|
Reggie
Jul 29, 2010 9:28 AM
|
a 2.93 Ghz Core i7 can be had in the 27 inch iMac for $290 extra
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
Apple updates Mac Pro and iMac lines?
Apple has updated its range of desktop computers, and introduced a new monitor and trackpad..
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
rubaiyat
Jul 31, 2010 1:12 PM
|
Here is an excellent analysis of Apple's current position with the Pro line of Macs:
http://brookwillard.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-state-of-apples-professional-line/#comment-140 |
|
blockcentre
Jul 31, 2010 6:34 PM
|
I actually read that article. Now I want my 10 minutes back.
A couple of issues...
1. Apple has NEVER been the first to offer a high end Intel product. Their sales at that level certainly wouldn't go anywhere near DELL or HP servers and workstations to the extent that they could "block out" others for months.
2. The 3GHz barrier? This guy obviously knows little about processors. There's far more to processor performance than clock speed. A 3GHz Pentium 4 wouldn't be anywhere near a 3GHz Core i7 in performance but apparently he believes it's the same. Perhaps it's because OSX still can't make use of either 64bit or multicore technologies properly?
3. The only creative professionals that use Macs now days are those that were trained in them initially and believe that a Mac Pro is the way to go. A Mac Pro hasn't been competitive for a long time. The switch to Intel certainly didn't improve it as it's the OS and price-gorging that holds it back.
4. Apple's treatment of their professional market is a shock to him? They practically don't have a professional market anymore. Their need to hold on to the Motorola architecture for as long as they did ended it. The only people that still use Macs as a workstation are those that always have and simply cling to it because it's a Mac. Everyone else has moved on.
5. Boohoo. Apple is becoming a device company. iPhones, iPads and iPods. Their computer market is secondary to that. I'm sure every Apple fanboy must surely realise this by now? Their lack of innovation in incorporating new technologies into their computers and OS has been a sign of this for years.
Now, that's another 10 minutes I've just wasted.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 5:20 AM
|
blockcentre wrote:I actually read that article. Now I want my 10 minutes back. A couple of issues... 1. Apple has NEVER been the first to offer a high end Intel product. Their sales at that level certainly wouldn't go anywhere near DELL or HP servers and workstations to the extent that they could "block out" others for months.
Not true. When Apple switched to Intel, Intel gave them the newest Core 2 chips exclusively, well ahead of PC manufacturers. They did the same for some subsequent chips as well. Intel had been chasing Apple as a prestige account for a long time and has maintained them as the glamourous face on their market. Rationalisation based on ignorance doesn't make things so. AMD took a blow because this really put them in KMart territory.
Quote:2. The 3GHz barrier? This guy obviously knows little about processors. There's far more to processor performance than clock speed. A 3GHz Pentium 4 wouldn't be anywhere near a 3GHz Core i7 in performance but apparently he believes it's the same. Perhaps it's because OSX still can't make use of either 64bit or multicore technologies properly?
Amusing hearing a PC user explaining away the clock speed fetish. The author didn't make the same mistake at all. Put this down to poor reading skills. And the last statement is nonsense. OSX is fine, the software developers (including Apple) however have been slow to take advantage of the hooks in Snow Leopard. There is no requirement to install 2 versions of the OS nor software to run both 32 bit and 64 bit, it is all the one thing.
Quote:3. The only creative professionals that use Macs now days are those that were trained in them initially and believe that a Mac Pro is the way to go. A Mac Pro hasn't been competitive for a long time. The switch to Intel certainly didn't improve it as it's the OS and price-gorging that holds it back.
I agree that the Mac Pro hasn't been worth what Apple has charged for it relative to the iMac which gives much more punch per buck. However some professionals will still use them for the reasons outlined in the blog. The OS does not hold back the Mac Pro at all, if anything it makes it still worth investing in.
Quote:4. Apple's treatment of their professional market is a shock to him? They practically don't have a professional market anymore. Their need to hold on to the Motorola architecture for as long as they did ended it. The only people that still use Macs as a workstation are those that always have and simply cling to it because it's a Mac. Everyone else has moved on.
Total and utter nonsense! Apple has a much bigger share of all professional markets than they do of the consumer market, it is just their biggest growth has been in consumers as was stated in the blog. Professionals, including the blogger, are also aware that except for a few bursts of interest, Apple has followed the money into consumer products. Exactly the same argument can be made of Microsoft except they have been spectacularly unsuccessful in innovating anything, which has now relegated them to 2nd place in mind share and share value.
Quote:5. Boohoo. Apple is becoming a device company. iPhones, iPads and iPods. Their computer market is secondary to that. I'm sure every Apple fanboy must surely realise this by now? Their lack of innovation in incorporating new technologies into their computers and OS has been a sign of this for years.
Mac users have been well aware of these developments and anticipated them long before they happened. Define lack of innovation. Apple seems to be leading the pack in so many areas now, that surely even the mediocrities cribbing from them can recognise that Apple is not even bothering looking in the rear vision mirror these days.
