[grandars]

Hi, all! I've been using Windows and Linux over the past few years, but after spending a year at sea in the navy, I decided it was about time to let go of my Epia 1GHz Windows machine..
I found out that there were two things to do: Buy a high-end gaming machine, run both Linux (for work, and non-play non-working things) and Windows (for games). I've done this before, it works, but I don't like it.
The other thing, which I opted for, was buying a console (in my case Xbox, pardon me) for gaming, and a laptop for the rest. I now have the Xbox, enjoys it, and wants the laptop. So: Which one should I go for? Powerbook or iBook, or even a PC?
I use my computer for webdesign, organizing my music (and my iPod), surfing, simple applications made with bash or VisualBasic, apache, PHP (webdesign, I know, but needing more computer, and more tools) and so on.. I want a computer I can live with for a few years, so that I'm not throwing too much money on the fire.
All replies appreaciated! :-)
- Geir Anders

[pjskelti]

Have you a budget that you're limited to? If not, then its hard not to recommend either a 15 or 17" PowerBook. Both machines can be classed as desktop replacements since they are powerful, have a good Graphics chipset on-board, and scope for plenty of RAM to be installed (2 GB in 2x 1 GB modules, both user accessible and changeable), and with built-in Wireless and BT (as options) you're able to make use of any Wi-Fi network you can log on to.
"Look ma, no wires" (or strings as Pinnochio would say!).
If you are on a budget, then the 14" iBook is another nice little beauty, and not seriously underpowered compared to the PB.
As for PC - well, you say you've been there, done that - so maybe it's time to leave the Xbox to do what it does best and the Mac for what it does best and forget about XP/2K/Longhorn (more like Neverhorn!).
It's time to coss over to the scarey world of Macs and OS X wherrrrrrrrrrre..........everything JUST works!

[schokid02]

If you aren't looking at gaming on the computer, then Apple is where it's at. Sounds like you'd be just fine with a suped-up iBook, though you might find the Powerbook will get you through the years a little longer, with some of it's better features.
Welcome to the world of things making sense--Macworld.

[grandars]

I've looked at it, but 1,2GHz? That's basicly what I've got now, and the loading time for my apllications drives me crazy! Especially iTunes and MSIE, and everything that is some autorun thingy. They make my poor CPU work like wildest winter, ripping songs at 1,2X at best, and stalling my system for minutes.. (ripping CD's results in a system that must be left untouched for the next hour...) If the mac version of iTunes is remarkably faster 1,2GHZ is far from sufficient?
- Geir Anders

[ftaok]

In reply to:

---

I've looked at it, but 1,2GHz? That's basicly what I've got now, and the loading time for my apllications drives me crazy! Especially iTunes and MSIE, and everything that is some autorun thingy. They make my poor CPU work like wildest winter, ripping songs at 1,2X at best, and stalling my system for minutes.. (ripping CD's results in a system that must be left untouched for the next hour...) If the mac version of iTunes is remarkably faster 1,2GHZ is far from sufficient?

---

I can't say how fast the 1.2 ghz iBook is, but here's something for you to chew on.
I have a "vintage" 500 mhz G3 iBook. It's 3 years old. I have the Combo Drive on it and 640MB of RAM.
I normally get ripping speeds on iTunes between 2x and 3x. So I would expect the G4 iBook to be much much faster at ripping.

[schokid02]

My iTunes ripping goes at 3-6x, plus I can still listen to other music at the same time (still using iTunes) and surf the web. Doesn't slow down things too much.

[nelson92]

iTunes rips at around 4x - even faster at a lower bit rate - on my 700MHz iBook and I can still do all sorts of things at the same time so a 1.2GHz laptop should really rock.

[Brettcamp]

Comparing 1.2 gigs in a Mac vs. 1.2. gigs in a Windows machine is comparing Apples and slugs. Non aApple users may not be aware of the megaherz (now gigaherz, I suppose) myth. In general, I've read here and elsewhere, the actual clock speed of a Mac (especially one equipped with a G4 or higher) is about double the Windows equivalent, and my own hands-on experience bears that out. So, you'd be looking at a Windows equivalent of 2.4 gig in the 1.2 gig Mac. There are numerous technical reasons for this performance gap that I'm sure others here are far more qualified to explain than I am. The bottom line is: you need to try whatever application you want to use on a Mac (like at the store), and make sure it has sufficient RAM (at least 640 megs) before drawing any conclusions based on clock speed. Good luck!

