Too much made about hardware?
G5, DDR, Dual processors....you get it.
Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
Isn't the ultimate reason we're using a Mac because of it's ease, OS and simplicity?
It's because things work logically and you are much more productive.
I mean if two computer systems were placed in front of you and you could pick one for free, which would you pick?
1) a 3GHZ Pentium no name beige box w/17" monitor or
2) a 800 mHZ iMac w/ 15"
Sure, it depends on your needs, but what I'm getting at is the user experience. What good is a screaming fast machine if you spend most of the time trying to figure out it's interface or how to simply install some hardware.
Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?
Isn't the ultimate reason we're using a Mac because of it's ease, OS and simplicity?
It's because things work logically and you are much more productive.
I mean if two computer systems were placed in front of you and you could pick one for free, which would you pick?
1) a 3GHZ Pentium no name beige box w/17" monitor or
2) a 800 mHZ iMac w/ 15"
Sure, it depends on your needs, but what I'm getting at is the user experience. What good is a screaming fast machine if you spend most of the time trying to figure out it's interface or how to simply install some hardware.
Comments
rr.
Stick your head in the sand and mumble about MHZ myths, but Apple would be more than happy to sell GHZ+ machines to the masses if they could.
800Mhz G4
Not much else I can say.
"Master" of the Mac :cool:
<strong>These are the types of arguments you bring up when you're on the bottom. If Apple/Mot were trouncing Intel/ADM the you'd all be crowing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...this from a man who is running linux on mac hardware, apparently you'd go for the 800mhz g4 too
<strong>These are the types of arguments you bring up when you're on the bottom. If Apple/Mot were trouncing Intel/ADM the you'd all be crowing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but you're missing the point. I choose to use Macs regardless of Apple's position.
When Apple was left for dead (how many times?), I didn't switch platforms.
Macs work--and very well for my needs. All I suggest is to take a step back and realize one can get too caught up with numbers and jargon that manufacturers (including Apple) are feeding us. Heck there are many out there who still use a MacPlus for simple word processing!
I realize that Apple needs huge margins to subsist, but the current situation still sucks.
<strong>Satchmo - I'd amend #2 to include a 17", or #1 to include a 15" monitor - just to better emphasize your point (screen size is a whole other ball game from processer speed...)
rr.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 15 inch LCD screen equal to a 17 inch CRT screen for the size of the image.
<hr></blockquote>
Wrong.
A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable image. A 15" LCD has a 15" viewable image. Notice any difference?
If you would like proof then go to <a href="http://www.outpost.com," target="_blank">www.outpost.com,</a> do a search on 17" monitors, and check out the viewable area on them. You find out that you are wrong.
<strong>
Wrong.
A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable image. A 15" LCD has a 15" viewable image. Notice any difference?
If you would like proof then go to <a href="http://www.outpost.com," target="_blank">www.outpost.com,</a> do a search on 17" monitors, and check out the viewable area on them. You find out that you are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it's 16 viewable, but in general with CRT screen the image is not expanded to all the viewable size of the screen if you dont want to many distorsions in the angles.
I own a sony F500 , when i use the ASC (automatic system of centring) i loss 1,5 inch of viewable latteraly and 1/2 inch vertically on the 1280 per 1024 mode. Of course on the manual mode i can do better, but i never use the entire viewable image avalaible.
So in a practicle way, a 17 inch CRT equal a 15 inch LCD. Perhaps there is a small difference, but smaller than the difference between a 17 inch LCD and 17 inch CRT.
rr.
<strong>Greater performance enables greater usability. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, I concur. I'm all for improvements to make usability greater.
My point is directed at those who complain over minute details and specs that may not really matter in their daily use.
<strong>
...this from a man who is running linux on mac hardware, apparently you'd go for the 800mhz g4 too</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I were to buy new it would be an Athlon. Macs are over priced.
I'm pretty sure some of you are using the exact same posts from earlier threads too....
Since I don't see anybody selling a 3 Ghz machine, I'd go with the one that actually exsisted