Centrino is killing Apple?
I'm finding more and more people are switching to PC's recently in light of Centrino and Apple's slow performance processors.
Here's an example of what I mean.
I've been thinking of getting a laptop myself to complement my x86 desktop. I was originally leaning towards a PowerBook but it seems Centrino is winning me over.
Here's an example of what I mean.
I've been thinking of getting a laptop myself to complement my x86 desktop. I was originally leaning towards a PowerBook but it seems Centrino is winning me over.
Comments
But comparing a 1GHz Motorola G4 that has pretty much hit its ceiling to a new-generation Centrino @ 1.6 GHz is not exactly objective. It's not Apple's fault they entered into a contract with a company's that produced mediocre cores for the past four years (well, at least it's not their fault that motorola's ingenious ideas for a future processor crumbled quite disgracefully). PC users and converts seem to quickly forget that it's not "APPLE" behind every element of their machine as much as they'd like to blame "APPLE" for being "SUCKY" or "CRAPPY" in general.
Huff. Centrino will have its day but I hope Steve-o is feeling the pressure enough to get the 970 PBs and PMs out the door.
Start a pro-Mac thread right now, Mister.
As if...
Why is it PC users love comparing the newest PC products with Macs and then claiming some sort of superiority. If you can stomach Bill Gates' crap then buy it.
I surely can't be the only one to realize that this won't be this way for too much longer. However if you need speed right now ..the final choice is the end user.
oh well, as far as laptops goes i find it quite easy....if someone wants a desktop i tell them to get what they want, an apple or a pc....either is fine with me and either will work well for what most of us do...if somebody wants a laptop i tell them to buy an apple...pc laptops can't touch apple laptops (untill maybe recently....i haven't seen these new ones)...if the centrino is good, then maybe the pc laptops will just now be near equal to the apple laptops....still, apple attention to detail is second to none, os x is great and getting better every day, and i expect the PB to have a 970 before too long and will once again blow pc laptops away...so, students and grandmas can get iBooks, pros can get PowerBooks and feel safe that they are buying the best laptops out there...
g
If so, why is this such a big deal?
IIRC, Centrino is a whole CPU/mobo and I/O platform, not just the CPU. The I/O part has been on Mac laptops for years. The G4 has been better than ever single mobile Pentium with any kind of guts, not speed crippled low power versions, perhaps only until now. So *mebbe* now the Centrino spec delivers 30-90 mins more run time, nothing that can't be solved with a bigger battery. I pop the Li-ion battery of my PB, and notice that under the plate there's room to make the battery 50% bigger, easily. A little heavier, yes, but only ounces. And only the lightest (optical included) Centrinos are in the 12" iBook/pBook class.
I would say that even without a 970, Apple has an answer reday and waiting at Moto, in the form of .13u G4's 7447 and 7457, which have not been cancelled, and are ready to go. Couple that with a few more watt hours in the battery pack, and parity should be more than restored.
But yeah, Apple had it easy in laptop land untill just a few months ago. X86 laptops have made dramatic improvements, and unless Apple gets on the ball, AND -- egads could I post without mentioning it? -- starts to lower prices, yes, even on their laptop machines, they will start losing their laptop customers.
Originally posted by Matsu
So *mebbe* now the Centrino spec delivers 30-90 mins more run time, nothing that can't be solved with a bigger battery.
The IBM T40 with a 9-cell battery get around 7 hours of realworld battery life. With a 6 cell battery, it's about 4-5 hours of continous realworld battery life. This is with the screen set at maximum brightness. Centrino is a huge leap forward in both performance and battery life. You should this review Tom's Hardware did of the T40.
But I don't think anyone can deny that the Centrino (or just the Pentium-M processor) is superior to the G4. I'm not talking about the OS or anything... just the processor.
'nuff said for me. god i'd hate to have a windows laptop everywhere i go. it'd be a portable little headache.
This whole Centrino thing is about lower power consumption, not increased megahertz. Probably something which Apple has no need to worry about anyway as the G4 consumes much less power in the first place.
So if you're thinking about switching to a Wintel laptop just because of some fancy marketing from Intel, then I guess all I can say is "Go ahead". Your loss.
IBm's solution isn't too terrible, but you still have to have a HUGE extra capacity battery clamped to the OUTSIDE of the machine. This isn't too different from using 2 seperate batteries, just that they've found a way to clip it to the edge of the machine. A decent option, but not representative of the true standard battery life.
BTW, If you pop the battery off a PB12, you see that there's quite a lot of room under the plate to hold a larger battery. They could easily add someting 50% bigger, for a claimed 7-7.5h, and a true 5-5.5h. That's all IBM has done, albeit in a messier way.
Don't dismiss or reduce Centrino simply because it doesn't have the Apple logo on it. It's an impressive release showing huge performance gains AND great increased battery life. Helping notebooks become faster, smaller, lighter and more powerful is a good thing, even if it's not an Apple brand.
If you're going to compare, compare the latest from Apple to latest from the Wintel world. Also, leave the OS out of is as many people like XP and find it just as stable as X - that's 100% personal preference. Of course if you hate XP you'll get a Mac, so what's the point? If you use both, or don't care what the OS is, you're gonna lean towards either side.
Anyway, I have a 12" PowerBook (and love it). However, Apple's battery life claim is ridiculous. There should be a fine print that reads - '5 hours if you keep the brightness down to nothing, don't use any applications for more than a few minutes, and don't move your mouse around the screen too quickly as that takes up to 50% of the processor's power).
Sure, all PC makers exaggerate, but now for the first time Centrino's numbers are closer to accurate. I get about 3:30 of normal use on my underpowered 867MHz PowerBook before it dies. Thats with reduced brightness, Airport on (of course) and normal application use. But, it's my secondary computer, it's my portable DVD player (although it dies shortly after one movie) and I enjoy OS X so it's fine for what I use it for.
So now we have a Centrino thin and light notebook that has a new processor with a 1MB cache, runs at 1.6GHz (which is faster than 2.4GHz chip) and it STILL runs for 3-5 hours of normal (fast and powerful) use and even longer on the optional higher capacity (but bigger) batteries. Or if you get a larger notebook you'll have even more battery life with nothing sticking out of the sides.
I am not sure how anyone could compare their 4 hour PowerBook battery life when the machine is running anywhere between 600MHz to 1GHz. I should HOPE it lasts that long! I personally am impressed with a chip that outperforms some desktops while lasting even longer unplugged.
Now that Notebooks are getting smaller, lighter and more powerful, yes - Apple does need to do something and quickly. I don't care how pretty our new PowerBooks are, they need to be faster and last longer. They also need better video chips, but lets not even go there!
Yes, I am a long time Apple and a fan, just tired of the misconceptions and blanketed jaded comments. I use both platforms and am not biased to either. If i didn't care about the Apple platform, I wouldn't expect (or want) better from them.
runs at 1.6GHz (which is faster than 2.4GHz chip
what exactly are you comparing there? you should know that chip speeds vary hugely depending on which one you're talking about.
as for battery life, have you tried playing DVD's on both of them and seeing how long they go? that would be an interesting comparison.
Was pretty darn impressive, but to admit, I had the screen at just next-to-visible, which is all you need in the dim airplane anyway, and used headphones (some people don't remember that speaker output uses up a good deal of energy when relying on a battery).
Originally posted by alcimedes
what exactly are you comparing there? you should know that chip speeds vary hugely depending on which one you're talking about.
as for battery life, have you tried playing DVD's on both of them and seeing how long they go? that would be an interesting comparison.
I am comparing the speed differences between Apple's latest chip offerings against the latest Centrino. My point is, despite the fact that the Centrino is a lot faster than the latest PowerBook G4, it still gets better battery life - so why knock it?
When it was the other way around and Apple had the advantage, it was shoved in everyone's faces. Now that PC Notebooks can be fast AND have great battery life we're supposed to make excuses and give reasons why they still suck?