Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/31/2004 3:05:59 AM EST
Apple puts the squeeze on new iMac
Published: August 31, 2004, 3:28 AM PDT

By John G. Spooner
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Apple Computer took a minimalist approach to the design of its third-generation iMac, which debuted Tuesday.

The new all-in-one iMac G5 desktop tucks all of its components, including its hard drive, processor and slot-load DVD drive, behind a widescreen liquid crystal display. The machine, which is about 2 inches thick and is mounted on a curved metal stand, has proportions similar to those of the company's Cinema Display flat panels.

The computer maker unveiled the design--its third all-in-one iMac--at the Apple Expo in Paris. Mac enthusiast sites had been buzzing recently about possible designs for the new machines.

Previous models included the iMac G4, introduced in 2002, whose swing-arm-mounted flat screen drew comparisons to a desk lamp, and the first generation CRT-based machine from 1998, whose form is still emulated by the eMac. This time around the iMac G5 also creates a profile that emulates that of Apple's iPod digital music player when mounted inside its docking cradle.

In spite of the slim profile, Apple also squeezed in a fair amount of power into the machines. Two models include a G5 processor, otherwise known as IBM's PowerPC 970, and one model includes Apple's SuperDrive DVD burner.

Apple is billing the new design as "enchanting" and is looking for consumers to make a favorable comparison between the new iMac and the wildly popular iPod.

"Just like the iPod redefined portable digital music players, the new iMac G5 redefines what users expect from a consumer desktop," Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.

The computer maker said it will begin shipping the machine in mid-September. Apple will sell three models, ranging from one with a 17-inch screen priced at $1,299 to a 20-inch model priced at $1,899.

Apple first confirmed a new iMac was on the way in July. At that time the company said that it had stopped taking orders for iMac G4 models and that it had hoped to introduce an all-new model available before G4 stocks ran out. But instead it said it was hampered by a component shortage, which would prevent the new iMac from coming out until September. Later it revealed that the component in question was the G5 processor, thereby confirming that the chip would power the new design.

Although Apple began taking orders for the iMac G5 on its Web site on Tuesday and plans to ship in mid-September, the gap in timing has left Apple without a consumer-oriented desktop to sell for the much of the 2004 back-to-school season.

The most basic $1,299 model will include a 1.6GHz processor and the 17-inch wide screen, whose resolution is 1,440 by 900 pixels. It also comes with 256MB of RAM; an 80GB, 7,200-rpm hard drive; a combination CD-burner/DVD-ROM drive; Nvidia's GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics chip; and 64MB of dedicated graphics memory. Apple's Mac OS X version 10.3 operating system is also included.

The intermediate model, priced at $1,499, offers a faster 1.8GHz processor, whose data pipeline to and from memory also accelerates to 600MHz from 533MHz. It also comes with the Apple SuperDrive combination DVD-burner/CD-burner.

The $1,899 model's 20-inch screen offers a resolution of 1,680 by 1,050 pixels. This iMac also includes the 1.8GHz chip, a 160GB, 7,200-rpm hard drive and the SuperDrive.

Customers who purchase any of the machines direct from Apple can add more memory and a larger hard drive and can opt for add-ons such as an Apple AirPort Extreme wireless card. When fitted with 1GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive and an Airport card, the 20-inch model costs about $2,300, Apple's site shows.

As part of its efforts to keep the iMac G5 trim, Apple used design tricks such as incorporating the machine's power supply, making for a less bulky power cord arrangement—-many thin desktops use a bricklike external power supply. It also included a complement of audio- and video-out, USB, Firewire and Ethernet ports, but gives customers the option of adding Bluetooth, the short-range wireless networking technology for connecting peripherals, instead of cables to connect devices such as a keyboard and a mouse.

The Bluetooth module alone adds $50, while a module plus a keyboard and mouse adds $99 to the price of an iMac purchased direct from Apple.


http://news.com.com/Apple+puts+the+squeeze+on+new+iMac/2100-1042_3-5330829.html
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:08:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:17:25 AM EST
It's pretty neat looking, but for the money, I think I'd rather have a laptop.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:20:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
ummm pc makers have been doing that since 1998.



Who? I guess I've been ignoring anything that wasn't standard ATX form factor. It kinda looks like a tablet PC, but that's not really what this is. They have touchscreens, I believe.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:26:32 AM EST
... Macintosh are amazing machines for certain applications, especially graphic arts. But even then the fastest P/C's have made the differences in performance nearly transparent.

... +1 PC for me

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:35:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
ummm pc makers have been doing that since 1998.

mike



xerox has been doing it since 1978,Steve Jobs(apple) and Bill Gates(win 3.0) stole the concept of GUI from the Zerox concep ,Whom was just as laid back as IBM was at the time to allow BG to have any control over another OP!

At that point in time xerox or IBM could have controled the world of information!

IBM just too diversified,Xerox just too much into copy machinmes!!!


Although in about 1978 Xerox had a 280 MegHtz ,64 meg ram ,with aGUI windows type interface!!

Thats right thats about the time we had Dos 4.O!!! Remember that shit? CD,,, Cd/(butthead)!


So Steve and Bill both were invited to see the Stealth Bomber of the day!!!

And they both got there inspiration of how a PC should run!!!


They steal from each other as no one since George Boolion really knows why such a thing crossed a mans mind on the way to the creek!!!



Bob
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:36:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 3:37:06 AM EST by warlord]
No matter how snazzy looking is the machine, the big thing is software. Without software, you might as well have a boat anchor.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:37:48 AM EST
And that's a mighty small boat anchor....


Originally Posted By warlord:
No matter how snazzy looking is the machine, the big thing is software. Without software, you might as well have a boat anchor.

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:45:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:39:45 AM EST
Most Apple products are badly overpriced but this thing is way over the top overpriced STARTING AT $1300. You can get 2 FASTER PCs with flat screen monitors for $1300.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:18:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

While these things have a small foot print they do have their own share of problems. Ever seen how much heat is generated by a hard drive and a display in the same package. Shelf life is not something these things are going to have.

mike




Exactly. If anyone is tempted to get one of these new Imacs they better get a full extended warranty. It will pay for itself in the first year.

I used to work for an OEM that sold a similiar unit. They were junk. We sold a notebook type warranty with them so pretty much every call we took on them was sending out a whole replacement system.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:22:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Most Apple products are badly overpriced but this thing is way over the top overpriced STARTING AT $1300. You can get 2 FASTER PCs with flat screen monitors for $1300.




Just because a PC says it has 2.4 ghz and a mac says it has 1.5ghz t doesnt mean that the PC is faster. The MAC processors are muh faster than the Pentium's
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:26:10 AM EST
As far as heat goes, the new G5 desktops are liquid-cooled. Are they using the same setup for the new iMacs?

Either way, I want one.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:31:42 AM EST
dang over-priced fruity puters
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:44:34 AM EST

Just because a PC says it has 2.4 ghz and a mac says it has 1.5ghz t doesnt mean that the PC is faster. The MAC processors are muh faster than the Pentium's


Absolute, proven, total bunk… Single processor G5s are dogs, slow dogs.

And anyway at $1300 you can get 2 3.0ghz PCs
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:45:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Most Apple products are badly overpriced but this thing is way over the top overpriced STARTING AT $1300. You can get 2 FASTER PCs with flat screen monitors for $1300.




Just because a PC says it has 2.4 ghz and a mac says it has 1.5ghz t doesnt mean that the PC is faster. The MAC processors are muh faster than the Pentium's



eyup.
my unix laptop has an ultrasparc processor that is only 400 mhz.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:14:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:18:38 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Just because a PC says it has 2.4 ghz and a mac says it has 1.5ghz t doesnt mean that the PC is faster. The MAC processors are muh faster than the Pentium's


Absolute, proven, total bunk… Single processor G5s are dogs, slow dogs.

And anyway at $1300 you can get 2 3.0ghz PCs



A good PC system, with comparable graphics processing power, costs about $900-1000 still, AT RETAIL. You can BUILD one for less, but since Apple isn't in the parts biz, that's a moot point.

GHZ is not the end-all/be-all of processing power, and the $650-with-monitor PCs you see at WorstBuy are cheap for a reason. You get a 3ghz CPU, 2yo RAM technology, a 3yo integrated graphics processor, and so on... Apple does not offer systems with such substandard components.

The whole idea behind Macs costing what they do is that Apple does not want to sell to the 'bargain basement' segment. They are not producing 'dustbin specials' with the latest CPU wrapped in all the crap they couldn't sell for the past 3 years... Same issue for the software; All the softawre that Apple's target users need DOES run on the Mac -> Mozilla, FinalCut, Illustrator, Photoshop, AAVID, Dreamweaver, etc... Apple isn't selling corporate desktops, they don't need Exchange, or Office (both of which they have, anyhow), or most of the mainline PC products... Different world, different tools... Sun & IBM still sell plenty of boxes that don't run ANY common PC software, and they are doing quite well at that, too...

It is a conscious marketing decision NOT to get into the 'Who can build the crappiest PC' price wars with Dell & Co, but rather to sell to select niche markets.

And for Apple, it's a good thing. They can actually make a decent margin on their 'unique' computers, whereas the PC biz is purely volume driven. Apple is doing quite well with their small market share, and for them that's what matters - it's about making money, not about being 'Mr Big'...

I will maintain that an equivalent retail PC will be no less than 300 cheaper than that Mac at actual store price.

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:25:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Most Apple products are badly overpriced but this thing is way over the top overpriced STARTING AT $1300. You can get 2 FASTER PCs with flat screen monitors for $1300.



That's a bit pricey, but at least the Mac comes with a real OS.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:31:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Just because a PC says it has 2.4 ghz and a mac says it has 1.5ghz t doesnt mean that the PC is faster. The MAC processors are muh faster than the Pentium's


Absolute, proven, total bunk… Single processor G5s are dogs, slow dogs.

And anyway at $1300 you can get 2 3.0ghz PCs



A good PC system, with comparable graphics processing power, costs about $900-1000 still, AT RETAIL. You can BUILD one for less, but since Apple isn't in the parts biz, that's a moot point.

GHZ is not the end-all/be-all of processing power, and the $650-with-monitor PCs you see at WorstBuy are cheap for a reason. You get a 3ghz CPU, 2yo RAM technology, a 3yo integrated graphics processor, and so on... Apple does not offer systems with such substandard components.

The whole idea behind Macs costing what they do is that Apple does not want to sell to the 'bargain basement' segment. They are not producing 'dustbin specials' with the latest CPU wrapped in all the crap they couldn't sell for the past 3 years... Same issue for the software; All the softawre that Apple's target users need DOES run on the Mac -> Mozilla, FinalCut, Illustrator, Photoshop, AAVID, Dreamweaver, etc... Apple isn't selling corporate desktops, they don't need Exchange, or Office (both of which they have, anyhow), or most of the mainline PC products... Different world, different tools... Sun & IBM still sell plenty of boxes that don't run ANY common PC software, and they are doing quite well at that, too...

It is a conscious marketing decision NOT to get into the 'Who can build the crappiest PC' price wars with Dell & Co, but rather to sell to select niche markets.

And for Apple, it's a good thing. They can actually make a decent margin on their 'unique' computers, whereas the PC biz is purely volume driven. Apple is doing quite well with their small market share, and for them that's what matters - it's about making money, not about being 'Mr Big'...

I will maintain that an equivalent retail PC will be no less than 300 cheaper than that Mac at actual store price.




Nice thesis. Too bad the facts do not support it. For the last quarter, Apple had net earnings of $61 million on sales of $2.01 billion. That is a 3.03% margin. Most of Apple's earnings, per the company, came from iPod sales. Dell, on the other hand, had net earnings last quarter of $799 million on $11.71 billion in sales, a 6.82% margin. So Apple makes less than half the profit Dell does, and does so on less than one-fifth of the sales. And if it were not for iPods, Apple would be virtually profitless.

Apple chose a to not license its technology, with the result that they are today a niche player in the PC market. Their PCs are not particularly profitable. Their high price has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with a lack of competitors in their niche.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:34:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:40:14 AM EST by Max_Mike]

A good PC system, with comparable graphics processing power, costs about $900-1000 still, AT RETAIL.


Naw, you can get a new PCI express systems in the $900-1000 price range that would run circles around the new IMacs. You can get APG systems cheaper that will still stomp the IMac. Or you could get a real nice FASTER laptop for the same money (or less) and that is really a telling fact on just how overpriced the new IMacs are.


And for Apple, it's a good thing. They can actually make a decent margin on their 'unique' computers, whereas the PC biz is purely volume driven. Apple is doing quite well with their small market share, and for them that's what matters - it's about making money, not about being 'Mr Big'...


Apple is in trouble.

Contrary to what many Apple uses believe at 3% market share Apple is irrelevant to the world computer market and MANY believe Apple will not survive much longeras a computer maker without growth. An OVERPRICEd IMac will not help this situation.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:40:30 AM EST
Pretty sweet, the form factor is very cool. But I'm in for more professional machines... so I got a 2.5GHz dual G5 on my desktop now.

I love the guys who bash Macs. I just stopped using (as in, last night, when I offloaded my freelance/digital photography work to the new machine) a 300mhz G3, upgraded to a 400mhz G4. Still used OSX, still did what I wanted it to, just a bit slower. Oh, I had that machine 5 years (May of 99), and while it's got a couple small problems with it, it's run 100% since then. I've upgraded hard drive, video card, and RAM. Tell me it's not time to buy a new machine after 5 years of solid computing!

Basically I did everything you PC guys do. If it costs a bit more, what's it to you? Nobody's making you buy one. If I wanted to buy a BMW would you begrudge me that too? I prefer the user experience on a Mac. I have had way fewer problems with my various Macs (at home and work) than PC users I know, including my wife, for whom I am the computer guy.

-Macman37
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:47:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By macman37:
Pretty sweet, the form factor is very cool. But I'm in for more professional machines... so I got a 2.5GHz dual G5 on my desktop now.

I love the guys who bash Macs. I just stopped using (as in, last night, when I offloaded my freelance/digital photography work to the new machine) a 300mhz G3, upgraded to a 400mhz G4. Still used OSX, still did what I wanted it to, just a bit slower. Oh, I had that machine 5 years (May of 99), and while it's got a couple small problems with it, it's run 100% since then. I've upgraded hard drive, video card, and RAM. Tell me it's not time to buy a new machine after 5 years of solid computing!

Basically I did everything you PC guys do. If it costs a bit more, what's it to you? Nobody's making you buy one. If I wanted to buy a BMW would you begrudge me that too? I prefer the user experience on a Mac. I have had way fewer problems with my various Macs (at home and work) than PC users I know, including my wife, for whom I am the computer guy.

-Macman37




I love the guys who bash Macs.


You sound just like a Kerry supporter FACTS are NOT bashing. Nobody begrudges you anything but reality is still reality.

If you buy one of these new IMac (any Apple computer) you are buying style over performance your choice but don’t try and sell the bunk Apple computers are anywhere close to as fast as PC’s without spending much more money.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:04:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Apple is in trouble.

Contrary to what many Apple uses believe at 3% market share Apple is irrelevant to the world computer market and MANY believe Apple will not survive much longeras a computer maker without growth. An OVERPRICEd IMac will not help this situation.



BMW has 1.6% market share in the US www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0401/13/c01-34324.htm
BMW obviously should stop selling cars in the US, they are irrelevant to the world of automobiles. An OVERPRICED 7 series will not help this situation. But, you can get the iPod adapter for your BMW though.

Obviously you don't like the Mac for some reason, that's fine. That doesn't preclude it from being a nice computing platform that fit's many people's needs and wants. I've always wondered why people are so much against the Mac. Constantly spewing that the company is dead, that it should be dead, etc. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of room for alternatives and Apple is happy to provide one. I like the mac because it fills a need for my job and it fills that need very well. My lack of frustration using the Mac is well worth the increase of cost (Yes, I also have PC's too, as they fill a need for some software that I must run)
Mac's are more expensive a computer, but they are well built machines and they work well. They are not _that_ much over priced either. Why would you buy a Bushy receiver when you could get a Mega for less than half the price? Maybe you just like the name, maybe the technical specs, maybe just the look of it. So what? Just buy the damn thing and be happy with it and stop telling me I made a bad choice.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:08:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Pretty sweet, the form factor is very cool. But I'm in for more professional machines... so I got a 2.5GHz dual G5 on my desktop now.

I love the guys who bash Macs. I just stopped using (as in, last night, when I offloaded my freelance/digital photography work to the new machine) a 300mhz G3, upgraded to a 400mhz G4. Still used OSX, still did what I wanted it to, just a bit slower. Oh, I had that machine 5 years (May of 99), and while it's got a couple small problems with it, it's run 100% since then. I've upgraded hard drive, video card, and RAM. Tell me it's not time to buy a new machine after 5 years of solid computing!

Basically I did everything you PC guys do. If it costs a bit more, what's it to you? Nobody's making you buy one. If I wanted to buy a BMW would you begrudge me that too? I prefer the user experience on a Mac. I have had way fewer problems with my various Macs (at home and work) than PC users I know, including my wife, for whom I am the computer guy.

-Macman37




I love the guys who bash Macs.


You sound just like a Kerry supporter FACTS are NOT bashing. Nobody begrudges you anything but reality is still reality.

If you buy one of these new IMac (any Apple computer) you are buying style over performance your choice but don’t try and sell the bunk Apple computers are anywhere close to as fast as PC’s without spending much more money.



I support both at work, and am issued a decent PC laptop and a G4 iBook to do with as I please. I don't care what any of you say, total cost of ownership for macs is less in a large computing environment (tons less support, easier software upgrades, easier to train new users, more productive users), and you can do anything on a Mac that you would like to on a PC. Hell, you can effectively emulate a PC on a mac, and access data on PC media on a Mac. God help you trying to do the reverse.

After 2 years with both laptops (and no home desktop worth talking about), I lug the iBook home every night, and the Gateway just sits there and waits for me to need 9 pin serial in a network closet somewhere.

Processor speed is one benchmark you can use to determine the usefulness of a machine, I prefer snag-free productivity. In that sense, the macs torpedo PC's. Use what you want though, when I was mac ignorant I too thought PC's were the best thing since sliced bread. It's easier to condemn than to learn.

Keep your TSR's. Keep your virus software. Keep your reboots and system hangs. Please. Millions of $$ in support depend on it.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:30:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Pretty sweet, the form factor is very cool. But I'm in for more professional machines... so I got a 2.5GHz dual G5 on my desktop now.

I love the guys who bash Macs. I just stopped using (as in, last night, when I offloaded my freelance/digital photography work to the new machine) a 300mhz G3, upgraded to a 400mhz G4. Still used OSX, still did what I wanted it to, just a bit slower. Oh, I had that machine 5 years (May of 99), and while it's got a couple small problems with it, it's run 100% since then. I've upgraded hard drive, video card, and RAM. Tell me it's not time to buy a new machine after 5 years of solid computing!

Basically I did everything you PC guys do. If it costs a bit more, what's it to you? Nobody's making you buy one. If I wanted to buy a BMW would you begrudge me that too? I prefer the user experience on a Mac. I have had way fewer problems with my various Macs (at home and work) than PC users I know, including my wife, for whom I am the computer guy.

-Macman37




I love the guys who bash Macs.


You sound just like a Kerry supporter FACTS are NOT bashing. Nobody begrudges you anything but reality is still reality.

If you buy one of these new IMac (any Apple computer) you are buying style over performance your choice but don’t try and sell the bunk Apple computers are anywhere close to as fast as PC’s without spending much more money.



You sound like a Kerry supporter with your silly rhetoric! Did someone beat you with a Macintosh keyboard as a child?

I didn't buy an iMac (read my post)... I need a professional machine.

Do you see me bashing PCs? Reality being what it is, reality, I could care less which is faster. Which is better for me? I don't look at PC vs. Mac charts. Every single one of them has a gripe about them from one side or the other (hmm, always the loser). I have a stable (non-crashing) user experience with my Macs. Yeah I've had problems with them, the occasional clunker, and until we upgrade some of the software (not Apple's fault), we'll have program crashes. (hey, I'm admitting that some of the Macs I've used aren't 100%, the least you could do is admit there are flaws with your beloved PCs)

I just don't get why some people feel the need to crap on a perfectly good computer. As I said, would you do that if I had a BMW? Sure you could buy a Ford Taurus to get you there... but if you can have a better experience, that makes more sense (to you) than the Ford, wouldn't you?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 9:49:33 AM EST
As was briefly mentioned, it's the software. If I could get all the software I wanted without the use of an emulator to run on a MAC I might be tempted to run one.... but I can't, so it doesnt matter how nice, stable, or fast they are.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:11:26 AM EST
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.

Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".

"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.

The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.

MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:18:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:20:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By LHD:
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.

Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".

"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.

The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.

MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.




If you haven't had extensive experience with a Mac, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The above would lead me to believe that was true. Three words.. "It works better."
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:21:54 AM EST
I have 2 Macs at home that were purchased in 1996. Both still running well, no issues. They have been upgraded with faster processors, video cards, andl have UW SCSI drives that run circles around the IDE crap. For surfing the net, what do you really need?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:26:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:

Originally Posted By LHD:
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.

Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".

"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.

The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.

MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.




If you haven't had extensive experience with a Mac, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The above would lead me to believe that was true. Three words.. "It works better."



My girlfriends family is an entirely mac family, thats 28 machines. Who do you think fixes them?

I've got a little experience.


Please quantify "It works better" with some sort of arguement. It seems that you have no experience with PC's and that Mac is easier to learn, which it is. I dont see any inheirant benfit to running a mac other than visually appealing extras to the OS. I dont need to see a window "sucked" down into the tray, it can just disappear and I'll be happy.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:46:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:52:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

Originally Posted By ClayP:
I have 2 Macs at home that were purchased in 1996. Both still running well, no issues. They have been upgraded with faster processors, video cards, andl have UW SCSI drives that run circles around the IDE crap. For surfing the net, what do you really need?



for surfing the net none of what you have there. a 486 with an IDE bus is more than sufficient.

I really get amused by these guys on the BLEEDING edge of speed. The software right now with just a few exceptions is behind even most of the low end hardware.

I am a Certified tech for almost every Major vendor on the market including Apple. They are Decent machines but WAYYYYYYY overpriced for what they are. The base hardware is probobly a bit better than a similar dell or gateway or brand X but not by that much. CErtanly not enough to justify the cost difference.

Macs OS is fair at best. Considering they are running risc based equipment there are FAR beter OS choices that COULD be ported to their needs.



I love the arguement that "OSX IS UNIX! Unix is much better than windows".
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:55:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By LHD:

Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:

Originally Posted By LHD:
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.

Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".

"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.

The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.

MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.




If you haven't had extensive experience with a Mac, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The above would lead me to believe that was true. Three words.. "It works better."



My girlfriends family is an entirely mac family, thats 28 machines. Who do you think fixes them?

I've got a little experience.


Please quantify "It works better" with some sort of arguement. It seems that you have no experience with PC's and that Mac is easier to learn, which it is. I dont see any inheirant benfit to running a mac other than visually appealing extras to the OS. I dont need to see a window "sucked" down into the tray, it can just disappear and I'll be happy.



My current job requires me to maintain about 50 PC's and about 300 macs. Every job I've had before this has been PC (only) support. I've got pleeeenty of PC experience. The benefits I see to running a Mac are less OS issues, less security issues, increased productivity (less time maintaining, more time working), a superior GUI (ie: I can get more done with it, not "it looks prettier") and the hardware generally doesn't need upgrading as quickly as a PC. Hardware addons are cleaner as well, things just work the way they should out of the box more often.

I miss some windows shortcut keys, Macs aren't nearly as quick without a mouse and I hate that. I also miss the easy piracy market that was the killer app for so long with PC's. I sort of miss the games, but without serious investment in hardware it was (and remains) impossible to keep up with the latest and greatest. I really dig the Mac's MEDIA ability and the ease of integration as far as video and audio. I love the hell out of tabbed browsing in Safari (it's cleaner and quicker), though some nonstandard html doesn't display quite right. I sure don't miss running spybot killers or virus software (I've got it, but the threat is so low, mostly Word macros, a constant TSR is unnecessary). Hell, even the software that Microsoft writes for both platforms normally runs with more stability (and on less resources) on a Mac.

I work in a school system now though, and we're training our kids on these things. I have always thought that this is a disservice to them, as once they get out of our nice pretty network, they're going to have to deal with PC's in the workplace. For that reason alone I'd trash the Macs in favor of PC's. We would need to double the computer support staff though.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:59:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 11:01:45 AM EST by A-nus]
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:59:43 AM EST
*rolls up sleeves and puts on waders*


Originally Posted By LHD:
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.



Same can be said for the PC zealots. In the end, who really cares? I'm happy with my machines and you're happy with yours. I am no liberal and I say "give me a Mac".

on to your "Facts"...


Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".


Well thank you for the compliment. "Decent". Wow.

So you can build a Mac for less than half... that doesn't run the Mac OS. Therein lies the difference. Bottom line, who cares? You like PCs, I like Macs. Try this concept on for size: who cares what you're using.


"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.


I find the PC interface to be very clunky. XP fixed some of that but I still don't care for it. I have a choice. I exercise it. Frankly I don't think it's poor user skill... I've used PCs that have the command line interface. I used PCs that had Windows, 98, 2000 and now XP... and I still prefer Macs. Oh wait! That only works one way: Since you are the computer guy for your entire inlaws, you can pull that card but I can't. Macs work for me.


The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.


You're right, they used to be like that. But whose machines ship with an excellent movie editing package free? Hmm.


MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


Completely false analogy. First up, I don't ever emulate PCs (have no reason to)... Second, a car that "only runs on high priced, infrequently repaired roads?" Nice inflammatory rhetoric there... that has no bearing whatsoever on the debate here. By the way, what were we debating?


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.


meh. Enjoy the popcorn, anyway.

Bottom line, this is just Ford vs. Chevy, AR-15 vs. AK-47, blowhard, bang your head on the wall, nobody wins silliness.

Use what you prefer. Don't begrudge me for using what I prefer because I have valid reasons for using them.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:00:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 11:00:38 AM EST by torstin]

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
I am a Certified tech for almost every Major vendor on the market including Apple. They are Decent machines but WAYYYYYYY overpriced for what they are. The base hardware is probobly a bit better than a similar dell or gateway or brand X but not by that much. CErtanly not enough to justify the cost difference.
.



i keep hearing that about the ipods too. why isnt anyone producing and selling them, or iac copies, at a cheaper price?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:07:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 11:08:05 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By torstin:
<snip>
i keep hearing that about the ipods too. why isnt anyone producing and selling them, or iac copies, at a cheaper price?



There are TONS of media players that give you more bang for your buck than an iPod. Of course, none are as "cool." When I am on a transcontinental, transatlantic, or transpacific flight, my iRiver still has hours of battery life left when the plane lands. All the iPod users around me have long since packed up their "cool" iPods 'cause they ran out of juice hours before.

But they do look cooler than me. I guess that matters to some. I carry it so I can listen to music.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:08:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 11:10:40 AM EST by ARDunstan]

Originally Posted By LHD:
I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.

Quality parts. Granted macs come with decent hardware. A step above the average dell, compaq or HP crapbox assembled in the last 4 years. Because a mac may come with better parts than some x86 boxes does not mean that ALL x86 boxes are inferior. I can still build a machine to smoke a mac for about half the price. This is a function of knowing the workings of a pc and knowing what works and what doesnt. The mac equivelent is "give us money for more performance".

"Snagless os" If you have problems with a pc, especially the interface, and its not hardware related, you are the problem. Anyone who runs a pc and knows what theyre doing does not fall prey to the incessant spyware, virii, shareware, poor configuration and stupid mistakes that the average "user" makes. There are few people who dont fall into the user category. Maybe macs are the answer for them but dont blame the platform for poor user skill. This is like handing a user an Sun enterprise server and then proclaiming that SUN sucks since you cant get to the website thats supposed to be hosted from it.

The myth of mac graphic superiority. This is the holy proclaimation of the mac user. "But its better at graphics, even though I do nothing graphic related". Pixar uses macs because they are hooked up with mac. Square, who isnt corporationally related to mac used SGIs. For my graphics work I too use an SGI and it would be hard pressed for a mac to keep up with it. My SGI is purpose built for graphics and cost roughly as much as a new IMAC.

MAC's ability to emulate pc. Well if I built a car that would only run on high priced, infrequently repaired roads that made up 1% of the roads in america I'd work my ass of to make it run on the rest too. Macs run pc apps because they have to. No one has mentioned the speed at which a mac runs these emulations either. Lest it be know that its none too fast.


I'll let these fester for a minute while I get some popcorn.



LHD, you're confusing the hell out of me.
First you say that you use an SGI that costs about the same as an iMac, which would mean its about 3-4 years old as a new SGI system would run about $8,000 or more for a decent Fuel workstation. A Tezro workstation goes for about $20,000. I think if the SGI you are using does INDEED cost as much as an iMac, then you are using an older Octane with a V6 or V12 graphics option. Thats the only way I can see your machine costing the same as the Mac.
Then you say that you like the argument that MacOS is better than Windows because it is UNIX
as if to say that it is inferior to WIndows.
Huh?
You're using an SGI. It runs IRIX. A UNIX OS.
Please make up your mind.
By the way, I run 2 SGI workstations. An Indy, and an O2.
Yes they are 1996 vintage. I got them cheap on ebay.
I think they are great systems for a UNIX workstation.
Can you clarify what you posted?
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 11:27:11 AM EST

I dont understand the thought process of the mac zealot. It really is similar to liberal zealots. Lets look at the facts here.


A cult is a cult. Zealot is the proper word, rational thought don’t enter into the equation, just look at the garbage they buy into in this post alone.

Just drink the Kool-aid and get it over with.


i keep hearing that about the ipods too. why isnt anyone producing and selling them, or iac copies, at a cheaper price?


Sony just released a new digital Walkman and if the hype on it is true it may be an IPod killer. If Apple loses much of its IPod business they are dead because they cannot survive on their pitiful PC sales.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:21:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 12:22:26 PM EST by cck]
Why do you PC users care what others think of macs? Why do you care if people overspend or if they like their pretty interface?
I don't get it at all. I've used and supported people using PC's with Windows back to 3.0.
And when I want to use a computer that just works I always go to my powerbook. NO, None, Zero problems with it in 4 years.
As opposed to PC's at work where I have reinstalled OS's, replaced stock hard drives for failure, upgraded ram just to run the OS.
Last year I bought OS X 10.3 (Panther) And guess what my computer got faster with more features, this has happened each time I have upgraded in OS X and NEVER in the windows world.
I still use a windows pc at work because of some propreitary software that we have. But when I go home guess what I open my powerbook not boot my Windows machine to do anything because it just works with no fiddling. That is worth just about any price to me. My time means more to me than saving a few hundred dollars up front for a computer that I will have to support.

Chris
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 12:33:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 12:33:48 PM EST by Max_Mike]

Why do you PC users care what others think of macs? Why do you care if people overspend or if they like their pretty interface?
I don't get it at all. I've used and supported people using PC's with Windows back to 3.0.
And when I want to use a computer that just works I always go to my powerbook. NO, None, Zero problems with it in 4 years.
As opposed to PC's at work where I have reinstalled OS's, replaced stock hard drives for failure, upgraded ram just to run the OS.
Last year I bought OS X 10.3 (Panther) And guess what my computer got faster with more features, this has happened each time I have upgraded in OS X and NEVER in the windows world.
I still use a windows pc at work because of some propreitary software that we have. But when I go home guess what I open my powerbook not boot my Windows machine to do anything because it just works with no fiddling. That is worth just about any price to me. My time means more to me than saving a few hundred dollars up front for a computer that I will have to support.

Chris



I don’t care just don’t sell your delusions in public as fact…

Take for instance your upgrade to OS 10.3… a service pack which you had to pay for.

OS X has had one of these “UPGRADE/service packs” each year since its release, if you got each one you now have about $400 in your OS.

And in case you don’t realize it Apple uses the same hard drives PCs do…

And just how did you upgrade those millions of Mac that will not run OS X at all… see what I mean about delosuions.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:09:22 PM EST
C'mon Mike, I just told you that my Mac from FIVE years ago ran OSX just fine. If you get much before that, yes, OSX may or may not run... but with patches I think people have made OSX run on machines over 10 years old. You try that with a PC.

You're not helping your cause. I mean, really: What is it that makes people say such irrational stuff about Macs?

I once had a guy tell me that OSX was just a port of Windows. What a load. He was supposedly an IT computer whiz guy.

Apple isn't perfect... but neither is Micro$oft.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:09:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

I don’t care just don’t sell your delusions in public as fact…

Take for instance your upgrade to OS 10.3… a service pack which you had to pay for.

OS X has had one of these “UPGRADE/service packs” each year since its release, if you got each one you now have about $400 in your OS.

And in case you don’t realize it Apple uses the same hard drives PCs do…

And just how did you upgrade those millions of Mac that will not run OS X at all… see what I mean about delosuions.



First, 10.3 is not a service pack it contained over 150 new features. Note, 10.2 was running great the only reason for me to purchase 10.3 was for geek factor. (similar to purchasing yet another handgun or AR, because I wanted it)

I understand Macs use the same TYPE of hard drives, but the inital quality is better, in my case, IBM vs Western Digital.

What about computers that don't run the newest OS? MY 6 year old G3 with no upgrades runs Panther. Show me a stock six year old pc that runs WIN XP PRO.

Delusions? What delusions?

Chris
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:16:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By macman37:
C'mon Mike, I just told you that my Mac from FIVE years ago ran OSX just fine. If you get much before that, yes, OSX may or may not run... but with patches I think people have made OSX run on machines over 10 years old. You try that with a PC.

You're not helping your cause. I mean, really: What is it that makes people say such irrational stuff about Macs?

I once had a guy tell me that OSX was just a port of Windows. What a load. He was supposedly an IT computer whiz guy.

Apple isn't perfect... but neither is Micro$oft.



There is nothing I said that is not ABSOLUTELY true and you know it.

Drink the Kool-aid already.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:18:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


There is nothing I said that is not ABSOLUTELY true and you know it.

Drink the Kool-aid already.



Actually, total bullshit and you know it. What's with the kool-aid reference. Why do you hate America so much?

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:23:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 1:25:27 PM EST by Max_Mike]

Actually, total bullshit and you know it.


Coming from a guy that does not know Apple use the same hard drives and PCs.


What's with the kool-aid reference.


Do a little research on cultist and mass suicide methods.


Why do you hate America so much?


You off your medication where did that come from?

Apple fanatics kill me they have no sense of humor. Strike that they just have no sense.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 1:39:57 PM EST
I have two computers sitting side by side, one a Mac the other a PC. I built the PC a couple of years ago. It has the absolute worst OS ever foisted upon the computing public. I'd rather have DOS Shell. Anyway, it has an 850Mhz processor and 512MB of RAM. My eMac has an 800Mhz processor and 256MB of RAM both run the SETI at home software. The PC takes about 24 hours to process each signal, and I do nothing else on it. The eMac takes about 13 hours per signal, and I use it all the time. Scientific? Hell no, but it about sums up my feelings.

OS 10.3? I don't have it. I don't need it. I may buy it for some of the new features, but thankfully I don't need it to fix gaping security holes like a certain service pack from another software company.



BTW, the worst OS ever? WindowsME. I have yet to find a PC guy that will argue that point.

Link Posted: 8/31/2004 2:19:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By cck:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

I don’t care just don’t sell your delusions in public as fact…

Take for instance your upgrade to OS 10.3… a service pack which you had to pay for.

OS X has had one of these “UPGRADE/service packs” each year since its release, if you got each one you now have about $400 in your OS.

And in case you don’t realize it Apple uses the same hard drives PCs do…

And just how did you upgrade those millions of Mac that will not run OS X at all… see what I mean about delosuions.



First, 10.3 is not a service pack it contained over 150 new features. Note, 10.2 was running great the only reason for me to purchase 10.3 was for geek factor. (similar to purchasing yet another handgun or AR, because I wanted it)

I understand Macs use the same TYPE of hard drives, but the inital quality is better, in my case, IBM vs Western Digital.

What about computers that don't run the newest OS? MY 6 year old G3 with no upgrades runs Panther. Show me a stock six year old pc that runs WIN XP PRO.

Delusions? What delusions?


Chris



Not that I care one way or another what people use... but to answer your "stock six year old PC" quesiton... I've got 2.

A compaq (ugh, yes, compaq) from one of our employees was ready to be scrapped, and since I'm known around the office to have fun shooting up all the old computers and their parts, I received this.

pentium 2 (I think 300?) mhz, much older than 6 years, 128MB ram, and an EIDE HD. Plus the fact that it was a compaq. Installed 2k pro, ran fine... decided to install XP pro and try to use it for a workstation... was a bit slow, so erased it and installed 2k server to use as a test computer for our network.

FYI it ran all 3, albeit a bit too slowly till i upped it to 256 MB of ram. It's currently my work guinea (sp?) pig... Shove whatever questionable software/configuration down it's throat to make sure it won't crash our server... if it craps out, ghost the hard drive back in 15 minutes and try something else.



I used to get into the mac/apple scene until I started trying to actually DO anything on the computer beyond the basics the average computer user needs to do. Now I wouldn't care to use one for much more than surfing and/or typing.

I'm quite comfortable with 2k server for home use for stability with dual MP2800's. It's nice to have faster computers that cost less than the price of the software you use on it (3ds6). It's also nice to have a computer that can actually RUN the same said software.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 2:51:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 2:53:42 PM EST by Synister1]
The x86 cpu's are not the true gauge in speed MHZ wise. Many think it is becuase of marketing.

I have a UsparcII at home and is 400mhz running linux. It runs laps around my PC at 2.8ghz when running the same version of linux.

Speed isn't everything, Proper programming of the OS is key to maximizing the features and speed of a cpu.

Mac tried to expand that nitch market with the release of OSX by going after the linux crowd. But the jokes on them. Someone has created a linux bootshell so you can run OSX on x86 and sparcs.

I still wouldn't own a mac tho.

Here at work we have a retired server (Cost us $79,000 3.5 years ago.) that is running UAS. 300gig's a UW scsi and such in a rack. I'm probably going to buy it from them and part it out. But the thing is I might decide to keep it as a linux box. It's a Dual Alpha and 4gigs a mem.

I cannot beat the price tho. I can buy it for $1500 since our best offer from the reseller (thief) was $1000.

Now I just gotta figure out what kind of business I should run off of it.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 3:48:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Actually, total bullshit and you know it.


Coming from a guy that does not know Apple use the same hard drives and PCs.


What's with the kool-aid reference.


Do a little research on cultist and mass suicide methods.


Why do you hate America so much?


You off your medication where did that come from?

Apple fanatics kill me they have no sense of humor. Strike that they just have no sense.



NO THEY DON"T USE THE SAME HARD DRIVES... THEY MAY USE IDE HARD DRIVES BUT ALWAYS OF A BETTER MANUFACTURE THAN DELL OR COMPAQ, DON'T GET IN A GEEK CONTEST WITH ME YOU'RE COMPLETELY OUT GUNNED.

I KNOW WHO JIM JONES IS, WHY YOU THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO WITH PEOPLE WHO LIKE A COMPUTER OS THAN YOU IS FUCKING MINDBLOWING

WHY DO HATE AMERICA SO MUCH IS JOKE YOU HALFWIT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top