Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

prelude2005 · Jun 30, 2002, 11:10 PM

ok guys...

Im about to purchase a laptop, as my first post here, I want to get a few things straighted out.

If I do get a powerbook I want to get the 667MHz one since the 800MHz is too expensive.

Where does the 667MHz G4 proccessor match up with the PC processors? P4 1.5GHz? AMD 1700+ XP?

Im looking to do a lot of mutlimedia stuff, games, movies, music etc.
Also will be taking them to LAN parties, so wide verity of games needs to be included.

Can a G4 667MHz handle the heat is basically what im getting at.

If I cant get the powerbook maybe ill go for the ibook. But thats a G3, how does a G3 perform?

Thanks guys

Beer Penguin · Jun 30, 2002, 11:15 PM

If you need a fast computer buy the PC.

prelude2005 · Jun 30, 2002, 11:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beer Penguin:
If you need a fast computer buy the PC.<hr /></blockquote>so your saying they dont really match up as far as speed huh. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

SuperGroove · Jun 30, 2002, 11:55 PM

In applications like Adobe Photoshop 6.0, Word, and general day to day apps(e-mail, Explorer,), my G4 667DVI seems noticeably slower than my old IBM T23 P3 1.13GHZ. I have the cheap baseline model Powerbook, and my IBM T23 was the top of the line model. Even though not a gaming powerhouse, if you want that "snappy" feel, a PC notebook is the way to go. PC notebooks are at 2.0GHZ now with the same ATI Radeon 7500 graphics card.

And there are not a wide variety of games available for the macintosh platform. Gaming isn't really what most laptop manufacturers have in mind. The PC laptops really do well in games now.

For the things you want, PC is what you want. For reliability, ease of use, and character, I suggest the Powerbook. Working on a PC is very frustrating, whereas the Mac seems so much .

P.S. - LAN meets require you to have BIG computers

You have to be able to brag about FPS!

rampant · Jul 1, 2002, 12:19 AM

Yeah, as someone said, using a Mac now isn't about speed, if that's what you want then go with a PC. It's about a joyous user experiance <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 01:44 AM

If you're looking for performance, look elsewhere.

Even PC notebooks can't hold their own at LAN parties. I recommend you buy an iBook and spend $1,200 on a PC rig.

Having attended LAN parties myself, I know that having a PowerBook or even a SuperDrive iMac won't let you be competitive against others at LAN's. In all seriousness, you need a CRT or a very fast LCD panel to compete. Gaming is great on the TiBook if you're going to play casually with friends, but you're not going to win anything on a "mere" TiBook.

It's best suited for getting work done. While I recommend the TiBook, I recognize that you'll need something like a Dell Inspiron 8200 or a Sony VAIO GRX to be on a level playing field.

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 01:48 AM

Nobody "brags" about their rigs at the LAN parties I go to. It's just understood that everyone will be on the same playing field. Being at a LAN gets rid of the excuse of being "lagged", and generally, it's nice to play in a contest of skill/practice and not hardware. Generally, once you're getting 125 frames per second at all times, you'll be set. The Quake III engine maxes out at that point. CRT's help, too.

Roxie · Jul 1, 2002, 01:48 AM

Excuse me, but....

You people are ignoring what the bulk of his post (requirements) are:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Im looking to do a lot of mutlimedia stuff, games, movies, music etc. <hr /></blockquote>If your interest is strictly games alone. Fine, a PC laptop would be a better bet, but for the rest... a Ti would excel by virtue of OS and Mac software alone. The best games are or will get ported to the Mac, and you'll be able to play them fine. Higher end PC laptops will be faster, but god to labor under that crappy Winozzz OS is something you should think long and hard about.

Here is but one example:

<a href="http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/digitalhub/imovie.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/digitalhub/imovie.html</a>

Rox

[ 07-01-2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Roxie ]

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 02:15 AM

We aren't missing the point. In fact, we're tackling it directly.

It's not the availability he's concerned about. It's the performance of the TiBook which isn't all that great.

I did recommend the TiBook. PC's running XP are infinitely more reliable than those running 98 or ME because they're based on NT. They're still not as friendly, but they're no longer the BSOD-prone pieces of junk they used to be. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

Oh, and Roxie, what ever happened to Counter-Strike? It's the most popular on-line FPS, and we're yet to even see Half-Life. I don't recall Wolfenstein being available for Mac until very recently.

Roxie · Jul 1, 2002, 02:17 AM

I've got your XP right here:

<a href="http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/digitalhub/imovie.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/digitalhub/imovie.html</a>

Beer Penguin · Jul 1, 2002, 03:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by seanyepez:
PC's running XP are infinitely more reliable than those running 98 or ME because they're based on NT. They're still not as friendly, but they're no longer the BSOD-prone pieces of junk they used to be. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Have you used XP? I'd take a Win95 BSOD any day over that POS. Even with the Classic Windows theme applied XP sucks major cockage.

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 04:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beer Penguin:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by seanyepez:
PC's running XP are infinitely more reliable than those running 98 or ME because they're based on NT. They're still not as friendly, but they're no longer the BSOD-prone pieces of junk they used to be. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Have you used XP? I'd take a Win95 BSOD any day over that POS. Even with the Classic Windows theme applied XP sucks major cockage.<hr /></blockquote>I'm using XP right now on my overclocked 1.8-gigahertz (from 1.67 gigahertz) Athlon system right now. It never blue-screens. My Sony VAIO doesn't, either. I know a lot of people happy with XP as their primary OS. XP isn't any less stable than my SuperDrive iMac or PowerBook "FireWire" running OS X. I try to be unbiased in my comparison. I'm merely pointing out that XP is a viable solution.

rampant · Jul 1, 2002, 04:21 AM

1st seanyepez post: correct
2nd seanyepez post: also correct
3rd seanyepez post: and how! correct.

Paul Huang · Jul 1, 2002, 06:52 AM

If you are an organization freak and create multiple-level folders/directories, you will appreciate the Mac OS (regardless of version). Try the following:

create 4 folders and each folder contains 12 folders.

Label the 12 folders 1-12
Label the 4 folders 1-4

You can easily do this on a Mac OS computer blind-folded. Try this on any Windows system and you will know how S L O W it is--regardless of processor speed.

Staring at the screen all day for some stupid task is not the way to use a computer. These are the things that slow down a Windows system beyond belief.

rm199 · Jul 1, 2002, 08:06 AM

ive just converted to a powerbook as primary machine from a P3 laptop. Im getting more work done on the powerbook, however the P3 is alot faster for most things.

Biggest problem for me is that PC notebooks are getting larger and heavier, this is the opposite of my requirements... The PB has the screen realestate and form factor to make it the killer notebook (for me).

oh and the speed of XP on the new P4Ms is great, a bit hard to beleive in fact!

RM

prelude2005 · Jul 1, 2002, 08:59 AM

Well LAN parties arent a BIG thing, im just tired of carrying my huge case and monitor lol

ok, so it looks like, for what im doing, and my motives are for the wintel machine.

urrl5201 · Jul 1, 2002, 12:09 PM

Wow, can anyone top this PC laptop weight at 11.3 lbs??? Prostar model 8894.
<a href="http://www.prostarlaptop.com/" target="_blank">http://www.prostarlaptop.com/</a>
Looks like a quick laptop though with DDR SDRAM.

[ 07-01-2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: urrl5201 ]

Vash · Jul 1, 2002, 07:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> seanyepez:
Generally, once you're getting 125 frames per second at all times, you'll be set. The Quake III engine maxes out at that point. CRT's help, too.<hr /></blockquote>Off subject, but Quake 3 Arena's max fps is 999. And an LCD works far better than a CRT monitor. My Apple 22" can do any frame rate in Quake, the highest I've had is about 550 FPS.

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 08:43 PM

Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about.

Your Cinema display can do 60 frames per second. Anything more's not being displayed. I have a Cinema HD and it works the same way. LCD's are most definitely not as good as CRT's for games. Period. CRT's have a phosphor life of around 12-17 milliseconds. LCD's (especially the newer Cinema displays) lag about 50 milliseconds before they update. CRT's don't ghost. LCD's do.

Quake III's max is 666 frames per second. I've maxed Quake out before on my GeForce4.

Mac Zealot · Jul 1, 2002, 08:55 PM

he is meaning that the mac version of q3 maxes at 999 frames per second which it is known to do (I think the PC does as well).

The Cinema HD DOES NOT do a minimum of 50ms refresh it's closer to a 12ms refresh and the Cinema is right behind with it's newest LCD revision @ 14ms.

