iBooks Suck But Why?

Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/23/06 06:30 PM

I have came to found throughout my years as an apple user that ibooks suck. iBooks have all of the problems. Many iBooks have bad logic boards. iBook always get the short end of the stick when upgrades come out, they haven't gotten a video ram upgrade since 2002. The powerbooks get all of the good stuff and seem to have no poblems. Powerbooks a larger and faster hard drives, better video ram more video ram, bigger screens and much more.

Please add your opinion on this subject.
Posted by: iProd

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/23/06 07:19 PM

iBooks ARE consumer laptops...but, then again, so is the iMac, and look at it now shocked
Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/23/06 07:43 PM

The iMac went intel which makes it bad now. intel macs aren't really as much faster as the are advertised. The PPCs are 64 bit except the g4s but the intels aren't.
Posted by: shadowboxer47

What...? - 04/23/06 08:29 PM

Originally Posted By: "iBookdude458"
The iMac went intel which makes it bad now.

How does the switch to intel "make it bad now"? The intel transition made sense. Staying with the G5 would be pure idiocy. Big Blue is dead in the water with Apple.

Originally Posted By: "ibookdude458"
intel macs aren't really as much faster as the are advertised. The PPCs are 64 bit except the g4s but the intels aren't.

Question: have you even used an intel Mac yet? I mean, in real world use? I'm sorry, but there is no comparison. The new iMac blows my iMac G5 Rev B out of the water. Seriously. Virtually all head to head comparisons rate the Duo superior, despite the lack of 64 bit; while much touted, the 64 bit isn't used by the average consumer. Regardless, in a year you'll get the 64 bit back and much more.

As for the iBook, it's a consumer line. It's going to be inferior to the high end models.
Hopefully I'll be getting one at the end of the year, when intel releases its newer processors. I can't afford a Pro.
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/23/06 11:50 PM

That is because the Core Duo is usually compared with the single core G5 which is an older chip. Quite a bit older. The dual core G5s usually beat the Core Duos across the board.
Apple are doing a hell of a job of spinning the transition by claiming the 'vast' superiority of the Intel chips.
Truth is the AMD dual cores are way ahead of Intels. The reasons for the switch are supplies and supposedly price. All the Intel Macs have gone up in price from their predecessors so far though. Rumour has it that they are about to shave a couple hundred bucks off the cost price Core Duo based Macs in the near future due to Intel cutting prices on the chips themselves. Wonder if we'll see anything off the retail price when that happens. Doubt it.

Apple have had OS X running on x86 since it was first created. And they kept that secret until recently. Lets hope they have the sense to maintain build on future PowerPC chips in case they ever want to switch back again.
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 10:23 AM

What tests are you looking at, War? I'm not claiming that the statements made by Apple are 100% accurate, but the speed difference is still enormous. In a word, "vast" is appropriate in many cases. Check out Barefeats. Even the DC G5 still gets a run for its money.

Keep in mind that the comparison is also between the G4, a chip from the stone age. My mailman runs faster than the highend G4.

In regard to the comparable G5, you're not factoring in efficiency, such as heat, etc. The dual core G5 had/has no future in desktops and absolutely none in portables. You're forgetting that Jobs invested in intel primarilly for future use, even though the current line is still desirable.

Again, PowerPC chips are dead in the water. Any argument beyond that is FUD.

AMD has the lead for now, but comparable lineups show that in the near future the lead will be closed if not reversed.

As for price differences, we're in agreement. But I never heard a promise of cheaper computers on the commercial side from anybody from Apple. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Kisin

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 10:49 AM

It's a fact that intel is investing much more money than ibm in their consumer chips, I just wish ibm and motorola took the ppc a little more seriously to keep it in the cuutting edge; they didn't so apple switched... frown
My first iBook died due to condensation on the mobo, just yesterday we had a very humid day and my new ibook g4 got covered in moisture, i'm worried....
Posted by: macDeviant

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 11:02 AM

well so long as the pro apps are still emulated under rosetta. i will not seriously use a intel mac for anything but using the internet and word proccesing. it may be good emulation but it's still emulation, and i'll stick with my QUAD.

macDeviant
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 01:03 PM

Too right. The Quad still nukes practically anything else on the market.

In response to the argument about the G5 heat and power issues, I guess not everyone remembers the day after Apple announced the switch, IBM announced low power, dual core G5s with very similar heat and power figures to the Intel ones Steve was quoting. Sadly neither you nor I, nor anyone outside of Cupertino will ever get to see how quick they could run in a Mac.

I'm not saying the Core Duos are inferior to the PPCs used in previous Macs, but none of us gets to see how they compare to PPCs that would be in Macs if the switch hadn't occurred. AMD chips present and future, are held by many to be better than Intels, because the dual core variants are designed to be multi core from the ground up. The Intel ones are single core bolted together. Inter-core traffic on the Intels goes one way at a time via the FSB, the AMDs have a direct two way link. Maybe AMD would have charged more than Intel for their kit, or maybe its the chipsets and iPod chips which could also come from Intel which make the difference. I suspect bootcamp is the reason for the switch to x86, given the prices are yet to drop.

I know exactly what you mean by the speed differences. We have tested Intel Vs G5 iMacs on simple tasks like video encoding. The Intel was almost three times quicker. But it had faster RAM and an extra core, so hardly a fair test. Its also a much newer chip (and without double-checking my facts, is based on a newer architecture and a smaller manufacturing process). It should be obvious that the top end G5 is still superior to Intel offerings at the moment by the fact that Apple have yet to update the PowerMac. Traditionally, it has had all the newest, most powerful chips before all the other Macs get them.
The 970MP is also based on the larger 90nm process, but like I say they hold their own or beat the Core Duos in the real world.

http://applexnet.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1772

I have always thought that Windows has a much snappier UI than OS X in day to day usage. Its probably the one thing I have considered superior to X. Though I do like Minesweeper.

The G4 is getting very long in the tooth now though. But you still have to give respect to the Altivec unit. Great work indeed.

Maybe what we need is a multi-core CPU with one PPC core and one x86!
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: "macDeviant"
i'll stick with my QUAD.


You would be insane not to. Frankly, I can't wait for a decade to pass when it becomes cheap enough for me to buy one and tinker with it. Bwahahaha...


Until then, I am teh broke cry
Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 02:10 PM

Those of you who have switched to Intels this soon are traitors to a great chip and legacy. now macs and pcs share almost no difference. what happend to think different. Most in tel mac users are probably ex windows users that a are mac user want-a-bes. I've been using macs all my life ever since my dad gave me a IISi when i was 4.
Posted by: anil8tor

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 03:18 PM

Here here! iBookdude!
I wouldn't trade my G5 for all the intels in the world! (well ok maybe ALL of them) (so I could sell them and buy a few Quads!!!!! Ha...Ha...ha.....!)
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 04:12 PM

Originally Posted By: "iBookdude458"
Those of you who have switched to Intels this soon are traitors to a great chip and legacy. now macs and pcs share almost no difference. what happend to think different. Most in tel mac users are probably ex windows users that a are mac user want-a-bes. I've been using macs all my life ever since my dad gave me a IISi when i was 4.

I suppose that may be a fair estimation on your part.

But if you believe the Gx is what made the Mac different, then, with all due respect, you don't know what it is to be an Apple fan.

Have fun with your G5 in 2012!

(Oh, and just as a side note: I, for one, still think you're a traitor for going to the PowerPC processor and abandoning Apple's first love.)
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/24/06 11:49 PM

I wonder how may 68040s it would take to compete with a G5......
Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 09:26 AM

I still have My IIsi mac. it was my first. i'm going to set it up again to run old softwarelike The Zone. don't call me a traitor idestroy PCs for fun
Posted by: modyourmac

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 12:06 PM

Originally Posted By: "iBookdude458"
The powerbooks get all of the good stuff and seem to have no poblems.



Man, you've obviously never worked for an Apple service provider. Over the course of my experience, the long term durability of portable machines has always fallen to the iBook. The clamshells were encased in rubber. they were ugly, but indestructible. The white iBook G3's were again encased in plastic, and while not designed for frisbee, were pretty hard to kill. They were also a breeze to work on. So too with the iBook G4's. They were actually further refined by the eliminaton of the tray loading optical drive.

Powerbooks on the other hand, while bigger, faster, and prettier, do not wear as well. The titaniums had weak hinges, the paint would blister and peel off the top case, the inner frame was plastic, and the bottom case would bend and separate. They didnt have the long term durability of their predecessors.

the Aluminum machines, while better, still have their own host of problems. Aluminum scratches, bends and dents like plastic doesnt. the units involve a lot more screws in order to take apart, and typically take a drop horribly. 12" powerbooks have a host of problems all their own, which I wont get into, since they're service related problems. But suffice it to say, I repair them for a living, and I owned two 12" iBooks as my machine of preference, till the MacBook's shipped.

As to intel, I was dubious, but being the owner of a MacBook Pro, pardon me, Powerbook Evolution, I'm thoroughly pleased.

As always, just my two cents.
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 01:41 PM

There was a recent reliability survey published which confirms what Modyourmac says.

Most reliable laptop was the Lombard, closely followed by the Pismo.

The white iBooks are indeed very resilient except for their dodgy logic boards and reed switches. But those bits tend to fail if you drop them or not.
Posted by: modyourmac

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: "iBookdude458"
Those of you who have switched to Intels this soon are traitors to a great chip and legacy.



You'll pardon me, but I'm gonna take some offense to that. Lets review.

My first computer was an apple //e

My first Mac was a mac plus. My first PC was, oh wait, I never bought one.

I learned pagemaker when it was a mac only program from Aldus.

I have a 68LC040 processor hanging from the rear view mirror of my car.

I own 51 apple computer t-shirts. And I wear them too.

I college obsolete apple peripherals. Newtons, Quicktakes, The PowerCD.

I have worked for almost ten years as an apple certified desktop and portable tech. I do nothing but Mac all day long.

I passed my first desktop cert when there were still questions about localtalk, and mac classics in the exam.

Last time I checked, what truly defined the differences between a Mac and a PC happened to to be the OS as well as the hardware. You dont see me running windows.

Likewise, if I'm a traitor to a great legacy, and a great chip, which chip do you mean? the 68000 series from Motorola, or the PPC chips built by IBM. Or would it be the PPC chips currently manufactured by FreeScale? I currently own machines that have used all of them. I've repaired all of them, and I can take most all of them apart with my eyes closed.

Take note, I'm not a mac zealot. I encourage people to use whatever they like. HOWEVER. I do take pride in my profession, my skills, my career, and my lifetime loyalty to the Mac platform. I would suggest consider who you're calling a traitor, before doing so. You may bite off more than you can chew.

But of course, the whole thread is flamebait anyway. smile
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: "modyourmac"

Likewise, if I'm a traitor to a great legacy, and a great chip, which chip do you mean? the 68000 series from Motorola, or the PPC chips built by IBM. Or would it be the PPC chips currently manufactured by FreeScale?


Psha! Everybody knows that real Mac fans use only the 68000 and only traitors use IBM. IBM is teh corpor@te 3nemy!1!!1 68ooo 4 eva!!1!

Originally Posted By: "modyourmac"
Take note, I'm not a mac zealot. I encourage people to use whatever they like. HOWEVER. I do take pride in my profession, my skills, my career, and my lifetime loyalty to the Mac platform. I would suggest consider who you're calling a traitor, before doing so. You may bite off more than you can chew.


Well said.
Posted by: anil8tor

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 05:59 PM

I wonder how AMD got shut out of this? Having used intel and AMD chips for years, I would concider them to be superior and of lower cost. How long untill we see an AMD Mac?
Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 07:18 PM

I've got tons of apple stuff. I got ibook G3 G4. two IIsis, two 7600s two 7300s. iPod G5. Titanium G4 DVi. 2 G3 B&Ws. Guts from a mac SE30 which i found in the attic. An Apple II which i'm currently getting from a lab salvage. Apple II User Guide Signed by Steve Wozniak. And I got My picture taken with him. I have an apple frisbee, Macworld 94 expo boston shirt. The New Mac Pin from 94. Original Intallation disks from the first Mac ever made. The only Disney movies i like are made by the former apple company Pixar. I plan to get a powerbook g4 aluminum to replace my iBook G4. I plan to buy the new G5 Quadcore that is coming out at the end of the month in august. I repair my own machines out of warranty. I'm constantly fiddling with my machines software and hardware to make the faster. I almost cried on the day of the intel switch. My life is the computer. All i do is sit in front of my Laptop or ride my bike while listening to my iPod.

