Overall IMHO Apple won't touch the Celeron-M with a 10-foot pole. I think the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is the absolute baseline.
Pity really. In some respects the high end Celeron-M is better than the Core Solo in the Mini.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Intel has somehow very intelligently streamlined it's manufacturing with the 65nm Yonahs and this is something Steve Jobs must be quite happy with - ample supply, wide range of choices, easy setting of clock speeds for marketing purposes, and streamlined manufacturing to give him all the choices he needs to just focus on the specific hardware he wants to put out. A far cry from IBM's G5 fiascos.
To be fair though, it wasn't totally IBM's fault. Sure, the G5 never hit 3Ghz (was that's Job's promise or IBMs?) and it never was really cool enough for a laptop but supply issues were mostly Apple's short procurement process. That's something they can avoid with Intel for sure though as Intel just keeps on pumping out chips regardless of being asked to do them.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
I can't wait to see what 65nm Conroe dualcores can pump out compared the the G5 dualies on Universal apps benchmarks.
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
Pity really. In some respects the high end Celeron-M is better than the Core Solo in the Mini.
Um.
How?
Aside from the fact that there isn't officially a "line-up" of Yonah Celeron Ms anyway (at least I still have yet to see one single bit of confirmation), the data I've heard is 1 MB L2 cache and 133/533 MHz bus, which sounds like a Dothan Pentium M with half the cache.
Compare that to a Core Solo with 2 MB cache and a 167/667 MHz bus, and I don't see how this mystical Yonah Celeron M could in any way be "better". Higher clock rate options? Perhaps, but unless they're really very significantly higher, I still don't see how they could compete. Not to mention it's probably not even pin-compatible.
....I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt?
Heh. Good point. Seems to have been forgotten about (or simply not shouted out about as much) as Apple is all about "We've got Intel Macs now! Woot!"
AFAIK the Intel iMac and Mac mini run much cooler than if you had a G5 in it. And you're getting G5-equivalent (assuming Universal apps) power in a Core Duo Mac mini. You could never stuff a G5 into a Mac mini. It would've freakin' melted down.
With the Core Duo Macbook Pro, battery life may be not super fantastic but again, you're getting long-awaited G5-equivalent performance in a portable (again, given the right Universal apps).
The key is Universal apps being more and more optimised (and more available!) and Conroe 65nm "Power Macs" pumping out impressive benchmarks.
I think the Intel transition is off to a good start (apart from the Microsoft Office & Adobe/Macromedia issue which has been debated to death on this forum). It'll take until the end of the year for us to really see the transition settle in. Already dual-booting WindowsXP2 and seeing it run pretty fast is a good sign. A lot of upside potential on AAPL. We just got to wait for things to gradually unfold.
I know a lot of benchmarks show Universal apps on Core Duos being slower at some things but it is much faster at other things. So as I mentioned Intel tools, compilers, XCode, optimisation for Intel Macs, etc, etc. will play a huge role through the year to deliver apps that run fast and furious on Intel Macs.
Rosetta is an important (well, vital) piece of the puzzle but currently the Achilles heel of the transition.
I think that, like Apple, they want to sweep out the old names. Until Prescott, Pentium was a positive point fot Intel, but with all of Prescotts troubles, I think they want to get people to stop thinking about it, and start anew. The Core series looks to be a winner, and so I think they want people to focus on that.
Among the PC enthusiast community at least, it's widely held that an AMD64 has the edge on the Pentium 4/ Pentium D. The Pentium-M on the other hand has the edge over the Mobile Athlons and Turions.
Core is a strong brand name and Centrino is an even stronger brand name. "Centrino Duo powered by Intel Core Duo" is Intel's major push now in the laptop market. Surprisingly on the desktop side they're (eg. Dell) still pushing Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds
Can't believe the tripe on Dell's website though:
"128MB PCI Express? x16 ATI Radeon? X600 SE
[add $80 or $3/month]
Powerful graphics for games and other multimedia applications"
X600 SE. Bollocks. You'll only be able to run the latest games at minimum settings. And this is their "enthusiast" XPS line
To be fair though, it wasn't totally IBM's fault. Sure, the G5 never hit 3Ghz (was that's Job's promise or IBMs?) and it never was really cool enough for a laptop but supply issues were mostly Apple's short procurement process. That's something they can avoid with Intel for sure though as Intel just keeps on pumping out chips regardless of being asked to do them.
IBM's original roadmap for the G5 showed the first model getting to at least 3GHz, and the second to over 4GHz. After that, it was hazy, but IBM was speaking at the microprocessor conferences of 8 to 10GHz eventually, the way Intel was talking 10 to 15GHz, with AMD following along.
I would imagine that when Apple was in negotiations with IBM about IBM putting Altivec onto the chip for them, that cpu speeds would have been discussed. It's just inconceivable that IBM would not have told Apple that 3GHz would be reached by the time Jobs said that it would. In fact, if anyone here remembers the speculation by the tech community, at the time, it was thought that IBM would have that speed before the time that Jobs said it would be out. So, this caought everyone except for the cynics.
Quote:
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
Performance per awtt is alive and well. Which PPC chips have the performance the dual core Yonahs have, at anyway near the same watt levels?
The anemic G4 in the Powerbook? The single G5 in the iMac?
The G4 isn't even close in performance, and the wattage is about the same. The Meron will get at least 20% greater performance than the Yonah at the same wattage.
The iMac's G5 has about 65 watts, at a performance level that is, at best, close. But Yonah's wattage is just about half that.
Conroe, with a MAX of 65 watts, will easily blow the G5 away, and Merom will also best it.
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
See below article from anandtech. It gives a nice piece on performance per watt. Granted it's only comparing ICD to G4 but it's a stomping.
Since most people may not read the lengthy article here's the beef:
"Using QuickTime's H.264 encoder as our benchmark, the new MacBook Pro offers around 62% better performance per Watt than the previous PowerMac G4. For a notebook, that sort of increase in performance per watt is extremely important."
"Under QuickTime we see a full 50% increase in performance over the PowerBook G4. If you disable the second core, the G4 1.5 actually pulls ahead of the Core Solo 2.0. The PowerBook to MacBook Pro upgrade, purely from a performance stance, is looking very impressive already."
I want to put here my imagination of the notebook I really want - I hope that the new MacBook will fill the most of my needs.
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
I want to put here my imagination of the notebook I really want - I hope that the new MacBook will fill the most of my needs.
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
I want to put here my imagination of the notebook I really want - I hope that the new MacBook will fill the most of my needs.
Sounds like you're looking at more of the MacBook Pro class.
Originally posted by Pavel
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
Maybe MacBook Pro 13.3" version?
Originally posted by Pavel
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
Sorry but I really don't think 7200rpm drives and 128mb video will be available on the regular MacBook. You're looking at a Macbook Pro
Originally posted by Pavel
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
MacBook Pro 13.3"
Originally posted by Pavel
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
These specs are very possible on a regular MacBook. Some HDTVs may have DVI input?
Originally posted by Pavel
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
iSight built in and FrontRow probably on a regular MacBook, looks like Apple is standardising it across the line.
Originally posted by Pavel
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
2-3 hours battery on your 13.3" MacBook Pro while doing video intensive stuff? 8)
it's much cheaper and still very fast so spend that $50 (?) 'saved' on more ram or a proper graphics chip and you'll end up with a very nice mini/ibook...
The paint on the current iBook is behind the plastic. Thus, no scratches to the paint, just the clear plastic.
Is it? I own a G3 iBook (the "icebook" style) which you can clearly see that it's clear polycarbonate painted white on the inside. In fact, I'd seen mods where people had dismantled it and scraped off all the white then repainted it another color.
The more recent iBooks, however, look as if they are made from white (impregnated) polycarbonate. Scratches will still buff out but you can't do the old trick of scraping the old paint and repainting it.
Seeing the two styles next to each other really makes the diffreence obvious.
