[HunkFam]

Hi Everyone,

I'm flying to the states next week and will be visiting an Apple Store in the DC area (Tyson Corner's or Clarendon?) to decide WHICH notebook I'm "switching" to.

I currently own: PC, PIII 933, 768 MEG RAM, CD Burner, 15" CRT from the Bush 1 administration. I've never owned a Laptop.

Why do I want/need a new computer?: 3 kids. Computer is often in use and is starting to show it's age anyway (Kid's games run slow). I'm very fed up with the Windows OS--I had a bad experience with a "crucial update"--2 weeks and a new OS (XP) later, I finally had my computer back (minus everything that I'd stored over time).

I don't think I'd be a switcher as much as a "mixer." I'd still have both, maybe even connected.

What will I use it for?:

VERY occassional travel (3-4x per year)
E-mail and Web Surfing
Light video editing (I'd like to convert my 8mm tapes to DVD)
Excel/Word/Powerpoint type work
DVD watching--perhaps a home theater in the future?

I'm thinking laptop as a desktop replacement for space reasons.

Anyway, I don't need to be sold on Apple--I've been watching these forums since December, and I'm fairly confident that OS X is something I'd like. Although Assassyn's recent problems gave me pause, I'm still thinking hard about an Apple.

Also, I'm not in a big hurry. The 8mm tapes will always be there to convert to DVD, and the XP operating system does work pretty well now. So, really, the only pressing requirement is convenience (5 people and 1 computer), which I can live with for now if need be.

So...the question. Besides the big screen and price, what are the real "functional" differences between the 12" and 17"? I see the difference in processor and L2/L3 cache, but what I'm asking for is a subjective review of what the tangible difference is between these 2 computers. I don't know if anyone has had a chance to play with both, but I'm very curious to hear how these 2 compare side by side from a "usability" standpoint. Not size, but functionality.

thanks lots,
cheers,
Thad

[maelstrom65]

Originally posted by HunkFam:
What will I use it for?:

VERY occassional travel (3-4x per year)
E-mail and Web Surfing
Light video editing (I'd like to convert my 8mm tapes to DVD)
Excel/Word/Powerpoint type work
DVD watching--perhaps a home theater in the future?

I'm thinking laptop as a desktop replacement for space reasons.

get the 17" The clinchers in my humble opinion are the "desktop replacement" requirement followed by "dvd watching". Sure you can watch them on a 12" but my question is "why would you want to?". If you got the money...get the 17" and max out the RAM afterwards.

Cheers

[HunkFam]

Thanks Maelstrom,

I, too, am very impressed with the 17" model. But perhaps I used
"Desktop Replacement" too freely. Again, I'll still have my PC, so I'm still wondering if the 12" wouldn't be adequate for the tasks I listed. With DVD watching, I'd only be doing it while travelling since I have a nice DVD home theater at home. I figured that since some people buy those little DVD players (500+ bucks and very small) and are quite happy, that 12" would be more than adequate. In short the laptop will NOT be my primary DVD watching device...

Also, another factor in the back of my brain is the integration of the IBM PPC 970--I saw over at Mac rumors that it may be a bit ahead of schedule...and since I'm NOT in a hurry...hmmmm...Maybe it would pay to wait for the "Next" generation. But, then again, the resale value of Macs is nothing short of breathtaking. It's practically an investment--I mean, when I see G3 333MHz Strawberry Macs selling for 700 bucks on EBay...egads, that's awesome!

thanks for your inputs...glad to hear your happy with your 17"!!

cheers,
Thad

[ae86_16v]

You might want to think about the 15", although rumors are saying a new one is coming out soon.

I heard that the video card is faster/better on the 15" right now anyways (Radeon vs. GeForce).

Just a suggestion.

[OSXFreak]

I think this should be a simple choice. Apart from the lack of L3 cache, slightly slower clock speed (which will impact on processor intensive apps, including games) and slower GPU (GeForce 420 as opposed to 440 - probably OK for most current games at 1024x768), the usability should be similar. The keyboard is identical (apart from the lack of backlighting) and unless you need PC Card capability, FW800 (not many of these devices out yet), or DVI-out it should suit your needs. Coupled with better battery life & portability, I think you're onto a winner.

Realistically I don't think a 970 PB is going to surface this year - it would be like shooting themselves in the foot. However, I think PowerMacs could well go this way by Fall 2003.

Me? I'm awaiting my 17", I want a desktop replacement with a bit more HP.

Good luck in your quest!

[OSXFreak]

Some more stats that should help, courtesy of MacWorld.

iMovie 2.1.2 render (lower=better):
12" 867PB: 0:55
15" 1GHZ PB: 0:43

Photoshop Actions (lower=better):
12" 867PB: 1:04
15" 1GHZ PB: 0:53

Gaming (Quake3 frame rate) (higher=better):
12" 867PB: 53.9
15" 1GHZ PB: 75.5

Bear in mind that the 17" slightly surpasses the 15" 1Ghz.

