Wizard69 I understand many of your points. Virtual machines are a good idea on a fast computer.
Which you would have if you buy something modern. Whatever you do though wait for Haswell.
I started off wanting a Mini. Apple took so long to update it that I gave up and bought a Mac Book. I plug it into an external monitor. For a while I used a dual screen mode. Eventually I just enjoyed one larger new screen.
Yeah I understand, Apples line up forced me into a MBP in 2008. Note though that the Mini has come a long way since we purchased our machines.
As far as the iPads. I don't really need to be mobile with my computer thus having a touch interface on the go wasn't very compelling. My next machine will probably be a laptop because I will be living on the road in an RV in a year or so. It will be easier to hide it when I'm away from the vehicle or I can take it with me.
If you will be on the road, maps on the iPad are worth every cent. In fact I prefer the iPad by a very wide margin for travel. It may suck for bulk text entry but you can get keyboards for long E-Mails and such.
Open SUSE 12.3 has now begun an ongoing update cycle. It will update forever. Ubuntu has started that too.
It will be interesting to see how that works out. In the past compatibility issues with libraries and other updates always resulted in breaking apps
My usage of computers is mostly for entertainment but I also make movies and presentations. I really want a computer with better graphics than the all-in-one graphics from Intel.
Just realize that Intel GPUs have come a long ways. Even so I wouldn't consider anything less than Haswell and I would expect Apple to fix their drivers so OpenCL works on the GPU.
My old computer with them just stinks at rendering images quickly. I won't ever be making feature films but putting together video advertisements for clients is more fun when I don't have to sit around waiting for frames to catch up with what I want to do next as I scroll through a video.
The problem here is that not all software even bothers to use the GPU, many apps just use the CPU. Note however that the latest Intel GPUs have vastly improved instructions related to such processing. I would not worry about the GPU until you know that your software leverages the GPU.
In the past, and even now, Apple has been stingy with the discrete graphics chips.
Yes they have, you will get no argument from me over this one. At least now machines with discrete GPUs come with the amount of VRAM recommended by many app vendors.
HP and others aren't so stingy at the same and even lower price points. Windows is irrelevant to me. I keep Vista around for Netflix just in case my Mac Book breaks. That is it. There is a Silverlight installation for Ubuntu that works but I haven't installed it. Eventually I will.
Personally I'd stay away from Windows.
I don't want to buy a Mac Pro or an iMac, especially since Apple is putting 5400 rpm drives into iMacs.
Spindle speed means little these days.
If I weren't planning to be in an RV all of the time I would really prefer a tower of some type that was much more capable than a Mini. The Mini's hardware is really much more expensive than the competition's.
The Mini is basically a laptop in a box, it is very capable if you can live within its limits. The Mini is somewhat expensive but it is also a low power box unlike most towers and as such is excellent for in an RV. In fact if you search the net I believe you will find many examples of Minis implemented in autos, RV's and even boats. Its low power nature is amendable to off grid use.
If you argue that the software of OSX has more standard features than Windows then it is a valid argument. When compared to Linux it isn't. If one can forgo iTunes then there really isn't a need to have Windows or OSX. Libre Office is catching up to Office. If one doesn't need the fancy features then Libre Office is enough. I'm in that boat.
This I have to reject. Using apps written for OS/X is far smoother than the choices available on Linux. Further cross platform apps are basically exactly the same.
Apple hardware needs to grab me and say; "This is the best thing for your needs at the best price." So do HP and the others.
Frankly I think you are being foolish as the best thing is seldom offered at the best price. If you want cheap, Linux on three generations old hardware is certainly the way to go. When Haswell comes out though you won't see huge difference in hardware prices.
Beyond that, in an RV everything needs to be small. It is sort of like a boat, people start out with lots of large stuff and quickly distill stuff down to the minimal. That is why you see so many nude sailors in the Caribbean. The reality is you don't need lots of stuff to survive on the road and certainly not a lot of big stuff. .
Apple using 5400 rpm drives is one of those things that just mystifies me. The difference in price to step up to 7200 is SOOO minuscule that it doesn't seem worth risking tarnish on the "premium" brand.
And they're so arbitrary about it. A 7200 rpm drive is not available in the mini, even as a BTO option, but it is in the mini server. I don't get it.
Apple is cutting corners by doing this .Installing a 5400HD instead of the bigger one.They have to make a profit.
5400 rpm drives use less power, and likely spin up more faster. So in a desktop that spends a lot of time idling and with the drive spun down, and where there's mostly access to individual files, where lots of random access patterns are not too common, a 5400rpm drive makes sense.
OTOH, on a server, where databases run, where multiple clients access various resources simultaneously and where the drive rarely spins down, minimizing access latency is more important, hence 7200rpm drives are more meaningful.
If you're thinking green, then you have to figure out that e.g. saving 0.5W in a few million computers hour after hour, day after day, really ads up to a big amount of energy for essentially rather minimal loss of performance.
Of course slow is still slow. But slow is also relative. Today's drives pack data much tighter on the platter so you get much higher raw transfer rates on those slow disks. Combine that with a cache on the drive the results aren't as bad as in the past.
Apple using 5400 rpm drives is one of those things that just mystifies me. The difference in price to step up to 7200 is SOOO minuscule that it doesn't seem worth risking tarnish on the "premium" brand.
On the other hand the slower drives are far more reliable which puts a shine on the Apple name. They also operate at a lower heat level. Premium for many means reliable not tweaky.
And they're so arbitrary about it. A 7200 rpm drive is not available in the mini, even as a BTO option, but it is in the mini server. I don't get it.
Over the years since I got my 2008 MBP, I've just gotten more and more frustrated with how brain dead Apples marketing is. Every time you think they will do the right thing they go in the opposite direction. At times the BTO options just scream stupidity. I mean really if I'm going to pay extra for something I will want to get the good stuff. On the iMac though I suspect thermal issues are a key reason for those slow drives.
So yeah in most cases I don't get their BTO options at all. Lots of expensive options with little justification.
Of course slow is still slow. But slow is also relative. Today's drives pack data much tighter on the platter so you get much higher raw transfer rates on those slow disks. Combine that with a cache on the drive the results aren't as bad as in the past.
On the other hand the slower drives are far more reliable which puts a shine on the Apple name. They also operate at a lower heat level. Premium for many means reliable not tweaky.
Gotcha.
BTW, I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was genuinely interested.
Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.
No, obviously Apple doesn't care.
We aren't talking about me here. We are talking about the other three members of my family that gave up on Apple and switched to Windows.
They weren't asking for the type of computer I want.
Apple lost them. Why?
You can cut me down all you want but I'm not the one that has left. I still use a Mac.
If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back. But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up. As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back.
They're fine capturing the other 75% of entire families out there.
But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up.
They're cheap, shortsighted, uninformed, and (this makes up less than one percent of the why), Apple doesn't make computers that would suit their needs.
As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
We aren't talking about me here. We are talking about the other three members of my family that gave up on Apple and switched to Windows. They weren't asking for the type of computer I want.
Apple lost them. Why?
You can cut me down all you want but I'm not the one that has left. I still use a Mac.
If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back. But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up. As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
That's 75% of your family. 100% (5 peeps) of my family use Macs.
But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up. As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
It's mostly because of price. According to Tim, iOS devices have higher profit margins than the Macs but despite that, they hit a price point that is comfortable for a lot of people - with phones, because they are subsidised and with tablets because they have a low entry price. With Macs, they have a higher build quality and they have high margins vs PCs and so you can easily find examples where you can get the same spec PC as a Mac for close to half the price.
But, Apple doesn't sell Macs for the volume, they have a quality bar and a profit expectation that they haven't had a reason to compromise on those until recently. The industry is starting to slow down and they'll probably have to gradually bring prices down to sustain their Mac profits but other PC manufacturers that have saturated volume and exhausted their margins will start collapsing around themselves:
Apple sells 75% laptops, 25% desktops and this is pretty much the same across the whole industry so where they are lacking is in cheap laptops. They are making up for this to an extent with iPads as that hits the average sale prices of PC laptops. The most popular size of laptop is 15" by a long way (14" is popular in Asia). To boost Mac sales, they just need to be more aggressive with their laptops.
[...] you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's mostly because of price
VERY true in our house. We just replaced my wife's MacBook Pro, and I have to admit, as much as I prefer OS X and like the handy features like sync and AirPlay, we were REALLY tempted to switch back this time. Other brands scraping by on razor-thin margins may be bad for them, but it's GREAT for me, and it really heats up the decision making process. I understand the arguments about why a Mac costs as much as it does, but no matter how you slice it, it's a whack o' dough. Had an unexpected thousand bucks not landed in our laps, she might be using Windows now.
VERY true in our house. We just replaced my wife's MacBook Pro, and I have to admit, as much as I prefer OS X and like the handy features like sync and AirPlay, we were REALLY tempted to switch back this time. Other brands scraping by on razor-thin margins may be bad for them, but it's GREAT for me, and it really heats up the decision making process. I understand the arguments about why a Mac costs as much as it does, but no matter how you slice it, it's a whack o' dough. Had an unexpected thousand bucks not landed in our laps, she might be using Windows now.
Don't expect your Windows machine to last as long or retain the resale value of the MacBook line.
Comments
Beyond that, in an RV everything needs to be small. It is sort of like a boat, people start out with lots of large stuff and quickly distill stuff down to the minimal. That is why you see so many nude sailors in the Caribbean. The reality is you don't need lots of stuff to survive on the road and certainly not a lot of big stuff. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Spindle speed means little these days.
Why not? What's changed? Isn't slow still slow?
Apple using 5400 rpm drives is one of those things that just mystifies me. The difference in price to step up to 7200 is SOOO minuscule that it doesn't seem worth risking tarnish on the "premium" brand.
And they're so arbitrary about it. A 7200 rpm drive is not available in the mini, even as a BTO option, but it is in the mini server. I don't get it.
Apple is cutting corners by doing this .Installing a 5400HD instead of the bigger one.They have to make a profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
Apple is cutting corners by doing this .Installing a 5400HD instead of the bigger one.They have to make a profit.
5400 rpm drives use less power, and likely spin up more faster. So in a desktop that spends a lot of time idling and with the drive spun down, and where there's mostly access to individual files, where lots of random access patterns are not too common, a 5400rpm drive makes sense.
OTOH, on a server, where databases run, where multiple clients access various resources simultaneously and where the drive rarely spins down, minimizing access latency is more important, hence 7200rpm drives are more meaningful.
If you're thinking green, then you have to figure out that e.g. saving 0.5W in a few million computers hour after hour, day after day, really ads up to a big amount of energy for essentially rather minimal loss of performance.
Over the years since I got my 2008 MBP, I've just gotten more and more frustrated with how brain dead Apples marketing is. Every time you think they will do the right thing they go in the opposite direction. At times the BTO options just scream stupidity. I mean really if I'm going to pay extra for something I will want to get the good stuff. On the iMac though I suspect thermal issues are a key reason for those slow drives.
So yeah in most cases I don't get their BTO options at all. Lots of expensive options with little justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Of course slow is still slow. But slow is also relative. Today's drives pack data much tighter on the platter so you get much higher raw transfer rates on those slow disks. Combine that with a cache on the drive the results aren't as bad as in the past.
On the other hand the slower drives are far more reliable which puts a shine on the Apple name. They also operate at a lower heat level. Premium for many means reliable not tweaky.
Gotcha.
BTW, I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was genuinely interested.
This makes a lot of sense.
Really I didn't take it as a challenge. Well expect for an opportunity to explain things better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.
No, obviously Apple doesn't care.
We aren't talking about me here. We are talking about the other three members of my family that gave up on Apple and switched to Windows.
They weren't asking for the type of computer I want.
Apple lost them. Why?
You can cut me down all you want but I'm not the one that has left. I still use a Mac.
If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back. But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up. As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
Originally Posted by MacTac
If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back.
They're fine capturing the other 75% of entire families out there.
But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up.
They're cheap, shortsighted, uninformed, and (this makes up less than one percent of the why), Apple doesn't make computers that would suit their needs.
As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?
Uh… it is…
That's 75% of your family. 100% (5 peeps) of my family use Macs.
It's mostly because of price. According to Tim, iOS devices have higher profit margins than the Macs but despite that, they hit a price point that is comfortable for a lot of people - with phones, because they are subsidised and with tablets because they have a low entry price. With Macs, they have a higher build quality and they have high margins vs PCs and so you can easily find examples where you can get the same spec PC as a Mac for close to half the price.
Here's a quad-i7 with 8GB RAM and dual 650M SLI for $1000:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312439
Apple's entry HDD-based MBP is $1800.
But, Apple doesn't sell Macs for the volume, they have a quality bar and a profit expectation that they haven't had a reason to compromise on those until recently. The industry is starting to slow down and they'll probably have to gradually bring prices down to sustain their Mac profits but other PC manufacturers that have saturated volume and exhausted their margins will start collapsing around themselves:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578499511764732312.html
Apple sells 75% laptops, 25% desktops and this is pretty much the same across the whole industry so where they are lacking is in cheap laptops. They are making up for this to an extent with iPads as that hits the average sale prices of PC laptops. The most popular size of laptop is 15" by a long way (14" is popular in Asia). To boost Mac sales, they just need to be more aggressive with their laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
[...] you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's mostly because of price
VERY true in our house. We just replaced my wife's MacBook Pro, and I have to admit, as much as I prefer OS X and like the handy features like sync and AirPlay, we were REALLY tempted to switch back this time. Other brands scraping by on razor-thin margins may be bad for them, but it's GREAT for me, and it really heats up the decision making process. I understand the arguments about why a Mac costs as much as it does, but no matter how you slice it, it's a whack o' dough. Had an unexpected thousand bucks not landed in our laps, she might be using Windows now.
Because they're proud of the devices they didn't release.
Guess what there is a new Mac Pro coming out very soon.I found this out from a reliable source.
Why? Robots never tire, complain, form unions or fight with their coworkers.
Don't expect your Windows machine to last as long or retain the resale value of the MacBook line.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Why? Robots never tire, complain, form unions or fight with their coworkers.
They just overthrow mankind and enslave them for centuries within their own minds.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They just overthrow mankind and enslave them for centuries within their own minds.
So Apple's manufacturing contracts should contain a skynet clause of some kind?