I have a Macbook Pro and use MS Office all day every day, it is so fricken fast it is impossible to tell it is running in rosetta.

I dont know why it is so slow for you guys, but it is really fast for me.

asodamiac · Mar 5, 2007, 02:49 AM

Silverflyer, I've just read from the Macbook forum that MS Office does lag a bit on their machines. This worries me as I'll be using both MS Office and Photoshop almost equally. I guess I could go the MBP route, however I'd like to get a Mac Pro sometime in the future as well. That way, I could use the Macbook as a portable, everyday solution, while the Mac Pro can stay at home for all of my heavy editing.

hldan, I guess you have a legitimate point. However, I AM a poor college student, but my parents were able to get me a Powerbook 2 years ago before college. I guess I'm just more privileged then most. Sorry if I was offensive!

romeosc · Mar 5, 2007, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by hldan

Nearly all apps that you use are most likely Universal Binary versions now so a MacBook will shine at this point. If your primary uses contain MS Office then yes, it will be slower on the MacBook then your PowerBook. Photohop3 Beta runs great! I use it everyday. There are thousands of apps for the Macintosh just as there are thousands for Windows and yet we (the consumer) get brainwashed that MS Office and Photoshop are the only ones in existence. I say this to say don't let a couple of apps stop you from buying a MacBook.OSX by itself runs considerbly faster on the Intel Macs.
Now, not to entirely flame you but this label of "Poor College Student" is old, tired, unnecessary and lame and not to mention a bit rude. Some people on this forum are still running old G3 Macs and you (the poor college student) has not an iBook but rather a PowerBook G4 which is a pro-line Apple Macintosh. Not everyone can afford that Mr. College Student. I support 3 college students and all have iBooks.

Even if most sofware is now Universal Binary, many people can't afford to rebuy all their existing applications just to change systems. If you add up the cost of software into the equation, price of new Intel macs goes up!

Simon · Mar 6, 2007, 04:21 AM

I have both Macs you mention (see sig). While the 1.67 GHz PB G4 might perform similar to the MB in Office (due to Rosetta emulation), in every single UB I have, the MB simply smokes the PB. From normal Finder stuff to HandBrake, the PB gets beaten by the MB.

So if what you're using is available as a UB, the MB should be a speedy replacement. Of course for games and 3D apps that rely on the GPU YMMV.

zaghahzag · Mar 6, 2007, 12:44 PM

the intel core 2 duo machines spank the g4s. The only thing i've been really dissapointed by is using illustrator and photoshop on really big files. But there's a beta for photoshop and CS3 comes out in like 3 weeks.

Office is slow too, but only in comparison to everything else going so fast. certain things in particular are slow like loading office/photoshop, and it seems to have a really hard time with big files in office and photoshop. I use excel for graphs with lots of points and it's annoyingly slow. (compared to a g5.)

but for native stuff, it's amazing. I've found myself using keynote and pages a lot more since they're so much more responsive.

legacyb4 · Mar 6, 2007, 03:03 PM

Well, the other way to look at it is if you expect to never upgrade your software, then that statement holds true. However, assuming that you are upgrading your software from time to time based on feature set and not necessarily CPU-compatibility, then the "price" of the Intel Macs isn't any more expensive than the Power PC.

After all, you don't *have to* upgrade your software to change systems for the most part.

Originally Posted by romeosc

Even if most sofware is now Universal Binary, many people can't afford to rebuy all their existing applications just to change systems. If you add up the cost of software into the equation, price of new Intel macs goes up!

peeb · Mar 6, 2007, 03:18 PM

Your powerbook is a great machine - hang onto it until it stops doing what you need it to - by then, the mb/ps will be faster, cheaper, better than ever.

SierraDragon · Mar 6, 2007, 09:37 PM

What peeb said. You own an excellent pro level Apple laptop. Don't even dream of downgrading yourself to a Macbook. When the apps you use no longer work adequately then buy a MacBook Pro. At that point they will be even better value than they are today.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. I own the same PB plus a C2D MBP.

luomat · Mar 7, 2007, 12:34 AM

FWIW I have a 1.5 Ghz Powerbook with 1gb RAM and a 2Ghz MacBook Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) with 2GB RAM

1) Mac:Office runs every bit as fast for me.

2) MOST applications did not charge for an upgrade to universal binaries.

3) Remember that as a student you get much better discounts than you will once you graduate.

4) I don't consider the MacBook a downgrade in any way except the lack of a PC card slot... and that is offset (for me) by the better WiFi signal. I'm currently at a conference center where everyone else is going to the lobby to use the WiFi and I can get it in my room with my MacBook but cannot get a signal at all with my Powerbook. Downstairs in our meeting place there's someone with a 12" Powerbook sitting next to me and he can't get any signal there and I'm getting 2-3 bars.

FWIW

hybrid · Mar 7, 2007, 01:01 AM

Some schools even have site licenses with companies like Microsoft (not sure about Adobe) that let you have free copies of Windows and Office for the cost of media alone. That's how i got a copy of Windows XP for next to nothing.

Adobe also has very good student discounts, but be warned: Educational copies of Adobe products do not qualify for "upgrade" pricing on future versions.

asodamiac · Mar 7, 2007, 01:08 AM

Thanks luomat. I was really curious about the speed on the MB. Also, I will most DEFINITELY be taking advantage of the student discounting

Allen and peeb, I understand that the Powerbook is a great laptop, but sometimes it just does not perform fast enough for me to be efficient with my time. When editing photos for print (I've been working a 20x30" @ 300 dpi with many layers), my PB seems like it's at the brink of explosion. I've tried using my external as a scratch disk and still, things are very slow (usually sharpening takes well over 20 minutes). Another thing is how bad Airport is on the aluminum PB's! I cannot get connections at most places where most Dell's (or Macbook's) get reception. This however, is not a big issue.

Thanks Simon. The integrated GPU is another thing that I'm questioning. Will it be adequate enough for heavy photoshop use and be up to quite a bit of multi-tasking?

Thanks for your comments guys. I can definitely pay off the Macbook by selling my Powerbook (actually my older brother's, because his dental school is forcing him to buy a Dell, so he doesn't mind trading laptops with me. He has the same 4G PB, but the high resolution version with 2 gigs of ram). If I go the Macbook route, then definitely a Mac Pro will be something that I will consider as well. However, I could just pony up a bit right now and pick up a 15" MBP and use that as my all-around machine (and I'm sure it will perform beautifully).

Decisions!

skacoreimplore · Mar 7, 2007, 01:24 AM

Id keep the PB till Leopard is released (since there might be revisions of the MBP). Then I would go ahead and get a new MBP.

SierraDragon · Mar 7, 2007, 02:14 AM

If your apps are constrained then by all means buy a new box! However you appear to be running heavy graphics apps. For such usage a MB is a poor choice. If you need a portable computer buy a MBP, not a MB.

-Allen Wicks

jamiec · Mar 7, 2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by asodamiac

I really like my Powerbook (especially the screen size), but it is a bit sluggish. My Powerbook is my only machine and I use it for everything from taking notes in class to editing photos to watching movies, etc.
...
I occasionally work with huge files (.psd files that are over 1 gig in size) needed for print and running filters (such as Smart Sharpen) take well over 10 minutes (maybe longer than 20! I'm never sure as I walk away for at least half an hour to find other things to do).

Even though most of the workhorse apps I use are still Rosetta-based (Fireworks, Director, Word, Excel, etc.), I've found my CD MacBook to be WAY faster than the PB G4 it replaced. Individual Rosetta apps may be slower, I can't honestly tell. But the fact is that most of my frustration with the G4 was with overall performance -- open a few apps and a bunch of browser windows, switch between apps, search for files, try to get things done, and that single processor would bog down like crazy. And don't get me started on browser performance -- going back to the Powerbook feels like going from broadband to a 28k modem.

asodamiac · Mar 7, 2007, 11:45 PM

skacoreimplore, I will definitely wait until Leopard is announced and released!

Allen, I agree, but I was hoping to add a Mac Pro later in the future and use the MB mainly as a compact, portable. This is of course my plan for the future (and a long wait it will be!). I've been saving my pennies, but it will still be a while before I can afford a machine like the Mac Pro.

Thanks jamie! Those are things that I'd like to hear

scottwhitlock · Mar 9, 2007, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by hldan

Now, not to entirely flame you but this label of "Poor College Student" is old, tired, unnecessary and lame and not to mention a bit rude. Some people on this forum are still running old G3 Macs and you (the poor college student) has not an iBook but rather a PowerBook G4 which is a pro-line Apple Macintosh. Not everyone can afford that Mr. College Student. I support 3 college students and all have iBooks.