so i am a great Apple fan.
Posted by: modyourmac

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 07:36 PM

I've collected some good apple shwag over the years. I have a case cracking tool for the 512K/plus/classic macs (cant even get em from apple anymore), I managed to scrounge up one of the "crazy ones" t-shirts and then had it framed in a shadow box. I have one of the Ghandi Think Different posters, but I've got the only 3 foot by 6 foot one I've ever seen. I still I have my OSX Public Beta packet, I've scrounged a dozen or so of the old fabric banners that apple used to offer for in shop displays, and about 300 of those red "office party" coasters they gave out. We wont mention the collection of pens, notepads, binders, coffee mugs, lunchboxes, learn and earn pins, product professional certificates, keychains, ballcaps, lanyards, and other myriad shwag that the apple reps used to give out to the dealers. Boxes of it. Boxes!

Some day, I'll sell it all to red light runner, and missing bite, and use the proceeds to buy a houseboat or put my kids through college.

The most prized posessions are my four framed certs. my desktop and portable certificates from the old days, and my two same from recent.

As far as collected machines, I'm not gonna put the list here. but I will say that there are currently 27 machines in the house, all of which are fully functional, even if they're not all used. smile

Yeah, I think we've established a rather large level of mac dork in this thread.
Posted by: iBookdude458

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/25/06 07:55 PM

cool man but i still think that my signed Apple II User Guide is pretty bitchen
Posted by: Kisin

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 11:15 AM

I believe we all love the mac because it is different. the look and feel, the ease of use, te reliability... all these are characteristics that make te mac special. I believe the PPC chip was another characteristic that diferentiated the mac from a world of clones... I'm not against progress and trying new things (after all innovation is also a mac trait) but I do believe that there are better options than the intel processors. It's also sad that the gap between a pc and a mac is closing... windoze in a mac? natively? that might keep a lot of newbies from even giving a shot to OS X!!!

just a tought...
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
I believe we all love the mac because it is different. the look and feel, the ease of use, te reliability... all these are characteristics that make te mac special. I believe the PPC chip was another characteristic that diferentiated the mac from a world of clones... I'm not against progress and trying new things (after all innovation is also a mac trait) but I do believe that there are better options than the intel processors.

Aside from AMD, which doesn't have the production power to keep up with an ever-growing Apple, what else is there? Remember, Big Blue is dead in the water.

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
It's also sad that the gap between a pc and a mac is closing... windoze in a mac? natively? that might keep a lot of newbies from even giving a shot to OS X!!!

I'm going to have to call FUD on this one. We all know Bootcamp is simply a prelude to bigger, better things.

We also have to realize that people use Windows. Now I don't have to point out the superiority of OS X against Windows; they can see for themselves.

If you truly believe in the superiority of the Apple platform, you will have nothing to fear. Besides, do you think people will spend all that extra money for a Mac and then not even give OS X a shot? Not going to happen, as you have to manually install Windows and are forced into OSX until then.
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 03:46 PM

Why such certainty that "Big Blue is dead in the water"?
Posted by: Kisin

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 04:22 PM

yeah shadow, please elaborate on big blue. I hear you about bootcamp, mac will become stronger and bigger in the future (at least I hope so) but there'll also be the dumb who prefer tocontinue using windozo on their pretty macs instead of learning the weird (to them) osx. lets also hope apple doesn't sell out (the first sign being, please correct me if im wrong, they dropped the firewire on the new ipods, including the video, giving us a way slower uploads in a more expensive ipod), and they start shipping crappy products.

I love mac and i wanna keep loving it!

edit: don't even ask ibookdude about crappy products! lol
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
yeah shadow, please elaborate on big blue.

Sure. Only if you can elaborate how Big Blue, with its current production plan can succeed with Apple, particularly in the laptop market. Once you do that, I'll explain why Big Blue, for Apple, is dead in the water. No speculation please. wink

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
I hear you about bootcamp, mac will become stronger and bigger in the future (at least I hope so) but there'll also be the dumb who prefer tocontinue using windozo on their pretty macs instead of learning the weird (to them) osx.

Several points on this. First, if this unlikely scenario were to come to pass, it would only help Apple sales. Since said retard's mentality is obviously predisposed toward Windows, no matter what Microsoft gains a sale. Why not throw in an Apple sale with it? Second, people are going to use Windows; more importantly, despite the drivel from our own front, there are actually people who like Windows. Let them use it. Who cares? If I tried to educate every Windows user that came my way I would never have peace.

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
lets also hope apple doesn't sell out (the first sign being, please correct me if im wrong, they dropped the firewire on the new ipods, including the video, giving us a way slower uploads in a more expensive ipod), and they start shipping crappy products.

With Steve Jobs and his current development team, it will be a cold day in hell before Apple "sells out". Apple is maneuvering to retake significant market share. In order to do so, it had to change. These changes will make Apple a much better company. Second, Apple is NOT dropping firewire; this is purely FUD. Case in point is the new MacBook Pro 17", which includes both a 400 and 800 port. You can still get firewire on your iPod, except it's no longer stock. Remember, most people who use the iPod do NOT have a Mac and most consumer lines sadly don't carry Firewire.

Cheers!
Posted by: Kisin

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 08:14 PM

most enlightening, thanks shadow!
Posted by: shadowboxer47

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/26/06 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: "kisin"
most enlightening, thanks shadow!


No problem. wink
Posted by: modyourmac

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/27/06 09:47 AM

[censored], you make number two look better than number one. Now, your primary processor supplier hasnt hit their numbers consistently, they've missed their roadmap, they're not producing in a decent quantity, and they're making you look bad. You need to step up and shine it on by picking a new processor to be the core of your hardware. Do you pick the first string player, who you know can deliver, or the second string player, hoping they can step up?

When your business, your hardware, your company's future, and the employment of all your people, hang in the balance, you dont bet on good enough. You call Paul Otellini, and say, "Paul? Steve. Lets move on this. It'll be good for both our companies." Then, once the little people have worked out the details, you get together and sign the contracts over latte's and biscotti.

So yeah, thats how I see it, course, I'm always subject to being wrong. But, had I been in steve's position, I probably would have done the same thing. Course, I also would have cashed out some of his stock to buy a Maserati MC12, but thats again, all me smile
Posted by: Kisin

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/27/06 04:47 PM

Is there any possibility apple might ever start developing chips?
IBM is a computer builder and also develops processors....
why doesn't apple?
Posted by: modyourmac

iBooks Suck But Why? - 04/28/06 07:33 AM

Apple will probably never get into the chip market for the same reason they and microsoft, for that matter, wouldnt get into the car market. It would involve millions in developing research, and manufacturing infrastructures to develop a freshman product for a mature market that already has primary players. In short, they'd spend a lot of money getting their foot in the door, with minimal projected return.

Case in point. The Xbox. MS wanted to get into the console market and dominate it. But, they had Sony, Nintendo, and Sega to go against. Due to many issues, Sega got out of hardware. Sony played their cards right, and rose to the top. Nintendo sticks to their core market, and always does well. MS put out a relatively decent competitor and threw it into the mix. The unfortunate reality is that in order to get their product into the top 3, they've to date, never made a profit on the Xbox.

Back when I worked in the industry, around 2001, it was projected that for MS to make money off the system, they'd have to sell everyone in america an Xbox, a second controller, and 30 games. Very few companies have the financial resources to take a 5 year loss, measured in millions, just to secure footing in a market that they're entirely new to. Using that as a reference, Apple would be looked upon as foolhardy if they tried to get into the chip market. They'd most likely take substantial financial losses just to secure a foothold, with no guarantee on any kind of return, break-even or otherwise.

