NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Apple Forums › Apple Notebooks › Idiot's guide to Macintel computers; rumors and myths dispelled
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Idiot's guide to Macintel computers; rumors and myths dispelled - Page 2

post #21 of 55
1/21/06 at 7:43am
hmm, looks like u need 2 FW cables to make it go...kinda like USB w/ the 2.5" drives...

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/ultragbplus.php

then again the review makes it sound as if one will do for basic needs...

http://www.maccompanion.com/archives...re/UltraGB.htm
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 55
1/21/06 at 4:20pm
The firewire SPECS actually spec a large amount of power to power external devices(I believe 15 Watts) so it is more than possible to bus power a HD.

There was a nice thread on SOS some time ago about this that I participated in, Mac only specs their interfaces on their powerbooks to 7 Watts though I believe, they arent fully compliant, but still pwoerful enough for most uses.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 55
1/21/06 at 4:21pm
Moidock I would suggest you search on the SOS forums for the bus powered firewire device thread. It will answer a lot of your misconceptions.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 55
1/21/06 at 6:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by triadone
hmm, looks like u need 2 FW cables to make it go...kinda like USB w/ the 2.5" drives...

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/ultragbplus.php

then again the review makes it sound as if one will do for basic needs...

http://www.maccompanion.com/archives...re/UltraGB.htm

Huh...makes me wonder why no one's come up with this before now.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 55
1/21/06 at 9:25pm
Info for the 15" PB

yeh,looks like it's split, but i'm curious if one port can deliver the whole power amount if only one device is attached?

looks like the iBook is limited to the 7 watts for the one port however...
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 55
1/21/06 at 9:31pm
If you look farther down the page it says that each port can provide up to 7 watts individually. So I would lean towards no.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 55
1/21/06 at 9:39pm
ah, good eye
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 55
1/21/06 at 10:49pm
Well that and the thread I mentioned above on the SOS forums involved myself and a few other people that know their way around computers where we were trying to determine why PC manufacturers hadnt learned to put in powered firewire on their laptops, and ways around it. It really is a good read for those interested in audio. But at any rate that exact point was brought up.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 55
1/22/06 at 11:07pm
Thx for the suggestion I will read that just in case . Nevertheless, one part what I wrote was:

"However, DEPENDING on the power requirements for a firewire device it may require more power than the motherboard and AC adapter can supply which may end up burning out the motherboard or the AC adapter."

Some small devices can be powered up like small 2.5" hard drives, but it may not take devices that require more power than what the PB may output.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 55
1/22/06 at 11:56pm
Actually taking a quick look around via google at a couple of desktop drives, it seems most draw around 10W of power when in use, so the Firewire spec could very well provide that. However as we established the PB doesnt fully comply with the spec. Also it would require internal conversion of power on the part of the HD.

As I said the Firewire spec is designed to provide a fair amount of power, it could power a full desktop HD if people designed them to do it, and if it was fully compliant. ATM it is two big IFs though.

Seablade
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 55
1/23/06 at 5:00am
Is this guide idiot-proof enough for the likes of laptop<3?
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 55
1/23/06 at 5:06am
lol, now be nice
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 55
1/23/06 at 5:42pm
Thread Starter 
hahahahahahahaha
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 55
1/23/06 at 6:34pm
ruh roh... maybe NOT 4x faster... more like, 1.25x...

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/01...s_25pc_faster/
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 55
1/23/06 at 7:32pm
it's not surprising, but i'm also wondering what the big deal is? when windows based systems move to a new CPU architecture or new GPUs are released a 10%+ increase is viewed as significant, but when a mac moves to a new architecture they get slammed for not boggling your mind w/ the speed increase? lame.

also, from recent reading, it will be interesting to see how or if Apple takes a more intensive approach to coding their software for intel's multi-core technology and to take advantage of intel's solutions in general. it's been said more often than not that intel tries to innovate w/ new stuff but software/OS/windows companies don't take full advantage of it, if at all. if there are exploits to be made at the hardware level in making the UI more effective, i trust apple to make it happen.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 55
1/23/06 at 11:50pm
Is the screen of the macbook glossy or matte finish(sounds like picture printing lol)?
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 55
1/24/06 at 3:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0dfr3y
ruh roh... maybe NOT 4x faster... more like, 1.25x...

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/01...s_25pc_faster/
They are 4 times faster if you use pure performance benchmarks that only measure how the processor itself performs. Realworld performance is going to be slower simply because more parts of the system have to be accessed at one time and the software code might not be efficient, etc.

Apple's benchmarks show how powerful the processor can be when nothing else is taken into account.

And TeeJay; the screens are matte. Or at least, they are as far as I know.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 55
1/24/06 at 6:18am
The article linked is a crock though. The 25% performance gain on the iMac is premature - and does NOT reflect on the difference in powerbook, contrary to what the article states.

BTW, i stickied this as it is going to remain such a hot issue.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 55
2/9/06 at 9:39pm
I heard that yonah and merom have the same pin configuration, are they interghangeable/upgradeable? I also heard that the new chipset designed for merom/merom based cpu wont be out til next year (mid perhaps or 2nd quarter). Please just correct me if Im worng. Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 55
2/9/06 at 11:40pm
I dunno about this.

I was in an Apple store over the weekend, and the rep and I tortured a pair of Macs (the MacBook Pros are due in in three days), putting them through everything we could think of.

One Mac was the iMAC Core Duo (1.83 Ghz). The other was a PowerBook G4 (1.67 Ghz). Both were 512 RAM.

In every comparison we did the Core Duo was visibly faster. OS X in particular reacted a lot quicker and was very snappy. FileMaker Pro was faster, and Photoshop flew on the Core Duo but was somewhat sluggish on the Powerbook. Even Office for the Mac was a lot snappier.

One thing that held me back from switching to the Mac had always been the sluggish Power PC hardware. After Apple announced the switch to Intel I had decided to reconsider a switch if I could see that OS X and other apps did better on the Intel hardware. They do.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Apple Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Apple Forums › Apple Notebooks › Idiot's guide to Macintel computers; rumors and myths dispelled