The PowerBook is going to be faster in almost everything, but it does have a slower hard drive. It's got a 133 MHz bus for one thing, better cache...
There are a few tests <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html"; target="_blank">at Barefeats</a> that show it beating the iMac, and there are several other reviews out there as well.
<strong>The iMac will win in basicly everything except portablity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The powerbook is faster in just about everything. Even the Graphics card in the powerbook is faster (which you don't hear too often from a portable.) The drive is slower, but that can always be upgraded later to 5400 rpm,
<strong>i would assume the GeForce 4MX would be better than the PB video card though, wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny you mentioned that, I forgot the iMac features that!!! Still, I still prefer the graphics on my TiBook! I guess I dont push either enough to notice graphic card differences
Powerbook. Don't think of specs, think of functionality. The Powerbook can do anything the iMac can do, plus span monitors, plus go anywhere. Downside: no Supadrive.
I used one of the 800 MHz iMacs in my school's computer lab a few days ago, quite extensively, in OS X. It was slow. Slow slow slow. I don't know why; it should be fast. Maybe they did an update install of Jaguar instead of a clean one.
My dual G4/500: Much faster than an iMac, even though it has the same bus speed. Of course, the bus isn't saturated with an 8x multiplier, it's only 5x. Also, I have a Radeon Mac Edition, which is better than a GeForce 2MX.
I'm guessing a PowerBook G4/667 DVI will be much faster than an iMac. It has a 133 MHz bus (anything less today is just a joke) and that killer 1 MB of L3 cache. It should smoke the iMac.
EDIT: The 800 MHz iMac was the 15" one with the GeForce 2MX, so that may have something to do with it. It should still be fast.
Comments
There are a few tests <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html"; target="_blank">at Barefeats</a> that show it beating the iMac, and there are several other reviews out there as well.
<strong>The iMac will win in basicly everything except portablity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The powerbook is faster in just about everything. Even the Graphics card in the powerbook is faster (which you don't hear too often from a portable.) The drive is slower, but that can always be upgraded later to 5400 rpm,
Simple example is the wallpaper changing every 5 seconds. The iMac doesnt do it all that smoothly whereas the Powerbook really does!
my .02
<strong>i would assume the GeForce 4MX would be better than the PB video card though, wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yeah, but I think most of this thread didn't notice the whole 17" bit. In theory:
800 > 667 (G4, iMac wins, but the PowerBook has better cache!)
Ram is a toss-up
133 > 100 (bus, PowerBook wins)
HD (iMac wins, though the larger size and real world fragmentation make this a bit of a moot point)
<strong>i would assume the GeForce 4MX would be better than the PB video card though, wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny you mentioned that, I forgot the iMac features that!!! Still, I still prefer the graphics on my TiBook! I guess I dont push either enough to notice graphic card differences
Jet
Think about this:
Web conferencing using Yahoo! Messenger SuperWebcam wirelessly over AirPort from anywhere within 150ft...
Now that is cool...
My dual G4/500: Much faster than an iMac, even though it has the same bus speed. Of course, the bus isn't saturated with an 8x multiplier, it's only 5x. Also, I have a Radeon Mac Edition, which is better than a GeForce 2MX.
I'm guessing a PowerBook G4/667 DVI will be much faster than an iMac. It has a 133 MHz bus (anything less today is just a joke) and that killer 1 MB of L3 cache. It should smoke the iMac.
EDIT: The 800 MHz iMac was the 15" one with the GeForce 2MX, so that may have something to do with it. It should still be fast.
[ 10-04-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>