So STFU. You know nothing about LCDs except that you can't afford one.

Moderator · Jul 1, 2002, 08:59 PM

ahhh..I have nothing worthwhile to say.

[ 07-01-2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Moderator ]

vsurfer · Jul 1, 2002, 09:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by prelude2005:
ok guys...

Im about to purchase a laptop, as my first post here, I want to get a few things straighted out.

If I do get a powerbook I want to get the 667MHz one since the 800MHz is too expensive.

Where does the 667MHz G4 proccessor match up with the PC processors? P4 1.5GHz? AMD 1700+ XP?

Im looking to do a lot of mutlimedia stuff, games, movies, music etc.
Thanks guys<hr /></blockquote>I'm in the same boat as you. The 800 is too xpnsz for now, until it becomes the lower price point machine (Summer 2003?), but sounds like daMuttznuttz. The 677 well, I'd like a faster machine for the future, as I spend a lot of time in Dreamweaver, and a multitude of other progs simultaneously.

I''ve been into Gateway Country a number of times and tried some of the 1.7 GHZ and 2 GHZ notebooks, but honestly the Windows interface and feel just makes me BARF. Even XP.

Either way if i went PC or TiBook, I'd feel compelled to wipe em both clean repartition and install Linux side by side with Mac OS. The only saving grace I could see in buying a PS laptop is that i could install Linux on it, and not have to suffer Windoze everyday.

BTW Linux is pretty snappy even on an old iMac -- it's the learning curve and convoluted installations that's a pain. Requires a lot of patience and homework.

I'd be trying to avoid gaming while mobile, so I'd save that for the home rig.

PS. Do you have any plans to get married and have kids anytime soon? If so, the LAN parties might become a bit of a mirage anyway ;-)

Roxie · Jul 1, 2002, 09:43 PM

This is what it's really about people and this is NOT AT ALL an atypical experience

<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp" target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp</a>

"On Windows 2000, I got a cheerful report (but only after double-clicking the obscure taskbar icon for managing plug-and-play hardware) that the 1394 device was working correctly. OK, so where was the Explorer icon for my new drive? Nowhere to be seen.

But kudos go to Tuan, at ADS technical support: Less than 24 hours after I left a hotline message ("Where, oh where has my disk icon gone?"), he called me and talked me through the process of getting Windows 2000 to admit that the disk was there and to put it to work. But it was a journey that most users would find intimidating, involving several layers of navigation through utilities with forbidding names and impeded by insistently helpful wizards. It certainly wasn't what you would call "discoverable."

Then there was Mac OS X, where things just worked the way they should. Period. The contrast was impressive�or depressing, depending on your platform loyalties. "

Rox

[ 07-01-2002, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Roxie ]

CheesePuff · Jul 1, 2002, 10:06 PM

If you will mostly be surfing the web, doing email, and playing games - the PowerBook 667 MHz will be just fine. It has a very nice ATI Radeon 7500 graphics card with 32 MB of DDR video memory on a fast AGP 4x slot, so games such as Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, etc. will all play great.

The display is wonderful - its bright and has a great resolution.

The PowerBook is much lighter than other PC laptops (5.3 pounds) and looks much better IMHO. Also, at only 1", you won't have any problems carrying it around to LAN parties.

Though the price is steep, it's an all around solid purchase.

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 10:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
he is meaning that the mac version of q3 maxes at 999 frames per second which it is known to do (I think the PC does as well).

The Cinema HD DOES NOT do a minimum of 50ms refresh it's closer to a 12ms refresh and the Cinema is right behind with it's newest LCD revision @ 14ms.

So STFU. You know nothing about LCDs except that you can't afford one.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry Mac Zealot, but I put my ViewSonic CRT right next to my Cinema HD. The Cinema HD is definitely slower than the CRT. Plus, this isn't a debate between CRT or LCD panels. He's going to get an LCD panel, anyway. I was merely iterating that no notebook would be viable for competitive gaming.

[ 07-01-2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: seanyepez ]

seanyepez · Jul 1, 2002, 10:18 PM

In fact, Mac Zealot, please check the following link for clarification. The Cinema HD refreshes at 25 milliseconds, and the older Cinema displays refresh a bit slower. I am not exactly sure, but the second-generation ADC Cinema displays refresh at 40 milliseconds. I'm not sure where I read that, though.

