[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: comparing x86 and powerpc laptops


Sven Luther wrote:

Compared to same priced x86 laptops, around 1300 Euros inclusive VAT,
the disadvantage of the ibook is that the screen is smaller (12" only)
but with mostly the same resolution. This can maybe even be seen as an
advantage in certain cases, as it makes for smaller laptops, which are
way more expensive when you consider x86 laptops. I am not sure i
remember well, but the similarly priced x86 laptops also have a combo
DVD/CD burner instead of the CDROM driver of the low end model.

But on the plus side, i guess the CPU for such low range is about the
same for ibook and x86, and anyway, it is not the limiting factor in a
laptop. The difference is really in the graphic hardware and other
stuff, the ibook has a radeon mobility 7500, while most x86 laptops have
a much slower graphic chip, maybe a rage mobility or most probably a
chip using system memory or having 2 or 4 MB of ram. These should be
avoided as much as possible.

That's not necessarily true. Most x86 laptops of a good brand have decent hardware now, especially graphics. I have an IBM Thinkpad lower end model from last year and that came with a Radeon 7000, while most of the slightly better ones had 7500. None of the IBMs have Rage anymore, and I have not seen new laptops with primitive graphics chips, or shared memory graphics for quite a while now.

My laptop has a 14" screen, DVD, 1.6 Ghz P4M, 256 MB DDR (up to 1 GB) and it cost the equivalent of 1500 euros (including local taxes).

That was last year, for the same price you get even more at the moment. If you look at e.g Asus L3 etc (which is around 1500 euros here) you will not see much value in an Apple (e.g Asus L3 has 15" LCD, P4 2Ghz+, Radeon 7500, DVD+CDRW, 256 MB DDR RAM (not PC100) etc). All these laptops have built in modems too.

The Apple machines are much more pricier than anything that is x86 in my opinion, laptops especially. At least that is the situation here.



Reply to: