laptop

[piotr]

Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone has any good suggestions on which laptop to purchase for doing Photoshop, Flash and Illustrator? I'm looking at the 15" powermac G4 from Apple right now. Anyone one have any experience with using Apple Laptops for quality digital media?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/W ... 1.1.0?40,8


I'm looking for one near $2,500, but it's a lot of money so I'm wondering if it's worth it.

[Gabriel Valles]

For that kind of money you can get a really high end Windows laptop. I'm sure you can find one with a 17 inch monitor for that price. The only advantage you get with a Mac is style. But you can find some nice looking Windows laptops too. I have an AMD 1800 + Athalon laptop with 512 ram and I can run any software including Photoshop and Maya. I've worked cofortably with large files as high as 1200 dpi. Your money will go a lot farther if you steer away from the mac. Try a Dell, HP, Compaq, or Toshiba they all seem reliable. I have an HP by the way. Also look for sales and rebates you can save a lot that way.

[piotr]

No thanks man, I've worked with windows long enough, but thanks for your entusiasm.

[HellboyOne]

The bigger the monitor, the better. 15 seems way small for the kind of stuff you wanna do.

[piotr]

You think it's too small?

17in would be nice, but it's a lot more mulla.

I'm going to try and make a descision soon.

Does anyone have a powerbook g4 now?

[BlueHarp411]

Rick you know after seeing Paul's 17 inch monitor on his laptop that does seem the way to go if you can afford it.

Jill

[tylerdurden]

I've had PowerBooks in the past, and I use and sell them at work. As much as I love Mac OS X and how well Adobe and Macromedia programs work with the OS, I have recently been rather disappointed with the (internal) hardware component choice and cost to buy. In comparison to what can be had with the same amount of money on the Intel or Athlon side, I have to agree with Gabriel that you can get a longer lasting, much higher-end machine on the Windows side. Also, keep in mind that the G4 processor is technically two generations behind now that Apple has announced that Intel is now their hardware provider. I reckon next year an Apple PowerBook and an Intel-based Windows laptop will be more evenly matched, but, for the moment, I can hardly recommend the PowerBook knowing how much farther your dollar can take you elsewhere.
PS: A 17" laptop is good only if you don't plan on moving it very often. It's not worth the extra bulk and weight if you take your machine with you everywhere (the 17" PowerBook, for example, is well known for cramping your seat space if you fly coach on an airliner). 15" is probably more than fine, and less expensive.

[Gabriel Valles]

Good point Tyler. If you need the laptop to be as moblie as possible get the 15 inch. But, if you will be spending long hours on it go for the 17". it will save you a little bit of time and aggrivation from scrolling and moving menues out of your way. most people I know who have a 17" use it as a desktop replacement so portability is not as big an issue.

On another note, Macs are more common in grapic design and print and PC's more common in multimedia, web, animation, and video games. I guess this should factor into your decision as well. I've had problems reviewing portfolios on CD created in Macs. and sharing files is not always as smooth as it should be.

Good luck!

[metalusion]

good god, don't buy a mac laptop now when steve jobs himself has publicly announced that apple will dump the power pc chip for the faster and cooler running "intel" chips. you will be left high and dry for future applications. unless you want that
the new intel/macs will be shipping next year, they will be faster and run cooler
if you're going to pay premium for the mac at least pay premium without being kicked in the a** after the sale.

i know plenty of people in the graphics industry using windows machines. it's not just mac anymore. there are programs that allow a pc to read any mac disc/drive, ipod, etc. like "macdrive" costs about 60 bucks.

the line between windows and macs is really starting to blur. the only issue of concern is if you do alot of surfing and don't want to get a virus, a user can set up an account that doesn't give a virus permission to take over. ie: limited accounts.

just little things like that will allow you to pay less for the same level mac, or the same for a higher level pc, and you have the added bonus of being able to use the 90 percent of applications/hardware that's out there that a mac platform won't allow you to use.

time will tell if the new macs will let people install "dual operating systems" on their machines. that would be cool. but your won't have that option either if you buy now.

[tylerdurden]

