[msuper69]

Originally posted by hldan:
Maybe we are not exactly on the same page about the Xserve Raid running on Intel chips but here's a link to the Cnet article that shows the machine.

http://news.com.com/Photo+Intel-powe...3-5598799.html

This second link is the actual article. It mentions nothing about networking. Apple has stated that they are not going to implement Intel processors in the consumer Mac computers but this new Xserve is using them for processing power.

http://news.com.com/Apple+has+Intel+...83.html?tag=nl

The CPU is a PowerPC. The Xserve RAID subsystem uses some Intel chips but the processor is IBM PowerPC.

Read a little more carefully.

[power142]

Intel processors in RAID implementations are nothing new - they are very common, have been so for years. It's not surprising that the Xserve RAID uses them. These I/O processors ("IOP") are not related to the Pentium range, but are microprocessors dedicated to their application - data input/output and logic operations required for distributed parity RAID systems. They are not general purpose processors like the x86 or PPC breeds. It's just a matter of Intel's product offerings being rather broader than just chips for laptops.

[power142]

(Merged comments into one post)

[analogika]

Ah - it was the RAID.

Thanks for the correction, guys.

__________________________
idiocy reigns supreme

[Link]

About the only thing I can say is that it'd be nice to see Apple come out with something a little more defining again -- recently sony announced their new T series -- damn sexy machines, 3lbs, built in optical drive and between 3.5 and 9 hours of battery life.. those suckers have 1.1ghz Pentium M chips too..

Unfortunately they lack in video, but for a subnote that's extremely nice..

Where's apple? The 12" -- barely better than an ibook, if at all.. the graphics are questionably better than the ibook's, but other than the fancy metal case, there's few other differences: you can even achieve the screen spanning and touchpad scrolling with the ibook!

The 15", well it is what it has always been, an expensive laptop, could have better battery life but doesn't for no rather obvious reason, since the HD is average and the graphics are average -- the CPU core is nothing to write home about either.

The 17" is SO MUCH of a "Could have been" laptop.. it's awesome, big, nice...

But EVEN THE MANUAL wishes it had a 1920x1200 screen, and there's enough room in there to stick in a bigger battery and/or some of the things the smaller ones couldn't have due to size constraints..

Does Apple update it significantly? No.. after 9 months the darn thing got a what.. 8% speedbump?

I think Apple doesn't want the Powerbook to compete with the iMac.. now WHY THE #@$&* would they NOT WANT A HIGH END LAPTOP TO COMPETE WITH A LOW END DESKTOP?!

Pardon me, mid end.. for all those yuppies who can't deny they blew $1300-$1600(1700?) on a machine that has an "emachines grade graphics chip"...

Howabout a few suggestions? Instead of feeling threatened by a PORTABLE, why not have the imac do what it should do best? Be a desktop -- the eMac covers EDU, and does it damn well, so let it do that.. instead of trying to cram a laptop CD drive and an overpriced LCD into a shell, why not give people what they want? The mac mini just about does it, so why not the imac?

Heck, keep the LCD and the integrated everything.. the Jay Lenno of desktops looks fine, provided it doesn't impede progress of real laptops here.. Yeah, Jay Leno.. lol

Take the 12", stop making it an anorexic iBook wannabe and toss it into a smaller enclosure, while you're at it, cram a cardbus slot into there, show sony how to design a real subcompact here.. we know you can do it!

The 15" -- give it the 1680x1050 (or better yet, 1920x1200!) screen it has always wanted, perhaps refresh the look a bit and toss in a better graphics chip -- make the old screen BTO for the stubborn people who just won't buy glasses like their doctor keeps telling them to.

The 17" -- ahhh the 17", the crown jewel of laptops, 1920x1200 is a no brainer here, tell the wishy washy 1440x900 people to eat themselves.. A better GPU, maybe shove a G5 into there, and if not better battery and sound system. It is possible to cram decent speakers into a laptop -- Hp's done it, maybe add an option for a 2nd HD?

Yeah I think that'd about addreess my thoughts.. anyone?

