Macopinion

The Road Warrior Mailbag - April 23, 2007

12" PowerBook vs. MacBook

From Robert Morgan

Charles,

Regarding Steffen who is looking at a 12" Powerbook vs the Macbook, and specifically mentions music and video, he will be unhappy with the Powerbook as a video machine. High Def is pretty much right out, and h.264 encoded Quicktime can stutter as well. I don't believe for a moment that a 12" Powerbook costing more than a Macbook can be recommended.

I have always had a 12" Powerbook for travel but sold mine a year ago for a Macbook Pro. I found myself needing a smaller machine for travel this winter, and with my desire to watch h.264 video ripped from DVD, ended up with a factory refurb Macbook costing about the current market price on used 12" Powerbooks. I suspect that video is the death knell for the G4.

The 12" Powerbook is definitely a classic and the form factor is wonderful. The Macbook is just enough bigger to be a bit too big. Hope Apple comes out with another 12" (or even better, an 11" widescreen).

- Robert

Hi Robert;

Good points all, and we don't disagree.

From the context of Steffen's comments, it seemed to me that his video support and mobile computing queries/needs were distinct, but I may have misapprehended. I've forwarded your note to him.

Charles

Ebay Threats and Pismo Update

From Alex Mathew

Hi Charles:

Here's my story about the eBay threats:

I wanted to bring my fairly scary eBay experience to your readers and how one should take basic precautions about online correspondence and especially eBay shopping or selling. I have it on my blog at:
http://sothatshow.blogspot.com/2007/04/sth-i-get-attacked-on-ebay.html

I'll briefly summarize my recommendations for eBay and online shopping.

• Use a Mailbox service for ALL correspondence - even with banks, credit card companies, utilities - UPS Store or PO Box will do.
• Use a voicemail service from MaxEmail (or eFax or Grandcentral etc) - Give that number out for all business correspondence including e-bay. Nothing is so important that the caller cannot leave a message to call back.
• Periodically check your name on the internet to make sure you are not listed anywhere with your home address or phone.
• Be even more careful with kids and what information they give out during chats and e-mails - even to friends who might just forward e-mail to others.

I hope the story of my harrowing experience and my suggestions will prove to be of some use to your readers.

About the Pismo. I managed to run RegionBuster under OS 9 and then found Region X for Mac tucked away on the internet. So I'm Region-Free again. I have documented my experience at the same blog at:
http://sothatshow.blogspot.com/2007/04/making-pismo-dvd-rom-region-free.html

Thanks for listening.
Alex Mathew

Thanks for the advice and links, Alex.

Charles

Apple Laptops And OS X - How Much Power Do You Need? - From The Archives

A thin mailbag this week, so here's another selection from The Road Warrior Archive. Originally published back in 2002, when I was still using OS 9 as my production OS, and experimenting with OS 10.2 Jaguar on my then 500 MHz G3 Pismo. I really wasn;t satisfied with OS X performance on the Pismo until OS X 10.3 Panther debuted, and my Pismo was subsequently upgraded to 550 MHz G4 spec. ( and is still in daily use, currently running very nicely on OS 10.4.8).

I've also been checking out Tiger on a 500 MHz G3 Pismo, and find it surprisingly lively, even with just 320 MB of RAM, so OS X performance on these older G3 machines has improved significantly since 2002.

Actually, I would now adjust my minimum hardware for OSX threshold down to a 500 MHz G3, although I still think you want at least 512 MB of RAM for satisfactory performance, and more than that is better if you want to do more than basic word processing, Web surfing, and email.

Anyway, here's what I was thinking on the topic 4 1/2 years ago.

Apple Laptops And OS X - How Much Power Do You Need? [Originally Published Dec. 2, 2002]

As they say, that depends...

Last week I wrote about the newest iBooks as a logical upgrade from G3 Series PowerBooks like my Pismo and deceased WallStreet. However, a nagging question remains as to whether any G3 machine really has the muscle to be an adequate OS X platform over the next three years or so.

I've been checking out various benchmark tests pitting the iBook against the G4 PowerBook, but have it as yet formed any hard and fast conclusions. On tests done running OS 9, the 700 MHz -800 MHz iBooks acquit themselves very respectably, and except for Altivec-intensive tasks, seem to be pretty much a match for the 667 MHz TiBook, and definitely offer better performance than the 550 MHz Ti and the 500 MHz/400 MHz models. However, when Altivec enters the equation, even the older TiBooks leave the iBook coughing in their dust.

Now, I don't really use any Altivec-optimized applications, so the only Altivec-related issue for me is OS X, to wit: how much does the lack of Altivec vector acceleration affect OS X performance? How much Altivec-optimization is built into OS X, and perhaps more pertinently -- will the operating system be increasingly Altivec-intensive as it evolves in future versions?

Certainly, OS X performance on my 500 MHz G3 Pismo with 640 megabytes of RAM, 8 megabytes of video RAM, and a RAGE 128 graphics card is, in my estimation, disappointing. I am inclined to think that the video support issue looms largest, but I'm sure the lack of Altivec doesn't help.

The November, 2002, iBooks have addressed the video support category with either 16 MB or 32 MB of video RAM and the ATI Radeon 7500 video accelerator card that graced the last generation TiBooks, so that base should be adequately covered for the near future at least. But there is still no Altivec (which is the most significant feature distinguishing a G3 chip from a G4).

Now, not having a G4 isn't all bad. The G3 chip is in many ways more satisfactory for portable computer service than the G4. It (generally speaking) draws less wattage and generates less lap-toasting heat, which enhances battery running time and requires less cooling fan cacophony. The G3 is also cheaper than the G4, which helps keep those iBook prices low. And if you don't use Photoshop or the handful of other applications that are optimized for Altivec, then the main sticking point is possibly OS X.

I should note here that Photoshop, et al., will still run fine on a G3 iBook -- just not as fast for some functions as a G4 machine, in some instances drastically not as fast. However, I'm doubtful that many serious Photoshop users would choose an iBook as a production platform anyway.

Back to OS X There are of course some users who say they find OS X performance acceptable on 233 MHz or 266 MHz WallStreets, which have only two megabytes or four megabytes of video RAM and very mediocre video cards by today's standards. Performance perception and tolerance levels of sluggish Finder response, slow screen redraws, etc., are highly subjective. Personally, I find a OS X 10.2.1 Jaguar usable on my Pismo, but only barely, and having to wait for every little thing is a relentless frustration to me, compared back to back with OS 9.x, which really flies on this machine. I suppose it is partly the sort of stuff one does on a computer. I do a lot of switching back and fourth among applications, opening and closing windows, accessing menus, scrolling through and saving documents, etc., and all these things feel like trying to run in knee-deep water compared with the instantaneous response in OS 9. As I said, my number one suspect as the main culprit is the Pismo's poky video support.

One of the most direct comparisons of the relative effect that Altivec has would be to benchmark Pismos and the first generation "Mercury" TiBooks, which, motherboard architecture-wise, where essentially Pismos with G4 CPUs. The 400 MHz and 500 MHz clock speeds are the same; the 100 MHz system bus is the same; the eight megabytes of VRAM/RAGE 128 graphics support is identical; and the hard drive options were about the same. The big distinction other than the case form factor and screen size is the Altivec in the G4 chips.

Perhaps someone has done such a benchmark running OS X, although I haven't run across it. Dan Knight at Low End Mac uses a 400 MHz Mercury TiBook as his workhorse, but hasn't, as yet, been smitten enough with OS X performance to switch from OS 9 for production work. My brother-in-law also has a 400 MHz TiBook with one gigabyte of RAM, but he lives 300 miles away, and I haven't got my hands on it yet. He is running OS X 10.1.x, and is not blown away by the performance (and his previous computer is a 75 MHz 601 Power Mac 7200). By context, I'm doubtful that I would be very impressed with OS X performance on that machine, but I'm curious to check it out.

As I mentioned, these things are highly subjective. My son switched to OS X full time with the Public Beta release on his 333 MHz Lombard and never looked back. He hasn't been terribly enthusiastic about the speed, but he mainly used that machine for email, Web-surfing, online chat, digital photos, and playing music and videos, all of which worked tolerably well, even with just 256 megabytes of RAM. He has just sold the Lombard (and replaced it with a 200 MHz 604e Umax S-900 like the one I use for backup -- he has car expense issues right now), and the new owner, who cut her OS X teeth on a friend's 800 MHz TiBook, professes to be very happy with Jaguar on the Lombard, so go figure.

Another factor in how satisfied you will be running OS X on less than cutting edge portable hardware is how much of a problem stability is or was for you in the Classic Mac OS. Personally, this has not been a big issue for me lately, as both OS 9.1 and OS 9.2.2 are relatively stable for me on the Pismo. I do get the occasional crash, usually after I have ignored obvious warning signs that indicate a restart would be prudent. Since the WallStreet died in August, I've been frequently switching back and forth between OS 9 and OS X on the Pismo, but when I was running solely in OS 9 on the WallStreet, I would restart maybe every four or five days, which I don't find terribly onerous.

However, I hear from folks, often those who use a lot of graphics and/or Microsoft software, who have routinely experienced several crashes per day running the Classic Mac OS, and if that were my experience, I too would be enthusiastically embracing the relatively crash-proof OS X, and gladly tolerating the sluggish Finder performance.

So what is the minimum Apple portable hardware for acceptable OS X performance? Obviously, different users will draw the line in different places. For me, I'm hoping that it will be a 700/800 MHz, November, 2002, iBook. With Titanium PowerBooks, I'm deducing from the benchmark research I've done that you really want a minimum 550 MHz machine, not so much because of the clock speed, but for the graphics card and video RAM, and you need a minimum 667 MHz April, 2002 "Ivory" model to get the 32 MB (and a Radeon 7500 card) for full Quartz Extreme support. The 550 MHz and 667 MHz November, 2001 "Onyx" models had only 16 MB of VRAM.

Of course you can run OS X on lesser machines, as I am doing on my Pismo, but I provisionally suggest that with anything less than the models I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, performance is going to be significantly compromised. For one thing, OS X 10.2 Jaguar's Quartz Extreme which uses the OpenGL-based graphics engine rather than the PowerPC processor to accelerate the compositing and rendering of 2D, 3D, and QuickTime content, requires a minimum 16 megabytes of VRAM and a Radeon graphics accelerator, so that is probably the most useful rule-of-thumb to use in determining minimum hardware to consider if OS X is a priority for you.

Incidentally, comparing the iBook to the TiBook, which costs more than twice as much, is hardly fair ball. Both machines stand tall on their own merit in their respective price ranges.

And if you want the best OS X performance of available in an Apple laptop, the slam-dunk choice is of course the 1 GHz TiBook tricked out with one gigabyte of RAM. Wish I could afford one.

CM