Well, Metalusion, there are a few things I think you left out of your opinion that I think is important information regarding the the Mac/PC choice (warning: impending techo-babble style rant):
1.) Yes, when the PowerBooks start running on Pentium M CPU's, they will be faster, but not necessarily cooler. The PowerPC processors and the Pentium's actually have similar heat and power envelopes the engineers have to work within, so there should be no heat difference between current PowerBooks and anything released in the future. Anyway, it's a moot point since the only "uncomfortably hot" laptops are based off of Pentium 4's, in which current generation CPU's hit 50 degrees Celsius under idle conditions (about 120-125 degrees Farenheit), much hotter than the fastest G4 or Pentium M under load.
2.) Users who buy current generation G4 or G5 systems are guaranteed by Apple that their systems will be supported under OS X for at least the next three years, thanks to the Rosetta translation technology developed to make the full transition to Intel hardware. Frankly, I think they may even take that beyond three years, considering Mac OS X still supports the ancient G3 processors (provided you have enough RAM and disk space). Hardware transitions don't happen overnight, and Apple knows this.
3.) The graphics industry was never "just Mac". Heck, I had to learn and do all of my 3DSMax work in school because I coudn't run it on my Mac at home. Most of the major apps people use at this point are Mac and PC compatible, and have been for several years. It's a misconception that Mac's were any better than PC's in the first place, let alone dominant in any one particular industry (it's kind of hard to when only 2% of all machines in current use are Apple).
4.) There should never be a reason for a CD, external hard drive, or any current form of media that shouldn't be Mac/PC compatible, unless somebody purposely formatted and loaded on the Mac OS in the first place. These devices have little to no formatting in the first place, so you should have no problem porting a file from one to the other. If you're referring to floppy disks, that's a non-issue. All Mac's 6 years and newer never came with a floppy drive, and many PC producers (including the likes of Dell and IBM) are no longer delivering their laptops and many of their desktops with floppy drives. There's no reason to have them anymore, especially when a CD costs less per disc and holds 600 times the information.
5.) Windows XP is prone to viruses for 2 reasons: a.) 95% of active machines worldwide run Windows, and, therefore, it makes more sense to write malicious code to affect the majority; b.) Windows 98 and later was designed for closed-networks that didn't have outside internet access. I remember the days when the only way to get a virus was to bring an outside floppy disk already infected with a virus and put it on every machine you could get your hands on, but now Windows users are open game the instant you go online. Yes, currently buying a Mac is the easy way out of the virus-ridden world of online computing, but that doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility of viruses that attack Mac users. Antivirus programs are available for Mac, but I think that it's silly to believe that buying a Mac is a guarantee of being virus free.
6.) Cost for production varies by vendor. Yes, high end Mac's are expensive, but so are high end PC's. Saying that compatibility and component choice is the reason for the inexpensive Window's-based computers is only part of the answer (that, and I regard those who say that Mac's can't run 90% of the software out the same way I think of how CNet won't ever recommend an Apple computer because "it doesn't run your existing Window's software": it's a given that a system using one language to operate won't run natively programs written in an entirely different language...how do you think people feel when I tell them, "No, Final Cut Pro only work's on a Mac..."?). Unbeknownst to most computer users, Dell, IBM, Apple, Compaq/HP, and Gateway get many of their components from the same manufacturers, believe it or not. Build quality and quality of service is also a major factor towards cost. For example, why would anyone spend $4000 dollars on an Alienware or Voodoo computer when a $2500 Dell would do? Honestly, it's the quality of the overall system that they charge for, and it's what choosy PC geeks are willing to pay for. I build my own Window's systems, and I can appreciate how the more costly PC makers take the time and care to build their systems properly versus the crap that Dell pushes out of the back-end of their factory. Apple is the same way. Crack open a Dell and a Apple system, put them side by side, and you'll notice a world of difference in build quality.
7.) When it comes to running Windows on a Mac, yes, buying now would be shooting yourself in the foot, since even the fastest of PowerPC's runs Windows (under Virtual PC, that is) like a seven year old Pentium III. That, and it's a resource hog to keep it working. The coming of Intel inside Mac systems hails the end of the lag (lets face it, Intel isn't going to fabricate a processor just for Steve Jobs, and Pentium processors aready have the instructions in their execution cores to run Windows without a hitch), it's just a matter of HOW it's going to run (whether via Virtual PC or a separate boot volume). Apple PR speak says that they won't prevent people from running Windows on an Intel-based Apple system. Sneaky developers are leaking the fact that they've gotten Windows running on their Intel developers kits (no surprise there; I've seen pictures of these kits, and it's nothing but an Intel-brand motherboard and processor. I'm willing to think that these kits are far from the final product, but who knows). Take a wait-and-see stance if running both OS'es under the same roof is your goal. I know it's mine...

[metalusion]

from thils article"
http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/ ... t_aint_so/

"Many of the prognosticators appear to be correct. Very correct. Dvorak. Thurrott. The Wall Street Journal. They got right what Apple Insider and Think Secrect did not. Apple is switching from IBM?s speedy, powerful, and incredibly HOT PowerPC chips, to a new breed of chip manufactured by half the Wintel juggernaut, to go Intel Inside."
and
"The ?Intel Inside? secret has been announced numerous times in recent years, particularly as IBM failed to produce chips at speeds, quantities, and sufficiently cool to handle Apple?s requirements. In recent months, the rumors began circulating again."

so the intel chips are hotter than power pc chips, but apple is going to go with intel because the power pc couldn't meet cooling requirements, that's why apple decided to move over to the hotter intel chip......something doesn't make sense?

i'm not versed in any technical jargon so i won't even try, but if the ******answer****** is the intel chip......draw your own conclusion.

Rosetta translation? wouldn't that just be a fancy term for "emulation"? although it may work, you would most likely be taking a big performance hit. a performance hit for graphics programs like painter,photoshop etc is not a good idea. to me, that's the same as being left out in the cold. the promise to support a dying os for the next three years is like the game industry promising to continue to make games for old systems. not cutting edge and if so, far and few between.

"There should never be a reason for a CD, external hard drive, or any current form of media that shouldn't be Mac/PC compatible, unless somebody purposely formatted and loaded on the Mac OS in the first place."

for whatever reason, apple makes us choose between a "mac" ipod or a "pc" ipod.
maybe it's just the way it is. i think hard drives have to be formatted for one or the other as well. so it's probably not apple's fault. well maybe it is the fault of both apple and pc industries that make one technology not compatible with the other. i'm not that technical.

as for viruses,
firefox will solve most problems.
make sure you log on as a "limited" user, not "admin" when surfing the net.
use "admin" account only to install/uninstal programs and change system settings.

don't take any of my ramblings to be anti mac, though i've been burned twice(newton, 1st generation power pc with nubus). i think apple makes an elegant interface, as well as design. all this hoopla about shaving scant seconds off of benchmarks is fun to look at and brag about but in the real world a top performing machine is sweet no matter what brand you buy.

actually i think my next machine may have an athlon64 chip in it

[tylerdurden]

Metalusion:

"so the intel chips are hotter than power pc chips, but apple is going to go with intel because the power pc couldn't meet cooling requirements, that's why apple decided to move over to the hotter intel chip......something doesn't make sense?"

Let me rephrase and re-emphasize: Pentium M and PPC G4 processors run at the same idle/load temperatures. There will be no difference in operating temperatures between a current G4 and a future Pentium M PowerBook. A G5 PowerBook was not produced for the same reason why very few Pentium 4 laptops are produced these days: the CPU's were just too damn hot for comfort.

"Rosetta translation? wouldn't that just be a fancy term for "emulation"?"

Yes and no. Rosetta not only translates PPC designed code to run on Intel hardware, and vice versa, but it also allows for programmers to change their code into software that Intel hardware can understand. Emulation only come in when you run PPC software on new Intel/Apple hardware. In fact, the PPC version of Mac OS 10.5 will be Rosetta-free because there's nothing for it to translate.

"although it may work, you would most likely be taking a big performance hit. a performance hit for graphics programs like painter,photoshop etc is not a good idea. to me, that's the same as being left out in the cold."

Mac OS X runs on a FreeBSD Unix kernel, which is known to work well on Intel hardware, so there's little translation for Rosetta to do, and therefore, it uses few system resources. For those who use PPC-based programs now, developers report that moving to Intel/Apple hardware with your current sofware should be seamless, and any performance difference should be unnoticeable (read: we're talking a few seconds here and there to render something in Photoshop); Photoshop CS2 for Mac, for example, is currently running at 85% of the speed of a Dual 2.7GHz G5 (Apple's fastest) on the provided developer's kit (a single 3.2 GHz, Intel's mid-range). Also, Mac OS X 10.5 will be released in Intel and PPC versions, and new programs designed for both will be marked as such (I imagine a scan run from the CD installer will detect hardware and make the proper installation, just as many Windows apps can do).

"the promise to support a dying os for the next three years is like the game industry promising to continue to make games for old systems. not cutting edge and if so, far and few between."

True, but welcome to the world of technology. If you want to stay on top, you got to have the cash up front and ready to burn. Either that, or you have to be satisfied that, eventually, some other gizmo or dodad will be made and it will do everything better and you're stuck with whatever you've got.

"for whatever reason, apple makes us choose between a "mac" ipod or a "pc" ipod.
maybe it's just the way it is. i think hard drives have to be formatted for one or the other as well. so it's probably not apple's fault. well maybe it is the fault of both apple and pc industries that make one technology not compatible with the other. i'm not that technical.'

The Apple iPod, as with any new hard drive, has little to no formatting on it besides simple instructions to make it appear on the system. In order for certain levels of functionality, you may have to format at some point. Window's forces the iPod to run a FAT32 base system in order to work properly, but a Mac doesn't seem to care what format the iPod uses, from what I've seen. A hard drive, CD, DVD, etc., should work on any operating system you put it on, so long as the contents are of some universal format (i.e.: Word documents, MP3, JPEG, Photoshop files).

Regardless of all of this back and forth, it all comes down to this: If I were to suggest a machine, I would put a hold on buying any new Mac unless you absolutely have to have a Mac now, consequences be damned. If I were going to suggest a what laptop to buy now, with OS preferences aside, I'd go with a Pentium M based laptop. The technology is fresh and stable enough, there's a good enough selection of hardware out there to make a proper dollar/performance/quality balance, and there's no looming technology update in the near future, nor competing technology for that matter, that I would think that would scare you away from buying something right now. As for a desktop, go Athlon 64. You won't be sorry.