Wow, that was totally uncalled for.

jmiddel · Mar 10, 2007, 07:00 PM

I second scottwhitlock

dndog · Mar 12, 2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by hldan

Now, not to entirely flame you but this label of "Poor College Student" is old, tired, unnecessary and lame and not to mention a bit rude. Some people on this forum are still running old G3 Macs and you (the poor college student) has not an iBook but rather a PowerBook G4 which is a pro-line Apple Macintosh. Not everyone can afford that Mr. College Student. I support 3 college students and all have iBooks.

Someone is a little bitter.

fire3500 · Mar 16, 2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

What peeb said. You own an excellent pro level Apple laptop. Don't even dream of downgrading yourself to a Macbook. When the apps you use no longer work adequately then buy a MacBook Pro. At that point they will be even better value than they are today.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. I own the same PB plus a C2D MBP.

Well that's nonsense... depends whether you're insecure enough to need a laptop manufacturer to slap a "pro" label and some extra £££'s to make you feel whole... I made the jump to a Black MacBook C2D from a 1.67Ghz PowerBook and other than occasionally missing the illuminated keyboard and the easy clean casing of the PB I am very happy. Running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 like a champ and so far only MS Office performance is found to be wanting.

A decent Apple Store or reseller should be able to talk through your needs and allow you some playtime enough to validate whether you "need" that <i>pro</i> machine... of course if you "want" the pro machine then that's another story altogether

analogika · Mar 16, 2007, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by asodamiac

Silverflyer, I've just read from the Macbook forum that MS Office does lag a bit on their machines.

Word is fine once you turn off the ****ing Live GRAMMAR Check.

The morons.

SierraDragon · 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by fire3500

Well that's nonsense...

Clearly we disagree. The 1.67 GHz G4 PB is a good box with a decent graphics card. For a graphics user who owns the best G4 PB, spending a bunch of money to switch to a lowest-end MacIntel laptop with no graphics card, no FW800, no card slot, less screen and limited to the same 2 GB RAM as the PB does not make any sense to me.

Of course a G4 PB is somewhat slower than a C2D Macbook. However, paying money and giving up critical features like FW800 and significant screen real estate just to get a small bit more speed is illogical for a graphics user. Better to tolerate the slightly slower speed until one is again able to buy into the pro level.

BTW "pro" is not an ego term. It references hardware to run income-producing heavy apps like Aperture and Photoshop well. That means more RAM, real graphics cards, FW800, more pixels, more screen real estate, EC/34 card slot, faster Superdrive, etc. Things needed to best support a professional workflow.

-Allen Wicks

air · Mar 16, 2007, 11:07 PM

I agree, completely. I know of several people who just want the "pro" appendage and only use their computers to surf the web and listen to music. If you are a graphics artist/designer, having an "integrated" chip will NOT be sufficient.

asodamiac · Mar 17, 2007, 03:37 AM

Well, I went to my school's computer store today and checked out the Macbook for a bit.

While the screen is nice and bright (and contrasty), it is definitely much smaller than I anticipated. My 15" PB screen is quite nice, even though it is not the high rez version.

Allen, thanks for reminding me about FW800. It's funny that I could overlook such a crucial part of my PB! Transferring data over to my external is nice and fast and while I could live with the slower rates, I think I've been spoiled enough already

air, I mainly work with photos. For the most part, they are resized for web-viewing, but occasionally I do like editing larger prints. I'm not sure how much GPU power is needed with photoshop, but a heck of a lot of ram would be useful!

I think the Mac Pro is very tempting right now. Especially with the leak of the 8-core systems, I'm sure the C2D Mac Pros will have a price drop, which is fine by me

Simon · Mar 17, 2007, 04:01 AM

never mind

mfbernstein · Mar 17, 2007, 12:08 PM

Photoshop uses almost no GPU power. It's a CPU intensive app with very limited 2D graphics demands. If you use Aperture extensively, you might notice a difference. On the other hand, that'd be mitigated greatly by having a second faster CPU.

If you're really serious about graphics, an external monitor is more important. The PowerBook LCDs aren't great and the MBP one is downright poor. The MB LCDs only come in glossy, which is its own headache.