[phataccord04]

but why change something that sells? when ever you bring out an old line and bring in a new line you run the risk of people not liking it. Its liek the Jeep Wangler..Jeep slightyly makes changes but will never get rid of it nor will they redesign the whole thing. If it still sells why fix it. "dont fix it if it aint broke" just patch **** up

[Scooterboy]

Powerbook sales have been pretty flat if not in decline. I think that's because the PowerBook market is waiting for a significantly higher performance PowerBook but the current G4 that's inside them is now Apple's educational and low end CPU. Even the consumer desktop has a G5.
So, to Apple's credit, they design in more cool features (and useful ones) and make them standard while dropping prices. But there's still that G4, the same one that's in the iBooks, eMacs and Mini. So if Apple is "stuck" with the G4 until IBM can deliver a mobile G5 or Freescale can deliver, in quantity, a dual core G4+, what can be done to improve the performance of the PowerBooks?

How about PCI Express x16 graphics with nVidia GeForce 6800 Go or ATi Mobility RADEON X800 with 256 MB DDR RAM? That should increase the responsiveness of OS X Aqua and keep the PowerBook up to date for gaming. The mobility Radeon 9700 is showing its age, and I was really hoping for a graphics upgrade on the latest PowerBooks. I really hope Apple isn't going to coast the PowerBooks another 9 months on outdated AGP video chipsets. It may have to coast along with the G4, but the GeForce 6800 Go and ATi X800 are available now.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Link:
you can even achieve the screen spanning with the ibook!

Since the chips apple buys in bulk are UNTESTED for that function and generate quite a bit more heat with spanning switched on (heat which isn't designed for), you might be lucky and get one higher-up in the tolerance limit.

Chances are quite good, however, that you won't.

Good luck explaining it to warranty support services.

Originally posted by Link:
Take the 12", stop making it an anorexic iBook wannabe and toss it into a smaller enclosure, while you're at it, cram a cardbus slot into there,

I. e. throw out the Airport card, internal bluetooth, and/or graphics card.

Sure.

I suggest you open up one of those things when you get the chance, Link.

[hldan]

Originally posted by analogika:
Ah - it was the RAID.

Thanks for the correction, guys.

__________________________
idiocy reigns supreme

Not to put you down, but now that you understand it was the "RAID" and not the Xserve G5 that I was posting about earlier, YOU need to read more carefully before posting incorrect info.

[zzarg]

I've been looking around recently for an upgrade on my 12" Rev.A PB.

The 15" PB is a strong contender. Sure, it doesn't have the awesome battery life of a T series Vaio, it lacks the screen of some of the Acers, it's not a TabletPC like the Portege M200. It doesn't have the processing grunt of some of the HP/Compaq machines or the graphics capabilities of the mainstream Toshibas. It even lacks out on the funky name and design cues of the BenQ machines

But none of them seem capable of inspiring the same level of passion that the ageing platform that is the PowerBook manage !

That said, I've held off getting the new PB for a number of reasons... I can struggle along as I am, a lot depends on the next project (can I really carry on faking ASP/SQL development with VPC and a loopback adapter, can I live with the problems in Safari when 99% of my user base is IE etc)... but at the same time I'm not rushing out to buy a WinTel machine because...

the PB is pretty reliable, it has a great keyboard, I've got high hopes that Tiger might fix some of the nagging OS bugs and on the whole I'm no less happy with my machine than my centrino owning compatriots.

[siflippant]

Originally posted by hldan:
Not to put you down, but now that you understand it was the "RAID" and not the Xserve G5 that I was posting about earlier, YOU need to read more carefully before posting incorrect info.

Thank God for the ePolice...

[h00ligan]

well i switched from a 12" pb 1.33 to a sony s260

both had a gig of ram, i installed bluetooth in my sony..

battery life on the sony is superior, the screen is VASTLY superior. The weight is superior.

They keyboard is not as good
the wireless dops randomly (running the intel or windows management.. particularly annoying when i am playing a game of poker for $100 and it drops in the middle.. that said.. poker software won't even run on the mac

compatability is a bitch sometimes...

