i6s1

Wow, these ibooks are pretty nice looking. I'm really tempted to get one of these instead of a Dell. You sure get a lot for $1500US.

500MHz G3
128 Ram
10 gig hd
Firewire
DVD
XGA
Ethernet
Modem
5 hour battery

http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=240
http://www.ibookzone.com

Flame suit goes on.

hapoo

compaired to the old ibook...yes
Compaired to a PC notebook...NO

1st beef: only a 12 inch screen, you should at least get a 13 or 14 inch.
2nd: 500mhz cpu
3rd: ITS A MAC

But i have to admit, i like that whole metal case look.

__________________

OC

We all know that Apple [cough]computers[/cough] make very nice paperweights. This one just happens to run $1500 or so.

-OC

__________________
But what is adulthood except a delayed end-run around our parents' better judgment?
-- Peter Egan

*cough*

LPMiller

oh I just love hardware snobs.

I think it looks cool, and is a step in the right direction.

__________________
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature

"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes

Memo

Yep, I think it looks cool. I love the "look" of macs. I wouldn't ever buy one. I'm a big game fan, they just dont' support games like they should. I think they like to cater to the small apple community and so they don't grow out as much. Oh well

xsiled

macs suck nuff said

OC

Eehh, well, not so much. Apples are the Yugos of the computer world. Competent? Yeah, sure. Desirable? Not on your life.

i6s1

OC:

I don't think there's a laptop out there that can do more for that price. So how would it be undesirable to get the most for your money?


Happo:

Good point about the screen size. But I was reading that the new Mac OS is designed so it's easy to resize things. None the less, I'd want to see it before I buy anything.

As for it only being 500MHz, that's a G3, and they're faster then P3s at the same clock speed. I was looking at a 700MHz Celeron, and I know the G3 would smoke it.



[Edited by i6s1 on 05-02-2001 at 12:03 AM]

hapoo

Then you must have also read about all the problems it has. As if Mac isn't lacking in the software department already they make an OS thats completely incompatable with the little software they already have.

Jeffbx

There's no argument that Apple has the best case design of any manufacturer. They absolutely rock. But don't buy the hype about the G3's being so much faster that Intel. When Apple began making that claim, turns out the only application that was true for was Adobe apps, notably Photoshop. This is because Adobe optimized the code for the Mac platform.

So if you're going to run Photoshop, then the Mac is the platform for you - it'll blow away the PC. If you want to run anything else, go with a PC platform.

paulc

Not criticizing, i6s1, if that's what you like, go for it. But before comparing it to a Dell, you may want to recheck prices. The Dell laptops I've seen in the last 2 months are very price competitive.

My laptop (Toshiba):
Celeron 650 (100MHz FSB "Coppermine-128" mobile Celeron)
192 RAM (upgraded from 64MB for $70)
20 gig hd
8X DVD
13.3" TFT 1024x768
10/100 Ethernet
56Kb/s Modem
MobileSavage/IX video
2.5 hour battery (3.5 hours at max power savings)

Mine has no firewire and a battery that only lasts 1/2 - 2/3 as long, but has a faster CPU and bigger (& nicer) screen for $100 less. The iBook also has a 66MHz FSB, which does cripple performance compared to the 100MHz FSB desktop G3s. The new iBook is probably a nice system if you need a Mac, but I don't.

__________________
Sys Specs: Dell Dimension 8250, P4 2.4GHz 533MHz FSB, 256MB PC1066, Radeon 9700 TX
Best $241 computer I ever bought.

Apex

Just a quick word of warning. The Titanium G4's 5+ hour battery will not last through a 2 hour DVD, even with 256mb of sdram (memory increases battery life).

LPMiller

I don't buy that clock for clock either, they it would smoke a celeron. They are nice computers, and OS X is already getting the improvements it needs - most of those wouldn't have effected the laptop anyway.

