[Stephen-I-Am]

I have (ok, my wife has) a macbook:

Hardware Overview:

Machine Name: MacBook
Machine Model: MacBook1,1
Processor Name: Intel Core Duo
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 2 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MB11.005F.B00
SMC Version: 1.4f10
Serial Number: 4H620185U9C
Sudden Motion Sensor:
State: Enabled

I just don't find it too responsive, compared to my dual 1.8 GHz powermac. (The computer is usually plugged into the AC adaptor.) That computer has 1.5 GB RAM. I'm wondering if the powerbook would benefit from more RAM too. Any thoughts?

Stephen

[ghporter]

Let's keep the MacBook issues in the MacBook forum, and NOT in the MacBook Pro forum, ok? Moving...

[Chips G]

I have the same specs as your wife does, and my computer feels quite responsive. Have you installed any resource hogging applications? User Interface mods?

If you open Activity Monitor somewhere in there you can find out the processes that are running on your computer...any ones taking up a lot of % that shouldn't be?

Good luck,

-Chris

[phoenix78]

Hi Stephen,

Perhaps the most significant bottleneck in your system, and indeed everyones system is the hard drive. Unless you have opted for a 7200rpm drive then yu can expect the 'responsiveness' to be low.

The software you use may also be a cause. non-native software will run slower and take longer to load under rosetta emulation.

I have the 17"mbp with standard drive (5400)... also with 2Gb Ram and it still has a few delays in responsiveness. When it is processing data it is superfast though

But you have a core duo man... that isnt the bottleneck. So... solutions.... get a faster HD, use or wait for more native applications for the intel platform.

Thats all i can think of at the moment that translate into something that a user can have control over. Hope it helps

regards,
rob.

[seanc]

Try updating to 10.4.8, there have been reports of that bringing back responsiveness.

[EdipisReks]

i've compared a 2.0 MB to my MBP (both with 2 GB of RAM), and for most things they seem very similar in speed. my MBP seems about as fast as a dual 2.3 G5 in univeral binary programs. if she is running a lot of Rosetta apps it would certainly explain it. hard drive reads might be part of it too, but the 5400 RPM drives Apple puts in them aren't bad at all, really, so i kinda doubt a hard drive upgrade is gonna do anything substantial for you.

[exotoxic]

I agree with Stephen-I-Am, MacBooks are so SLOW!!!
I guess it's bad hardware design...

[siflippant]

Originally Posted by exotoxic 

I agree with Stephen-I-Am, MacBooks are so SLOW!!!
I guess it's bad hardware design...

10 out of 10 for trolling...

[exotoxic]

yeah yeah... here you are trolling me
Come on, I’m rough on this one, but this machine is a shame! This Macbook is my second Mac; the first one was an Apple II.
And I just don’t know what have they been doing with a biproc, 1.6 Ghz and 1.5G of ram?!?! Looks just like that Apple II was running much faster…
So I eventually decided to keep with using it as a shell terminal. But…wait I forgot to mention it’s just starting to randomly shutdown… This just looks like a bad joke from some pissed off hardware engineers who can’t stand moving to Intel.

Technology is a religion my friend

[siflippant]

Originally Posted by exotoxic 

yeah yeah... here you are trolling me

lol, k

[Stephen-I-Am]

Hi (original poster here). The latest update does seem to have made a difference. I think next time I'll opt for the faster HD though.

Stephen

[chadseld]

I have a 2 GHz macbook and a 1.83 GHz intel iMac. The Macbook feels more responsive than the iMac. Both feel more responsive than my old computer (2x2.5 GHz G5 Tower). I would reformat and reinstall OS X from the install discs that came with your macbook. Also, open the Activity Monitor and make sure there isn't some process taking up the CPU.