1.33 to 1.7 dothan is comparable. The only place i notice the sony is faster is surfing the web on pages like maxboxing.com with a lot of flash using firefox. It is better with safari, but safari lacks features and i won't use it.... namely mouse gestures (yes i have tried cocoa gestures but i don't like it) The mac handles multitasking MUCH better.. since i added the extra 512 to the pc though, i honestly can't say i have had the same problems.. so perhaps i just needed more ram.

the pc needs to be rebooted about once a day to stay fresh but the boots faster than the mac - it's not a big deal and i don't get many lockups when doing important stuff.. but they are there. I was trying to copy a file from a server, listen to music from a server and send a file thru trillian - it crashed explorer... that's just weak.

OS X is better than xp but networking is a bit more compatable with the wintel. shares mount faster and i don't have to be pissed off when i see the million ._ files

mail and outlook both suck, and both are required for my phone.

sleep wakeup is about the same for both.. you just don't hibernate the pc, you suspend it. - but the wireless takes longer to reconnect. Since I am password protected by the time i enter it in either, they are both up.

picasa is better than iPhoto at least v2 vs v4. I have not used iLife 05 yet.

The mac trumps the pc for music stuff, hands down.. and i miss garage band - just for playing around.

The mac also trumps for DV editing.

The mac did not get as hot, and was quieter.

I don't think I could go back to 1024 res.. so i would have to lok at a 15". I have almost recommitted to the mac side about 8 times in the last 2 months since owning this machine.. but I just can't spend that much money when i KNOW they are going to drop something new next rev. they HAVE to.

OS X securty is better.. not from the viewpoint of antivirus or spyware.. i don't get either on my pc.. but ... physical security. To get a similar level of protection from a pc as filevault i had to install compusec - free but still.. when tiger drops with the encryped swap.. game on. even with compusec it is AES 128 not 256 like filevault. Filevault in Panther though is not so hot... the swap file thing is teh suck.

I miss terminal.app dos sucks.

all in all they are very comparable machines, each with their strong suits and negatives... but .. to the OP - i don't clearly see that the powerbook is much behind (if at all) the centrino machines.. and FWIW with sonoma out now.. most people are seeing WORSE batter life than with dothan and banias.

just some thoughts from someone with some experience.

[analogika]

Originally posted by hldan:
Not to put you down, but now that you understand it was the "RAID" and not the Xserve G5 that I was posting about earlier, YOU need to read more carefully before posting incorrect info.

Really?

Because my point was that OS X DOES NOT RUN ON INTEL CPUS, and that APPLE DOES NOT PUT INTEL CPUS IN THEIR MACHINES.

Speaking of reading carefully, do you know what "IIRC" means, as in

Apple's XServe does NOT run on Intel CPUs.

IIRC, there are one or two Intel chips in there related to the networking subsystem, but that is it.

?

Hmm?

Obligatory:


P.S.: Sorry about your internet penis.

[siflippant]

Originally posted by analogika:


P.S.: Sorry about your internet penis.

[hldan]

Originally posted by analogika:
Really?

Because my point was that OS X DOES NOT RUN ON INTEL CPUS, and that APPLE DOES NOT PUT INTEL CPUS IN THEIR MACHINES.

Speaking of reading carefully, do you know what "IIRC" means, as in?

Hmm?

Obligatory:


P.S.: Sorry about your internet penis.

Look sir, don't try and play the "who's smarter" game with me. This forum is for helping people and not being a smart a$$. For the last time, the Xserve Raid is a storage system, it's not an actual Macintosh computer and the lastest one does run on Intel processors as well as being compatible with several operating systems. If I am wrong and corrected it's no problem, I don't have self centered ego issues as you do so learn to get along better and help other posters instead of trying to act smarter than everyone else.
Your rude commentary is unnecessary.

[steel84]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the blue screen of death. I have been a pc user all my life and see that screen all the time. Something i have never seen show up in a mac. Also in regaurds to the sleep mode, my gateway laptop wont always go to sleep mode. I will close the laptop and come back later to find its been sitting on standing by to sleep or something like that. Then i have to do a restart and that takes forever. I also have the problem where it takes forever to start up. I have gotten to the point where i turn it on and come back later. ARRRRG I can't wait til my new powerbook gets here.