[nkasuri1]

You've got no idea how far 1.2 Ghz will take you with a Mac and OS X. I mean, I have a 1 Ghz Powerbook, and when It's ripping MP3's I can't even tell. I can be browsing, watching videos, whatever. It usually rips at 6x or so. Load times for my browser are about 1-2 seconds. I can encode DVD's (very processor intensive) and use my computer normally with the encoding going on in the background. Don't compare your laptop with the iBook. OS X is a VERY good multitasking OS. I would, however, recommend the Powerbook over the iBook. I personally find that the display and resolution of the iBook is a bit low. Also, make sure you get atleast 512mb of ram. OS X will run on 246, but not as fast. More RAM is always better, but I think 512 should be the minimum (if you want speedy performance) for OS X.

[ckla2]

I am also thinking of my first mac after 16 years of PC. Last laptop was top of the line IBM THinkpad. Loved it because ofthe spacious keyboard. I do most of my work in Microsoft Word. Looking at the G4 15 inch powerbook, but keyboard seems smaller. Why does Mac spend so much space on handrest as opposed to bigger keyboard.
Is anyone bothered by keyboard on Mac's? ANyone have thoughts about its size on G4 15 inch?
Thanks, though still nervous...

[pjskelti]

It's something you'll get used to in a short space of time, and learn to love the extra space for your wrists, which should help reduce carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Praxis]

First of all, I shall explain...
"The Megahertz Myth"
You see, Intel ramped up their processor clock speeds really high and tries to make people think that ghz = speed. IT'S NOT. the MHz or GHz is merely the CLOCK SPEED of the processor, and is only a part of the actual speed.
For the max speed of the processor, you have to do clock speed x calculations per clock cycle x bus speed + processor cache.
Consider:
1) Macs do more calculations per clock cycle than Intel processors, therefore a 1.2 ghz G4 will take on a 2 ghz Pentium 4...
2) G5's have far higher bus speeds than Intel processors.
3) G5's processor cache are as high as the higher Pentium 4's
4) Intel Centrino Mobile Processors in laptops run at about 1 to 1.6 ghz
5) An AMD Athlon 64 runs at 2.2 ghz, yet easily outperforms a 3.2 ghz Pentium 4
See my point?

In reply to:

---

he other thing, which I opted for, was buying a console (in my case Xbox, pardon me) for gaming, and a laptop for the rest. I now have the Xbox, enjoys it, and wants the laptop. So: Which one should I go for? Powerbook or iBook, or even a PC?

---

PowerBook has a better graphics card, and built in wireless. iBooks have a more durable case, decent graphics card, internal wireless as an add on, and good pricing. Both are fairly fast. Take your pick.

In reply to:

---

I use my computer for webdesign, organizing my music (and my iPod), surfing, simple applications made with bash or VisualBasic, apache, PHP (webdesign, I know, but needing more computer, and more tools) and so on.. I want a computer I can live with for a few years, so that I'm not throwing too much money on the fire.

---

Apache web server comes built in Mac OS X, and you can do PHP in textedit, bbedit, Dreamweaver MX 2004, or anything else... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[grandars]

I do know of the differences between GHz and true performance. And Intel having the lowest ratio. But that's not what matters. A computer that can to astronomical caluclations a bunch of times a second, isn't worth a thing if you can't get your work done. Hence the questions about appliaction performance. I'm convinced that iTunes for windows isn't a highly prioritized project, so that performance might be considerably lower than optimal.

In reply to:

---

... you can do PHP in textedit, bbedit, Dreamweaver MX 2004, or anything else...

---

So it comes down to the OS and the applications; do they do my work? The OS is great (so all the users say), but the selection of applications is limited compared to that of Windows.
I know most program suits and large projects makes it to mac aswell as Linux, and even Solaris, but my concern is for my little tools. Useless freeware apllications that does one certain task for me. So I'm wondering how good macscript is? What can and can't be done with it? How hard is it to learn? Is it protable? Is there any equalient to VisualBasic?
- Geir Anders

[jedstheman]

I've been designing dynamic websites (PHP/MySQL) for 2 years in OS X.
I work almost exclusively in Dreamweaver MX (not even 2004).
Apache, PHP, and MySQL come standard in OS X. They do take a little configuring, but everything you need to know is out ther on the web. BBEdit is helpful for config file editing.
If I were you I'd jumb head first into OS X -- no matter what hardware you run it on -- and never look back. After a while you'll remember your Windows days like a bad dream!