Reply With QuoteWhy? You could build a PC for $500 that would beat the crap out of it.
Why? You could build a PC for $500 that would beat the crap out of it.
Right, PC. Macs, believe it or not, actually do some interesting things better and/or easier than PCs.Originally Posted by extarbags
Like what? Besides some graphics apps (that will run shitty on such a cheap/slow Mac anyway), what does a Mac do that a PC can't do? I'm somewhat envious of the integration of the iLife/video editing suite but it's nothing you can't get on PC.
I'll give credit to Apple for the iPod (I have two) and iTunes (I use it exclusively and extensively), but the Mac ship has sailed.
Such as?Right, PC. Macs, believe it or not, actually do some interesting things better and/or easier than PCs.
I like my powerbook, but really we use it for one thing, running final cut.
Chet
Audio, video, Unix utilities. You can cobble together/hack some shit on a PC that's mostly okay for a lot of that stuff (Cubase, whatever passes for video on a Mac, and Cygwin), but in terms of raw integration and ease of use, the Mac wins on those fronts.
Look, you can use Gimp instead of Photoshop. You can use Microsoft Sound Recorder instead of SoundForge. You can use GCC instead of Microsoft Visual Studio. You can get by with a lot of crap. But sometimes the best tools are, well, the best tools, and sometimes those just work better on the Mac.
It's not a religious thing unless you want it to be. I have Linux, Windows, and OS X boxes, and I use 'em all for different purposes. All my system administrator friends use OS X exclusively. My videographer friends use OS X exclusively. Most of the graphic designers I know use OS X exclusively (although that's largely inertia). Probably 75% of the audio guys I know use Macs as well.
For the record, MacOS is a piece of shit, but OS X isn't half-bad.
What Unix utilities does anyone give a shit about who isn't running Unix anyway?Audio, video, Unix utilities. You can cobble together/hack some shit on a PC that's mostly okay for a lot of that stuff (Cubase, whatever passes for video on a Mac, and Cygwin), but in terms of raw integration and ease of use, the Mac wins on those fronts.
What about Soundforge or Photoshop works better on a Mac.Look, you can use Gimp instead of Photoshop. You can use Microsoft Sound Recorder instead of SoundForge. You can use GCC instead of Microsoft Visual Studio. You can get by with a lot of crap. But sometimes the best tools are, well, the best tools, and sometimes those just work better on the Mac.
Right, you're right. Except that it still doesn't have even close to a non-laughable level of program availabilty, and that machine is specced at about half, all around, the level of machine you could get for that price if you built a PC.For the record, MacOS is a piece of shit, but OS X isn't half-bad.
Bacon, so you came up with some general ideas, that you were unable to back with actual details. Besides finalcut (which premier pro actually competes with pretty well and avid crushes in the highend), can you say exactly what software the mac has the outperforms the PC versions?
hmmm probably not. They would be close but you could probably self build and get more for your money. Still its more reasonable that Apple's high end power mac G5s. However it depends on what you want to do and ultimately what the annouced specs really are.
Go more than two weeks without a critical security patch comes to mind. I say that not in a joking way at all BTW. Over all, the User Interface across application is nicer and easier to use but it is a salt to taste kind of thing. You can also twist the question around, what does a pc do that I Mac can't? The truth is application wise for most users, they are about the same. Sure there are less games and high end engineering software is rather rare but you shouldn't be wanting Ultimately what this new system means if you like using a mac, but didn't because of the cost involved, now you don't have that barrier.
How many of those guys use a barebones system equivalent to what this $499 system will be? I like what little I've seen of OSX and have always thought Apple hardware seems decent enough, but the real deal-breaker has always been price.
Is anyone expecting that this $499 bare-bones system will be able to run OSX as well as a $499 Dell would be able to run Win XP Home?
Impress chicks.
It should but really it depends on what video card they sneak into it.
Um.It should but really it depends on what video card they sneak into it.
PowerPC G4 processor at a speed around 1.25GHzNo.256MB of RAM
I think the $500 Mac would sell well as a email/web browser thing. I would never buy one myself as the hardware is way underpowered what you could get on a PC at the same price.
After spending several hours cleaning out spyware/viruses from one of my relatives computers over the Christmas holiday I could see myself recommending they buy something like this next time they get a computer. That computer was totally fucked up with spyware it was a Athlon XP 2000 machine with 512 ram but when it you booted it and tried to use it, it literally took about 2mins to respond to anything. I've never seen anything like it, I've dealt with plenty of machines with lots of spyware but they were always just generally a bit slow and would have popup windows happening at random. That sort of stuff. But this machine was basically unuseable stuff like clicking the Start button took a few mins, Right clicking the desktop a couple mins for the dialog box to display. 90% of the time I spend fixing it was really just connecting to the internet and installing the various antispyware programs and updates. (They only had 56k combined with superslow machine with spyware thats also using up their limited bandwidth makes me cry) Once that was done it was only about 1hr tops to remove all the bad stuff and have the system working perfectly again. I need to remember to burn that stuff to a disc.