If you've ever used a 800Mhz iMac, you should have some idea of the kind of responsiveness to expect; not quite as snappy as a G4 with L3, but more than usable.

In short, I think the 12" will be fine for you.

Check out http://www.mac-mike.com/ - he's a PC switcher (and journalist) who's recently acquired a 12".

[seanyepez]

The next PowerBooks are not going to feature IBM's new PowerPC 970 CPU. They will use an updated G4 manufactured on a 0.13-micron process.

[PBAddict]

If you don't need the advantage of a small size, i would go for the 17" for the following reasons:

1. Faster Processor with backside cache - while you may not need it now maybe in a couple of years you will.
2. Upgradability - e.g FW 800, PC card Slot.
3. Ability to hook up to an apple display.
4. Screensize, i prefer larger

Both are great, but 17 is my choice.

[urrl5201]

Something else you may want to consider; apparently there seems to be less bugs in the 17" than the 12". I don't recall reading about any real warping, wobbling, overheating problems in the 17". My 17" burns DVD-R's up to 90 min long just fine, with the audio in sync now that I purchased Final Cut Express. iMovie3 is plagued with problems, causing me to switch. I notice Fujifilm CD's have a hard time ejecting, but the Apple "genious" showed me the problem; the top edge of the CD was actually wider than the bottom whereas any other CD edge was perpendicular to each side. So the slanted edge of the CD was causing the problem. Note however that my old 667 DVI Titanium ejected the Fujifilm CD's just fine. Fortunately for me I can eject them anyway by applying a pressure point under the 17" DVD-R mechanism. I would think this is just an anomaly with my unit. Other then a white pixel on the left edge of my LCD screen that only shows up noticibly on a black screen, I have no other problems and am well pleased with my unit.

I also noticed some faint flicker with the 12" units, hardly noticible unless you have owned a 15" Ti, which runs DVD smoothly. The screen colors did not seem as rich on the 12" either. I am not trying to bash the 12" model, just letting others know why I was constrained to wait for the 17". I looked at a DVD on two different 12" models and noticed the same very faint flicker. So I held back on the 12". For users who prefer a mobile unit I think the 12" is the right idea. But for occasional travelers, once you get used to the 17" even the 15" may not look big enough for you. For me the size is not big at all now that I have used it for 3 weeks; it's perfect.

The 17" is an awsome machine, I can tell you without reservations; If I have no regrets even with the Fujifilm anomaly and the white pixel think how satisfied you might be with a fault free machine.

[CatOne]

The 12" is awfully small for a "desktop replacement."

I just would prefer a larger screen than a 12" 1024x768 display. The 17" has lots of real estate (1400x900 I believe).

Also, if you really wanna "go large" with a display, the 17" has DVI out which can power an exernal LCD beautifully. The 12" only has VGA out, which can power most LCDs (not Apple's LCDs tough), though not as sharply because of the D/A and A/D conversions that must take place.

If the 17" is out of your budget, I'd recommend a 15" PB, perhaps 800 MHz. I have an 800 DVI that I've had for almost a year now and I love it. I'm currently running a 23" Cinema HD display off it.

[kmingis]

HunkFam, I think you'd be happy with the PB 12. I've had both it and the PB 17, and have to tell you I was mightily impressed by the amount of computing power packed into a really small form factor. For the kinds of things you're looking to use it for, I think the PB 12 with a superdrive is a great choice. Plus you save $1300 that you can put toward some other purpose. You'll want to max out the RAM with another 512mb chip, and may want to get the airport extreme wireless card -- depending on whether wireless access is important to you. I've had numerous Macs over the last few years, and in terms of form and function the PB 12 tops them all. Having said that, I have a tendency to want the latest greatest (and biggest), so I snagged a PB 17 and -- very reluctantly -- sold the PB 12 last week. If I could have rationalized having two laptops, I'd have kept it.
Another thought: down the road if you decide you want to upgrade to the larger model, you'll take less of a depreciation hit because you will have spent less on the PB 12.

[Kenstee]

Another option is to get the 12" and plug it into an external monitor. Works great like that. At that point it is truly a desktop replacement. You also have extreme portability. The 17" is nice, but only if you have absolutely minimal intent to travel with it. That baby is large. To be honest, if portability is not an issue I'd go with a 17" iMac instead.

[HunkFam]

Thanks Everyone,

Your replies are very helpful and insightful--OSXFreak, thank you so much for the hard data numbers--that was very helpful. It shows me that
a. there is a tangible difference in performance AND
b. that difference (for me) is minimal

That said, I also appreciate the comments about the "staying power" of the 17". It does appear that it may have a longer useful lifespan because of its quicker cache speed.

Anyway--thanks again--still no decision on my part, but I'll keep thinking...

Thad