|
|
Ok now I'm a bit upset
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's the unfortunate tradeoff for significantly less weight, a larger/brighter screen, more RAM and a faster CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status:
Offline
|
|
PB's have short battery life because they are POWERbooks as in they are powerful and consume more power then iBooks. If you could afford to give up some "POWER" then by all means maybe the iBooks are the right 'books for you. I dont mind losing a little bit of batt life for my PB at all, although it would be nicer if it was a little longer. Oh Well.
|
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I love my Powerbook, but I do see the point:
It's kind of odd to be paying a PREMIUM for a TRADE-OFF.
But then, the Powerbooks have other features that may justify the premium (did to me).
-s*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
That's the unfortunate tradeoff for significantly less weight, a larger/brighter screen, more RAM and a faster CPU.
It's mainly the unfortunate tradeoff for Apple's decision to go with significantly less powerful batteries in the 1.25 GHz 15" PB -- motivated more by thoughts of maximising gross margin than minimizing weight, IMHO.
|
MBP 15" 2.33GHz C2D 3GB 2*23" ACD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have to agree that it was a bad move by apple to go with a smaller battery in the new machines than the old ones. I think it had to do with weight though..the new books are already bigger and heavier which is not the way to be going.
I still get a good 2.45 hours though and feel happy with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
Compared to my new PowerBook (15" 1.25 Ghz) my old 12" G3 iBook runs circles (or at least many minutes) around it.
That is why I'm happy I still kept it. For 'true portability' and opposed to 'pure power' I don't think any other Mac laptop has beat it.
I've read the press releases and all, but just imagine what the power consumption would be like on a G5 PowerBook.
:shudder:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NORAD (England branch)
Status:
Offline
|
|
I know it would have increased weight, but surely they could have put bigger batteries in the 15" and especially the 17"? Surely the 17" with double the battery life would have sold even more? Maybe I'm talking nonsense!
|
iMac Core 2 Duo 17" 2ghz 3gb/250gb || iBook G4 12" 1.33ghz 1gb/40gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by WOPR:
I know it would have increased weight, but surely they could have put bigger batteries in the 15" and especially the 17"? Surely the 17" with double the battery life would have sold even more? Maybe I'm talking nonsense!
I agree I would rather have my Powerbook be a little heavier to gain that extra battery life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cali
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ya allot of you are right.
The problem is with the battery.
It does not even have the capacity they promise (4.6 kw/hour)
So Apple is defiantly skimping.
They could easily put a bigger one in there.
I will just get someone to repack it with higher Mah
|
Force
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
iB's battery life is awesome...!!!
sux to be a PB owner...
|
blabba5555555555555555555555555555555555555
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|