In terms of computing power though, aside from 3D graphics and external data transfer speeds, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between the MB and MBP.

SierraDragon · Mar 19, 2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by mfbernstein

If you're really serious about graphics, an external monitor is more important. The PowerBook LCDs aren't great and the MBP one is downright poor. The MB LCDs only come in glossy, which is its own headache.

IMO the display on C2D MBPs is quite good. I agree that a second monitor is important for pro graphics work, which makes the much stronger graphics of the MBP even more important. Intending heavy graphics apps on low end boxes without good graphics card(s) is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by mfbernstein

In terms of computing power though, aside from 3D graphics and external data transfer speeds, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between the MB and MBP.

Only if one were to limit activities to light applications would the MB be comparable. Heavy graphics apps are specifically mentioned above and MBs are not comparable for such activities.

And note that although PSCS2 fails to take advantage of CPU power the OS does, for significant throughput difference. Also one cannot remove image data transfer speeds from the equation! Whether using Photoshop which requires a fast external scratch, managing a large database of images on disk or simply backing up, the transfer rate for batches of large image files is very relevant to overall productivity.

And of course anyone who may ever use Aperture (IMO the killer app for DSLR image capture management) or FCP needs all the graphics power he/she can get.

To quote BareFeats.com "Whether you are doing serious apps with Core Image effects or playing your favorite 3D accelerated game, the 13" MacBook C2D is going to spoil your day. Even the PowerBook G4 plays games faster than the 13" Macbook C2D. "

-Allen Wicks

Simon · Mar 20, 2007, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

To quote BareFeats.com "Whether you are doing serious apps with Core Image effects or playing your favorite 3D accelerated game, the 13" MacBook C2D is going to spoil your day. Even the PowerBook G4 plays games faster than the 13" Macbook C2D. "

That is absolutely true. However, and this is just to set the record straight here, for those users that don't rely on their GPUs and have CPU-limited tasks (for example people like myself doing scientific computing), even the cheapest CD MB will completely slaughter any G4 PB around.

mfbernstein · Mar 20, 2007, 09:48 AM

Even where the GPU comes into play, results aren't so clear cut. See, e.g. this Aperture test (Everything Apple: MacBook & G5 iMac benchmarked: Handbrake, Aperture, and much more). Clearly if 3D games are your thing, then the MB is not a good fit. But otherwise, it really depends on the choice of apps and tasks.

Maui19 · Mar 21, 2007, 07:44 AM

I have a PBG4 and have had my eye on a MB. I have checked out the MB in an Apple store a few times and it doesn't seem faster to me at all. Granted, it has been a half-arsed experience with the MB, but I was surprised it wasn't noticeable snappier.

peeb · Mar 21, 2007, 11:34 AM

That's an important point - test scores are notoriously questionable. Play with the machine with the software you will use, and make your judgment.

fire3500 · Mar 21, 2007, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

Clearly we disagree. The 1.67 GHz G4 PB is a good box with a decent graphics card. For a graphics user who owns the best G4 PB, spending a bunch of money to switch to a lowest-end MacIntel laptop with no graphics card, no FW800, no card slot, less screen and limited to the same 2 GB RAM as the PB does not make any sense to me.

Of course a G4 PB is somewhat slower than a C2D Macbook. However, paying money and giving up critical features like FW800 and significant screen real estate just to get a small bit more speed is illogical for a graphics user. Better to tolerate the slightly slower speed until one is again able to buy into the pro level.

BTW "pro" is not an ego term. It references hardware to run income-producing heavy apps like Aperture and Photoshop well. That means more RAM, real graphics cards, FW800, more pixels, more screen real estate, EC/34 card slot, faster Superdrive, etc. Things needed to best support a professional workflow.

-Allen Wicks

Thanks for fleshing out your opinion... with regards to a graphics professional then maybe the pro tag has some resonance... but what if you're *not* a creative media professional? What if you're a doctor, or a solicitor or an acupuncturist?.. Do these professionals need a Professional model?

I feel that selecting the right tool for the job has more to consider than graphics cards and RAM capacity. For someone requiring some decent horsepower on-the-go such as myself I do not want to be bullied by marketing cachet into selecting a *pro* model when the consumer model is just as natty and fits my needs perfectly.

The Mac community laments the ninety-some percent market share of Windows and then continually backs itself into the corner of seeing the world through the eyes of creative media professionals and / or students of the same.

I work in IP infrastructure and at many industry events I see more glowing Apples in the audience than ever before... really smart folks... router engineers and peering guys that maintain the very fabric of the Internet... so *not* creative media. I see a lot of iBooks and MacBooks in the crowd and some happy smiling faces behind them. So for *other* professions... why set the price of admisison for portable OS X £500 some higher than it *needs* to be... why not embrace the fact that the *consumer* Macs are punchy little machines. Your derogatory comment about the MacBook was therefore annoying to me... I want to see happy smiling faces behind OS X notebooks, I don't want to belong to a gang of elitist prigs. Spread the word, keep the tone light.

I moved from PowerBook (needed a cardslot and Bluetooth) to MacBook and I am H.A.P.P.Y. with my decision, my MacBook and I work our way quite credibly through the corridors of power and the extra oomph of the MBP would frankly be a waste for MY situation... and together my MB and I are VERY professional

Does that make more sense?

Peace and kisses
f3.5

SierraDragon · Mar 21, 2007, 09:12 PM

Like I said earlier:
" "pro" is not an ego term. It references hardware to run income-producing heavy apps like Aperture and Photoshop well. "

In the context of my responses on this thread "pro" has nothing to do with what one's work title is. It is about the need to run heavy applications in a time-sensitive income producing environment. Specifically graphics in the case of my responses. There are other heavy pro apps that may have different demands.

Note that the OP referenced .psd image files exceeding 1 GB in size. That clearly is usage that, even though it can be done, is generally inappropriate for lower end laptops.

-Allen Wicks

mfbernstein · Mar 22, 2007, 09:16 AM

I'm still wondering why the 1GB .psd files are inappropriate for MB but appropriate for the MBP. If you can cite benchmarks where similarly configured (HD and RAM) MBs and MBPs have significant (say >15%) difference in Photoshop performance, I'd sure like to see them.

SierraDragon · Mar 22, 2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by mfbernstein

I'm still wondering why the 1GB .psd files are inappropriate for MB but appropriate for the MBP.

What I said was ...clearly is usage that, even though it can be done, is generally inappropriate for lower end laptops.

Optimizing PS performance requires a fast external scratch disk, making the FW 800 of MBPs pretty valuable. Scratch disk issues get more critical as file sizes get larger, especially with limited laptop RAM.

The MB's much smaller screen size and much lower pixel count is significantly limiting when working with images. Or (better) you add a second monitor, in which case the MB's lack of separate graphics card means the second display is reducing CPU performance, which is already less than a MBP's.

Sorry, I do not have benchmarks.

-Allen Wicks

osiris24x · Mar 22, 2007, 09:39 PM

In short, yes.

I upgraded from a Powerbook to a Core Duo MacBook Pro and the difference is mind blowing. Even under Rosetta, using Photoshop, it's way faster than my Powerbook ever was.

That said, I tested out a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (the newest version) and it was noticeably faster than my Core Duo MBP.

I can't recommend the upgrade strongly enough, if you need speed. You won't be disappointed!

silverflyer · Mar 22, 2007, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by asodamiac

Silverflyer, I've just read from the Macbook forum that MS Office does lag a bit on their machines.

It may be different on the Macbook , but on my Pro I do not see any slowdowns when using Office. it is very snappy.

I have a 2.16ghz C2D 15.4 inch MBP with 2 gigs of ram.

villalobos · Mar 23, 2007, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by silverflyer

Guys, I have a Macbook Pro and use MS Office all day every day, it is so fricken fast it is impossible to tell it is running in rosetta.

I dont know why it is so slow for you guys, but it is really fast for me.

I don't know what you qualify as 'fricken fast', but Powerpoint, and to a lesser extent Word, are pretty slow on my MBP. To the point where having a PPT presentation results in some heavy lag. Thanksfully there is Keynote (which is vastly superior anyway).

silverflyer · Mar 23, 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by villalobos

I don't know what you qualify as 'fricken fast', but Powerpoint, and to a lesser extent Word, are pretty slow on my MBP. To the point where having a PPT presentation results in some heavy lag. Thanksfully there is Keynote (which is vastly superior anyway).

I use Word and Excel everyday, and they do not seem slow at all to me, PowerPoint les often, but I do not see any slowdowns at all, maybe because I moved from an iBook that wasn't very fast to begin with.