<a href="http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:SkWzZb-zBIYC:www.dataquest.ch/PDFs/dqflyerapril_02.pdf+cinema+display+25ms&hl=en&ie=U TF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:SkWzZb-zBIYC:www.dataquest.ch/PDFs/dqflyerapril_02.pdf+cinema+display+25ms&hl=en&ie=U TF-8</a>

rm199 · Jul 2, 2002, 05:20 AM

even the 25ms measurement is not accurate. It defines _one_ measurement (the best one) of many - some will come out double or triple that figure. Please dont compare LCD to CRT for anything other than size and EMF the technology just isnt there yet. I dont beleive I'm biased - I only have LCDs.

Having said that, Mitsubishi are working on a new type of refresh that will deliver REAL sub 20ms refresh. That technology will start to match CRT... and with the other nice benefits of LCD I dont think there will be a choice to make anymore.

RM

seanyepez · Jul 2, 2002, 05:23 AM

Ooh. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

I just found the panels Apple uses in their Cinema displays.

They're LG-Philips panels.

<a href="http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/product/p.html" target="_blank">http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/product/p.html</a>

Click on "For Monitors". There you go. The ones Apple uses are the first two in the list. They refresh at 40 milliseconds.

seanyepez · Jul 2, 2002, 05:28 AM

<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,10085,00.asp" target="_blank">http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,10085,00.asp</a>

Extreme Tech has a very interesting article on the new "FFD" technology Mitsubishi is developing/has developed. I haven't seen any panels based on this yet, though they said they were going to begin production in early 2002. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

rampant · Jul 2, 2002, 11:42 PM

Call me crazy, but I prefer a LCD screen at 60 fps vsynced to a CRT at 60 fps vsynced. It seems much smoother on the LCD, I think with a little blur it makes it seem more fluent, but if you have more than a little it gets hard to see.

John B. Smith · Jul 4, 2002, 01:54 AM

I recently purchased a 667mhz PB with 1gig of RAM and I must say that the performance is, overall, disappointing. Web browsing is slow, the user interface is unresponsive, and the computer even has trouble catching up to my typing in MS Word.. I would say that in day-to-day usage I prefer using this older PC with PIII-M 450mhz, 128mb Ram, and 16MB videocard. In fact, if you are interested in buying my PB...it's available. I'm sure that if I did more graphics intensive work that I would easily see the advantages of having a G4, but for everything else (the uses you mentioned) I would go with Dell or something. XP is fine and if you don't like the goofy interface, you can easily change it. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

seanyepez · Jul 4, 2002, 02:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John B. Smith:
I recently purchased a 667mhz PB with 1gig of RAM and I must say that the performance is, overall, disappointing. Web browsing is slow, the user interface is unresponsive, and the computer even has trouble catching up to my typing in MS Word.. I would say that in day-to-day usage I prefer using this older PC with PIII-M 450mhz, 128mb Ram, and 16MB videocard. In fact, if you are interested in buying my PB...it's available. I'm sure that if I did more graphics intensive work that I would easily see the advantages of having a G4, but for everything else (the uses you mentioned) I would go with Dell or something. XP is fine and if you don't like the goofy interface, you can easily change it. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Do you have a DVI PowerBook? If so, I think you're crazy. If you have the second-generation, 667-megahertz PowerBook without L3 cache, I believe you.

There's no such thing as a PIII-M at 450 megahertz. The Pentium III "Mobile" (hence the "M" symbol) is the mobile Pentium III based on the 0.13-micron process by Intel.

Mac Zealot · Jul 4, 2002, 02:48 AM

the LCD I'm referring to is the Third-Generation ADC cinema display.

First gen: DVI
Second gen: ADC with silver cable and slightly yellowish case. (same LCD as DVI)
Third gen: ADC with grey cable and quicksilver colored case. (newer LCD)

The newer one sports a few better parts.. that's about it, but it does equal the cinema HD in general performance.

Vanquish · Jul 4, 2002, 02:59 AM

What the hell are LAN parties ???
Are they like huge gatherings of extreme computernerds, who have no interest in REAL parties where you can encounter the female species instead of some monster from some crap game ???