Quote:Now, that's another 10 minutes I've just wasted.
Wasted a lot of breath I think. |
|
blockcentre
Aug 1, 2010 9:47 AM
|
Ok, I'll bite...
Conroe (the first Core 2 chip) was released in July 2006. The first Mac with this chip was released in November 2006. So Intel just waited 4 months before they made their long-awaited king-hit on AMD? I was building Conroe based PC's as soon as it was available. Before the release of Conroe, AMD were dominating the desktop market and were outselling Intel by a long way. It took Intel several years before they released a chip that could take on an Athlon. You're absolutely correct about ignorance though.
No the author did make the same mistake. So did the entire Mac community waiting for the 3GHz G5 that never eventuated. PC users had realised that there's more to processor performance than clock speed, thanks to AMD's product line. The Athlon was a much faster processor than the Pentium 4 but never matched it for clock speed. Doing more per cycle is where performance comes from. Intel followed this model with the Core 2. The 3Ghz barrier was never a barrier in the first place.
Please tell me how many applications on the Mac support both 64bit and multithreading? Snow Leopard added these to the Mac universe last year. Windows machines have been running them since XP 64bit. If you had purchased a high end Mac Pro based on an Intel chip, you'd need to install Windows to make use of your hardware.
My point was that Apple has abandoned their professional market. A market that has been crumbling. There's a reason that 10 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find good design applications for a Windows based PC. Apple had total control of that market but they simply let it go. The switch to Intel helped Apple, but the inability of the OS to take advantage of the hardware is what has seen their professional market collapse. There are a few that still hold on, but most have moved on to a Windows based PC.
Apple know all of this. Getting the professional market to shift platforms is a very, very big task. That's why they aren't bothering to try and win them back. They know the consumer market is the cash cow so they are investing their time and effort into it. What's Apple's total computer sales per year? About 2 mil? Nothing compared to their ipod/ipad/iphone/itunes market which would generate much better profits per device and require less support to maintain. If Apple really wanted their computer market to be their money machine, they would have made their devices exclusive to their platform only.
I'm talking about the lack of innovation in their computers as opposed to their devices. Their innovation has been in how it looks, not how it performs. How long did it take them to adopt multithreading and 64bit support despite having the capability in the hardware? They certainly wouldn't delay something like that with their device market.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 2:10 PM
|
Quote:Conroe (the first Core 2 chip) was released in July 2006. The first Mac with this chip was released in November 2006. So Intel just waited 4 months before they made their long-awaited king-hit on AMD? I was building Conroe based PC's as soon as it was available. Before the release of Conroe, AMD were dominating the desktop market and were outselling Intel by a long way. It took Intel several years before they released a chip that could take on an Athlon. You're absolutely correct about ignorance though.
Apple sells 14 million Macs a year (not 2). How many do you manufacture in your garage? The original Intel iMacs used a custom Core 2 Duo extreme chip and exceeded the speed of PCs for quite a while. A few PC magazines noted that the fastest Vista boxes at the time were Macs.
Quote:No the author did make the same mistake. So did the entire Mac community waiting for the 3GHz G5 that never eventuated. PC users had realised that there's more to processor performance than clock speed, thanks to AMD's product line. The Athlon was a much faster processor than the Pentium 4 but never matched it for clock speed. Doing more per cycle is where performance comes from. Intel followed this model with the Core 2. The 3Ghz barrier was never a barrier in the first place.
No the author did not make a "mistake" he made a choice as we all do. Summing up which computer is the best for his needs. The slowest component of any computer is the user. An OS that leverages the user into greater productivity is money well spent.
Quote:Please tell me how many applications on the Mac support both 64bit and multithreading? Snow Leopard added these to the Mac universe last year. Windows machines have been running them since XP 64bit. If you had purchased a high end Mac Pro based on an Intel chip, you'd need to install Windows to make use of your hardware.
Don't know and don't care. Its all handled in the background, where it makes sense and is advantageous. I know of Handbrake, Adobe CS5 suite and Carrara 8 only because they tell me they are 64 bit.
Quote:My point was that Apple has abandoned their professional market. A market that has been crumbling. There's a reason that 10 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find good design applications for a Windows based PC. Apple had total control of that market but they simply let it go. The switch to Intel helped Apple, but the inability of the OS to take advantage of the hardware is what has seen their professional market collapse. There are a few that still hold on, but most have moved on to a Windows based PC.