[power142]

This is way OT, but there is a rough equivalent to BSOD - the kernel panic. The screen fades to gray and a message written in a number of languages tells you how to restart your computer.
I manage a number of computers, including Macs, and over the past 2 or 3 years I've seen this barely a handful of times. In all cases, it was a hardware fault either in a peripheral or the computer itself (in particular, we had a bad pair of B*lkin USB hubs that wreaked havoc for their short lives)

[RichieZ]

1.33 to 1.7 dothan is comparable.

no way, i have a 12" 1.33 pb and a thinkpad X31 (12" 1.4ghz banias) and the powerbook is most definelty slower! Both have the same amount of ram and even the same model HD.

I hardly ever use my thinkpad anymore though, I prefer OSX. But is pretty clear when I switch off between them that the Pentium M, even the older banias core is faster than the G4

the keyboard on the powerbook is on par with my X31, but its not as good as the ones on the thinkpad T4X

[Michael1980]

I think BF did a comparison in speed between PM and G4.
Not that it matters.

[Cross]

Originally posted by DylanG:
There are some exceptions but the majority of the currently available Centrino machines have battery life that is competitive with the PB line. I haven't kept up with newest Sonoma revisions but I believe it's rare to find an Intel based laptop that gets >4 hours real world usage from one battery.

Screen resolution is where Apple laptops disappoint me.

Being that I seem to jump from laptop to laptop every moth I have some actual pulls on compairing the Centrino/Pentium M Chip itself with other chips. The main match off I did was with an A64 (Why go out of class, I love my PB Ti but frankly compairing them is to much of a pain and the fact that there are to many debates started by this its easier just to run them as you would normally and go from there.)

Anyway the A64 m6805 3000+ with a Radeon 9600 64MB Clocked well above the 9700. (512MB Ram DDR 2700 on both and 5400RPM 8MB Cache Drives on both) against a Banias 1.4Ghz m505x with the same Radeon 9600 64MB Overclocked as well. Both systems matched eachother on A/C in Aquamark 3. (24k) However off A/C it changed greatly. The m505x got the same 24K mark where the A64 dropped to 15k. Thats a large drop off. Also while using both laptops for Doom 3 on Medium settings I got 1hr 21Min out of the A64 (So the Powerbook def has that beat athlough that laptop cost 1100 new and now 800 buy it now on eBay..) but the m505x got 3 hours and 4 minutes. Now that impressed me.

However the next System I tested was a Dell 8600 Don. 1.6 and its battery life was nothing grand... it was horrible actually and I got rid of it within 2 weeks.

Now while I can not compair an AL yet as I refuse to buy a new Powerbook until its been completely revamped or else when I do it will happen right after my purchase as usual, *laugh*

Personally while the Pentium M Chips can provide excellent battery life, the mac systems while in the same area do need an update there. What they need more then ever though is UXGA Screens. SXGA has become to common and frankly using the current UXGA I use for school I can't say I miss my Ti Book's Screen.... but I greatly Miss OS X. Maybe the rumor I keep hearing of the OS X Release for the PC Platform will come true.

I think Apple should look into the dual cores but the G4 is for the iBook now. Both systems have been running the same chip for to long, I have to agree that with iBooks while not with all the exact board features but running G4's it makes the Powerbook G4 less desired for my time. I think the G5 needs to be released and if intel can make the dual core idea really show promise then maybe thats the direction apple should talk with the G5, or maybe they already have.

I personally agree with a few other users that I hope Apple is working on a revamp with better screens, battery life changes are not so much of importance to me, but a dual processor chip would really be nice in a laptop, but mainly.... I still think the Pismo was the best looking Laptop so far... I really liked the black look all the flash has started to be to much for me....I want a professional laptop with power that everyone is not bugging me about. I don't need atten. I need a powerhouse thats portable. One of the main reasons I feel macs are still going to continue to hold that ranking because if an A64 can only run for 1 and a half hours...then the PB G4 is well above that mark.

[finboy]

Originally posted by analogika:
Count yourself lucky.

By all accounts, sleep does not work reliably on many, many Windows laptops - Windows XP may support it, but the combination of cheap-ass shared-memory graphics card, interrupt settings, PC Card slot, optical drive, blahblahblahwhatever... in your standard XYZ laptop will quite possibly not.