On topic: by a TiBook, and if you could just save a little more for the 800 Mhz version and also wait until after Macworld.

seanyepez · Jul 4, 2002, 03:01 AM

Nope. LAN parties are really fun, actually. They bring everyone to a level, low-ping playing field. It's truly entertaining. The people there aren't necessarily all geeks. I've been to one.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 4, 2002, 03:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Roxie:
This is what it's really about people and this is NOT AT ALL an atypical experience

<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp" target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp</a>

"On Windows 2000, I got a cheerful report (but only after double-clicking the obscure taskbar icon for managing plug-and-play hardware) that the 1394 device was working correctly. OK, so where was the Explorer icon for my new drive? Nowhere to be seen.

But kudos go to Tuan, at ADS technical support: Less than 24 hours after I left a hotline message ("Where, oh where has my disk icon gone?"), he called me and talked me through the process of getting Windows 2000 to admit that the disk was there and to put it to work. But it was a journey that most users would find intimidating, involving several layers of navigation through utilities with forbidding names and impeded by insistently helpful wizards. It certainly wasn't what you would call "discoverable."

Then there was Mac OS X, where things just worked the way they should. Period. The contrast was impressive�or depressing, depending on your platform loyalties. "

Rox<hr /></blockquote>Where do people like this guy come from? First off, I've plugged dozens upon dozens of Firewire drives into Windows 2k systems and Win98SE and never had any such problems. The fact that this nitwit had to call in tech support to figure out that *duh* you need to format a hard drive before you can use it ("Duhhh why didn't the Explorer icon just pop up duhhh!") speaks volumes. It's really not all that hard to go two mouse clicks to Win 2k's Disk Management (ohhh forbidding name) tool either, despite all the melodrama this guy adds in.

What also speaks volumes is what this guy thinks any off the shelf Firewire device must consist of, thereby demonstrating his complete tech know-nothingness. Witness the ultra-idiotic:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"And what I want to emphasize further is that this "new" plug-and-play drive was almost-geriatric, completely generic hardware from one non-Apple vendor, combined with another vendor's first-generation IEEE 1394 interface electronics, working together without a hitch on the least evolutionary of the three high-performance laptop systems that I tried. "

"Wouldn't you expect Apple's software to push you in the direction of buying all-new Apple devices from end to end?"<hr /></blockquote>Yeah sure, an idiot would. Apple devices. Right. Let's all run out and get those Apple hard drives in Apple Firewire cases.

Seriously, PC bashing is one thing, but it should be based on some overall FACTS not anecdotal bullcrap from tech newbie jackasses. Personally, I'm just really getting sick of dumb 'switch' examples where some complete nitwit dumbfvck can't figure out fairly simple things on a PC and so makes a big 'switch' to using a Mac where �lo and behold� the Mac does everything for him/her by magic.

Yeah sure, let�s all pretend for a second that these tech-newbie �switch� hitting idiot types will all in no time be masters of OSX. Sure, the type of person who needs tech support to format a hard drive. I wanna see the �switch� ads six months from now- dummies who �switched� and waited 6 months for a driver for some common piece of hardware. Couldn�t figure out how to set up a root user account. Tore out their hair when installers told them they didn�t have enough �privileges� to make changes on their own system. Waited and waited and waited for OSX versions of needed software. Learned the hard way that they really needed to run another OS within one in order to fully function. Fooked up their system royally with Netinfo Manager. Had to call tech support to figure out what a Kernel Panic was. Etc. etc.

Does Apple really need to be known as the platform for morons too dumb to figure out how anything works? The system that has to mollycoddle nitwits? The computer people need to be conned by bullcrap propaganda and blind ignorance into using?
Yeesh.

seanyepez · Jul 4, 2002, 04:20 AM

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Cipher13 · Jul 4, 2002, 04:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
the LCD I'm referring to is the Third-Generation ADC cinema display.

