<strong>Sorry, guys, but the iMac is not Overpriced, Underpowered and Unexpandable.
It is just Overpriced.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of curiosity, I just now went to Dell's webb site and outfited a Dell Dimension 4500S with a Celery chip(lowest end available), 15" LCD monitor and low end software options, and a superdrive. Low and behold the price was
$1826
This also did not include an upgraded graphics card, but still used on board graphics. What this is and compares to what is in the iMac w/ superdrive, I don't know, don't care either.
Overpriced, probably, but NOT BY MUCH.
What the Dell offers more than the iMac is PCI slots, and standard size video card, which some people(re: the iMac's target market) DON"T CARE ABOUT.
Also, just a guess, but, if the iMac owner is into home DVD video burning, the iMac will blow past the Dell like it was standing still. Altivec and all that, you know.
Edit:
Oh, and what else the Dell Dimension offers is Window XP <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
The iMac isn't really overpriced for what it delivers, but it probably delivers the wrong things and has thus priced itself out of the market. People won't buy something just because it's a good value.
I do not intend to support Dell in any way, but the crucial system shortcomings of the LCD iMac are in Bus Speed and in RAM volume.
In the above Dell system, what speed was the bus and how much RAM came with the unit?
The fact that another computer company has a comparable (if that even applies) product that costs as much or more than the iMac is just a reflection of what Dell and Apple think they can sell their products for.
IF the market is ready, willing, and able to buy at that price point - wonderful. The LCD iMac is, in my humble opinion, priced beyond it's target market's reach. Add in a stumbling consumer economy and you get weak financial quarters like the one just finished.
Consumers find the sweet spot in the $800-$1200 range, TOTAL Package (all upgrades, taxes, etc included). Apple's "consumer" LCD iMac is out of that range by nearly $300 (25%!!!) by the time you upgrade the RAM and pay the sales tax.
Yes, the imac is great for its supposedly target market. Home users who don't want to deal with the intricates of computers. Just wanting something to work. Web and email.
But then after that level there's the user who wants more power. To be able to play games, use large multimedia apps, but not do this as his job. To do this in his spare time out of interest. This person looks at the imac and notes that it doesn't provide what he needs so he passes on to the towers.
Oh no. This middle-user. Being neither a pro nor a home user is now stuck. He does not have the money to spend on a tower. $2,200 (cheapest) is a tad much for a computer that wont pay itself off.
So now he looks again, but only to discover that there is no middle solution. There's only a home user solution and a pro ( BWHA HAH HA HAH) solution. So he goes off and buys a Dell.
Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's all relative.
I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up).
Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.
Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.
I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up).
Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.
Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Underpowered meaning it's no slow. I'm not comparing to anything butr basing it on how the cmputer performs on a daily basis using a vareity of apps. I'm glad you like your P4 that was cheaper then the lowend iMac. That has nothing to do with the iMac being underpowered however.
As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.
So the consumer will only be 'shafted' if he compares his 800mhz superdrive iMac to a Dell with a P4 that's cheaper in the eyes of another Windows loving user. I wouldn't think he was shafted or I'd be using windows right now. You use what you like and you pay for what you want.
[quote]red? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up). <hr></blockquote>
so all you moaning and groaning is based on this? um. what can i say other than.sure sometimes the pc is faster than the mac.
THEN ON THE other hand
your measley g4 700 mhz beats a 2ghz sony on encoding DVD video.
how's that for a megahertz myth? Know i get you cow of war and your mindset. let's just say we agree to disagree.
i think define a computer's power (and underpoweredness) on what can a person DO. What can the average grandma or person off the street DO with their computer. And by my reckoning an LCD IMAC that lets you easily connect and imports photos of the grandkids without headaches or importing a video of a daughter's first play WITHOUT a filmaking background (let alone a firewire driver degree)or a hundred other things IS Powerful! I'll give my mom a LCD imac any day of the week over a 2 ghz PC. why? Because she can DO stuff on her mac.without an IT team by her side
Blah blah, mhz, blah blah upgrade your video (as someone made an excellent argument to above) blah blah price (as someone else pointed out to blow your arguments.) I guess there are people out there that spend all their time in specs and not in doing cool stuff with their macs.
Megahertz myth?!!?
What about a MEGA-DO myth!!!!!
The myth that average people can get more done on their PC because its 1.4 ghz "faster" than on their MACS!
Of course, its good to see opinions like yours to remind others that believe in the "MEGA DO" myth that there is more to life than 2.4ghz machine filled with wait states and a PC of shite OS that asks where do you want to go today so we can forces you to sign up for their services and extend their monopoly.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Its all cool in the end though cowofwar i think we both want the best from apple and in the end if that happens we all win
The iMac is now half a year out of date.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't address my post though. I said the iMac is QE compliant... and it IS. The original post I was responding to said this:
[quote] but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important. <hr></blockquote>
I was simply pointing out that it's not that important. The GeForce 2MX meets QE's requirements, and QE isn't even out yet! I don't even know what people are complaining about, Warcraft III runs perfectly acceptably on my iMac/800. I don't give a tinker's cuss if I can get a P4/2GHz for the same price - it's not a MACINTOSH. No iDVD, no iMovie, no iPhoto, no OS X. No thanks.
People seem overly obsessive about initial outlay costs (happens a great deal in the corporate world to and is a large part of what I work against). As it happens Macs often have better total costs over their product lifecycle. You'll pay more initially but ultimately end up paying less.
The number of great projects that are turned down for short term bottom line gain is sickening. Sorry just a pet peeve especially considering some of the outright idiocy of a few of the decisions that I saw made.
<strong>It really is amazing what Altivec can do when utilized properly.
A G4 can encode MP3s and process video much faster than any P4, but few people ever mentions this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a G4/867. I get 2.23x in LAME 3.93 (not Altivec accelerated, but about the only real choice for quality MP3s--the iTunes encoder sucks) with --r3mix. Meanwhile, a Pentium 4 at 2 GHz gets 9.47x in LAME 3.93 (which admittedly uses LAME's MMX routines, but has no SSE2 optimization at all, which is where the P4 really shines), using the same source file, and the same settings. Gogo 3.10 (LAME with optimizations for the P4), with "-v 0 -m j" flags, gets 26.86x. That's right, folks. Almost thirty times. Can you now tell me how the G4 is faster at this? Let me also mention that the crippled "altivec enhanced" commercial distributions of LAME such as N2MP3 don't even give me the flexibility to use --r3mix, and perform just as poorly (about 2.4-2.5x) with lower settings.
With regard to video, I can't even begin to convey the countless headaches I've had getting my Mac to work with DivX video, let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's. I'd say "processing video," as you say, is one of the main areas where the Mac needs to shape up, and in a hurry.
The potential might be there for some aspiring developer to reinvent the wheel and make these algorithms truly altivec optimized (or, in the case of LAME, at least hand-assemble the damn thing to speed it up), and give the user clear means by which to use them. However, I tend to view the glass as half empty, and given the past progress of these so-called "optimized" MP3 encoders, and video codecs that "just plain work," I just end up seeing the same old lackluster performance and/or stuff that just plain doesn't work. I could elaborate on this, but I don't want to post a thesis either.
I especially resent comments like this one that give validity to the state of the Mac platform in these areas, as they most certainly need a lot of work. While I may sound like the proverbial "troll" in criticizing the Mac platform for something (because God knows, no one who goes along with the status quo of the Mac world can do any wrong), I've tried actually using this stuff. I have fairly exacting standards, and I'm going to scream bloody murder until I feel the solutions for Mac are up to snuff. If you don't like it, flame away.
[QB]As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.
Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.
Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs, but most of these useres are still scared off from it by the complexity. You need a video camera, you have to figure out how to use that, then you have to attach it to the mac, run programs, and then figure out how to use the program, fix the video and burn it. For us average users that may not seem like much, but try getting your mother to do that on her own...good luck.
Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.
Well you'll have to excuse me, I need to get back to work trying to fix my mac. It keeps on getting a recurring kernel panic in 10.1.5 at the configuring network stage. Lovely. The mac's ease of use when this occurs is outstanding, because all the hexidecimal screen dumping sure helps. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote] ...problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's <hr></blockquote>
What problems are those?
I agree that apple needs to get their shit together. The current hardware is good for just about nothing in the areas that matters, 3D and video. Apple profile them selfs to be experts on video but the hardware doesnt reflect that profile. Hope for changes this month.
Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I for one do video regularly, thats what i do, not all of us on this board are just home users as you seem to be, some of us make a living from them. Have you ever used FCP3 it does video in Real Time on a <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> G4 733 thats a whole <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> 1.7GHz slower than a top of the line P4 which can't do that without an expensive (expensive to buy, expensive to install, expensive to maintain expensive tech support, and expensive to buy headache pills everytime (usually once a week) it fails to perform (I know I've been there)) ,breakout box, what was it...
My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up).
I run a company that specialises in Digital Video and 3D, and while the Mac has some shortcomings in the 3D market (bound to be addressed in light of the recent aquisitions by our favourite fruit company) it still performs well (I defy anyone to tell whether a Mac or a PC was used to produce a scene, in fact some of Episode II was done on a Mac). It performs well enough for my company to justify shelling out over £3.5k on a machine that surpasses anything else (in its price range) for video, keeps its head above water for 3D, and to top that allows us to Master DVD's and burn previews for our clients, The all in one solution!!!. To do this on a PC would require multiple systems, multiple IT systems ?specialists?, and multiple headaches. What was it...
I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac.
Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs.....
but try getting your mother to do that....
Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to be forgetting Apple's target market for the iMac/eMac/iBook and iMovie Education (Something your posts seem to lack ). iMovie is now being used in the US and the <a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=4863"; target="_blank">UK</a> as a teaching aid, kids now seem to be enjoying their classes. Well done Apple, when was the last time anyone said that the enjoyed using M$ word, or even Windows Video Maker (or whatever it's called), just doesn't happen!.
And finally in reply to All
[quote] ...let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's.<hr></blockquote>
IT'S A BETA you should expect problems with it. You do know what a Beta is don't you <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually there is a great deal of difference beyond OS between Mac and PC. For a start all macs are initially far more integrated units than PCs.
As a result uptime on Mac based computer operations considerably outweighs the uptimes you will see with WIntel alternatives even with equal numbers of computers.
Mac based networks don't come even remotely close to having the downtime and issues of PC based networks and are considerably lower cost to maintain and operate.
They can breakdown and have faults like any piece of electronic equipment but they are significantly easier to fix and by and large they are a considerable distance ahead in terms of reliability.
I'm too tired right now to go onto proprietary versus standardised hardware. Both have certain cases for and against but from Apple's position I would certainly aim for open standard options.
That's a really low quality reply but I'm tired and will expand on it tomorrow or when I have time.
Comments
<strong>Sorry, guys, but the iMac is not Overpriced, Underpowered and Unexpandable.
It is just Overpriced.
Out of curiosity, I just now went to Dell's webb site and outfited a Dell Dimension 4500S with a Celery chip(lowest end available), 15" LCD monitor and low end software options, and a superdrive. Low and behold the price was
$1826
This also did not include an upgraded graphics card, but still used on board graphics. What this is and compares to what is in the iMac w/ superdrive, I don't know, don't care either.
Overpriced, probably, but NOT BY MUCH.
What the Dell offers more than the iMac is PCI slots, and standard size video card, which some people(re: the iMac's target market) DON"T CARE ABOUT.
Also, just a guess, but, if the iMac owner is into home DVD video burning, the iMac will blow past the Dell like it was standing still. Altivec and all that, you know.
Edit:
Oh, and what else the Dell Dimension offers is Window XP <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
In the above Dell system, what speed was the bus and how much RAM came with the unit?
The fact that another computer company has a comparable (if that even applies) product that costs as much or more than the iMac is just a reflection of what Dell and Apple think they can sell their products for.
IF the market is ready, willing, and able to buy at that price point - wonderful. The LCD iMac is, in my humble opinion, priced beyond it's target market's reach. Add in a stumbling consumer economy and you get weak financial quarters like the one just finished.
Consumers find the sweet spot in the $800-$1200 range, TOTAL Package (all upgrades, taxes, etc included). Apple's "consumer" LCD iMac is out of that range by nearly $300 (25%!!!) by the time you upgrade the RAM and pay the sales tax.
Again, I think the problem is price.
<strong>
For Pete's Sake...
It's XEON!!! Xenon is a noble gas, not a processor.
Hissy fit over. Sorry for the interruption. Just seen this typo about two dozen times on AI in the last week or so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks mom <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I didn't even notice I did that
It's part of it.
See the proverb of the 'power'Mac.
Lemon Bon Bon
But then after that level there's the user who wants more power. To be able to play games, use large multimedia apps, but not do this as his job. To do this in his spare time out of interest. This person looks at the imac and notes that it doesn't provide what he needs so he passes on to the towers.
Oh no. This middle-user. Being neither a pro nor a home user is now stuck. He does not have the money to spend on a tower. $2,200 (cheapest) is a tad much for a computer that wont pay itself off.
So now he looks again, but only to discover that there is no middle solution. There's only a home user solution and a pro ( BWHA HAH HA HAH) solution. So he goes off and buys a Dell.
<strong>
Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's all relative.
I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth
Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.
P4 [email protected] <---> G4 700mhz
Geforce 4 ti4400 <---> Geforce 2mx
dvd 16x40 and cdrw 32x10x40 <---> cdrw
19" CRT (1600x1200@85hz) <---> 15" LCD (1024x768)
Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.
<strong>
It's all relative.
I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth
Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.
P4 [email protected] <---> G4 700mhz
Geforce 4 ti4400 <---> Geforce 2mx
dvd 16x40 and cdrw 32x10x40 <---> cdrw
19" CRT (1600x1200@85hz) <---> 15" LCD (1024x768)
Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Underpowered meaning it's no slow. I'm not comparing to anything butr basing it on how the cmputer performs on a daily basis using a vareity of apps. I'm glad you like your P4 that was cheaper then the lowend iMac. That has nothing to do with the iMac being underpowered however.
As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.
So the consumer will only be 'shafted' if he compares his 800mhz superdrive iMac to a Dell with a P4 that's cheaper in the eyes of another Windows loving user. I wouldn't think he was shafted or I'd be using windows right now. You use what you like and you pay for what you want.
so all you moaning and groaning is based on this? um. what can i say other than.sure sometimes the pc is faster than the mac.
THEN ON THE other hand
your measley g4 700 mhz beats a 2ghz sony on encoding DVD video.
how's that for a megahertz myth? Know i get you cow of war and your mindset. let's just say we agree to disagree.
i think define a computer's power (and underpoweredness) on what can a person DO. What can the average grandma or person off the street DO with their computer. And by my reckoning an LCD IMAC that lets you easily connect and imports photos of the grandkids without headaches or importing a video of a daughter's first play WITHOUT a filmaking background (let alone a firewire driver degree)or a hundred other things IS Powerful! I'll give my mom a LCD imac any day of the week over a 2 ghz PC. why? Because she can DO stuff on her mac.without an IT team by her side
Blah blah, mhz, blah blah upgrade your video (as someone made an excellent argument to above) blah blah price (as someone else pointed out to blow your arguments.) I guess there are people out there that spend all their time in specs and not in doing cool stuff with their macs.
Megahertz myth?!!?
What about a MEGA-DO myth!!!!!
The myth that average people can get more done on their PC because its 1.4 ghz "faster" than on their MACS!
Of course, its good to see opinions like yours to remind others that believe in the "MEGA DO" myth that there is more to life than 2.4ghz machine filled with wait states and a PC of shite OS that asks where do you want to go today so we can forces you to sign up for their services and extend their monopoly.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Its all cool in the end though cowofwar i think we both want the best from apple and in the end if that happens we all win
<strong>The problem?
The iMac is now half a year out of date.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't address my post though. I said the iMac is QE compliant... and it IS. The original post I was responding to said this:
[quote] but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important. <hr></blockquote>
I was simply pointing out that it's not that important. The GeForce 2MX meets QE's requirements, and QE isn't even out yet! I don't even know what people are complaining about, Warcraft III runs perfectly acceptably on my iMac/800. I don't give a tinker's cuss if I can get a P4/2GHz for the same price - it's not a MACINTOSH. No iDVD, no iMovie, no iPhoto, no OS X. No thanks.
A G4 can encode MP3s and process video much faster than any P4, but few people ever mentions this.
If only a 700MHz G4 was faster than a 2GHz P4 in other things besides digital media and RC5.
Macs need to beat PCs in 3D before we can say there is a real megahertz myth.
The number of great projects that are turned down for short term bottom line gain is sickening. Sorry just a pet peeve especially considering some of the outright idiocy of a few of the decisions that I saw made.
<strong>It really is amazing what Altivec can do when utilized properly.
A G4 can encode MP3s and process video much faster than any P4, but few people ever mentions this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a G4/867. I get 2.23x in LAME 3.93 (not Altivec accelerated, but about the only real choice for quality MP3s--the iTunes encoder sucks) with --r3mix. Meanwhile, a Pentium 4 at 2 GHz gets 9.47x in LAME 3.93 (which admittedly uses LAME's MMX routines, but has no SSE2 optimization at all, which is where the P4 really shines), using the same source file, and the same settings. Gogo 3.10 (LAME with optimizations for the P4), with "-v 0 -m j" flags, gets 26.86x. That's right, folks. Almost thirty times. Can you now tell me how the G4 is faster at this? Let me also mention that the crippled "altivec enhanced" commercial distributions of LAME such as N2MP3 don't even give me the flexibility to use --r3mix, and perform just as poorly (about 2.4-2.5x) with lower settings.
With regard to video, I can't even begin to convey the countless headaches I've had getting my Mac to work with DivX video, let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's. I'd say "processing video," as you say, is one of the main areas where the Mac needs to shape up, and in a hurry.
The potential might be there for some aspiring developer to reinvent the wheel and make these algorithms truly altivec optimized (or, in the case of LAME, at least hand-assemble the damn thing to speed it up), and give the user clear means by which to use them. However, I tend to view the glass as half empty, and given the past progress of these so-called "optimized" MP3 encoders, and video codecs that "just plain work," I just end up seeing the same old lackluster performance and/or stuff that just plain doesn't work. I could elaborate on this, but I don't want to post a thesis either.
I especially resent comments like this one that give validity to the state of the Mac platform in these areas, as they most certainly need a lot of work. While I may sound like the proverbial "troll" in criticizing the Mac platform for something (because God knows, no one who goes along with the status quo of the Mac world can do any wrong), I've tried actually using this stuff. I have fairly exacting standards, and I'm going to scream bloody murder until I feel the solutions for Mac are up to snuff. If you don't like it, flame away.
[QB]As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.
Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.
Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs, but most of these useres are still scared off from it by the complexity. You need a video camera, you have to figure out how to use that, then you have to attach it to the mac, run programs, and then figure out how to use the program, fix the video and burn it. For us average users that may not seem like much, but try getting your mother to do that on her own...good luck.
Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.
Well you'll have to excuse me, I need to get back to work trying to fix my mac. It keeps on getting a recurring kernel panic in 10.1.5 at the configuring network stage. Lovely. The mac's ease of use when this occurs is outstanding, because all the hexidecimal screen dumping sure helps. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</p>
<strong>
your measley g4 700 mhz beats a 2ghz sony on encoding DVD video.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When was the last time you did that? When was the last time anyone did that?
And even if it is faster, I'd rather lose a couple minutes waiting than have to buy a whole new monitor the next time I get a new computer.
What problems are those?
I agree that apple needs to get their shit together. The current hardware is good for just about nothing in the areas that matters, 3D and video. Apple profile them selfs to be experts on video but the hardware doesnt reflect that profile. Hope for changes this month.
<strong>
Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I for one do video regularly, thats what i do, not all of us on this board are just home users as you seem to be, some of us make a living from them. Have you ever used FCP3 it does video in Real Time on a <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> G4 733 thats a whole <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> 1.7GHz slower than a top of the line P4 which can't do that without an expensive (expensive to buy, expensive to install, expensive to maintain expensive tech support, and expensive to buy headache pills everytime (usually once a week) it fails to perform (I know I've been there)) ,breakout box, what was it...
My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up).
I run a company that specialises in Digital Video and 3D, and while the Mac has some shortcomings in the 3D market (bound to be addressed in light of the recent aquisitions by our favourite fruit company) it still performs well (I defy anyone to tell whether a Mac or a PC was used to produce a scene, in fact some of Episode II was done on a Mac). It performs well enough for my company to justify shelling out over £3.5k on a machine that surpasses anything else (in its price range) for video, keeps its head above water for 3D, and to top that allows us to Master DVD's and burn previews for our clients, The all in one solution!!!. To do this on a PC would require multiple systems, multiple IT systems ?specialists?, and multiple headaches. What was it...
I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac.
Cheaper my ass
tbc
Smeegs
<strong>
Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs.....
but try getting your mother to do that....
Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to be forgetting Apple's target market for the iMac/eMac/iBook and iMovie Education (Something your posts seem to lack
And finally in reply to All
[quote] ...let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's.<hr></blockquote>
IT'S A BETA you should expect problems with it. You do know what a Beta is don't you <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Bye
Smeegs
<strong>The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually there is a great deal of difference beyond OS between Mac and PC. For a start all macs are initially far more integrated units than PCs.
As a result uptime on Mac based computer operations considerably outweighs the uptimes you will see with WIntel alternatives even with equal numbers of computers.
Mac based networks don't come even remotely close to having the downtime and issues of PC based networks and are considerably lower cost to maintain and operate.
They can breakdown and have faults like any piece of electronic equipment but they are significantly easier to fix and by and large they are a considerable distance ahead in terms of reliability.
I'm too tired right now to go onto proprietary versus standardised hardware. Both have certain cases for and against but from Apple's position I would certainly aim for open standard options.
That's a really low quality reply but I'm tired and will expand on it tomorrow or when I have time.