PC -> Mac conversion

There's no real comparison between the PPC chips in Macs and x86 chips, however, a 1.5 GHz Mac is around equal to a 2.5 GHz P4, give or take.

I don't think CS:Source is available for Mac...regardless, no, you won't be doing any heavy gaming.

You should be able to order a 7200 RPM drive if you order the PB through Apple, otherwise to replace the drive would mean opening the entire computer. www.pbfixit.com

The 12 inch is 1024x768 which will be a huge change from 1680x1050. Not having used a 12 inch myself I don't know the quality of the screen but it's supposed to be quite good. When you're at home you can connect the PB to your monitor and take advantage of the higher res.

You have to have Mac versions of all your software, so there is no compatibility as far as the actual programmes go. Files, however, are easily crossplatform as long as you have software that will read them. Macs play pretty well with PCs.

- as kakaze noted it's hard to compare CPUs. i'd say Pentium Ms have the lead in linear processing power (tho functions which take advantage of altivec are on par) while the G4 is just a workhorse when it comes to multitasking, as it has multithreading and OS X tends to be much more responsive in alotting its resources. i believe the 7200 rpm drives are only available in the 15" and 17" PBs. not a huge issue however as the difference between 5400rpm and 7200 is marginal. for instance the new 120GB 5400 drives are actually faster than my 7k60, due to the higher density of the disks. but if u need the bleeding edge in your Apple notebook, u can always DIY.

- for whatever reason, the half-life and CS games have not been ported for mac. perhaps bc it's all DX code?

- for the screen i'm guessing the size is more an issue than resolution. for example u can have a widescreen 12" or 13" w/ say, 1280x800, but that doesn't mean the text on 2 pages next to each other will be legible. it'll likely just be too small to be useful. the 1024x768 on a 12" screen is nice for the fact that it isn't 800x600 or whatnot, but it can feel a bit cramped in apps w/ a host of side toolbars and windows like photoshop. however i personally wouldn't really try and do any heavy editing on a 12" LCD screen regardless of brand. if u have a desktop monitor, the issue of screen size becomes moot for big projects as u can simply plug in the notebook to it and work at a higher res. for the iBook, u'll need a 3rd party utility called "screen spanning doctor" to activate the natural capabilities of the radeon chip to allow for screen spanning which apple has handicapped. see this link if u decide on the iBook.

- afaik, the screens are basically the same on the iBooks and PBs, regrettably. the screen is average in brightness and viewing angles, u definitely need to find a sweet spot if it's up close (if i'm using it laying down w/ it propped against my legs), farther away (on a desk) it's less of an issue. the screen for the 12" PB has been a sore spot for a lot of ppl, particularly bc u pay extra for the PB and don't get a better screen than the iBook. if u r a screen fanatic i'd suggest going w/ the iBook for the mentioned reason. per the tasks u described it seems like the 12" iBook would be a solid way to go, seeing as u already have the Dell monster for games and whatnot. if u can settle on a 40GB stock HD, the amazon offerings are the way to go for the 12" iBooks. some in these forums have even reported getting 5400rpm drives in their iBooks!

on my iBook i do everything u'd mentioned short of mathematica all at the same time, and then some, and the OS is fluid when changing between tasks. i've had 20+ tabs open in my browser, been playing music, running bittorrent, working on a document, and editing in photoshop w/o issue.

if you wanna go 12" mac lappy, highly suggest the PB over the iB for many reasons.

here is a short list:
1- style (looks)
2- build quality
3- keyboard feel
4- not white
5- better screen?

or you can wait until january and see what apple releases...

[quote=triadone
- for whatever reason, the half-life and CS games have not been ported for mac. perhaps bc it's all DX code?[/QUOTE]

Valve didn't want HL ported to the Mac. They don't like others having their source code. Sierra made the decision to make do a Mac overruling Valve's objections. An issue came up with future patches came up and there was no guarantee Valve would work with the mac porting house to maintain multi-player compatibility. A decision was made to can the mac version. when it was pretty close to going gold. As for half-life 2, It has to do with the Havok physics engine. The only company that could justify paying to port it over is Apple and they could care less if games appear on the Mac or not.

The iBook would work for what you want, however, if you want to connect it to an external monitor you can only Mirror your own display unless you install unsupported hacks which will allow you to span to the new monitor. The PowerBook does spanning out of the box.

Otherwise they're pretty equal machines right now.

----

Ben: Apple has a whole section on it's website devoted to games. They also work with the major game makers to tweak drivers specifically to improve performance of their games. I've seen several driver improvements just for WoW. Apple knows that it needs more games to expand into the consumer market, and while it might not actually port the games itself, it will help any company that needs it.

I've heard more people say the iBook is built better than the PowerBook, truthfully. The iBooks are designed to be thrown around, which is why they use the tough polycarbonate plastic over a magnesium frame. They scratch to high hell, but you can throw them in a book bag and schlepp them around all day and they'll take the abuse.

Which isn't to say PowerBooks can't, but they're prone to denting at the corners.