The iBooks only need 20 to 25% greater performance than the older G4 models. These are not intended for hi power application. Schools, home use, etc., are their intended audience.
Crap, I hate being on the other side of an arguement with you. But do you really think a 1.2 ghz core solo will give you 20-25% performance increase over the current g4 powerbooks? Speedmark benchmarks at Macworld suggest otherwise. Yes I agree that battery life and weight life are important but if the new MAcbooks are slower that won't fly IMO.
Crap, I hate being on the other side of an arguement with you. But do you really think a 1.2 ghz core solo will give you 20-25% performance increase over the current g4 powerbooks? Speedmark benchmarks at Macworld suggest otherwise. Yes I agree that battery life and weight life are important but if the new MAcbooks are slower that won't fly IMO.
That's ok
We should see faster cpu's in the low voltage catagory than 1.2GHZ. They have a low voltage solo at 1.66GHz as well, called the T1300. The price as of Jan was $209. The dual version costs $316 for the same speed. That's for 1K tray units, as they are called.
Don't forget that they also have an ultra- low voltage series as well. But, thast's not out right now.
So, it depends on when the iBook comes out. The deal with the manufacturer was made a short while ago. That should mean that we won't see the machines on the street before June.
If they come out later, then we might *just* have the chance of seeing a low voltage Merom. If that could at all happen, Apple would have to supply a dual core chip, as Merom has no solo core models.
But, the argument still holds. Cost, heat, battery, weight size, etc.
When talking about resolution remember it is not the resolution that makes a screen appear "small" but the denisty of that resolution, or ppi (pixels per inch). 17" and 19" monitors typically have the same resolution, however the 19" monitor will have larger pixels. Likewise, if a 15" monitor has the same resolution the pixels will be smaller.
No one should use the internet full screen. It isn't productive and makes no sense.
I used to when I was windows but now I've got so many windows open and am doing much more.
People like my sister will never learn that. Not only does she use the internet full screen on her crummy win machine, she LITERALLY uses it full screen by pressing which ever one of the F keys does it.
....
That's way better and make you more productive. Almost no windows ESPECIALLY the internet should be run full screen. Why would anyone need that much space?
I actually agree to a great extent and I think Apple agrees with you also becuase Apple chose to use a green "zoom" buttton in the Finder instead of a "Maximize" button in OS X 10.0 even after having a chance to start over with a new OS.
Microsfot seems to have created this "maximize" button on Windows Explorer that everyone is now used to. Less productive, but then again, most people are not power users. Microsoft seems to understand that and they have made thier fortunes peddling mediocre, less productive software unto the masses. This is why i think that OS X needs to remain freindly to those who use the computer with a single brain cell. We are suppossed to use multiple windows with expose and a dock, yet a one-button mouse, and no full screen internet experience?... well, whatever.
Why the Uh? You couldn't figure out what you were going to say, and needed the time to think?
No...I gave you extra time to start reading my sentence.
I didn't understand that you wanted read/write capability on the Windows partition when in Mac OS X. Then yes, FAT32 is the way to go but you're limited to 32GB or something like that.
No...I gave you extra time to start reading my sentence.
I didn't understand that you wanted read/write capability on the Windows partition when in Mac OS X. Then yes, FAT32 is the way to go but you're limited to 32GB or something like that.
Voch
The reason why read/write is useful is so that you can work on a file, without having to make a copy of it and move it somewhere else.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Apple just came out with software to boot Windows (abet only on a FAT 32 32GB partition). Who thought that would happen (besides me!).
Uh...you CAN use an NTFS partition with Boot Camp...
Voch
Originally posted by melgross
The iBooks only need 20 to 25% greater performance than the older G4 models. These are not intended for hi power application. Schools, home use, etc., are their intended audience.
Crap, I hate being on the other side of an arguement with you. But do you really think a 1.2 ghz core solo will give you 20-25% performance increase over the current g4 powerbooks? Speedmark benchmarks at Macworld suggest otherwise. Yes I agree that battery life and weight life are important but if the new MAcbooks are slower that won't fly IMO.
Originally posted by Voch
Uh...you CAN use an NTFS partition with Boot Camp...
Voch
Read only.
Why the Uh? You couldn't figure out what you were going to say, and needed the time to think?
Originally posted by backtomac
Crap, I hate being on the other side of an arguement with you. But do you really think a 1.2 ghz core solo will give you 20-25% performance increase over the current g4 powerbooks? Speedmark benchmarks at Macworld suggest otherwise. Yes I agree that battery life and weight life are important but if the new MAcbooks are slower that won't fly IMO.
That's ok
We should see faster cpu's in the low voltage catagory than 1.2GHZ. They have a low voltage solo at 1.66GHz as well, called the T1300. The price as of Jan was $209. The dual version costs $316 for the same speed. That's for 1K tray units, as they are called.
Don't forget that they also have an ultra- low voltage series as well. But, thast's not out right now.
So, it depends on when the iBook comes out. The deal with the manufacturer was made a short while ago. That should mean that we won't see the machines on the street before June.
If they come out later, then we might *just* have the chance of seeing a low voltage Merom. If that could at all happen, Apple would have to supply a dual core chip, as Merom has no solo core models.
But, the argument still holds. Cost, heat, battery, weight size, etc.
Originally posted by @homenow
When talking about resolution remember it is not the resolution that makes a screen appear "small" but the denisty of that resolution, or ppi (pixels per inch). 17" and 19" monitors typically have the same resolution, however the 19" monitor will have larger pixels. Likewise, if a 15" monitor has the same resolution the pixels will be smaller.
Thanks!
Originally posted by ecking
No one should use the internet full screen. It isn't productive and makes no sense.
I used to when I was windows but now I've got so many windows open and am doing much more.
People like my sister will never learn that. Not only does she use the internet full screen on her crummy win machine, she LITERALLY uses it full screen by pressing which ever one of the F keys does it.
....
That's way better and make you more productive. Almost no windows ESPECIALLY the internet should be run full screen. Why would anyone need that much space?
I actually agree to a great extent and I think Apple agrees with you also becuase Apple chose to use a green "zoom" buttton in the Finder instead of a "Maximize" button in OS X 10.0 even after having a chance to start over with a new OS.
Microsfot seems to have created this "maximize" button on Windows Explorer that everyone is now used to. Less productive, but then again, most people are not power users. Microsoft seems to understand that and they have made thier fortunes peddling mediocre, less productive software unto the masses. This is why i think that OS X needs to remain freindly to those who use the computer with a single brain cell. We are suppossed to use multiple windows with expose and a dock, yet a one-button mouse, and no full screen internet experience?... well, whatever.
Originally posted by melgross
Read only.
Why the Uh? You couldn't figure out what you were going to say, and needed the time to think?
No...I gave you extra time to start reading my sentence.
I didn't understand that you wanted read/write capability on the Windows partition when in Mac OS X. Then yes, FAT32 is the way to go but you're limited to 32GB or something like that.
Voch
Originally posted by Voch
No...I gave you extra time to start reading my sentence.
I didn't understand that you wanted read/write capability on the Windows partition when in Mac OS X. Then yes, FAT32 is the way to go but you're limited to 32GB or something like that.
Voch
The reason why read/write is useful is so that you can work on a file, without having to make a copy of it and move it somewhere else.