First gen: DVI
Second gen: ADC with silver cable and slightly yellowish case. (same LCD as DVI)
Third gen: ADC with grey cable and quicksilver colored case. (newer LCD)

The newer one sports a few better parts.. that's about it, but it does equal the cinema HD in general performance.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry dude. LCD's don't stand a chance against CRT's when it comes to the refresh race.

rek · Jul 4, 2002, 07:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by seanyepez:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John B. Smith:
I recently purchased a 667mhz PB with 1gig of RAM and I must say that the performance is, overall, disappointing. Web browsing is slow, the user interface is unresponsive, and the computer even has trouble catching up to my typing in MS Word.. I would say that in day-to-day usage I prefer using this older PC with PIII-M 450mhz, 128mb Ram, and 16MB videocard. <hr /></blockquote>Do you have a DVI PowerBook? If so, I think you're crazy. If you have the second-generation, 667-megahertz PowerBook without L3 cache, I believe you.<hr /></blockquote>I have to concur with John -- I recently 'switched' from PC, buying a Ti667 DVI with 384MB of RAM; but for general purpose applications (Office, web browsing, etc.), my old PII-400 IBM ThinkPad w/ WinXP and 224Mb of RAM was just simply faster and more responsive (can I say "snappier" without getting lynched?

)

The only place the TiBook was noticeably superior were media-related things (which to me was just playing QuickTime/Windows Media movies.) Then again, when comparing a TiBook worth A$5800 to a neglected 3-year-old ThinkPad worth barely A$800, you'd want to expect it'd be better at something... <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

I tried everything to get the Ti to go faster (re-formatted and installed a number of times, tried system and application updates, and so on .. even tried the Jag WWDC build, etc.) but to no avail.

I've since "un-switched", sold my Ti667 (lost a bit of money in the process

), and fixed my trusty old ThinkPad (the reason for buying the Ti is 'cause I spilt drink on the IBM and killed it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) -- a bit of a shame, because the Ti's screen and battery life were really nice. But, in the end, the Apple machine simply didn't match my requirements.

dreilly1 · Jul 4, 2002, 08:06 AM

The conspiracy theorists among you may want to examine these claims that the Mac laptops are slower a little more closely. Most of the criticism involves Apps that are used every day, like web browsing and office apps.

Who writes the web browser and office apps?

Who has a vested interest in making sure that these apps are available on the Mac (to make sure an alternative exists and to avoid the Monopoly police), but not good enough to prompt people outside its niche to switch?

OK, I'll take the tinfoil hat off now.

euphras · Jul 4, 2002, 08:49 AM

I experienced the unresponsivness of Office Applications as well but i think it�s an implemented "brake" M$ did in order to "hurt" those who still don�t want to join the dark side of computing.

Pat

nana2 · Jul 4, 2002, 10:10 AM

MS don't care if you use Office on the Mac or on the PC, they still get the money, and Office is where they get the majority of their revenue from. Dell and other 1st teir OEM's only pay about US$25 per copy of Windows, so Office sales are far more lucrative for MS.

Of course it can't be the slow, overpriced hardware that's at fault. Must be MS

euphras · Jul 4, 2002, 11:22 AM

The slow, overpriced hardware is running Photoshop, InDesign, Games like RTCW et al. like hell! So why the hell isn�t Word able to instantly visualize a single letter

Pat

GeneShifter · Jul 4, 2002, 11:55 PM

Hey CRASH HARDDRIVE:

Those "switch" people are going to be *****ed* when they have to keep reinstalling Mac OS X over and over and over.....

Not much difference between Windows and Mac OS X: Both are equally crap.

seanyepez · Jul 5, 2002, 12:59 AM

Windows XP is more "complete" in the sense that all the features are fully-developed. Mac OS X is actually a good operating system. If Apple had the same resources Microsoft does, they could develop OS X into a very quick, complete operating system. It's too bad they don't. Their vision is better.

bojangles · Jul 5, 2002, 02:08 AM

Hey, all. For anyone who cares, I�m an IT specialist for a small, Windoze-only company. We have about two dozen computers, as follows:

20 Windows 4.x (95/98)
3 Windows NT 5.0 (2000)
1 Windows NT 5.2 (XP)

Of the 24 computers I�m in charge of, the one running XP is the only one having any trouble. I don�t mean to say that the others don�t crash; they do ��and do so often � but the XP machine has given us all sorts of trouble since the day we bought it. Some software doesn�t work, even though we�ve upgraded all of it to XP-compatible versions. Printing is sporadic at best, and faxing is virtually non-existent. While it certainly doesn�t bluescreen like the 4.x machines, it does hang on a fairly regular basis, reporting all sorts of errors (though admittedly, Ctrl-alt-delete pulls it out almost every time). All this, plus XP records all your hardware information so if you want to upgrade your machine, you may need M$�s permission to do so.

In other words, I would stay away from XP. I know some people don�t mind the �Big Brother� aspect of it, but frankly, I do. As for the OS itself, maybe at some point in the future, it will be ready for prime time ��and if the past is any indication of the future, M$ will give the bug fix some new and innovative name (Windows XP Second Edition?) so they can charge people to upgrade. Until then, I�d avoid XP like the plague.

That having been said, I don�t claim that Mac OS X is the perfect alternative ��yet. Mac OS X 10.1.5 runs respectably on my platinum G3/266, but it�s certainly not a speed demon. (Of course, try running XP at all, on a five-year-old machine....)

As for my floppy drive, ORB drive, printer, and scanner, I�ve been waiting 15+ months for drivers with no luck whatsoever. Granted, this isn�t Apple�s fault (with the exception of the floppy drive; the platinum G3s are officially X-ready machines!), but it�s still annoying enough that I spend most of my time in 9.2.2 and only boot into X when I need a specific application or just want to wow my friends with its beautiful interface and incredible stability.

So� does M$ slow down their Mac applications? Maybe. I�m not Bill Gates (nor even Steve Ballmer), so I really don�t know. Sounds reasonable enough, given the Mac�s performance in other areas, but I really don�t know what the MacBU is thinking (nor what anyone else at M$ might do to their code).

The bottom line is that it�s all about needs. I place user experience and graphic performance over everything. Thus, my home computers are Macs (with CRT�s, mind you). At work, they place initial purchase price over everything, and screw any future costs that come up. Thus, they have a bunch of crappy Wintels and a remarkably slow server. (This, btw, is not to indicate that all Wintels are crap; just that the ones we have at work are. Whether all are crap is a discussion for a different day, and a different forum.) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

If you think that Windows will give you better performance, be my guest and get an IBM (not a clone; a real IBM. You�ll thank me). ON the other hand, if you�re looking for a quick, comparatively easy-to-use machine that also works well (and looks really cool), I would highly recommend a Mac ��just not until MacWorld, when all the prices go down.

Just my 2��.

euphras · Jul 5, 2002, 12:06 PM

well spoken

seanyepez · Jul 5, 2002, 05:12 PM

I disagree fervently about your evaluation of XP on aged machines.

I recently went to San Fransisco and did some community service there setting up a lab full of 100-megahertz Pentiums with 80 megabytes of RAM. XP was a godsend for them. XP runs faster than 98 does on those machines, and it never crashed. It solved their printing problems, Internet access/network problems (auto-configured their TCP/IP and shared their previously-unused Tektronix color laser printer), and stability problems. That, and with restricted user privilages, it doesn't let the kids install spyware.

John B. Smith · Jul 5, 2002, 09:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by seanyepez:
I disagree fervently about your evaluation of XP on aged machines.

I recently went to San Fransisco and did some community service there setting up a lab full of 100-megahertz Pentiums with 80 megabytes of RAM. XP was a godsend for them. XP runs faster than 98 does on those machines, and it never crashed. It solved their printing problems, Internet access/network problems (auto-configured their TCP/IP and shared their previously-unused Tektronix color laser printer), and stability problems. That, and with restricted user privilages, it doesn't let the kids install spyware.<hr /></blockquote>With Microsoft selling an operating system that actually works now, where does that leave Apple? Personally, I think that Apple should take a backseat regarding operating systems and focus its efforts on creating excellent software for Windows-based Macs. This will probably never happen though. It's too bad, because a TiBook with a Pentium 4-M at 2.0 Ghz and XP Professional would be, in my opinion, an absolutely excellent computer, and a sucess story.

seanyepez · Jul 6, 2002, 04:36 AM

I also fervently disagree with turning Apple into a Wintel software/hardware company.

Apple makes money off innovation. They'd lose their creative license and become another PC OEM. It'll just add to Microsoft's anti-trust problems. If they had done that years ago, we would have never seen the iMac or TiBook. IPhoto or iMovie would never have been conceived. PC manufacturers must spend all their time developing ways to cut production costs rather than innovate their industry.

Apple, in a completely different category, is able to innovate. Without Apple, all PC's would still be beige and mainly plastic. Sony helps, but they still don't have clean industrial design. Ports all over make machines look ugly and uninviting. Apple's doing just the opposite and, in turn, creating itself a niche market on which it survives (and thrives)!