- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,587
- 1,001
- 126
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
so you guys watch the keynote? it was fun, but personally i was disappointed. safari doesnt have tabs, i'd rather see g4's go into ibooks rather than the 12" powerbook - and the 17" powerbook, well, i doubt i'll be buying it anytime soon
i find the metal look of the current powerbooks ugly anyways. i like the ibook look alot more.
Right on. I agree whole-heartedly. I always though the TiBook was too pretentious and not as nice looking as the iBook. I think the 12" TiBook is kind of lame I too would rather have seen a high end G4 iBook, which is basically what the 12" Ti is. If you look at it, and if you look at the specs, it is basically an iBook with a G4 and a metal case.... it doesn't even get the cool light sensative fiber optic keyboard light thingy.... (802.11g is nice though and so is DDR)
I bet they can make a G4 icebook pretty easy now as I imagine that the internals apart from the mainboard are identical on the 12" TiBook as the 12" iBook .. even the ports are the same (or so I read somewhere) .
interesting day at apple for sure.
Says it has dual display support. Does that mean one monitor in addition to the laptop lcd, or 2 monitors + the lcd?
- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,587
- 1,001
- 126
Heh. You couldn't with the 15.2" model last year, and you definitely can't with either the 12.1" or 17".
They simply do not exist. eg. Firewire with power, Firewire 2, DVI, slot load DVD burner, weight, size, 802.11g support, battery life, etc.
I think the 12" now is the gold (aluminum) standard in the sub 13" category. The 15" is now the gold standard in the mid category, and the 17" is the ultimate. Nothing else in the world even comes close.
1 external display. P.S. PowerBooks have the best dual monitor support out of any laptop I've tried:
Apple with nVidia or ATI >>> Windows with ATI >>> Windows with nVidia.
No.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about "different platform, different features". No, you're never gonna get OSX (which as far as i'm concerned is Apples main "feature") on a x86 laptop, unless apple switches for some reason.
the only reason i could see apple switching chip suppliers is if they get too far behind in speed; even though mhz does not matter, joe public would probably rather buy somthing the is Xghz than Xmhz. as sad as this sounds, i'm sure most non computer tech people will buy their laptop on speed, and the fact that 95% of the the computer user population uses some form of windows makes the decision all that much easier
why learn somthing new when using a newer, faster version of somthing you are used to is so much easier and cheaper? from what i've seen, not much has changed in windows since win98.
but then again its all personal preference
thats my 2 cents, but of course that is off topic.......
yes, those laptops look pretty sweet, i really like the glowing keyboard that changes with light intensity- pretty nifty, why can't pc laptop builders think of these things?
as a side note, i didn't see any speed comparisons on apple's website for the g4 comparing it to a p4... what happened to those?
why learn somthing new when using a newer, faster version of somthing you are used to is so much easier and cheaper? from what i've seen, not much has changed in windows since win98.
but then again its all personal preference
thats my 2 cents, but of course that is off topic.......
yes, those laptops look pretty sweet, i really like the glowing keyboard that changes with light intensity- pretty nifty, why can't pc laptop builders think of these things?
as a side note, i didn't see any speed comparisons on apple's website for the g4 comparing it to a p4... what happened to those?
If only I had the money for one. If there's anything the PPC processor is good for, it's low-power, ultra-lite notebooks. I mean, this thing offers great performance (perhaps not on-par with the latest P4-M) but great battery life. Really, though, what would win me over is the 17" Widescreen LCD. I mean, yes, Sony has the 16.1", but try playing DVD's on a widescreen and then one on a 4:3 conventional screen, see the difference 
All in all, this is one product (of very few) that has come out of Apple that I adore and wish I could afford. Long battery life, adequate computing power, sleek style and, most importantly, a great screen. It's not like I'm going to game a lot on a notebook anyway so it wouldn't matter if I couldn't run Windows.
All in all, this is one product (of very few) that has come out of Apple that I adore and wish I could afford. Long battery life, adequate computing power, sleek style and, most importantly, a great screen. It's not like I'm going to game a lot on a notebook anyway so it wouldn't matter if I couldn't run Windows.
- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,587
- 1,001
- 126
Weirdly enough my TiBook runs Windows.... through emulation. So far the only use for it I have is syncing my Palm with AvantGo. (There is Palm software etc on the Mac side, but AvantGo hasn't written a conduit for it yet. Should be soon though, since they have a Unix version out.) My friend's use it to test Windows internet browsers for web pages they've designed.
Does this mean that, to run x86 code on the PowerPC, they're actually emulating the whole thing, including processor? That would be more than what VMWare does (since it supposedly can gain speed by running the code in the emulated system natively on the processor), so I would like to know what kind of speed your virtual PC thingy can get. Of course, it would be fine for MS Word or internet browsers (as any Pentium 100 can do that very well), but I don't suppose games could be played on it?
- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,587
- 1,001
- 126
The program is Virtual PC 6. Yeah, 100% emulation, so it ain't too fast. And the emulated video card is very low end.
I'd say the speeds on my laptop feel like a Pentium II 350 with low end on-board video and a slow hard drive. 3D gaming is impossible, but of course that's not the point. For other stuff it's definitely usable. It'd be faster if the drive image was on a separate drive, but that's not really an option since I'm running a laptop.