Here at least we have some consensus. About the abandoning anyway, or sheer neglect. It has not "crumbled" though, the iMacs are so powerful and good value most users such as myself are finding 4 iMacs beats 2 Mac Pros any day and have changed our purchases accordingly. I take my measure by Adobe roadshows. When Apple was in trouble more and more of Adobe's material was demoed on PCs. The last roadshow i attended I don't think they even bothered booting up a PC. Lots of professional friends have switched. A doctor, his architect daughter, several therapists, 2 scientist neighbors, my local dentist and my MBA nieces amongst them. The whole radiologist department when my father was in hospital was running off Macs with the big CAT Scans etc as just peripherals. I recently ran into a childhood friend, now an award wining architect who runs a very large Sydney practice. He surprised me when he said he moved his whole office over to Macs and says it was the best thing he ever did. Even Harvey Norman's Ofis photo section was running Macs in Paramatta Road when I went in.
Quote:Apple know all of this. Getting the professional market to shift platforms is a very, very big task. That's why they aren't bothering to try and win them back. They know the consumer market is the cash cow so they are investing their time and effort into it. What's Apple's total computer sales per year? About 2 mil? Nothing compared to their ipod/ipad/iphone/itunes market which would generate much better profits per device and require less support to maintain. If Apple really wanted their computer market to be their money machine, they would have made their devices exclusive to their platform only.
Hard to beat those wildly inaccurate guesstimates of yours. Barely colored by your prejudices perhaps? Their Mac and digital device business splits almost 50/50 still. Not due to declining Mac sales which have grown enormously in recent years but due to the astronomic success of their other products. A problem Microsoft would love to have.
Quote:I'm talking about the lack of innovation in their computers as opposed to their devices. Their innovation has been in how it looks, not how it performs. How long did it take them to adopt multithreading and 64bit support despite having the capability in the hardware? They certainly wouldn't delay something like that with their device market.
You make the mistake of assuming that just because something is physically well designed that that is superficial. PC users are in fact the ones who seem to be the ones who go for superficial kitsch in case designs, and anything with lots of knobs on it. Just like they used to put lots of smoke stacks (some fake) on ocean liners for the schmucks who thought that was what made them go fast. I assume you build your own cars with recycled jet engines and gaffer tape to get you to the shops and work faster? My unfortunate experience with PC users is that they rather need nitroglycerin under their swivel chairs to get them to work faster. Their "work" is mostly throw it out and do it again anyway.
Edited by rubaiyat: 1/8/2010 02:27:45 PM |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 2:39 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:My unfortunate experience with PC users is that they rather need nitroglycerin under their swivel chairs to get them to work faster. Their "work" is mostly throw it out and do it again anyway.
Struth rubaiyat!
You're bitter, aren't you.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 2:50 PM
|
No. Just observant.
Unfortunately we have to pussy foot our way around this every time they bring it in. |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 3:33 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:No. Just observant.
observant?
Or obsessive?
rubaiyat wrote:Unfortunately we have to pussy foot our way around this every time they bring it in.
Bring what in?
Perhaps you should have a Bex and a lie down.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 3:53 PM
|
 |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 4:05 PM
|
I understand.
It's never good to be a member of a minority group.
Edit: forgot the photo...
Edited by Slatts: 1/8/2010 04:11:43 PM |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 4:15 PM
|
Stuff that. Look at the spelling mistake!
Guess I'll just have to fix it. Again. |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 6:15 PM
|
Sorry, that should have been programme.
Must have lifted the photo from a damn Yankee site
Everyone knows they can't spell for spit.
|
|
blockcentre
Aug 1, 2010 6:45 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:Apple sells 14 million Macs a year (not 2). How many do you manufacture in your garage? The original Intel iMacs used a custom Core 2 Duo extreme chip and exceeded the speed of PCs for quite a while. A few PC magazines noted that the fastest Vista boxes at the time were Macs.
The sales figure was in relation to the Mac Pro, not every Mac. I would imagine that Apple would only sell about 2mil of them each year?
No, the first Core 2 Duo iMac was a T5600. That's not even close to Extreme line or even the first Core 2's that rolled out in PC's. Those chips were designed for the mobile market, not the desktop. On release date they were significantly behind PC's as they were already running E6600's. I don't know where you get your information from but it's obviously incorrect.
rubaiyat wrote:No the author did not make a "mistake" he made a choice as we all do. Summing up which computer is the best for his needs. The slowest component of any computer is the user. An OS that leverages the user into greater productivity is money well spent.
So waiting an extra hour for your computer to complete a rendering process is money well spent? The workstation market obviously disagrees with you.
rubaiyat wrote:Don't know and don't care. Its all handled in the background, where it makes sense and is advantageous. I know of Handbrake, Adobe CS5 suite and Carrara 8 only because they tell me they are 64 bit.
Nail. Head. I'm glad they upgraded the ignorance in the last OS update.
rubaiyat wrote:Here at least we have some consensus. About the abandoning anyway, or sheer neglect. It has not "crumbled" though, the iMacs are so powerful and good value most users such as myself are finding 4 iMacs beats 2 Mac Pros any day and have changed our purchases accordingly. I take my measure by Adobe roadshows. When Apple was in trouble more and more of Adobe's material was demoed on PCs. The last roadshow i attended I don't think they even bothered booting up a PC. Lots of professional friends have switched. A doctor, his architect daughter, several therapists, 2 scientist neighbors, my local dentist and my MBA nieces amongst them. The whole radiologist department when my father was in hospital was running off Macs with the big CAT Scans etc as just peripherals. I recently ran into a childhood friend, now an award wining architect who runs a very large Sydney practice. He surprised me when he said he moved his whole office over to Macs and says it was the best thing he ever did. Even Harvey Norman's Ofis photo section was running Macs in Paramatta Road when I went in.
Sure, lots of people are switching. If it suits their needs then good for them. The whole point is having a choice. But Apple has lost the workstation industry and their lack of regard for the Mac Pro is proof of this. There will always be those that continue to use a Mac Pro, however I'm sure the market gains that Apple have made are in the consumer space, not in workstations. You can quote people and I can quote people, but it's the market figures that count. Apple has lost them in that area.
But if we're going to quote, the end of is pretty simple. When CERN decided to build the largest science experiment known to man, they certainly didn't purchase from Apple.
rubaiyat wrote:Hard to beat those wildly inaccurate guesstimates of yours. Barely colored by your prejudices perhaps? Their Mac and digital device business splits almost 50/50 still. Not due to declining Mac sales which have grown enormously in recent years but due to the astronomic success of their other products. A problem Microsoft would love to have.
Microsoft doesn't build computers. They are a software company. Nearly 200 million Windows 7 licences have been sold since its release.
rubaiyat wrote:You make the mistake of assuming that just because something is physically well designed that that is superficial. PC users are in fact the ones who seem to be the ones who go for superficial kitsch in case designs, and anything with lots of knobs on it. Just like they used to put lots of smoke stacks (some fake) on ocean liners for the schmucks who thought that was what made them go fast. I assume you build your own cars with recycled jet engines and gaffer tape to get you to the shops and work faster? My unfortunate experience with PC users is that they rather need nitroglycerin under their swivel chairs to get them to work faster. Their "work" is mostly throw it out and do it again anyway.
What does any of that drivel have to do with the new Mac Pro and iMac lines? |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 7:25 PM
|
Slatts wrote:Sorry, that should have been programme.
Must have lifted the photo from a damn Yankee site
Everyone knows they can't spell for spit.
Not yours. In the cartoon. And that can probably be blamed on a Mac user. |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 7:45 PM
|
blockcentre
Quote:The sales figure was in relation to the Mac Pro, not every Mac. I would imagine that Apple would only sell about 2mil of them each year?
Have you broken down Dell's sales by model too?
Quote:So waiting an extra hour for your computer to complete a rendering process is money well spent? The workstation market obviously disagrees with you.
Where do you get your figures from? Along with the "market figures" seems like you are making them up as you go.
Quote:Sure, lots of people are switching. If it suits their needs then good for them.
Now they are switching, before they were leaving in droves. What is it?
CERN built its LHC grid on OSX and a quick search shows they have a Mac support desk. Odd!
Quote:Microsoft doesn't build computers. They are a software company.
So what are XBoxes, Zunes and Surface?
Quote:Their innovation has been in how it looks, not how it performs.
The drivel is yours.
Edited by rubaiyat: 1/8/2010 07:53:24 PM |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 7:48 PM
|
OK, I thought we were back at the US / British English thing I threw out earlier.. |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 1, 2010 7:55 PM
|
As I have said before, I'm AC/DC with US/British spelling.
Whichever makes more sense, I'm for it.
Grammar is another matter, the wrong word is the wrong word.
Edited by rubaiyat: 1/8/2010 07:57:31 PM |
|
Slatts
Aug 1, 2010 8:58 PM
|
The language is alive and evolving. What is right and correct today is not rite tomorrow.;) |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 2, 2010 5:19 AM
|
blockcentre
Quote:What's Apple's total computer sales per year? About 2 mil?
I really should pay more attention to your shifting facts.
Irregardless, if we ever get to meet face to face, we are actually in agreement on:
1. Apple's neglect of the Pro market
2. Flaws in OSX for the Pros
3. The slowness of Apple's Mac product cycle in both hardware and software
One of the joys of being a Mac user is the quality of the users however. They do often make the result what it is, because the runner makes the Nike shoe go fast, not the other way around.
SiliconGraphics which ruled workstations for most of the '80s and '90s never had the most advanced components in their computers.
Custom made will always be able to tailor results better than mass manufactured products.
The annoying thing with PC users is the mis-comparisons with homemade computers with no warranty and support, built in limited numbers, at the users own expense, not costing the hours spent, nor the risks and penalties, and usually looking like something the dog threw up.
A bit like DIY home improvers proudly saying, look what I saved on a builder and architect. I have learnt not to say, "Yes, and look at the results!"
For all Apple's neglect of the Pro market it has not abandoned it. You can still go to some hard Pro demos at the Sydney AppleStore and the Mac Pro is still a pretty mean machine. If you want a render farm Apple has solutions for those as well, but it is hardly their main focus just as it isn't Microsoft's.
There are other flaws in OSX other than those you mention, which you will probably dismiss because they aren't key and wouldn't affect your interests. However as a good programmer friend of mine, and probably the smartest guy I have ever met, said: "The Mac is positively the worst system ever… Except for all the rest." It is really the sum of the parts, which Windows/PCs can never be.
The last is the most irritating and has to do with Steve Jobs thinking and the leverage he puts on marketing. He wants to make a splash at irregular intervals to excite the market, so progress comes at unexpected intervals. Big jumps, then Apple turns to something else. It is hard to argue with his tactics because he has taken Apple from down on its knees to overtaking Microsoft.
To sum up however, I personally don't confuse what is good for Apple with what is good for me, unlike many of the "fanbois", just that often the 2 coincide.
Edited by rubaiyat: 2/8/2010 07:19:15 AM |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Aug 2, 2010 7:41 PM
|
Again with the "PC users" generalisation. C'mon dude. |
|
blockcentre
Aug 2, 2010 9:06 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:One of the joys of being a Mac user is the quality of the users however. They do often make the result what it is, because the runner makes the Nike shoe go fast, not the other way around.
There's a sweeping generalisation.
rubaiyat wrote:SiliconGraphics which ruled workstations for most of the '80s and '90s never had the most advanced components in their computers.
The systems they built based on 64bit RISC MIPS processors say otherwise. They were the most powerful workstations money could buy at the time.
rubaiyat wrote:The annoying thing with PC users is the mis-comparisons with homemade computers with no warranty and support, built in limited numbers, at the users own expense, not costing the hours spent, nor the risks and penalties, and usually looking like something the dog threw up.
That's the thing... people have that choice. If someone wants to build a cheap and nasty PC that just runs either Linux or Windows, they can. If they want to build PC's made from the best possible components, they have that choice as well. I'm in the secondary camp. All the PC's I have at home are built using the highest quality components and constructed in a high quality chassis. Apple certainly weren't the first to offer computers built in aluminium. My current Silverstone case is nothing short of the highest quality, built out of pure aluminium and looks very stylish. Silverstone, Coolermaster, Lian Li all have been building all aluminium stylish cases for more than 10 years. As for warranty, nearly all the parts I purchase exceed the standard 12 month warranty.[/quote]
As for Apple's computers, I think the current range of iMacs are excellent machines. You can't get any other all-in-one computer that will match them - the 27in IPS panel is first rate and they certainly look the part. They don't suit me - limited in hardware capabilities and a real lack of upgrade options, but I can see how they appeal to others.
However, I can't say the same for the Mac Pro. Although it does have some processing grunt, it lacks in areas that exclude it from the workstation market. Plus the price you pay for that performance is pure extortion. You can get a high quality machine with an nVidia Quadro or ATI Fire, throw in a Matrox RX and still spend far less.
The MacBooks are generally good machines as well. They don't stand out compared to the iMac though as there are many other PC options that represent better value.
My only real gripe is this mentality that Apple is best. They do have some great kit, but what's best for one person may not be the best for others.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 3, 2010 3:54 AM
|
That is why neither you nor I buy Mac Pros. Neither of us consider them good value.
Which Silverstone case are you referring to? I looked through all the enclosures and whilst they may be made of aluminium they all look like standard, frankly fairly ugly, PC cases. Same with the Coolermaster and Lian Li. I have seen a Taiwanese exact rip-off of the MacPro case, can't remember the brand.
This may be why we disagree on some ;) matters.
I look at those and think Battlestar Galactica, flame decals on Toranas and Wogboy. You look at them and see Wow. Just like a MacPro!
SiliconGraphics had a great CPU but all their other (locked down) components were surprisingly old versions or undersized compared with even the Macs of the day. I was really surprised when I investigated getting one for video work. And boy were they expensive.
Nobody is forcing you to use Macs, as a PC user you have that choice. You obviously don't get the design or synergy of the Mac.
As a Mac user I have at regular intervals however been forced to use PCs, no matter how bad. On one particular occasion the IT department (of a government agency that shall remain nameless as I want to work in this town again) wasted $58,000 and 5 weeks of my time before we went back to their older Macs, that they were trying to replace, to finish the job in 3 weeks. 2 weeks behind schedule but 3 weeks ahead of what they had allowed on the PC.
btw You can always build yourself a Hackintosh. I can give you the directions, but when I investigated the cost and my time (which unlike some is worth something) it was a fools errand. No savings at all and it would look like something I'd hide (deep) under the desk.
Edited by rubaiyat: 3/8/2010 04:43:05 AM |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 3, 2010 8:09 AM
|
Here's the case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811164061
On closer inspection however it does look like a Taiwanese rip-off and lacks the Mac Pro's straight-in easy access.
Edited by rubaiyat: 3/8/2010 08:20:24 AM |
|
blockcentre
Aug 3, 2010 10:47 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:Which Silverstone case are you referring to?
My current case is the SilverStone TJ03... about the best case ever manufactured. I've had this case for more than 5 years now and it's seen a couple different configurations in that time.
rubaiyat wrote:I look at those and think Battlestar Galactica, flame decals on Toranas and Wogboy.
That's the beauty of PC's. It can look anyway you want it to. The style isn't predetermined by a single manufacturer of which you have zero choice. Personally, I don't like flashy PC's but that's my taste. Either way, I still have the option.
rubaiyat wrote:You look at them and see Wow. Just like a MacPro!
Actually, no I don't. I don't really like the look of the Mac Pro. The handles at the top look ridiculous (if that's what they are) and I'm not a fan having a front that's all mesh. The aluminium is nice but that's all really. I'll probably replace my case in the next upgrade - the Silverstone TJ10 might be the go.
rubaiyat wrote:SiliconGraphics had a great CPU but all their other (locked down) components were surprisingly old versions or undersized compared with even the Macs of the day. I was really surprised when I investigated getting one for video work. And boy were they expensive.
What other components? Graphics at the time was fairly limited and still mainly driven by CPU performance. They used SCSI storage instead of IDE. They packed loads of RAM at the time. The company I worked for had several SPARC's running Solaris for the developers/designers to make use of and they all swore by them. The only other system that was competition to them was the DEC Alpha running OpenVMS on their 64bit RISC processors. Apple wasn't even close to their level of performance. The Apple systems at the time were toys compared to them.
rubaiyat wrote:Nobody is forcing you to use Macs, as a PC user you have that choice. You obviously don't get the design or synergy of the Mac.
You're right, I don't get the design or synergy of the Mac. I get the design and synergy of a system that better suits my needs. I personally DON'T WANT the design or synergy of the Mac.
rubaiyat wrote:As a Mac user I have at regular intervals however been forced to use PCs, no matter how bad. On one particular occasion the IT department (of a government agency that shall remain nameless as I want to work in this town again) wasted $58,000 and 5 weeks of my time before we went back to their older Macs, that they were trying to replace, to finish the job in 3 weeks. 2 weeks behind schedule but 3 weeks ahead of what they had allowed on the PC.
Here we go again... another "PC horror story". These are getting really, really old and totally pointless.
My wife used to own a MacBook. The school she works for was a total Apple school until the end of last year. They abandoned their Mac's and replaced them with PC's. The support and maintenance costs of having the Apple platform (due to the limited support available in the area) was costing them a mint. It got to the point where the school would simply live without a computer in the lab if something went wrong with it rather than pay the extortion prices for an Apple tech to sort it out. I gave them a hand where I could, but being a small school, they just couldn't justify it. At the end of the year they sold all the Macs and replaced them with Lenovo desktops/laptops running Win 7 and are loving the decision they made. The parents are all happy as well due to the kids being able to make use of computers at home plus the kids are learning the platform that the majority of the workforce uses.
rubaiyat wrote:btw You can always build yourself a Hackintosh. I can give you the directions, but when I investigated the cost and my time (which unlike some is worth something) it was a fools errand. No savings at all and it would look like something I'd hide (deep) under the desk.
I know I could. In fact it can be done quite easily - there's nothing technical to it. But I would prefer to keep things LEGAL. Besides, if I was going to move away from Windows as my primary OS, I would take Ubuntu instead. Ubuntu offers the same as OSX but without all the nasty restrictions.
Edited by blockcentre: 3/8/2010 10:48:05 PM |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 4, 2010 12:45 AM
|
We obviously diverge (enormously) on taste, but I think that has been clear all along. That also explains a lot of the "it's all the same". The same look of non-comprehension I had when I stood outside a Macdonalds and asked a local, doesn't this place have any restaurants?
It goes a long way back but The SiliconGraphics were still running SCSI 1 when we had long moved onto SCSI 2. There was other stuff as well. I agree the Mac were toys by comparison, but so were the PCs. The SGI boxes however were enormously more expensive.
The PC horror stories are real, as real as your anecdote of your wife's school. Probably related. The I.T. department I referred to kept their usual stranglehold on the Macs same as on the PCs but didn't have a clue what they were doing. Wouldn't let me fix what they had messed up because they had all the preconceptions of a Mac working (or not working) like a PC, because they're the same. The problems were actually caused by the I.T. department, if they had left the Macs alone they would have been fine.
The school must be right chumps, that they didn't get AppleCare and simply upgrade every 3 years. What on earth did they manage to do to the Macs to screw them up? They are the most trouble free computers out there as is attested by both satisfaction and reliability surveys.
The usual jokes about Irish PC technicians "avin' a go. Now lets see, there's the problem, the floppy disk drive's missing"?
Ubuntu offers the same as OSX? What? WHAT? Oh they're both UNIX!!! "… but I couldn't possibly touch all that other stuff, with a barge pole!" (Last bit said in the same Irish accent).
I can see this "same" is the problem, or more likely the lack of comprehension.
Edited by rubaiyat: 4/8/2010 08:44:07 AM |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 4, 2010 1:43 AM
|
Latest news from Redmond:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/microsoft-patches-critical-crack-in-windows-operating-system-20100803-114az.html
For Christ's sake! You can take over Windows with a shortcut?!!!!
Wish your school the best of luck. They're going to need it in spades.
Edited by rubaiyat: 4/8/2010 09:57:32 AM |
|
blockcentre
Aug 4, 2010 5:08 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:I agree the Mac were toys by comparison, but so were the PCs. The SGI boxes however were enormously more expensive.
I wasn't the one that decided to compare Macs of the day to SGI and DEC workstations. You did claiming that performance was comparable. Yes they were more expensive, but that didn't matter to those that needed the performance.
rubaiyat wrote:The school must be right chumps, that they didn't get AppleCare and simply upgrade every 3 years. What on earth did they manage to do to the Macs to screw them up? They are the most trouble free computers out there as is attested by both satisfaction and reliability surveys.
I don't know what the extent of the issues were. What they did? It's a school. These are used by kids. There's a reason why educational departments across Australia are moving away from the Apple platform.
rubaiyat wrote:Ubuntu offers the same as OSX? What? WHAT? Oh they're both UNIX!!! "… but I couldn't possibly touch all that other stuff, with a barge pole!" (Last bit said in the same Irish accent).
By same I mean that I would end up in the same situation - the reasons why I stick to Windows applies to both platforms, except with Ubuntu I'm not restricted as to what hardware I use or how I use it. It has nothing to do with being based on UNIX. |
|
rubaiyat
Aug 4, 2010 6:39 PM
|
blockcentre
Quote:I wasn't the one that decided to compare Macs of the day to SGI and DEC workstations. You did claiming that performance was comparable.
??? Where do get this from? You said Macs didn't have the latest hardware in them and I pointed out neither did SGI. Never even mentioned DEC.
Quote:I don't know what the extent of the issues were. What they did? It's a school. These are used by kids. There's a reason why educational departments across Australia are moving away from the Apple platform.
Yeah someone claims PCs are half the price. Cheap thinking and ignorance usually go hand in hand. I notice when they use PCs and they are stuffed up, that is considered natural.
Quote:By same I mean that I would end up in the same situation - the reasons why I stick to Windows applies to both platforms, except with Ubuntu I'm not restricted as to what hardware I use or how I use it. It has nothing to do with being based on UNIX.
So you restrict yourself to Microsoft, software registration nazism, viruses, inability to use the excellent Mac software, because that is freedom! Gotcha. ;) |
|
blockcentre
Aug 4, 2010 10:09 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:??? Where do get this from? You said Macs didn't have the latest hardware in them and I pointed out neither did SGI. Never even mentioned DEC.
rubaiyat wrote:
SiliconGraphics had a great CPU but all their other (locked down) components were surprisingly old versions or undersized compared with even the Macs of the day.
No you tried to say that Apple had hardware comparable to SGI. They didn't. Not even close.
rubaiyat wrote:Yeah someone claims PCs are half the price. Cheap thinking and ignorance usually go hand in hand. I notice when they use PCs and they are stuffed up, that is considered natural.
No, the nearest Apple tech to the school was almost 60kms away and would charge like a wounded bull to solve problems. It has little to do with the price of the machines and more to do with the price of getting an Apple qualified tech to solve problems when they occur.
rubaiyat wrote:So you restrict yourself to Microsoft, software registration nazism, viruses, inability to use the excellent Mac software, because that is freedom! Gotcha. ;)
Nazism? You activate, you're done. The same applies to the Apple platform when installing the likes of Adobe CS4 so there's little difference. You want to talk about nazism, how about the DRM loaded iTunes/iPod? Talk about wanting to control how you use your OWN media.
Viruses? I can't recall getting a virus/spyware, etc for years - would be about 10 years in fact. I just don't do stupid things with my PC.
Excellent Mac software?! You've got to be kidding me?! Most Apple software couldn't even take advantage of the hardware I've got. In addition, what software would I be missing out on? I've got Office, the entire Adobe suite, Visual Studio, MYOB, etc. What Apple software would I need that I don't already have covered?
Oh and I do like to play the occasional game. So when I play I'd like more options than just SimCity.
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 5, 2010 2:35 AM
|
Quote:No you tried to say that Apple had hardware comparable to SGI. They didn't. Not even close.
I never said Apple's hardware was comparable but I remember the SCSi was SCSI 1 and the drive sizes were miserable and they had done something to the drives so you had to buy and install them from SGI at inflated prices.
Quote:No, the nearest Apple tech to the school was almost 60kms away and would charge like a wounded bull to solve problems. It has little to do with the price of the machines and more to do with the price of getting an Apple qualified tech to solve problems when they occur.
What, you didn't build them a set of superior PCs, along with the inherent quality, support and warranty that entails? I'm gob smacked. Or does it turn out your time is worth something after all? And there is no support or warranty?
I suppose they may have charged for the drive, but am also guessing that the school didn't bother to learn how to fix the mostly minor stuff that goes wrong with Macs and (from my experience) got someone with PC "experience" to screw them up. They are not that hard to manage that you can't do 99% of the stuff yourself.
AppleCare gives you bottomless, polite and helpful phone and on-site hardware support. Apple's website is a model for thorough, deep, well organised, prompt support. I contribute with the iWork community, one of many, which is fast and gives real, politely helpful and detailed assistance. Compare that to PC sites.
Go to the AppleStore at any time, in or out of warranty and get excellent support from the Genius Bar or from any employee no questions asked. There is a great choice of individual or group training. The documentation is of a standard PC users can only dream of. There is also an excellent library of technical support for all Apple's hardware and software if you want to avail yourself. Or do the accredited technical Training Series.
Take your Mac anywhere in the world and your warranty is good, Unlike PCs it also auto-adjusts for the local power supply. Just another nice Apple touch.
Quote:Nazism? You activate, you're done. The same applies to the Apple platform when installing the likes of Adobe CS4 so there's little difference. You want to talk about nazism, how about the DRM loaded iTunes/iPod? Talk about wanting to control how you use your OWN media.
Activate and Microsoft snoops on your machine. Hackers use Ms's prying technology to gain access to your machine as well. Change something and go begging for activation again.
Apple, you use your sn, if there is one, OSX, iWork, iLife DVDs have none, and Apple never bothers you. Do what you want to your hardware Apple isn't the software standover man. Install the software on more machines than you are entitled and you only have your conscience to answer to.
Apple doesn't short change you with multiple handicapped versions of their OS. You get OSX, stacks of software, a suite of free developer tools and free access to all of Apple's vast resources.
What a furphy about the iPod!. You know perfectly well that the DRM was imposed by the industry and soon as Jobs could, he got rid of it. Microsoft had the Zune with their own horrible and broke DRM and then dumped their users when they changed it on them.
Nothing stops you having your own collection from whatever sources. I have no Apple media at all. All my vast material is from my own CDs and DVDs or from Internet radio, PodCasts or the like.
iTunes has always supported MP3s so what's your problem, other than hypocritical apoplectic self induced indignation.
iTunes will even RIP the CDs for you. Handbrake (free) will do the DVDs.
Quote:Viruses? I can't recall getting a virus/spyware, etc for years - would be about 10 years in fact. I just don't do stupid things with my PC.
Ofcourse. ;) Nobody is catching the over 1 million viruses, trojans, spyware, adware etc on Windows! Yeah wink, wink say no more!
Wonder how these things get around, and odd how PC magazines and forums endlessly obsess over them. It's the number one topic.
Quote:Excellent Mac software?! You've got to be kidding me?! Most Apple software couldn't even take advantage of the hardware I've got. In addition, what software would I be missing out on? I've got Office, the entire Adobe suite, Visual Studio, MYOB, etc. What Apple software would I need that I don't already have covered?
Since you never never go, you'll never never know. I already gave a long list of what I use day to day of which there are no PC equivalents that I know.
Quote:Oh and I do like to play the occasional game. So when I play I'd like more options than just SimCity.
My kids run Warcraft and a stack of other games. I play strategy games. There are even some of those delightfully mindless blood splattering games PC users seem to favor. None of the recreational rape games though.
Real gamers don't use PCs anyway, the consoles beat them hands down.
Edited by rubaiyat: 5/8/2010 11:14:43 AM |
|
Slatts
Aug 5, 2010 7:01 PM
|
rubaiyat wrote:Real gamers don't use PCs anyway, the consoles beat them hands down.[/i]
OH MY GOD!
I can't believe you wrote that.
|
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Aug 5, 2010 7:49 PM
|
Slatts wrote:rubaiyat wrote:Real gamers don't use PCs anyway, the consoles beat them hands down.[/i] OH MY GOD! I can't believe you wrote that.
It's rubaiyat, I'm surprised you're surprised! |
|
Slatts
Aug 5, 2010 9:06 PM
|
I surprised myself to...
|
|
rubaiyat
Aug 6, 2010 4:40 AM
|
Get a dictionary and sort out to, too and two, and try and memorise it.
But then I guess your reel good gamers! :roll:
Edited by rubaiyat: 6/8/2010 07:39:48 AM |
|
Slatts
Aug 6, 2010 7:30 PM
|
damn rubaiyat. you're 2 good for me. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
Aug 7, 2010 12:48 AM
|
 |