PC guys get lost in the clock race too - having used both, Macs don't need the faster clock to be useful, though certainly they need to get those speeds ramped up asap. And I agree, they are weak on the game side, always have been, but they have the best shareware games anywhere.

paulc

Hey, (news) chief , look at the specs on the iBook CPU. It's not a G4, which we know is fast, it's a G3. Not only that, it's a G3 slowed down with a 66MHz FSB (vs. the 100MHz FSB in iMac desktops and later G3 based Apple PCs). I'd be willing to bet almost *everything* runs faster on a Mobile Celeron 650MHz than a 500MHz G3 Mac, just because of the 150MHz clock speed difference, OS, lack of AltiVec, and shortage of memory bandwidth (33% less than a 100MHz FSB).

Maybe I shouldn't make it sound so harsh. A 500MHz G3 can like run every piece of Mac software at better than "good enough" speed. Does it matter if another computer is faster? Not really. That's why I said if the iBook is what original poster wanted, he should go for it. It's not a bad laptop. I'd just never buy one because I don't need a Mac.

[Edited by paulc on 05-02-2001 at 06:45 PM]

cruelpupet

I CANT STAND ALL YOU ANTI APPLE PEOPLE!!!!


A MAC is 100x more fun to overclock....


at 9.8 m/s^2 that is

__________________
Am I alone here? Is that it?
Am I the only one who sees.

Maybe we can learn to be just like him.
Wear a little uniform.
Yes, sir.
No, sir.
Thank you, sir.

xsiled

we have a mac lab at school and the first thing you notice when you walk in is that its smells bad and the closer you get to them the stink grows.

LPMiller

I just like hardware. If it uses electricity, I'm cool with it.

paulc

LPM: Geek! j/k

I do have a PowerMac 6500/225 at home, but it is rarely used. It was given to me by a friend who upgraded to a new Mac. I have OS8.1 installed on it, which is decent. I have used older MacOS versions from 6.x to 7.5 and 8.1 is a big improvement. I have the Mac and CodeWarrior, just to play around with. I can't imagine actually developing for the Mac, I've been spoiled too much by the Visual C++ and VB IDEs.

revil

that's not overclocking it! that's the speed it's been for years!

OC

You know, there's a perfectly practical reason why PC guys don't want a MAC, and vice-versa: I have lots of apps and games that a MAC simply won't run. I'm not about to replace my perfectly good PC hardware and software just to get a pretty case. I think this is true for the majority of us. (SKIMMERS PLEASE NOTE - I said MAJORITY, not ALL, so please don't tell me "not everyone feels that way" - my use of the word majority means that I already know that, k?) This, combined with the fact that most poeple stay inside their "comfort zones" is the reason we have this big divide between MAC and PC users.

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind having an iBook with a wireless LAN card to use as an internet / email terminal while I'm being a couch potato, but that's all I'd use it for. And I'd probably install Peanut Linux on it, but nevermind.

-OC

rcastillo

WinBook J1 P1G13 $1499.00

Intel® Pentium® III Processor 1 GHz
13.3" XGA Display
10 GB Ultra DMA Hard Drive
128 MB SDRAM
8x DVD-ROM Drive
Microsoft Windows Millennium
56k v.90 Internal Fax/Modem

--
rc

Rocket2Fun

pc lovers can be so lame
i love my p3, but hey i know that for graphics video cad pretty much everything high end the apple will kick my ass
the thing comes with the architecture of the powerPC chip
the Intel P's and the AMD Athalons are all based on a slower chip design. the main reason the speed is slower even when the mhz rise is that they compute a lot less memory at once
a PowerPC chip is based on RISC architecture, the risc architecture will allow more than 3 times as much information to be processed at one point in time
ok so now lets think about it
a 500mhz PowerPC because of RISC will process information faster than most intel/amd processors running at 900mhz
people look at the mhz's and automatically assume a higher number equals faster performance, as AMD lovers like to point out this is not true when comparing a 900mhz Athalon and a 1.4 ghz p4 the clock speed is not the final decision of the speed of the computer neither is the FSB nor the southbridge it comes down to how much a processor can compute at once

__________________
Kill the monkey!!!!

OC

Athalon? What's that?