Also, an awful lot of Centrino laptop users do NOT have WLAN access working reliably, what with auto-discovery and instant reconnect upon wake from sleep or changing location, despite ostensible support by OS and hardware.

Amen brother. I haven't seen one Windows laptop, XP or not, that could sleep reliably. Not like Apple machines -- even machines back to the PB 1xx series.

Wireless isn't that tough on XP, but it's NOTHING like Airport.

[analogika]

Originally posted by hldan:
Look sir, don't try and play the "who's smarter" game with me. This forum is for helping people and not being a smart a$$. For the last time, the Xserve Raid is a storage system, it's not an actual Macintosh computer and the lastest one does run on Intel processors as well as being compatible with several operating systems. If I am wrong and corrected it's no problem, I don't have self centered ego issues as you do so learn to get along better and help other posters instead of trying to act smarter than everyone else.
Your rude commentary is unnecessary.

*ahem*

Originally posted by hldan:
I have never understood what difference does it make what processor goes into a computer. Why wouldn't Apple just use Intel's chips in all their computers. I know Apple is using Intel for the Xserve so why won't Apple jump ship and leave Motorola if they can't produce processors with great specs like Intel epecially since IBM doesn't seem to have a mobile G5 chip.

Now, I do apologize for the rude commentary, but from the context, it seems absolutely clear that you were talking about Macintosh CPUs (running OS X, right), and NOT simply glorified hard drives - which is what the XServe RAID is.

The XServe RAID is a storage system, and suggesting that, since it uses Intel chips, it would be logical for Apple to port its OS X to Intel and use their CPUs is the same thing as suggesting that they should use NVidia or ATi chips for CPUs running OS X, since they're already using those companies' chips, too.

Either way, it's water under the bridge of this thread.

-s*

[Link]

The single best sleeping laptop I had on the PC side was a thinkpad 350.. no color screen, 2" thick.. 25mhz 486...

BUT..

It had "hardware" sleep -- you hit a button on the bezel and the thing went to sleep, hit the button again, and boom it was back up -- before the HD had a chance to spin up :smirk: -- and the OS always got a teeny bit of jet lag. I have to say, it's very much like a current powerbook *smirk*

and those who think apple pioneered the sleep on lid close thing

For sake of bragging, it even had an auxillary battery, like the 15" (and I think the 17" do) -- you could pop the battery out while the machine was sleeping and lose nothing

[mikerally]

I think IBM ThinkPads are still pretty good laptops.

I setup a client with a ThinkPad R45.

It's a Centrino laptop running Windows XP Service Pack 2.

In XP SP2 the Wireless networking has been revamped, and actually works really well once you've removed the Wireless Vendor's crappy software off the machine and let XP take control.

The auto connection works very well, as fast as my Powerbook can pick a wireless network when waking from sleep.

You get good range on the ThinkPad also. I think there is room for improvement - but it's actually really now the OEM vendors fault for making Wireless hard to setup than Microsoft.

[shwamster]

Alright, I am going to try to address a few things based on my education, experience, and some speculation.

Processors... P4 v PM v G4
The Apple PowerPC based processors are hands down better processors than the Intel counterparts. Clock speeds are almost meaningless because of the difference in the architectures of the chips. The P4's are very inefficient and thus need rediculous clockspeeds. The Pentium M's, though much better engineered than the Pentium line still suffer from the same failure as all other Pentium processors, a CISC architecture which leads to bloated machine instructions which leads to more cycles necessary to do the same job. Though better than the P4's they still are not as elegant as the PowerPC systems. I think that a G4 clocked around 1.5 could easily match the latest PM's clocked around 2GHZ and keep with the P4's up to around 3-3.4 GHz depending on the task at hand. (Also based on the fact that the PM's can keep with the P4's around 3-3.4)

G5....
Though we would all love to see a G5 laptop, it isn't feasible yet. The G5 desktops have EXTENSIVE cooling because so much heat is generated (think halfway between a hot plate and a nuclear reactor and you will have an idea of the heat generated by a modern desktop precessor). Cooling is a huge huge issue as well as power consumption. Plus, 64 bit computing is a great concept but until there is a true 64 bit OS and true 64 bit apps, the speed increase isn't great enough to sacrifice the size form of the current PB line.

GPU's
I would love to see higher end video cards in the PB line, but Apple targets their laptops at home users who write e-mails and docs, and professionals in visual production. Though it is logical to think that visual production would require high-end graphics, this isn't really the case. Most graphics apps, i.e. Photoshop, Final Cut... rely more on processor than GPU. The only real thing that requires High-speed, real time rendering is games--an area that mac stays away from in terms of a marketing target. Even consumer - high-end 3D apps like 3DS studio and Maya use the processor and not the GPU to render. I would rather have a well enineered, quick processor, rather than the latest and greatest video card for my Maya work.

Anyways, this is my opinion on these topics which seem to be central to this discussion. So you know where I am coming from, I have been using only intel based machines running windows so I am not biased on the apple side by having never used a Wintel machine. I am also educated as a computer science student. ON a personal note, I don't think I have seen any operating system which can match OS X in reliability, usability, and sheer beuty.

[analogika]

Originally posted by shwamster:
Though it is logical to think that visual production would require high-end graphics, this isn't really the case. Most graphics apps, i.e. Photoshop, Final Cut... rely more on processor than GPU. The only real thing that requires High-speed, real time rendering is games--an area that mac stays away from in terms of a marketing target. Even consumer - high-end 3D apps like 3DS studio and Maya use the processor and not the GPU to render. I would rather have a well enineered, quick processor, rather than the latest and greatest video card for my Maya work.

Maya aside: CoreVideo will probably make the GPU a lot more relevant for the other graphics/video applications.

[hldan]

Originally posted by shwamster:
Alright, I am going to try to address a few things based on my education, experience, and some speculation.

Processors... P4 v PM v G4
The Apple PowerPC based processors are hands down better processors than the Intel counterparts. Clock speeds are almost meaningless because of the difference in the architectures of the chips. The P4's are very inefficient and thus need rediculous clockspeeds. The Pentium M's, though much better engineered than the Pentium line still suffer from the same failure as all other Pentium processors, a CISC architecture which leads to bloated machine instructions which leads to more cycles necessary to do the same job. Though better than the P4's they still are not as elegant as the PowerPC systems. I think that a G4 clocked around 1.5 could easily match the latest PM's clocked around 2GHZ and keep with the P4's up to around 3-3.4 GHz depending on the task at hand. (Also based on the fact that the PM's can keep with the P4's around 3-3.4)

G5....
Though we would all love to see a G5 laptop, it isn't feasible yet. The G5 desktops have EXTENSIVE cooling because so much heat is generated (think halfway between a hot plate and a nuclear reactor and you will have an idea of the heat generated by a modern desktop precessor). Cooling is a huge huge issue as well as power consumption. Plus, 64 bit computing is a great concept but until there is a true 64 bit OS and true 64 bit apps, the speed increase isn't great enough to sacrifice the size form of the current PB line.

GPU's
I would love to see higher end video cards in the PB line, but Apple targets their laptops at home users who write e-mails and docs, and professionals in visual production. Though it is logical to think that visual production would require high-end graphics, this isn't really the case. Most graphics apps, i.e. Photoshop, Final Cut... rely more on processor than GPU. The only real thing that requires High-speed, real time rendering is games--an area that mac stays away from in terms of a marketing target. Even consumer - high-end 3D apps like 3DS studio and Maya use the processor and not the GPU to render. I would rather have a well enineered, quick processor, rather than the latest and greatest video card for my Maya work.

Anyways, this is my opinion on these topics which seem to be central to this discussion. So you know where I am coming from, I have been using only intel based machines running windows so I am not biased on the apple side by having never used a Wintel machine. I am also educated as a computer science student. ON a personal note, I don't think I have seen any operating system which can match OS X in reliability, usability, and sheer beuty.

Since this is a Mac forum and most opinons here are going to be biased towards Macs of course I really appreciate seeing a real Windows user give a great non biased opinion and still turns out to that Mac harware is on par with what Intel is offering as the Intel hype gives impressions that the Centrino seems to be far ahead of what Motorola turns out for our Macs. Specs along can't tell the whole story so again your posting was appreciated.
My only question is since you see the value of the Mac hardware and the OS then why aren't you using a Macintosh?