How "fast" are Apple Powerbooks?

Hi, all.

How fast at typical applications (i.e., not video editing, etc.) is the 15.4" Powerbook? Is it thought to be slower/faster than, say, a typical Centrino laptop in the same form factor?

Thank you.

 

It should be approximately the same, maybe even faster because the Mac OS is much more stable than Windows. Don't compare the "megahertz" of the two systems..G4's are clocked lower than intel processors so don't worry about the numbers. I have never used a Mac that much, so I wouldn't really know, but this is what I have heard. Maybe a user who uses both can help us out?

 

its really hard to compare how fast somthing is doing normal apps. Its going to be fast enough so you cant tell if the mac or a pc is faster. IMO apples feel faster because it is much more simple to use.

 

My ibook G4 with 1.33 Ghz processor is pretty peppy, it multitasks like a dream (which is a major strong point with OS X). I can't totally compare it to my 5 year old desktop b/c of the 4200 rpm HD, but i would say that its at least on par with my AMD Athalon XP 1700+ processor that is in my 5 year old desktop.

And the new powerbooks have 5400 rpm HDD with ~1.7 ghz G4's, so they would run darn good. Plus they also have better screens now with higher resolutions, and standard superdrives (dvd burners).

And the OS X is MUCH more stable then windows xp. Haven't had any problems yet. Even if a program freezes up, it doesn't slow the whole system down, like windows will.

 

u can't really tell which is faster because each program, even at different OS's will run differently. some will run with more resources whhile others dont. but it will run decently.

i would say multitasking is really nice on a my ibook G41.33 512mb ram. i could handle more stuff than on my 2600+ sempron 512mb ram desktop running XP. a lot more stable too >_>

 

You know, I read and heard all this talk about how fast powerbooks are and how impossible and meaningless it is to compare powerbooks and G4 procesors performance with those of Intel based notebooks, etc. I even read some articles about the corresponding processors architecture in order to make my mind independently. This is where first doubts about the widely spread Mac propaganda claims came to my mind. Still I ordered 12" powerbook and played with it a week. I must say that I can't confirm no single claim: the OS was hanging and crashed several times in a week time (so that I was able to avoid rebooting only by using the Unix commands to kill processes explicitly), I had a feeling that 1.5GHz powerbook was slower (less responsive) than 1.6GHz Centrino notebook of my friend. I also did not like the default Mac look (it could be related to the low resolution display - so I understood I need a higher resolution for my multitasking habits), and I did not like the dim display. I liked the availability of Unix commands, some features of Mac OS, the look of the powerbook (but not its weight and format - not widescreen), and most of all the quality of the keyboard and the way it feels using it.

 

yeah i have to go with ivar,

I've got a friend who swears by her mac because she does graphic design (freehand, flash, photoshop, quark-x). I've used her Mac (17" eMac 1.4Ghz i think) and to me it feels slow. Now I''m on my desktop, AMD athlon 2500+ and this feels so much more responsive. not sure about the multitasking though.... didnt test that.

at the end of the day, everyone to himself, its rather subjective. The answer is "depends"

insane