Apple really needs to market this point to the laymen about being less of a target for spyware, that can render PCs useless to less experienced PC users.
For $499Um.It should but really it depends on what video card they sneak into it.
PowerPC G4 processor at a speed around 1.25GHzNo.256MB of RAM
Dimension 3000
Intel® Celeron® D Processor 320 (2.40GHz, 533 FSB)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Integrated Intel® Extreme Graphics 2
256MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
So you really think a G4 is far weaker than a celeron?
The only think that worries me is if Apple sticks a rage video chip. Those things just were horrible at running osx
Yeah, this looks like something I'd recommend to my parents.
I know a lot of graphics artist, photographers and designers - the old ones stick to the Mac, but that's because they fear change. The young ones (not trying to impress chicks) are abandoning the Mac, because even they prefer more power for their bucks.
I've never heard that Photoshop runs better on a Mac (allthough OSX is a slightly more stable platform than WinXP), but this system really hasn't got the specs to do serious work in Photoshop and therefore it's a non-issue.
The company I work for is finally abandoning Quark for InDesign, which means that in my position, I can abandon the Mac alltogether.
There was much rejoicing... unfortunately the boss wouldn't let us use the leftover G4's for target practice.
I like OS X but 256mb -- yikes.
The problem with buying a Mac is that I can just run Linux on a PC instead. Same problems (vis-a-vis Windows) with app availability, but they tend to be free and it has the same underlying Unix goodness. Macs do have nicer fonts and UI, though.
The original comparison was to machines you could build, but yes, I'd say that a Celeron is quite a bit better than a G4 when the Celeron is running at twice the clock speed. Even so, the most appalling thing about the Mac is the 256MB of RAM, which that Dell also sports. So there you go, if you bought the Dell instead of building a machine, you'd have the same amount of RAM. The difference between that and 512, from Crucial (which is not what's actually in either of these, of course), is $40.For $499Um.It should but really it depends on what video card they sneak into it.
PowerPC G4 processor at a speed around 1.25GHzNo.256MB of RAM
Dimension 3000
Intel® Celeron® D Processor 320 (2.40GHz, 533 FSB)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
Integrated Intel® Extreme Graphics 2
256MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
So you really think a G4 is far weaker than a celeron?
The only think that worries me is if Apple sticks a rage video chip. Those things just were horrible at running osx
They would be good machines for the average joe, who could afford them at $500 ($600 with the proper amount of RAM). I don't understand the Mac hatred. They are good machines with good build quality, with an awesome Unix-based system with a better all-around user experience than any Linux I've used (and better than Windows in most, but definitely not all ways).
I think it's weird that the basic argument for anti-Mac people is still 'Macs suck!" I wish they were faster, clock-wise, but I do most of my work on a 1.33GHz G4--including light Photoshop work--and it's plenty fast for most things. OSX is really good at managing multiple open applications at once without bogging everything down.
As a successful sales thing... I dunno. But I hope they actually do it. I've wanted a cheap, headless Mac for a long time.
The basic argument I hear (and use) against them is that they're overpriced for what you get and have an anemic software library.
What about OSX is better than Windows?
My argument is that they are overpriced machines that are much, much slower than PCs at comparable price points, they're very often extremely unfriendly towards upgrades, and there is a very, very small amount of software available for them, compared to Windows.I think it's weird that the basic argument for anti-Mac people is still 'Macs suck!"
I also think the OSX interface sucks ass. Yeah, I said it. And what's so great about OSX itself? If you want to run Unix, run Unix. There are tons of free Unix distributions that run on the PC.
That is such a tiresome claim. It's not how much software is available, it's the quality, and I would argue that in most areas people care about, the top software packages are comparable on both platforms. Seriously, I could give a shit if a zillion pieces of shitty software packages are available for the Mac as long as decent stuff exists. Like iLife, Illustrator, Logic, Photoshop, FCP, and any open source stuff I want or need.and have an anemic software library.
It's more robust, supports multiple users in a lot cleaner fashion (including simulteneously), and isn't prone to getting hijacked every 15 seconds?
Slower in what tangible, meaningful way to the typical user? 3DMarks? Q3TEST or Far Cry scores? Hint: most users could give a shit. As long as the day to day usability feels "good enough", that's all that matters.My argument is that they are overpriced machines that are much, much slower than PCs at comparable price points
Yes, an AXP 3200 will kick the crap out of a comparably priced Mac when running a contrived Gaussian filter in Photoshop but...who gives a shit?
As long as the software is good, that's all that matters to me. It's like GameCube vs. PS2 -- PS2 has like 100x the software, but maybe 2x the software I'd actually want to play.and there is a very, very small amount of software available for them, compared to Windows.
OS X is Unix. It's not "like" Unix, it IS Unix.And what's so great about OSX itself? If you want to run Unix, run Unix. There are tons of free Unix distributions that run on the PC.
Running OS X vs. running any random FreeBSD/Linux distro on a PC -- jesus, there's not even a comparison. Are you kidding me here? You can run industrial strength Unix apps on OS X in a friendly environment -- Apache, ftpd, sshd, you name it -- without breaking a sweat. The typical Mac or PC user isn't going to be configuring Red Hat happily anytime soon. Samba? Good fucking luck mounting a Windows file system from Linux.
There are two problems with Linux (and I often work in Mandrake 10 and have played with Red Hat and SuSe).
First: The GUI isn't spread amoung apps. Each app has a completely different look and feel from every other app. Also programers of many linux aps wouldn't know how to create a decent interface even if instructions were tattooed on their penis. Yes its free, and I say you tend to get what you pay for.
Second: Usuable documentation for the average user is nonexistant. All man pages are written for programmers by programmers. At least I have some sun experience to guid me. Sit down a novice in front of a Mac, they will probably figure most basic things out. Sit them in fron of KDE and they'll probably cry.
That's the whole point: If you want to run Unix, what are you going to do:
1. Shell out $650 for SCO Unix and god knows how much for a box.
2. Try to buy a piece of shit overpriced Solaris box, same problem as #1.
3. Set up Linux, which has the cheap thing going for it but is a little light on the multimedia applications.
4. Buy a Mac for slightly more than the homebrew Linux box and end up with all the great A/V apps, drivers that will work out of the box for your digital camera and camcorder, and a consistent, coherent interface.
I have an 800MHz G3 running OS X 10.3, and it's more than up to the task. I'm sure a 1.2GHz G4 will have little trouble.
I would like to hear where Mac is lacking. Yes games. However the pc may go down that road soon as everyone seems to be going to one of the next gen consoles as their primary platform. Sure the pc will get ports and a few originals. Just like the mac does now. The only place I know there is a huge hole is engineer quality 3d modeling software such as Solidworks. It appears that Autocads next update in 2006 may be available for osx but the world appears to be pulling away from Autocad type technology. Beyond that. I'm rather stumped. I don't see where the Mac is wanting in applications.
At work I've used a G4 power mac 733 (I think is 700 mhz+something) running osx and microsoft office and it runs fine. At least as fast as a Dell pentium 4 1.7 thats near it.I have an 800MHz G3 running OS X 10.3, and it's more than up to the task. I'm sure a 1.2GHz G4 will have little trouble.
The question is not, "What about OSX is better than Windows?" but rather, "What about OSX is not better than Windows?"
I can think of a few things.
1. More applications.
2. Greater installed user base.
3. UI inertia -- it's what most people are already comfortable with.
And, well, that's about it. In every other aspect, OSX is better -- security, reliability, interface, multi-language support, accelerated windowing system, internet services, source code licensing, cross-platform compatibility, hardware drivers, included applications, free software downloads...
I'm not a Mactivist at all, and I'm not a Switch campaign ad. I have a Windows box, a Linux box and a Mac laptop. I'm intimately familiar with the inner and outer workings of each one, as far as drivers, applications and programming. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of OSX far exceed its disadvantages, and its current capabilities far exceed those of Linux and Windows, and it's not even close. That was true even back when it was called NextStep; now that it has some real applications and a growing installed base, it's getting more true.
My company builds wireless equipment. We were to install our hardware, plus some software, in an apartment complex. We assumed we needed an app for Windows, figuring we'd build for other platforms later, and we got burned; most of the residents owned Macs. We found ourselves rushing to port our software over. The guy who bought the Mac to do this ended up making the computer his personal machine, even with access to some beautiful Dell laptops running Windows and PCs running relatively recent versions of Red Hat. His experience is an example of what I'm saying -- those who use all three all end up going to Apple.
It's actually a good thing people are so closed-minded about it; we really don't want Jobs being the #1 guy in the computer business.
Posting Permissions