Well, you can get an idea of just how unrealistic some people can get. Pavel is talking about a $2500+ price on his "ideal" low cost MacBook.
I've never said anything about the price - from my point of view the "dream" notebook could be MacBook or MacBook Pro and it could cost $2500 or more. Yes, it will be nice if it will be cheap, but it's not the point right now (for me) - I think I'm looking for the 13" MacBook Pro which simply don't exist... 15.4" and upcoming 17" only
I've never said anything about the price - from my point of view the "dream" notebook could be MacBook or MacBook Pro and it could cost $2500 or more. Yes, it will be nice if it will be cheap, but it's not the point right now (for me) - I think I'm looking for the 13" MacBook Pro which simply don't exist... 15.4" and upcoming 17" only
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
Overall IMHO Apple won't touch the Celeron-M with a 10-foot pole. I think the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is the absolute baseline.
Pity really. In some respects the high end Celeron-M is better than the Core Solo in the Mini.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Intel has somehow very intelligently streamlined it's manufacturing with the 65nm Yonahs and this is something Steve Jobs must be quite happy with - ample supply, wide range of choices, easy setting of clock speeds for marketing purposes, and streamlined manufacturing to give him all the choices he needs to just focus on the specific hardware he wants to put out. A far cry from IBM's G5 fiascos.
To be fair though, it wasn't totally IBM's fault. Sure, the G5 never hit 3Ghz (was that's Job's promise or IBMs?) and it never was really cool enough for a laptop but supply issues were mostly Apple's short procurement process. That's something they can avoid with Intel for sure though as Intel just keeps on pumping out chips regardless of being asked to do them.
Originally posted by sunilraman
I can't wait to see what 65nm Conroe dualcores can pump out compared the the G5 dualies on Universal apps benchmarks.
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Pity really. In some respects the high end Celeron-M is better than the Core Solo in the Mini.
Um.
How?
Aside from the fact that there isn't officially a "line-up" of Yonah Celeron Ms anyway (at least I still have yet to see one single bit of confirmation), the data I've heard is 1 MB L2 cache and 133/533 MHz bus, which sounds like a Dothan Pentium M with half the cache.
Compare that to a Core Solo with 2 MB cache and a 167/667 MHz bus, and I don't see how this mystical Yonah Celeron M could in any way be "better". Higher clock rate options? Perhaps, but unless they're really very significantly higher, I still don't see how they could compete. Not to mention it's probably not even pin-compatible.
....I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt?
Heh. Good point. Seems to have been forgotten about (or simply not shouted out about as much) as Apple is all about "We've got Intel Macs now! Woot!"
AFAIK the Intel iMac and Mac mini run much cooler than if you had a G5 in it. And you're getting G5-equivalent (assuming Universal apps) power in a Core Duo Mac mini. You could never stuff a G5 into a Mac mini. It would've freakin' melted down.
With the Core Duo Macbook Pro, battery life may be not super fantastic but again, you're getting long-awaited G5-equivalent performance in a portable (again, given the right Universal apps).
The key is Universal apps being more and more optimised (and more available!) and Conroe 65nm "Power Macs" pumping out impressive benchmarks.
I think the Intel transition is off to a good start (apart from the Microsoft Office & Adobe/Macromedia issue which has been debated to death on this forum). It'll take until the end of the year for us to really see the transition settle in. Already dual-booting WindowsXP2 and seeing it run pretty fast is a good sign. A lot of upside potential on AAPL. We just got to wait for things to gradually unfold.
I know a lot of benchmarks show Universal apps on Core Duos being slower at some things but it is much faster at other things. So as I mentioned Intel tools, compilers, XCode, optimisation for Intel Macs, etc, etc. will play a huge role through the year to deliver apps that run fast and furious on Intel Macs.
Rosetta is an important (well, vital) piece of the puzzle but currently the Achilles heel of the transition.
I think that, like Apple, they want to sweep out the old names. Until Prescott, Pentium was a positive point fot Intel, but with all of Prescotts troubles, I think they want to get people to stop thinking about it, and start anew. The Core series looks to be a winner, and so I think they want people to focus on that.
Among the PC enthusiast community at least, it's widely held that an AMD64 has the edge on the Pentium 4/ Pentium D. The Pentium-M on the other hand has the edge over the Mobile Athlons and Turions.
Core is a strong brand name and Centrino is an even stronger brand name. "Centrino Duo powered by Intel Core Duo" is Intel's major push now in the laptop market. Surprisingly on the desktop side they're (eg. Dell) still pushing Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds
Can't believe the tripe on Dell's website though:
"128MB PCI Express? x16 ATI Radeon? X600 SE
[add $80 or $3/month]
Powerful graphics for games and other multimedia applications"
X600 SE. Bollocks. You'll only be able to run the latest games at minimum settings. And this is their "enthusiast" XPS line
Originally posted by aegisdesign
To be fair though, it wasn't totally IBM's fault. Sure, the G5 never hit 3Ghz (was that's Job's promise or IBMs?) and it never was really cool enough for a laptop but supply issues were mostly Apple's short procurement process. That's something they can avoid with Intel for sure though as Intel just keeps on pumping out chips regardless of being asked to do them.
IBM's original roadmap for the G5 showed the first model getting to at least 3GHz, and the second to over 4GHz. After that, it was hazy, but IBM was speaking at the microprocessor conferences of 8 to 10GHz eventually, the way Intel was talking 10 to 15GHz, with AMD following along.
I would imagine that when Apple was in negotiations with IBM about IBM putting Altivec onto the chip for them, that cpu speeds would have been discussed. It's just inconceivable that IBM would not have told Apple that 3GHz would be reached by the time Jobs said that it would. In fact, if anyone here remembers the speculation by the tech community, at the time, it was thought that IBM would have that speed before the time that Jobs said it would be out. So, this caought everyone except for the cynics.
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
Performance per awtt is alive and well. Which PPC chips have the performance the dual core Yonahs have, at anyway near the same watt levels?
The anemic G4 in the Powerbook? The single G5 in the iMac?
The G4 isn't even close in performance, and the wattage is about the same. The Meron will get at least 20% greater performance than the Yonah at the same wattage.
The iMac's G5 has about 65 watts, at a performance level that is, at best, close. But Yonah's wattage is just about half that.
Conroe, with a MAX of 65 watts, will easily blow the G5 away, and Merom will also best it.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Can't believe the tripe on Dell's website though:
"128MB PCI Express? x16 ATI Radeon? X600 SE
[add $80 or $3/month]
Powerful graphics for games and other multimedia applications"
X600 SE. Bollocks. You'll only be able to run the latest games at minimum settings. And this is their "enthusiast" XPS line
That's why they bought Alien.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Yep. I'm still mostly underwhelmed by the transition so far. What happened to performance per watt? So far we've computers that run about the same speed as a G5 from 3 years ago and laptop battery life has diminished. Software on the other hand has been stellar in the transition from Apple. So reliable it's almost boring. And iWork and iLife 06 are finally solid too. I'd almost given up on iPhoto before 06.
See below article from anandtech. It gives a nice piece on performance per watt. Granted it's only comparing ICD to G4 but it's a stomping.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740
See below article from anandtech. It gives a nice piece on performance per watt. Granted it's only comparing ICD to G4 but it's a stomping.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740
Since most people may not read the lengthy article here's the beef:
"Using QuickTime's H.264 encoder as our benchmark, the new MacBook Pro offers around 62% better performance per Watt than the previous PowerMac G4. For a notebook, that sort of increase in performance per watt is extremely important."
"Under QuickTime we see a full 50% increase in performance over the PowerBook G4. If you disable the second core, the G4 1.5 actually pulls ahead of the Core Solo 2.0. The PowerBook to MacBook Pro upgrade, purely from a performance stance, is looking very impressive already."
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
Originally posted by Pavel
I want to put here my imagination of the notebook I really want - I hope that the new MacBook will fill the most of my needs.
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
WoW!
I want to put here my imagination of the notebook I really want - I hope that the new MacBook will fill the most of my needs.
Sounds like you're looking at more of the MacBook Pro class.
Originally posted by Pavel
design - small, thin, low weight - I need to bring a lot of other things with me everyday, so it need to be small - especially if I need to bring my 12" HP notebook in one bag too
Maybe MacBook Pro 13.3" version?
Originally posted by Pavel
performance - I still prefere PowerPC CPUs, but things were changed and if the Intel was the only way to have it small and without the common temperature for hell - then Intel Core Duo is suitable, 1.5GB RAM, 120GB HDD 7200rpm (I guess on this point I'll be unsatisfied), 128MB graphic card, DL SuperDrive
Sorry but I really don't think 7200rpm drives and 128mb video will be available on the regular MacBook. You're looking at a Macbook Pro
Originally posted by Pavel
display - as big as possible on the small notebook - introduced 13.3" widescreen 1280x720 will be perfect (as the one of purposes for have this notebook with me will be the HD 720p video preview after shooting)
MacBook Pro 13.3"
Originally posted by Pavel
ports/connectivity - DVI output, FW400, USB 2.0 (at least 3 ports), LAN, Bluetooth, AirPort - one thing which I guess I will miss - TV output for HDV (through composite or HDMI) - it will be perfect to have 1280x720 resolution on high def. television
These specs are very possible on a regular MacBook. Some HDTVs may have DVI input?
Originally posted by Pavel
others - iSight will be good, FrontRow unusable for me
iSight built in and FrontRow probably on a regular MacBook, looks like Apple is standardising it across the line.
Originally posted by Pavel
what's important is long-life battery - not standby, but for real working (i know i know - working with video, etc. are big battery eating task, but... once maybe)
2-3 hours battery on your 13.3" MacBook Pro while doing video intensive stuff? 8)
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Doesn't the black iPod have issues with scratches showing really well? I can see complaints to no end if shiny black MacBooks look all scratched up.
The paint on the current iBook is behind the plastic. Thus, no scratches to the paint, just the clear plastic.
Originally posted by hxc04
The paint on the current iBook is behind the plastic. Thus, no scratches to the paint, just the clear plastic.
That's right. Polycarbonate is always spray painted from the inside. You can buff out scratches.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, you can get an idea of just how unrealistic some people can get. Pavel is talking about a $2500+ price on his "ideal" low cost MacBook.
Short answer: everybody wants a pony.
Originally posted by Chucker
Um.
How?
better in a bang/$ way...
it's much cheaper and still very fast so spend that $50 (?) 'saved' on more ram or a proper graphics chip and you'll end up with a very nice mini/ibook...
Originally posted by hxc04
The paint on the current iBook is behind the plastic. Thus, no scratches to the paint, just the clear plastic.
Is it? I own a G3 iBook (the "icebook" style) which you can clearly see that it's clear polycarbonate painted white on the inside. In fact, I'd seen mods where people had dismantled it and scraped off all the white then repainted it another color.
The more recent iBooks, however, look as if they are made from white (impregnated) polycarbonate. Scratches will still buff out but you can't do the old trick of scraping the old paint and repainting it.
Seeing the two styles next to each other really makes the diffreence obvious.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, you can get an idea of just how unrealistic some people can get. Pavel is talking about a $2500+ price on his "ideal" low cost MacBook.
I've never said anything about the price - from my point of view the "dream" notebook could be MacBook or MacBook Pro and it could cost $2500 or more. Yes, it will be nice if it will be cheap, but it's not the point right now (for me) - I think I'm looking for the 13" MacBook Pro which simply don't exist... 15.4" and upcoming 17" only
Originally posted by Pavel
I've never said anything about the price - from my point of view the "dream" notebook could be MacBook or MacBook Pro and it could cost $2500 or more. Yes, it will be nice if it will be cheap, but it's not the point right now (for me) - I think I'm looking for the 13" MacBook Pro which simply don't exist... 15.4" and upcoming 17" only
Since this IS the iBook (or MacBook) thread...