2G Macbook Pro

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    nauticalnautical Posts: 109member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    I agree. Then the low end is filled with core duos. The core solo isn't a performance upgrade from the g4 chip it replaces.



    Do you have any data to back up that statement or are you simply stating conviction as fact?
  • Reply 22 of 44
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryanh

    Where did all the talk of a "MacPad" come from? Besides the gesture input patents, is there anything that is substantiating to back this up besides saying "Apple HAS to be working on a tablet type device"?



    Rumour & Conjecture...



    What, you want facts already...?!?



    ;^p
  • Reply 23 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nautical

    Do you have any data to back up that statement or are you simply stating conviction as fact?



    You be the judge. Core solo mac mini has less than 10% improvement in speedmark score compared to mac mini with 1.4ghz g4 chip. Other benchmarks only show modest increase. I'm assuming that this trend would continue in new iBooks. You may take issue with that, but what makes you think it would be different? Link below to macworld for speeedmark results.



    http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...rk45/index.php
  • Reply 24 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    You be the judge. Core solo mac mini has less than 10% improvement in speedmark score compared to mac mini with 1.4ghz g4 chip.



    Um.



    1) That benchmark is very AltiVec-heavy. Lots of apps, universal or not, are gonna need to be optimized for SSE first. (Though AltiVec will always have a bit of an edge, at least until SSE4 arrives.)

    2) The two models have different hard drive speeds. (The Core Solo has a faster one, but still. Point being it makes it more difficult to care what's CPU-related and what's not.)

    3) The two models have different GPUs.



    You'd need to do benchmarks that have exlusively to do with the CPU, and a real-life benchmark like Speedmark simply isn't designed to do that.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Um.



    1) That benchmark is very AltiVec-heavy. Lots of apps, universal or not, are gonna need to be optimized for SSE first. (Though AltiVec will always have a bit of an edge, at least until SSE4 arrives.)

    2) The two models have different hard drive speeds. (The Core Solo has a faster one, but still. Point being it makes it more difficult to care what's CPU-related and what's not.)

    3) The two models have different GPUs.



    You'd need to do benchmarks that have exlusively to do with the CPU, and a real-life benchmark like Speedmark simply isn't designed to do that.




    Let me restate then. For whatever reason(s) the mac mini with the core solo shows only a modest increase in speed over the amc mini with the 1.4ghz g4 chip. I expect this trend to be similar if the new ibooks come out with a core solo chip. While your points have merit, I buy a computer not a chip. Therefore the speedmark tests are relevant to me as they give me an idea of performance in real life tasks. This may not be a complete reflection of cpu performance.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    I buy a computer not a chip.



    Yes.



    Quote:

    The speedmark tests are relevant to me as they give me an idea of performance in real life tasks.



    Yes.



    Quote:

    This may not be a complete reflection of cpu performance. [/B]



    Yes.



    If you know all this, though, why do you make such stupid generalizing claims as:

    Quote:

    The core solo isn't a performance upgrade from the g4 chip it replaces.



    , when clearly, you don't even care about the chip.



    Either you want to discuss real-world performance of Intel Macs compared to PowerPC Macs (or, more specifically, Core Solo Macs compared to G4 Macs), or you want to discuss theoretical performance of Intel chips compared to PowerPC chips, or Core Solo chips vs. G4 chips. Make a choice.
  • Reply 27 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker



    If you know all this, though, why do you make such stupid generalizing claims as:



    , when clearly, you don't even care about the chip.



    Either you want to discuss real-world performance of Intel Macs compared to PowerPC Macs (or, more specifically, Core Solo Macs compared to G4 Macs), or you want to discuss theoretical performance of Intel chips compared to PowerPC chips, or Core Solo chips vs. G4 chips. Make a choice.






    How is it stupid? I've got numbers to back up my claim. I've restated my original comment to say that macs with the core solo are only modestly faster than macs(minis) that come with g4 chips. How can you argue against this? If ypu think things will be different in the iBooks tell me why. I've got an open mind.



    In general, I'm for intel chips in macs. I've stated this in many posts here. However, the numbers speak for themselves, like it or not.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    You first state that the chip is not faster at all ("isn't a performance upgrade"). You then say it is a rather modest advantage, but actually refer not to the chip but the machine as a whole. You then claim that the chip's performance by itself is irrelevant for you anyway.



    Can you not see the problem here? If you want to argue that Intel-based Mac hardware doesn't have a huge advantage at one core over PowerPC-based Macs, fair enough, in the short run, that may be true. But then, almost all Intel-based Macs have two cores and generally have much better specs (a faster bus, SATA drives over PATA ones in most cases, etc.).



    Your claim regarding the chip, however, is entirely unsubstantiated, and you have so far refused to give any proof, citing that it wouldn't matter to you.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    You first state that the chip is not faster at all ("isn't a performance upgrade"). You then say it is a rather modest advantage, but actually refer not to the chip but the machine as a whole. You then claim that the chip's performance by itself is irrelevant for you anyway.



    Can you not see the problem here? If you want to argue that Intel-based Mac hardware doesn't have a huge advantage at one core over PowerPC-based Macs, fair enough, in the short run, that may be true. But then, almost all Intel-based Macs have two cores and generally have much better specs (a faster bus, SATA drives over PATA ones in most cases, etc.).



    Your claim regarding the chip, however, is entirely unsubstantiated, and you have so far refused to give any proof, citing that it wouldn't matter to you.




    Maybe to you. The facts speak for themselves. If you want to argue, fine. Why don't you produce some numbers. I've come up with data. Where is your data?



    I've seen the cinebench scores that suggest the core solo is a lot faster than the g4. If that is the case, then a solo mini should be able to perform faster than a g4 in some real world tests. Yes performance is influenced by factors other than cpu performance, but as you have indicated the solo mini has some components that are better than those in the g4 mini.



    This isn't just a theorectical arguement for me. I was considering buying a intel mini for my dad. Given the numbers I've seen, I'm waiting to see if the g4 minis at comp usa will go down in price.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    Maybe to you. The facts speak for themselves. If you want to argue, fine. Why don't you produce some numbers. I've come up with data.



    You have not.



    Quote:

    Where is your data?



    What do you want? SPEC benchmarks?



    Quote:

    This isn't just a theorectical arguement for me. I was considering buying a intel mini for my dad. Given the numbers I've seen, I'm waiting to see if the g4 minis at comp usa will go down in price.



    Have you considered a refurb? I'm serious. They're good quality, you're eligible for warranty, AppleCare is cheaper for them, etc.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker



    Have you considered a refurb? I'm serious. They're good quality, you're eligible for warranty, AppleCare is cheaper for them, etc.




    Yep. I'm watching periodically. Hope they come down to $450. Then I'll probably pull the trigger. He has a pc and has a lot of problems. I think if I could get him a mini he would be happier.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    m4hl3rm4hl3r Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dansgil

    What I want most - LOWER PRICES! How about $1699 fro the lhigh-end and $2199 for the low end. That leaves the 17" to be sold at $2599.





    -DG [/B]



    .. OK. So the 2.00 GHz model is cheaper than the 1.83 GHz model - that makes sense



    However, I don't think Apple will reduce their prices before 2007 - if you're lucky, they might keep their pricetags as they're now.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    dansgildansgil Posts: 62member
    Oops, typo. Sorry.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by M4hl3r

    .. OK. So the 2.00 GHz model is cheaper than the 1.83 GHz model - that makes sense



    However, I don't think Apple will reduce their prices before 2007 - if you're lucky, they might keep their pricetags as they're now.




  • Reply 34 of 44
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    You first state that the chip is not faster at all ("isn't a performance upgrade"). You then say it is a rather modest advantage, but actually refer not to the chip but the machine as a whole. You then claim that the chip's performance by itself is irrelevant for you anyway.



    Can you not see the problem here? If you want to argue that Intel-based Mac hardware doesn't have a huge advantage at one core over PowerPC-based Macs, fair enough, in the short run, that may be true. But then, almost all Intel-based Macs have two cores and generally have much better specs (a faster bus, SATA drives over PATA ones in most cases, etc.).



    Your claim regarding the chip, however, is entirely unsubstantiated, and you have so far refused to give any proof, citing that it wouldn't matter to you.




    I have used a Core Solo for some time and I can say my G4 mini seems faster. That is fact enough for me. If you don't have UB apps, I wouldn't waste my time on a Solo and would ride out the G4 a bit longer.



    However, the Duo, which I own, puts the G4 and Solo to shame (with 2 GB ram).



    Yeah, I think the poster is correct in saying if there is a performance increase, I couldn't see it and I would be hesitant to even say the Solo is faster than my G4 in Adobe.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aplnub

    I have used a Core Solo for some time and I can say my G4 mini seems faster. That is fact enough for me. If you don't have UB apps, I wouldn't waste my time on a Solo and would ride out the G4 a bit longer.



    However, the Duo, which I own, puts the G4 and Solo to shame (with 2 GB ram).



    Yeah, I think the poster is correct in saying if there is a performance increase, I couldn't see it and I would be hesitant to even say the Solo is faster than my G4 in Adobe.




    Here's the dilema. I'm trying to talk my dad into a mac. He currently uses a pc. The mini would be a nice choice as he could recycle the monitor and keyboard and save a few bucks. Which do I recommend? He's very price sensitive. No way I could get him into an iMac. To me it's sort of come down to a refurb g4 mini or the new mini with the core solo. To make matters more complicated, in another thread the issue of software avialbility for ppc has come up. If he could run iLife (iPhoto mostly maybe iMovie some day), pages and safari I think he would be happy. What to do?
  • Reply 36 of 44
    sport73sport73 Posts: 438member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    Here's the dilema. I'm trying to talk my dad into a mac. He currently uses a pc. The mini would be a nice choice as he could recycle the monitor and keyboard and save a few bucks. Which do I recommend? He's very price sensitive. No way I could get him into an iMac. To me it's sort of come down to a refurb g4 mini or the new mini with the core solo. To make matters more complicated, in another thread the issue of software avialbility for ppc has come up. If he could run iLife (iPhoto mostly maybe iMovie some day), pages and safari I think he would be happy. What to do?



    Get him RAM for the Mac Mini Solo and he'll be happy running iLife, iWork and Safari.



    OSX loves RAM.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by backtomac

    Here's the dilema. I'm trying to talk my dad into a mac. He currently uses a pc. The mini would be a nice choice as he could recycle the monitor and keyboard and save a few bucks. Which do I recommend? He's very price sensitive. No way I could get him into an iMac. To me it's sort of come down to a refurb g4 mini or the new mini with the core solo. To make matters more complicated, in another thread the issue of software avialbility for ppc has come up. If he could run iLife (iPhoto mostly maybe iMovie some day), pages and safari I think he would be happy. What to do?



    Don't throw money away on a G4 mini.



    Get the Duo with ram and really be happy. When my Duo had 512 mb ram, it was not usable. With 2 GB, it flies. Go Intel...
  • Reply 38 of 44
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aplnub

    Don't throw money away on a G4 mini.



    Get the Duo with ram and really be happy. When my Duo had 512 mb ram, it was not usable. With 2 GB, it flies. Go Intel...




    Is 2 gigs what you would recommend? That's a lotta ram.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    2 GB on such a low-end model is rather wasteful. 1 GB I can understand; 1.5 at most.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    dgmvwdgmvw Posts: 54member
    When are we going to get back dual layer DVD burning? That's a factor for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.