So no, pretty sure apple wont get into chips. smile
Posted by: Mikeyullinger

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 08/16/06 09:31 AM

I must admit that i take offense to the ideas of G3's being ice-age, monolithic, idiotic cavemen of the processors. I use an ibook clamshell as my main machine for school and it works wonderfully in 10.2. It just goes to show that seemingly obselete computers are still very productive members of society. I have no plans to switch or even upgrade to anything above this clamshell for many years. Probably not till i leave for college in two years. This computer serves me very well and i'd expect that the G4's and G5's out there serve their owners VERY well. I see no need why everyone needs to switch to Intel macs if their PPC is doing just fine. Then again, I'm one of those people who can be satisfied with out being bigger or better  ;D
Posted by: modyourmac

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 08/16/06 09:43 AM

Well, there's several things to consider therein.

Firstly and most importantly, is the ability to repair a machine. When Apple marks something vintage, I nor any other service provider can order parts for said machine. That leaves only chop shop parts, which can be questionable. When Apple marks something vintage, I tend to move it out of my workflow, if its something I depend on. If its a play machine, then I dont worry so much.  Of course, this is not to say that older machines are bad, far from it. I still own and use my color classic, as well as my G4 cube (went vintage last month)

As far as upgrading to the new machines, thats a personal/professional choice. Will it benefit your workflow, make you mor productive, and allow you to enjoy your computing experience more? Possibly. Its a call every user has to make for themselves. For some of us, our daily lives are spent on the front line of such things. My job is to know everything thats new, current, and old. Therefore, an intel machine made perfect sense. Thinking about it as I write this, I realize I've been using my MacBook Pro for several months, and I havent really noticed any differentiation in the Mac User Experience, other than this unit boots windows and does certain things very fast. Other than that, Its still a mac, processor regardless.

So, with all of that in mind, if you're happy with older stuff, enjoy, rock on, et al. If you want the newness, same answer. Eventually all thats new, becomes old, and all thats old, becomes retro. But you'll never get me to use a beige G3 again  smile
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/02/06 11:07 AM

The Cube has gone vintage?????!!!!!!! Damn, I had spotted that.
Posted by: maestro

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/26/06 06:26 AM

Wow, the cpu pissing contest emerges.  Funny, I felt the same way before the transfer to intel.  I could spend the next ten minutes writing why its good that Apple has changed, but we all have heard it before.  Fact of the matter is, the intels are faster than the ibm chips and by a considerable amount.  The core 2 duo chips are the fastest consumer cpus on the planet.  The xeons are better yet.  If you are interested in seeing some "real" benchies, head over to http://www.barefeats.com.  You will see that the xeon PMs are as fast or faster than the quad G5s and yes, even using Rosetta.

Previous comments about the Books are ones that I agree with.  The iBook are consumer models and the Pros are Pro models.  Yeah, the iBooks have had some issues, but many of them can be fixed if you know what you are doing.  I have owned one iBook (clamshell) and I own four Powerbooks.  I loved them all.  Chances are I will buy a Macbook cuz they are cheaper and most of the Pro options I dont really need on the road.  Pretty cool that the consumer model Book has two processors!
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/26/06 08:59 AM

The extra features of the MBP just don't justify the price jump.
Posted by: maestro

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/26/06 09:08 AM

Lets take a look at that 900 dollar price jump.
Much better video card
DVD burner
Bigger, Higher Rez LCD
Card slot
Bigger hard drive
Light sensing keyboard and screen
Faster Processor
More stylish, thinner case

Looks like 900 bucks of upgrades to me.  There is probably more to it than meets the eye too.
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/26/06 01:17 PM

Lets look at them another way:

Better branded video card (The Intel 950 is not actually as bad as everyone assumes. especially on OpenGL. I know the ATI is still better though)
DVD Burner should really be standard on all Macs by now. It would probably cost Apple less to do that than offer combos too)
Bigger screen I can't really argue with
Card slot is good, but still not so much available for it yet
Hard drive is a $50 upgrade from Apple
Keyboard I'll give you too,
Faster CPU will be a negligible difference to 95% of people 100% of the time and 99.9% of people for 90% of the time.
Style is a matter of choice, and lets face it, the MBP is an Aluminium PowerBook with too much bezel around the LCD. Apple really should have had more of a revamp. The design is essentially 3 and a half years old now. The Titanium which made every other laptop on the market look like a brick, ran for less than 3 years.