There is also DOS and Linux available. Like I said EVERYTHING is emulated so if drivers exist, the OS will run. (You can also run Virtual PC 6 on Windows to emulate Windows, I guess for testing code, etc.) I've run DOS, Windows 98SE, and Windows 2000. Windows XP will run but is apparently quite slow with all the eye candy turned on.
Anyways, I use it about once every few weeks, for a few minutes. Like I said I only use it now for AvantGo. But I don't even really need it for that since I have it installed on my PC at work.
That is the most beautiful thing I've seen in my life! I want one!! Damn, and I don't even know how to use a Mac.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on this deal. I fear that I wouldn't be able to get a notebook case wide enough to sufficently carry the laptop.
I think it would fit in a brief case just fine. If I had money to burn and looking to buy a laptop, this would be my number one choice. Even though the last time I used a Mac was when Photoshop was still version 4.0.
.Wow...that is pretty. The only draw back would be the "Nvidia GPU"...what if it turned out to be a Geforce4mx460 or something?
But i'm amazed it supports ALLL that and weighs friggin 6.8 pounds and 4.5 hours of battery life....that is crazy
Argh, I want the 12" powerbook running XP.... I would sell my desktop if I had all that stuff in a mini-notebook.
Here's a great plan for Apple: ditch the sluggish Motorola line and move straight to the x86 Intel-AMD camp. Think about it, no longer would they need to fight a losing battle in the CPU power wars that is only increasing incredibly as each year goes by. Once the switch is made, Apple consumers will benefit enormously from lower costs with faster systems to boot. OS? They can easily compile a new OSX, with emulation mode for older stuff. Processors in the next few years are going to be able to easily handle the emulation load. All Apple needs to do is throw in a few custom ROM chips to prevent anyone from running OSX on their white box barebone system. Granted, hacks will be inevitable to allow non-Apple systems to use OSX, but think about it, even Steve Jobs said people are willing to pay a premium for "cool" looking Apple systems. I'm sure Apple's sales will only increase dramatically by this method. Heck, they may even topple MS within the next decade if they ever decide to let OSX run on any x86 system.
They are. Enter IBM.
And they keep developers how?
They would cost the same. Why? Because developing chipsets and BIOSes (or if Apple was smart porting their Firmware) cost lots of money, and you dont think they would let you run it on just any old machine do you? They make money from hardware.
Emulate a PPC processor? From what I have read, its damn tough under x86 based chips, but I really dont know enough about it.
Its a good possibility.
And charge you the same amount they do now, or more.
I do not think that is their goal. They want to provide you the best system possible, Microsoft has nothing to do with that goal. In fact, Microsoft helps them out quite a bit. A little money here, Office there, Internet Explorer (*gag*) everywhere (the homepage for IE happens to be Netscape's Apple page though
)...While I can see that they can branch out and include x86 (x86-64 maybe) systems in the future , it will not be their bread and butter. Too many applications have been ported to PPC. Apple switched from m68k to PPC and pissed off a bunch of developers. They happened to make PPC processors and their OS support m68k programs quite well, but it was still a major change for developers. Then they switched from OS 9 to OS X and this made more developers angry. This was more than just a "tune and recompile." This was a full-fledged "we want something 100% different," and that made the transition hard for developers. Look at how long it took Microsoft (who has the second largest Apple dev team in the world, second only to Apple) to port Office, or Adobe to port Photoshop! Switching to yet another "totally different" platform would just lead to programmers and patrons to leave. I know I would not buy another Apple if they switched to a faster but less interresting platform.
In other words, if we are going to start this tired, old, stupid debate let's keep it civil. But in the interrests of everyone, why bother trying to convert someone from their beliefs if you will not try well (not a comment on your post vegetation, just a comment on how these normally turn into Mac/PPC bashing threads with no arguements for x86 other than "my games are faster!"
/me steps in to beat the dead horse some more
If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.
Different platforms offer different things and variety is healthy. I'm glad that all computers don't use x86. I run windows, linux and OSX at home and at work I babysit a whole bunch of OS9 and windows 2000 machines. My life, and my work would be a helluva lot more boring if I only diddled the same platform all day. Torture.
That is all.
If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.
Different platforms offer different things and variety is healthy. I'm glad that all computers don't use x86. I run windows, linux and OSX at home and at work I babysit a whole bunch of OS9 and windows 2000 machines. My life, and my work would be a helluva lot more boring if I only diddled the same platform all day. Torture.
That is all.
Originally posted by: smp
/me steps in to beat the dead horse some more
If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.
Har de har har har.
I look at it a little differently. You would have Cadillacs (3.06 P4 w/HT + 1gB pc1066 RDRAM), VW Beetles (Shuttle toaster sized machines), SUVs (Xeon or Dual Athlons), Civics (cheap Athlon with cheap motherboard), etc. But they would all be the same color and have roughly the same features. No diversity other than smaller options that you can get with some of these machines. In other words, I would find each one completely boring and would not care what I drove. Thats the way I compare it to cars anyhow...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter