I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
mm, personally I disagree. Intel could release a 5.0ghz chip tomorrow and my feelings and position wouldn't change. Why? Because my dual gig is plenty fast for what I do and X is simply awesome only to improve.
It seems that you are slightly displeased with Apple, if so, why do you bother with these boards when you could be on the PC boards telling everyone how macs are crap and years behind the PCs?
<strong>IIRC, certain laptops did so under 9. X doesn't even have an option for it. Run a benchmark (like povbench) with and w/out power - it will turn out the same.
Than again, supposedly this option is back in Jag-wire.</strong><hr></blockquote>The energy saver control panel on my Ti800 allows me to check a box to reduce processor speed. I've heard that it sets it at 667. But I don't believe this happens in any Apple laptops automatically, as it does on Wintel laptops simply by unplugging them.
<strong>I hate when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about, but still can't remember that processor speeds are measured in hertz, not bytes. (2.4 GB? by today's standards, that's a pretty lame hard drive size.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate it when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about by finding slim mistakes that others make. Of course I meant GHz, Smart Ass.
Also, just for the record, an article was release last year on IBM stating that they had 3.7 and 4 GIGAHERTZ (is that better?) processors in working condition at that time. I doubt they were ready for mass production, but they we're reported as working even then.
If he used a PC, then he wouldn't care about Mac performance. His platform of choice is Mac, and thus we wants to be able to buy a Mac that is fast, fast enough for him, but also fast enough to compete with Wintels.
It's about the future of the Mac platform. If Apple doesn't make competitive products, then they go out of business, and then ALL Mac users lose. no matter if they need the performance or not.
I'm not saying Apple is going to go belly up, only that this is what drives the need for competitive Mac products.
ps. i bet i produce more with my 667dvi than 99% of windows users using their 2ghz notebook to check mail, word proc, and play solitaire.
please people loose the number intel megahrtz myth.
ps 3d people excepted of course </strong><hr></blockquote>
Erm, I'm a 3D person, and Altivec is perfectly suited for 3D modelling and rendering. . . . Using another car analogy: Megahertz is exactly like rpm. Cars have been around long enough that people don't really consider rpm to be the be-all end-all of engine performance, though.
The "MHz Myth" is true, but the fact remains that a 2.0GHz P4M will be quite a bit faster than an 800MHz G4 in many tasks.
BTW, the P4M is really not what I'd consider an ideal mobile chip. I haven't heard of one laptop yet that can get more than three hours with a decently clocked P4...I'd much rather a 1.2GHz P3M Tually paired with a R7500...mmm
Look. IMO a key aspect of a portable is being portable. The Powerbook packs a very serious punch into a very portable machine. You'll have a hard time finding the same feature et as the Powerbook in a 1 inch thick 5.4 lb form factor. In this aspect of the perfect balance between performance and mobility the Powerbook wins easily. Add the power of OS X which is getting better every day and you have an amazing laptop.
These really compete in that true desktop replacement market. the market where people aren't using them on the go or at a table during lunch or sitting down in a chair with it on their lap but the people who need to take their work home and need the same power at home as at work. the peple who will close it up, pack it away and then set it up at home. For that market these PCs blow away the Powerbook. The Powerbok simply can't keep up with these machines. And why should anyone expect it to. These are aimed at a different market segment and their dimensions show that. These machines are beasts.
Apple is doing just fine with their Powerbooks. I just wish the high end was a bit cheaper
Comments
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Relax KidRed,
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mm, personally I disagree. Intel could release a 5.0ghz chip tomorrow and my feelings and position wouldn't change. Why? Because my dual gig is plenty fast for what I do and X is simply awesome only to improve.
It seems that you are slightly displeased with Apple, if so, why do you bother with these boards when you could be on the PC boards telling everyone how macs are crap and years behind the PCs?
<strong>IIRC, certain laptops did so under 9. X doesn't even have an option for it. Run a benchmark (like povbench) with and w/out power - it will turn out the same.
Than again, supposedly this option is back in Jag-wire.</strong><hr></blockquote>The energy saver control panel on my Ti800 allows me to check a box to reduce processor speed. I've heard that it sets it at 667. But I don't believe this happens in any Apple laptops automatically, as it does on Wintel laptops simply by unplugging them.
<strong>I hate when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about, but still can't remember that processor speeds are measured in hertz, not bytes. (2.4 GB? by today's standards, that's a pretty lame hard drive size.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate it when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about by finding slim mistakes that others make. Of course I meant GHz, Smart Ass.
Also, just for the record, an article was release last year on IBM stating that they had 3.7 and 4 GIGAHERTZ (is that better?) processors in working condition at that time. I doubt they were ready for mass production, but they we're reported as working even then.
It's about the future of the Mac platform. If Apple doesn't make competitive products, then they go out of business, and then ALL Mac users lose. no matter if they need the performance or not.
I'm not saying Apple is going to go belly up, only that this is what drives the need for competitive Mac products.
<strong>ditto what hmurchison said.
ps. i bet i produce more with my 667dvi than 99% of windows users using their 2ghz notebook to check mail, word proc, and play solitaire.
please people loose the number intel megahrtz myth.
ps 3d people excepted of course
Erm, I'm a 3D person, and Altivec is perfectly suited for 3D modelling and rendering. . . . Using another car analogy: Megahertz is exactly like rpm. Cars have been around long enough that people don't really consider rpm to be the be-all end-all of engine performance, though.
BTW, the P4M is really not what I'd consider an ideal mobile chip. I haven't heard of one laptop yet that can get more than three hours with a decently clocked P4...I'd much rather a 1.2GHz P3M Tually paired with a R7500...mmm
<strong>...I'd much rather a 1.2GHz P3M Tually paired with a R7500...mmm</strong><hr></blockquote>
Easy radar...down boy...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
These really compete in that true desktop replacement market. the market where people aren't using them on the go or at a table during lunch or sitting down in a chair with it on their lap but the people who need to take their work home and need the same power at home as at work. the peple who will close it up, pack it away and then set it up at home. For that market these PCs blow away the Powerbook. The Powerbok simply can't keep up with these machines. And why should anyone expect it to. These are aimed at a different market segment and their dimensions show that. These machines are beasts.
Apple is doing just fine with their Powerbooks. I just wish the high end was a bit cheaper