iBook

[Homer]

Am thinking about taking the plunge into the world of Apples and was wondering if anyone had good/bad experiences with them that they would be willing to share?

[Frasier Fan]

Hi Homer,

I've had an iBook since September 2001 and it has served me well to this very day. If you are looking for something for the web, email, word processing, the occasional game, listening to music etc. then you can't go wrong with an iBook. The best things about them are their ease of use, reliability and battery life (I usually get between 3.5 to 4.5 hours).

However, if you think you need something more powerful and/or chic, look at the 12-inch Powerbook, as it has a 1.33 GHz processor and built in Bluetooth and Airport Extreme. They start at £988.18 at the online education store.

Hope this helps!

[Homer]

It certainly does help, thanks FF. One more question, would it cost much to get a 'Word' program for Macs such as the Gatty computer room used to have.
Otherwise, how could I save my essays etcetera to run off on a uni PC?

[dunno]

homer

You can buy Office for the Mac and I think it is quite expensive. But it is cheaper to buy the individual programs (like word etc) and you get a discount if you are student. Check out the shop at the UK section of the Apple web site.

[Pilmour Boy]

The student version of MS Office for the Mac costs about £110, and a brand new version was released last week.

[Homer]

VAIO's are pretty-but damn expensive!

Plus for digital video and photography the Mac I believe is beter-but, obviously these things are subjective.

An iBook G4 is just a more cost-effective solution (I hope) to me needing something a bit more portable than my 15 inch PC laptop, which has good digital video capabilities.

Bugger, am I really going to need to spend 110 quid on Word for Mac? It just doesn't seem right spending that much on software. Ah well thanks for the advice-it has been of great assistance.

[Guest]

[s]dunqn wrote on 23:23, 17th May 2004:
No! Don't get a mac. If you want something small and attractive, get one of these:


Sony Vaio/iBook same difference...

Alternatively pick something that is worth what you pay for it and your not just paying for the name.

Shop around and you can get a great laptop for around 700 pounds that will outperform the lower end models of those series'.

Alternatively if you have over a grand to spare you could buy a cheaper laptop and have a holiday, or not have as much student debt. After all, all laptops depreciate fairly swiftly after a couple of years so you're better getting something cheaper and being able to afford to update when the time comes.

[Guest]

Don't get a Vaio!!!!!!
I have a Vaio desktop and they're prone to totally fucking up when you least expect it. Furthermore, the customer realtions office is situated in Ireland and they are a total pain in the arse to deal with. Also if you need your computer repared, they send it to FRANCE! Anyway i think you get the picture. I'd say your best bet is an iBook.

[devilzchild]

I've had my ibook for a year and a half. It has crashed once! I use it for all my studies, games, recording music, programming in Java, Cocoa etc and a lot besides. Because OS X is based on a unix platform it is reliable, secure but also very easy to use.

The are very sturdy little things, my battery still lasts for five hours. I had issues with the logic board but apple were quite happy to fix it for free.

So they are good looking, reliable, sturdy, easy to use and definite value for money.

Any idiot that says don't buy one because you can't play games on it - if you want to play games, save yourself several hundered of quid and buy a Playstation!!!!!

[Guest]

i'm on my ibook right now and i really love it. quick, simple, and cheap. and a lot more reliable than a PC laptop. getting a comparable sony or dell or anything will be a lore more expensive. get an ibook with the warranty. it's not that much more, and you'll wish u had it if something happens

[TheGamesMaster]

Here's info about the latest version of Office for the Mac.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20 ... _mac_2004/

Also on a side note the student edition of office for windows is about the same price as the student edition for the mac (assuming you buy them).

While it's true that games don't come out for the mac or if they do they tend to be more expensive. It is also true that when you buy some games you get both the windows and mac versions (like Warcraft 3 & Quake 3 Gold Edition).

[Guest]

Won't all the 32bit ones go down in price in the next lifespan of a new laptop though. There's a lot of advances coming up in the next few years that probably won't effect laptops until after the next average lifespan, but that (64bit processors in laptops) has already started.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 15:20, 20th May 2004:
Won't all the 32bit ones go down in price in the next lifespan of a new laptop though. There's a lot of advances coming up in the next few years that probably won't effect laptops until after the next average lifespan, but that (64bit processors in laptops) has already started.



There really isn't much point having a 64-bit processor in a laptop just because it's 64-bit. The advantage of using a 64-bit processor is that it allows applications to address more than 2^32 bits of RAM- 4 GigaBytes. It is very unlikely that it will be even possible to get that much in a laptop at any point in the immediate future, as laptops use small memory cards with a smaller physical footprint than desktops.

On the PC-side of things, there is an advantage to using a 64-bit processor as the new AMD64 instruction set specifies a greater number of physical registers (where the processor stores calculation operands and results before they are "retired") than the Intel x86 (IA32) design. However, the only "laptop" processor shipping with an AMD64 processor uses the Opteron core, which is uses far more power than the Intel laptop chips, which you might see advertised as "Celeron" or "Dothan".

[fluKe]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 16:28, 20th May 2004:
There really isn't much point having a 64-bit processor in a laptop just because it's 64-bit. The advantage of using a 64-bit processor is that it allows applications to address more than 2^32 bits of RAM- 4 GigaBytes. It is very unlikely that it will be even possible to get that much in a laptop at any point in the immediate future, as laptops use small memory cards with a smaller physical footprint than desktops.

Actually that's not exactly true. Most modern laptops use SODIMM ram chips which are not really that different from the DIMMs which are used in PCs. Sure the physical size is smaller but the quantity of memory which can be stored on one is the same. You can easily get 512Mb SODIMM laptop ram chips for not that much more than PC chips of the same standard.

The limiting factor of the RAM in a laptop is exactly the same as in a PC, the number of slots available and the size of chip each slot can take.

Now fair enough, it would I agree, be very difficult at the moment to fit 4Gb of RAM into a laptop however in a few years it will probably be quite easy to do if you have the money.

There is also the fact that current benchmarks show that there isn't much performance gain (in fact in a number of instances there was none or a drop) in having over 2Gb of RAM in your system.

Saying that the only advantage of having a 64Bit processor is larger memory size is not at all correct. As you mentioned the number of registers increase, the size of each register is increased. There is not just an increase in memory capacity but also in the size of the blocks of data which can be processed at one time etc. There are many advantages of going 64Bit, which I'm not going to go into here, although most of them won't really be seen until we get more common place 64Bit OSs and 64Bit applications.



On the PC-side of things, there is an advantage to using a 64-bit processor as the new AMD64 instruction set specifies a greater number of physical registers (where the processor stores calculation operands and results before they are "retired") than the Intel x86 (IA32) design. However, the only "laptop" processor shipping with an AMD64 processor uses the Opteron core, which is uses far more power than the Intel laptop chips, which you might see advertised as "Celeron" or "Dothan".


... You know that the the mobile AMD 64 being a 64 bit CPU also has 64Bit registers etc. Otherwise it would not be able to work in 64Bits. Registers btw don't just hold operands they can hold the op-code too.

The core used in both desktop and laptop AMD 64s is the same (unless perhaps you are using the newer low power chips). The only difference between them is that the laptop chip does not have a heat spreader and uses a different material for the die cover.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]fluKe wrote on 17:26, 20th May 2004:
Actually that's not exactly true. Most modern laptops use SODIMM ram chips which are not really that different from the DIMMs which are used in PCs. Sure the physical size is smaller but the quantity of memory which can be stored on one is the same. You can easily get 512Mb SODIMM laptop ram chips for not that much more than PC chips of the same standard.


SODIMM chips are physically smaller. This is why there are no 2 GB laptop modules available. Although it's available on the desktop, it's physically just too big for a SODIMM slot.


Now fair enough, it would I agree, be very difficult at the moment to fit 4Gb of RAM into a laptop however in a few years it will probably be quite easy to do if you have the money.

There is also the fact that current benchmarks show that there isn't much performance gain (in fact in a number of instances there was none or a drop) in having over 2Gb of RAM in your system.


That depends on what you're doing with your system. If you're running something like Final Cut Pro or Photoshop, the full 16 GB that a new G5 system can take is probably of use to you.

There are many advantages of going 64Bit, which I'm not going to go into here, although most of them won't really be seen until we get more common place 64Bit OSs and 64Bit applications.

Agreed.

Saying that the only advantage of having a 64Bit processor is larger memory size is not at all correct. As you mentioned the number of registers increase, the size of each register is increased. There is not just an increase in memory capacity but also in the size of the blocks of data which can be processed at one time etc.

... You know that the the mobile AMD 64 being a 64 bit CPU also has 64Bit registers etc. Otherwise it would not be able to work in 64Bits. Registers btw don't just hold operands they can hold the op-code too.

Agreed on the opcodes.

It's the 64bit wide integer pathways that are new, but they're only really there as memory address calculations now are 64bit and wouldn't be needed otherwise. IA32 FP has been (at least) 80 bit since SSE. The one true defining feature of a 64bit processor is the ability to allow applications and OSs to natively (i.e. not using "hacks" such as PAE) to use a large address space. Although the Opteron is a 64bit system in that it allows software to use a 64bit address space, it (IIRC) physically only addresses 42bits.

Having larger registers can in fact slow down the machine, as it means that twice as much bandwidth as on a 32bit machine is required to loan an integer address line, as even for "long" (32-bit) calculations, the full 64 will be loaded, half of the space being merely full of zeros. The vast majority of things that most users will use their computer for don't require a 64bit integer unit, and any possible gains from this are minimal.


The core used in both desktop and laptop AMD 64s is the same (unless perhaps you are using the newer low power chips). The only difference between them is that the laptop chip does not have a heat spreader and uses a different material for the die cover.


Yes, I know. The problem is that the power usage of this chip is far, far higher than the latest mobile processors from Intel, and considering the minimal advantages offered by AMD64 in a system with less than 4GB of RAM, it probably isn't worth it.

[s]Edits: formatting.[/s]

[flash99]

This talk about 32-bit/64-bit processors in PCs is all mildly amusing considering this thread started about Macs especially as OS 10.3 (panther to give it its furry name) is actually optimised for 64-bit operation already, along with some of the higher end apps. The new Windows (longhorn - to give it its domesticated animal name, go figure) isn't due 'til next year - assuming it comes in on time. Obviously if you're not using Windows on your machine **insert applause here** then I imagine 64-bit computing is already available in some OSs.

Mind you until Apple produce a G5 laptop 64-Macness is stuck on the desktop...


As far as iBooks go I'd recommend them to anyone who isn't too serious (read geeky) about their computing. My girlfriend bought a refurb (not even the current line) the Christmas before last and she uses it practically everyday. It's crashed once since we installed Panther on it in October (only a handful of times before that) and she has gone from newbie to netophile, even hacking out some basic programs in the period of a year. the battery life doesn't seem to have suffered (4h+), the screen's fine and the case is ok too. Her machine also doesn't seem anywhere near the end of its 'life' - note this model is >2 years old already. It always annoys me when adverts etc imply that buying a machine with high clock speed will make it faster and more useful than a machine without the need for heavy virus software running in the background, bloated, intrusive OS, hardware which doesn't work in harmony, crappy batteries (2-3 years to complete death on average - prove me wrong) and a crappy look - those VAIOs for instance are still seriously fat and look at all the space wasted at the top of the screen and round it.

OTOH the nice thing about OSX is, being Unix, there is so much techie info already on the machine to get started on 'proper' computing that even someone who's never owned a computer before has the stuff to get really stuck in if they want to, but at the same time you can still check email, surf the web etc without hassle.

Personally I'd go for an aluminium Powerbook (15-inch - 12-inches just don't do it no more:) as I have the previous titanium one which still kicks ass, has a sound-in socket which is missing on an iBook and I'm more serious about my computing:) They're also a bit less girlie IMHO - but more expensive (you do get what you pay for though).

Microsoft Word: Believe it or not you can use other wordprocessors - many are free, many are cheaper, some are better, most are compatible(ish). Some come with an iBook and they're certainly good enough for banging out essays with. Interestingly, the Mac version of Microsoft Office is widely considered to be superior to the Windows version (certainly equivalent) and costs much the same. Note that thanks to the lack of malicious worms etc on the mac picking up 'freebies' is a lot less hazardous as well, not that I'm condoning illegal downloads...

As for games - there are some good ones for Mac - there aren't many bad ones for Mac (there aren't many games to be honest). Sometimes they come out at the same time, usually they come out later if the Windows version was any good. But honestly, if you really want games go and get a Playstation like the girl above says...

Flash!
- (I finally stopped laughing after the "plus it's a PC, so you can do so much more with it" post)

[Pilmour Boy]

As much as I like Macs, Panther is not a 64bit operating system. Although the OS can address more than 4GB of RAM, it does not present any 64bit APIs.

At best, it can be described as a hybrid 32/64bit OS. I think that it won't be until 10.5 that we get a true 64bit OS, but it may come with with Tiger (10.4), more details of which are being revealed at WWDC next month.

[le sigh]

From someone who is not afraid of windows/pc's/will go into rant about either at drop of hat (you should really ask some of those people too, or some of the guys in the JHB who have both macs and pcs - much less biased viewpoints).

Ibook (or any other "famous name" laptop), overpriced and crappy selection. The fact that it is reliable is not an issue. It is easy to find out what laptops are not reliable, otherwise reliability is implied. Some games are unavailable for mac (a lot actually) so if gaming is your thing then this isn't.

If you shop around then there are more cost effective solutions basically. Personally I avoid most of the famous name laptops as a fair whack of the price is just for the name on it (Apple, Sony, Toshiba etc). And it's always nice to go somewhere where you can customise more as well.

On the other hand if you have money to burn then what on earth are you doing? You should be looking at alienware stuff for goodness sake! Argh, kids today know nothing, sigh.

The end.

[Steveo]

Mac = no

Alienware = yes

End.

[hr][s]What a beautiful world this will be .... what a glorious time to be free[/s]

[flash99]

I concede that MacOS 10.3 isn't truly 64-bit as yet (although it is at least partially so). Sorry, got carried away.

Now, for the truly wise insight from our old man le sigh:

"The fact that it is reliable is not an issue."

So you wouldn't mind if the OS you were running crashed, say, every half hour and that you had to send your machine away every six months for repairs? Or it took a good quarter of an hour to start up and then another seven minutes to run your webbrowser despite reinstalling the OS every month (and paying for the system updates)?

Seriously, though, I'm sure you could find cheaper hardware if you knew what you were doing and spent a good deal of time and effort, and then you'd have a nice little system which doesn't do any more than an iBook (or whatever) and for not a great deal cheaper. Plus you'd have to put up with Windows - which is one of the major issues here - or install your own OS - after paying for the Windows install in most cases. But then you might not be asking about iBooks in a student forum.

And, seriously, talking to the CompSci department in the John Honey Building (or look in the Maths dept) would make some sense here as they do have experience with PCs of pretty much every flavour - not unlike some of the posters here (hint). BTW by their own admission (try asking in the library), most of ITS don't know the first thing about Macs.

And also seriously: - don't call me kid.

Flash!