If you compare the mid range MacBook with the HD upgrade to the entry level MBP, you are paying $650 for a slightly larger screen, a slightly better graphics card and a glow in the dark keyboard. This is hard to justify unless its a business machine for a creative pro.
Apple fails to address the fact that some people want a wireless laptop which does music, email, DVD, and web and thats all. Not so many people can justify that (me included - I can afford a MacBook to replace my old Lombard, or even an MBP but I just don't need it. I have borrowed a G4 iBook until I finish building an old TiBook 667 out of spares)
Don't get me wrong, the luxuries that Apple includes are great, but for many they are still overkill. And the MB and MBP are too close in spec to justify the difference. Remember there are other manufacturers selling 15.4" laptops for plenty less than a MacBook. I know the OS will suck, but thats hardly the point.

Apple are slipping on the hardware front. They used to get things first (or at least use them first). Superdrives, ethernet, wireless were all things which Apple pushed before the competition. Take your backlit keyboard. I love these, but they aren't rocket science, they aren't state-of-the-art, and I can't imagine they cost too much to make. This is the sort of thing which should be standard across the range, since its a very useful feature. I expect more students and MacBook users would use it than pros.
They used to offer bigger drives quite quick when they become available too.
(FYI, if you fit a 7200rpm drive to a MacBook, it will void your warranty. Got that straight from Apple technical.) They won't adopt the new 750GB drives until the Intel Xserve starts shipping.

This has degenerated into a rant. I'm going to stop now.
Posted by: maestro

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/26/06 05:30 PM

I agree with you War, for the most part.  Apple does need to speed up their updates.  The 750gb Seagates have some pretty serious speed issues right now, especially on Macs.  I believe the reason for the wait on the c2o books is that Ati just announced their new protable gpus.  The MacBooks are not Pro models and they are for are for everyone else.  Hence 7200 is a bad idea....they suffer from some heat issues already.  I did use one today at school and I must say the new keyboard sux, in IMHO.  I would by the Pro just for that.  But, just because people want the Pro models doesnt mean they need them, as you said.  But many Mac users are pros.  Getting more than you need is good too, as no one wants a obsolete computer.  It causes problems other than damaged egos.
Posted by: Waragainstsleep

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/27/06 04:26 PM

I know Apple has a certain thing about not being too cheap, but I thought the Intel transition was supposed to make Macs cheaper. The first batches all went up in price, the entry level MacBooks still cost more than the 12" iBook used to. The iMacs are probably best value right now, but even they are not the cheapest they've ever been.
Posted by: billan

Re: iBooks Suck But Why? - 09/27/06 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: "iBookdude458 "

I have came to found throughout my years as an apple user that ibooks suck. iBooks have all of the problems. Many iBooks have bad logic boards. iBook always get the short end of the stick when upgrades come out, they haven't gotten a video ram upgrade since 2002. The powerbooks get all of the good stuff and seem to have no poblems. Powerbooks a larger and faster hard drives, better video ram more video ram, bigger screens and much more.

Please add your opinion on this subject.


Ummm. The Powerbooks are for the rich, the ibooks for the poor j/k.

I believe most people who buy powerbooks buy them just to be cooler then the ibook crowd, I have seen about half the folks with powerbooks not really use them as powerful tools but coffee shop paperweights.

Now don't get me wrong, if you can afford it then it's all good but I don't think anyone should diss you just because you have a slower computer. If you were really into the Apple logic then speed doesn't matter, it's all about creativity.

Now I know there are some hardcore, shake, motion, finalcut pro users out there but don't you think that they would be gearing it all up with a Quad G5 or some super fast Mac desktop rather then a barely adequate powerbook?

Powerbooks are cool but they aren't faster then desktops, so Teapots should stop calling the Kettle black, cause we are all in the same boat, relatively.

I still love the ibooks and the "vintage" machines but I don't do a whole lot of hardcore graphics or video, other then building a few simple websites a day and editting a short occasionally. I also have a powerbook but I have found for the most part that having a superduper laptop doesn't make you cool, it just breaks your bank.

Eventually I will get a new mactel but for now I would rather occasionally surf the web and write, maybe make a website or two with my acient G4 PB and my favorite G3 ibook.

I always believe that creativity has nothing to do with your CPU, it is the end user that creates.  :compute: