or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Evil Ed

We've got a P991 at work and I have to admit it's not bad (although I personally can't stand CRTs). I wouldn't reccomend using it at 1600 x 1200... it hurts. Oh, and it's VERY black
[quote]Originally posted by JasonPP: According to MOSR, Apple is doing market research regarding the resolution of the PB LCD. I've always thought the resolution was crap for a high end laptop, almost every other laptop in this catagory has 1400x1080 or higher resolution options. Apple, PLEASE offer a 1600x1024 resolution PB!!! Anyone else want to comment?
IMO, I think MOSR is spewing: 1600 x 1024 is not the same ratio as 1152 x 768....
[quote]Originally posted by Evan Animus: You might get your 600s but I don't see Apple clocking ibooks faster than the PBs if they're using the same processor. Differentiation problem.
Unless I'm mistaken, didn't Apple overlap performance with the iBooks (366 - 466) and the Pismo PBG3's (400 - 500) some time ago? Different bus speeds, I know, but the iBook was clocked higher than the entry-level PB.
Apple features the Adaptec 39160 on one of the pages about the PowerMac... I think it's under the heading "expansion".
Had a PowerBook 1400c which had about 3 dead pixels on it (couple in the central area) and that was pretty irritating. Since then I've had a PowerBook G3 333 (Lombard), PowerBook G3 400 (Pismo), and now a PowerBook G3 500: none of which have had a single dead pixel (although the 400 developed a stuck pixel which was massaged away). I'm now awaiting delivery of an iBook 600 and I'll let you know if my luck's run out.
Had a PowerBook 1400c which had about 3 dead pixels on it (couple in the central area) and that was pretty irritating. Since then I've had a PowerBook G3 333 (Lombard), PowerBook G3 400 (Pismo), and now a PowerBook G3 500: none of which have had a single dead pixel (although the 400 developed a stuck pixel which was massaged away). I'm now awaiting delivery of an iBook 600 and I'll let you know if my luck's run out.
yeah, but wouldn't that mean that one LCD would have to do the Digital-Analogue-Digital conversion?
Hi KidRed Please could you tell me what FPS rating you get in Quake 3 Arena? I'm interested to know how well it performs on a Cinema display running at it's native resolution (1600 x 1024) at 32bit colour with all settings at maximum. If you're unsure how to set Q3 to 1600 x 1024 then let me know. Thanks! -Ed
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.: Is it just me or do these benchmarks suck. I'm guessing it's not the GF4s fault.
I'm not complaining. I'd be interested to know how Quake 3 runs on a Dual 1Ghz G4 with GeForce 4 MX and a cinema display at 1600 x 1024 x 32 with all settings at maximum. Whoever gets this set-up, please let me know what your FPS are.
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441: Well, he has 2 GB installed and the OS recognizes it, so I'm not sure. :confused:
i think OS X is ok with it, but I believe that Mac OS 9 can only recognise up to 1.5Gb and can only allocate up to 999Mb to an Application. But I may be wrong, that's just from what I can vaguely remember. [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Evil Ed ]

New Posts  All Forums: