Well, right now I've got three firewire drives sitting on my desk, mainly because I can't put them in my computer, where they should be, not taking up my deskspace. Would be nice to be able to stick a TB or 2 of storage in my G5 without having to buy a large add-on to let me do that. In fact, I overspent on my last external purchase to get a case and disk separate, just so I could have the flexibility of flipping disks within the firewire case. Wow, if I only had that flexibility in the computer...
If you have a PM G5 you can stick a TB in it.
When we do video, we don't want drives inside the machine except for the OS and programs. Everything else is hung on an external bus. I use SCSI,Firewire, and SATA external towers, depending on what I'm doing. I don't know anyone who does serious work who does it any other way. We need "hot" replaceable drives in a Raid configuration, so that we can remove and replace up to 4 at once.
If Apple can't make a power supply that can handle four standard desktop drives, then they don't deserve their accolades.
There is absolutely no fiscal justification to going down to laptop drives on a high-end desktop (or workstation) just for power considerations, because it drives up the cost per GB by more than 3x.
I have few Xeon workstations that are designed to handle 5x 15k RPM drives and two processors at full load without problem on a 500W power supply. Apple's PMG5 dualie power supply is supposed to handle 600W and you are telling me that adding a couple 10 to 12W 7.2kRPM drives are going to be an issue?
Two extra drives don't seem to cause any problem. The machines have 650 watt supplies, and the thermals just make the fans spin a bit more.
I would partly blame that on the thermal inefficiencies of the G5 chip, as well as the weird handles and feet. The G5 case is about as large as that of a large, solid workstation and is less expandable.
The case is just another avenue where Apple has decided form is more important that function. When they released the G4 towers, they stuck stupid handles on them (for the supposed reason that it makes it easier to move, like people move their desktops around once a week). The tops also weren't completely flat, IIRC. Both made it much harder to put peripherals on top of the computer.
With the new spate of G5s, they flattened the top, but kept the handles. Can't complain about that, though, since, for some reason that only apple can explain, the computer weighs like 50 pounds. I couldn't believe how heavy it was. So we get handles to move it, but no one's going to move these behemoths unless they need to. And the handles make it harder to place things on top (I had to run cables under the handle, which then makes it impossible to just slide the stuff on top off if you need to slide it out for any reason).
No they don't. People who buy those things like them. They take up little room, and are powerful enough to do whatever a consumer needs them to do. And they are considered to be attractive.
Well, the real problem is there's no way to know. Would more people buy an all-in-one if apple offered the same machine sans monitor for $999? Don't know, since Apple doesn't offer it. If you want a desktop mac, you're buying an iMac, unless you've got tons of money to spend for a G5.
My other problem with All-in-Ones (not mentioned here) is that if the monitor dies, you're stuck sending the entire computer in, waiting for the repair (and how long will it take? who knows), and hoping you get it back the way it was sent out. If my monitor cuts out, I can always borrow another one while waiting for it to be fixed. But I still can compute the whole time.
Quote:
Check what I said. I never said that *NO* PC user ever upgrades. But very few consumer purchasers do. This is well known from many surveys over the years. Sometimes some more memory, or a rare harddrive. Fewer buy new video cards.
First off, my problem was with your semantics. I read "upgrade" as "buy a new computer", not "add more stuff to the computer". That's why I asked what you meant.
As for the poll, sure, that's what they say, but then how many users know what's happening when they take their malfunctioning computer in for service. The video card goes bad, they take it to the "Geek Squad" and they get it working. User may not even understand that they've got themselves a new video card. What I do know is that unless my mobo dies in my G5, I can at least replace something that goes wrong or dies (video, USB, firewire, ethernet, etc). I have options, which is why I saved an extra 2 years to get the tower. If I'm spending a large amount of money on something, I want to make sure I don't feel that I got screwed two years later because my video dies and it'll cost me an arm and a leg to get fixed because I need a whole new motherboard.
(And if you say this is unlikely, I'd just like to point out that Apple hasn't had the greatest QA track record lately with their computers).
Quote:
The obsession with slots, slots, slots, is just that....
The same thing for big cases with 6 or 8 slots. The big thing now is SLI or Crossfire. People will get machines with those dual (and now quad!) slots, and NEVER get the second board.
Well, I know I don't need 6 or 8 slots (although, to be fair, I did fill all three slots of my Beige G3 that I had). But some people had needs (now, I don't know, but I know that pros were very vocal about the drop in slots when it occurred, and Apple basically didn't care).
And one final thing. People keep talking about trying to make their macs into the center of their media experience. Well, currently, most macs don't allow for...
(a) video in (either s-video, RCA jacks, or straight coax, you know, what most people have on their TV receivers)
(b) surround sound support on audio out.
(c) video capture software (DVR) for the added experience
(d) lot's of storage space for recorrded content
(e) extra optical drive bays for doing multi-DVD playback (or copying)
Sure, people can add an eyeTV box to their macs, but wouldn't an internal piece be nicer then another non-matching piece of hardware. And where's the dolby 5.1 or 7.1 hardware? Oops, no way to upgrade to that except in a tower. Other pieces are either not possible or external options. Grand...
BTW, just so you all know, I've been a Mac user since 1984 (yep, my dad bought a 128K mac, and I never went back - it was so much fun trying to understand how to use wordstar for DOS after using MacWrite for a while). But all the slurping of Apple really gets on my nerves. Their current crop of computers tend to care more about style over substance, form over function, etc. I mean, aren't there any "pro" users out there with a powerbook who would just love to be able to put more then one battery in the computer. Or have any component in said 'book easily replaceable like most any Dell laptop? Hell, they should get slapped around for selling a pro laptop that got such crappy reception (due in no small part to the style and form of the laptop itself).
But hey, if no one complained, apple would just be complacent. We all should be at least greatful we're not stuck using OS 9.x still because Apple decided to sell itself off in 1998.
The case is just another avenue where Apple has decided form is more important that function. When they released the G4 towers, they stuck stupid handles on them (for the
I do understand the design lineage of the handles a bit. It actually originates from the Blue & White G3 tower and seen several relatively minor variations for the G4 towers. The handles seem to be one factor that cuts down on the available space for internal expansion. The feet are understandable and practical to an extent as well, especially for floor-standing, because that raises the intake a bit so the machine doesn't suck in as much dust that might settle on the carpet.
Still, it's kind of unfortunate that such a mammoth computer really isn't all that expandable.
If it works well, efficiently, and Intel doesn't tack on some rediculous sum for it being Mac-specific, I'm all for it.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
If it works well, efficiently, and Intel doesn't tack on some rediculous sum for it being Mac-specific, I'm all for it.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
Ahh but this is the price we pay for having tight integration. This is never going to change...if it does, we'd not be running Macs anymore...we'd be running a PC. If you disagree with this, you can always go the 'illegal' route and build your own box and install a hacked up copy of OS X.
heh. the only thing stopping me from installing hacked os X on my cobbled together (but high performance and value-for-money!) rig is , besides crap internet here in malaysistan, the fact that one may get osX86 10.4.3 up and running, but later revs and different hardware down the line may break everything, and then its like repatch, redownload, etc, etc, etc.......
If it works well, efficiently, and Intel doesn't tack on some rediculous sum for it being Mac-specific, I'm all for it.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
That's the one thing I hope they don't do. As long as Intel don't change the socket design there's the chance that you can now buy a new CPU off the shelf from the same sources PC users can instead of an expensive PPC upgrade card. If they lock the CPU speeds or surface mount it in the iMac or PowerMac I'll be a bit miffed.
I was hoping we'd see G5 upgrades by now from 3rd parties but so far no. I guess it'd depend on some significant upgrades from IBM on the speed or power consumption which now looks a distant hope.
I do understand the design lineage of the handles a bit.
I like the handles. I also thought the G3/G4 powermac was a lovely piece of design.
The G5 however is larger and with less expansion. It's still nice design aesthetically but design isn't all about looks. It should have two optical drive slots and space for three drives.
I love this. Nothing like the great disposable society talking. Why get just a piece when I can just buy everything again and again.
True, but that's the nature of people.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
And I think the thing difficult to grasp by those PC users is how Apple users don't mind throwing good money away having to rebuy pieces of their hardware, then being restricted to how you can use it.
Because when you actually do sell an old Mac, you've usually had twice as long out of it than a PC, you get back a lot more money than you would selling a similar age PC and the extra money you get means you get all new kit.
The last two Macs I've had, I've had no desire to upgrade past RAM upgrades. Where's the restriction?
Saying that, the last PC I had only got RAM upgrades too since I'm not a gamer. It didn't even have a sound card in it. The sound on my Mac is usually switched off ;-)
A 4 year old Mac still has some legs in it for other people to use. A 4 year old PC generally ends up on the scrap heap. Which is the disposable society's choice of computer again?
And one final thing. People keep talking about trying to make their macs into the center of their media experience. Well, currently, most macs don't allow for...
(a) video in (either s-video, RCA jacks, or straight coax, you know, what most people have on their TV receivers)
Don't have any of those here. SCART only.
But I don't see many PCs with analog video capture either. And not so many have firewire built in so you end up having to buy both a firewire card AND an analog to DV convertor.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
(b) surround sound support on audio out.
OSX10.3 was when Core Audio got 5.1 and 7.1 support. M-Audio do a USB box to give you that on both Windows and Mac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
(c) video capture software (DVR) for the added experience
See El Gato or CenterStage just for software
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
(d) lot's of storage space for recorrded content
See Apple.com 1TB in the PowerMac, 500MB in the iMac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
(e) extra optical drive bays for doing multi-DVD playback (or copying)
I've an external one. No big deal. Looks cute too with it's blue light. Matches my backup drive.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Sure, people can add an eyeTV box to their macs, but wouldn't an internal piece be nicer then another non-matching piece of hardware. And where's the dolby 5.1 or 7.1 hardware? Oops, no way to upgrade to that except in a tower. Other pieces are either not possible or external options. Grand...
See above for some of those. Even when I was using a PC I always bought external SCSI kit instead of putting it all in my PC. That way I could switch it between computers or take the drive and attach it to another. I keep the same philosophy with my Macs and these even less kit needed external now than then.
A 4 year old Mac still has some legs in it for other people to use. A 4 year old PC generally ends up on the scrap heap. Which is the disposable society's choice of computer again?
While you are right that the value holds up well, too well, IMO, to the point that current refurbished Macs are often a bit less expensive than 2 yr. old Macs that are a lot slower like it was when I was looking for iMacs, I wouldn't mind a G4 but for about the same price, I'd get a refurbed G5 from Apple, with a warranty.
My Dad is still making good use of a 1997/1998 computer, a dual processor Xeon workstation, 500MHz, 1GB dual channel ECC RAM. He might complain about the speed, but he somehow can't mentally separate the speed problems caused by slow internet has nothing to do with the computer. The computer is fine, I would personally use it as my daily computer without issue, it's been rock-solid.
While you are right that the value holds up well, too well, IMO, to the point that current refurbished Macs are often a bit less expensive than 2 yr. old Macs that are a lot slower like it was when I was looking for iMacs, I wouldn't mind a G4 but for about the same price, I'd get a refurbed G5 from Apple, with a warranty.
True. New computer prices have dropped so much in the last few years that the new computers are forcing down used prices too. I think I paid about £1900 for an iBook in 2001 and a new iBook is £699 and way more capable.
The iMac G5 I have cost me about £1500 last year and now it's about £1000.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
My Dad is still making good use of a 1997/1998 computer, a dual processor Xeon workstation, 500MHz, 1GB dual channel ECC RAM. He might complain about the speed, but he somehow can't mentally separate the speed problems caused by slow internet has nothing to do with the computer. The computer is fine, I would personally use it as my daily computer without issue, it's been rock-solid.
That couldn't have been a cheap computer back then though. I built a dual Celeron 550Mhz in 2000 which cost me about £1300. It's worth about £100 now and barely runs XP. It's been through two power supplies and sounds like a jet engine too compared to an iMac - and does less.
That couldn't have been a cheap computer back then though. I built a dual Celeron 550Mhz in 2000 which cost me about £1300. It's worth about £100 now and barely runs XP. It's been through two power supplies and sounds like a jet engine too compared to an iMac - and does less.
New, no, but I bought it used for far less and upgraded it for a lot less then I could have bought even a much weaker Mac. It's now probably worth a lot less than a Mac mini, but I think it is more capable than a mini. Heck, except for the heavy-duty processing, the old workstation doesn't really feel slower than a dual G5 for basic tasks, such as the Web, email, even opening Open office on the workstation is about as fast as Neo Office on the Mac.
Said workstation isn't very loud either, the entire computer's cooling consists of only two 12cm fans, it was definitely quieter than an iMac under load. Even if an iMac at idle is quieter, the irritating high pitch under load was a turn-off, comparitavely, the workstation has a low, quiet rumble.
Until I bought a Mac, I would buy all my computers used, but it's not worth buying a Mac used, the minimal price difference, more features and faster units, combined with the fact that the new ones include a warranty are reasons I avoid a used Mac.
I think that what has to be understood is that Apple will not cater to every single individual taste. Some people will never be happy, and that's too bad, but that's the way it is.
If any one company did that, there wouldn't be a need for numerous companies in the same business.
I don't mind using external drives. I don't find that to be a really big deal. Two optical drives isn't necessary either; which doesn't mean that I wouldn't LIKE to have them. It's a bit less convenient when copying a disk, but not that big of a deal.
And Louzer's contention that Apple's QC is that bad is simply wrong. While Apple has had some well publicized problems, their QC is much better than the industry average. Dell had to recall 1.5 million machines and 750,000 batteries. I can give other examples of recent problems for every major computer company. They just don't get the headlines Apple does.
And while it's true that all in ones can break down more often because of their nature, they don't seem to.
Here in NYC, we have at least 200 thousand Macs in the school system. I work with that. Apple's iMacs, of any vintage, have been much more reliable than the 75,000 Dells we have. They also remain in service much longer.
The Dell's go down about every 7 months, while the iMacs go down about once every 19 months.
When either unit goes down, there is no computer on station. It doesn't matter if the monitor is sitting on the desk or not. The same thing is true at home. If your machine is down, and needs repair, you're out of service. If you want to stare at the monitor until the machine comes back, fine. But it doesn't do you any good. so that's not a valid reason not to get an iMac.
To say that people would get a $999 Mac and a monitor instead of an iMac is a red herring. No doubt SOME might. But people who I've spoken to who bought an iMac, have, in many cases bought it instead of a PC, where they could have gotten two pieces instead. A lot of them have bought it because they liked the design as much as liking (or more than) the OS.
And how many machines did Dell sell during that period? Don't "forget" to tell us that little piece of information, because that changes things.
Dell has what 20+ models? The dell recall represents recall of a particular model just as the Apple recalls have. It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
The dell recall represents recall of a particular model just as the Apple recalls have. It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
Gene Clean and I seldom agree , but like him, I beg to differ. This is very much a question of percentage.
"Three types bread may contain an unusually high amount of flour." is quite an issue when you only produce five types as a whole. It is much less noteworthy, however, when two-hundred different types, all of which sell a lot.
Comments
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, right now I've got three firewire drives sitting on my desk, mainly because I can't put them in my computer, where they should be, not taking up my deskspace. Would be nice to be able to stick a TB or 2 of storage in my G5 without having to buy a large add-on to let me do that. In fact, I overspent on my last external purchase to get a case and disk separate, just so I could have the flexibility of flipping disks within the firewire case. Wow, if I only had that flexibility in the computer...
If you have a PM G5 you can stick a TB in it.
When we do video, we don't want drives inside the machine except for the OS and programs. Everything else is hung on an external bus. I use SCSI,Firewire, and SATA external towers, depending on what I'm doing. I don't know anyone who does serious work who does it any other way. We need "hot" replaceable drives in a Raid configuration, so that we can remove and replace up to 4 at once.
Originally posted by JeffDM
If Apple can't make a power supply that can handle four standard desktop drives, then they don't deserve their accolades.
There is absolutely no fiscal justification to going down to laptop drives on a high-end desktop (or workstation) just for power considerations, because it drives up the cost per GB by more than 3x.
I have few Xeon workstations that are designed to handle 5x 15k RPM drives and two processors at full load without problem on a 500W power supply. Apple's PMG5 dualie power supply is supposed to handle 600W and you are telling me that adding a couple 10 to 12W 7.2kRPM drives are going to be an issue?
Two extra drives don't seem to cause any problem. The machines have 650 watt supplies, and the thermals just make the fans spin a bit more.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I would partly blame that on the thermal inefficiencies of the G5 chip, as well as the weird handles and feet. The G5 case is about as large as that of a large, solid workstation and is less expandable.
The case is just another avenue where Apple has decided form is more important that function. When they released the G4 towers, they stuck stupid handles on them (for the supposed reason that it makes it easier to move, like people move their desktops around once a week). The tops also weren't completely flat, IIRC. Both made it much harder to put peripherals on top of the computer.
With the new spate of G5s, they flattened the top, but kept the handles. Can't complain about that, though, since, for some reason that only apple can explain, the computer weighs like 50 pounds. I couldn't believe how heavy it was. So we get handles to move it, but no one's going to move these behemoths unless they need to. And the handles make it harder to place things on top (I had to run cables under the handle, which then makes it impossible to just slide the stuff on top off if you need to slide it out for any reason).
Originally posted by melgross
No they don't. People who buy those things like them. They take up little room, and are powerful enough to do whatever a consumer needs them to do. And they are considered to be attractive.
Well, the real problem is there's no way to know. Would more people buy an all-in-one if apple offered the same machine sans monitor for $999? Don't know, since Apple doesn't offer it. If you want a desktop mac, you're buying an iMac, unless you've got tons of money to spend for a G5.
My other problem with All-in-Ones (not mentioned here) is that if the monitor dies, you're stuck sending the entire computer in, waiting for the repair (and how long will it take? who knows), and hoping you get it back the way it was sent out. If my monitor cuts out, I can always borrow another one while waiting for it to be fixed. But I still can compute the whole time.
Check what I said. I never said that *NO* PC user ever upgrades. But very few consumer purchasers do. This is well known from many surveys over the years. Sometimes some more memory, or a rare harddrive. Fewer buy new video cards.
First off, my problem was with your semantics. I read "upgrade" as "buy a new computer", not "add more stuff to the computer". That's why I asked what you meant.
As for the poll, sure, that's what they say, but then how many users know what's happening when they take their malfunctioning computer in for service. The video card goes bad, they take it to the "Geek Squad" and they get it working. User may not even understand that they've got themselves a new video card. What I do know is that unless my mobo dies in my G5, I can at least replace something that goes wrong or dies (video, USB, firewire, ethernet, etc). I have options, which is why I saved an extra 2 years to get the tower. If I'm spending a large amount of money on something, I want to make sure I don't feel that I got screwed two years later because my video dies and it'll cost me an arm and a leg to get fixed because I need a whole new motherboard.
(And if you say this is unlikely, I'd just like to point out that Apple hasn't had the greatest QA track record lately with their computers).
The obsession with slots, slots, slots, is just that....
The same thing for big cases with 6 or 8 slots. The big thing now is SLI or Crossfire. People will get machines with those dual (and now quad!) slots, and NEVER get the second board.
Well, I know I don't need 6 or 8 slots (although, to be fair, I did fill all three slots of my Beige G3 that I had). But some people had needs (now, I don't know, but I know that pros were very vocal about the drop in slots when it occurred, and Apple basically didn't care).
And one final thing. People keep talking about trying to make their macs into the center of their media experience. Well, currently, most macs don't allow for...
(a) video in (either s-video, RCA jacks, or straight coax, you know, what most people have on their TV receivers)
(b) surround sound support on audio out.
(c) video capture software (DVR) for the added experience
(d) lot's of storage space for recorrded content
(e) extra optical drive bays for doing multi-DVD playback (or copying)
Sure, people can add an eyeTV box to their macs, but wouldn't an internal piece be nicer then another non-matching piece of hardware. And where's the dolby 5.1 or 7.1 hardware? Oops, no way to upgrade to that except in a tower. Other pieces are either not possible or external options. Grand...
BTW, just so you all know, I've been a Mac user since 1984 (yep, my dad bought a 128K mac, and I never went back - it was so much fun trying to understand how to use wordstar for DOS after using MacWrite for a while). But all the slurping of Apple really gets on my nerves. Their current crop of computers tend to care more about style over substance, form over function, etc. I mean, aren't there any "pro" users out there with a powerbook who would just love to be able to put more then one battery in the computer. Or have any component in said 'book easily replaceable like most any Dell laptop? Hell, they should get slapped around for selling a pro laptop that got such crappy reception (due in no small part to the style and form of the laptop itself).
But hey, if no one complained, apple would just be complacent. We all should be at least greatful we're not stuck using OS 9.x still because Apple decided to sell itself off in 1998.
Originally posted by Louzer
The case is just another avenue where Apple has decided form is more important that function. When they released the G4 towers, they stuck stupid handles on them (for the
I do understand the design lineage of the handles a bit. It actually originates from the Blue & White G3 tower and seen several relatively minor variations for the G4 towers. The handles seem to be one factor that cuts down on the available space for internal expansion. The feet are understandable and practical to an extent as well, especially for floor-standing, because that raises the intake a bit so the machine doesn't suck in as much dust that might settle on the carpet.
Still, it's kind of unfortunate that such a mammoth computer really isn't all that expandable.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
Originally posted by Placebo
If it works well, efficiently, and Intel doesn't tack on some rediculous sum for it being Mac-specific, I'm all for it.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
Ahh but this is the price we pay for having tight integration. This is never going to change...if it does, we'd not be running Macs anymore...we'd be running a PC. If you disagree with this, you can always go the 'illegal' route and build your own box and install a hacked up copy of OS X.
Originally posted by Placebo
If it works well, efficiently, and Intel doesn't tack on some rediculous sum for it being Mac-specific, I'm all for it.
What makes me sad is that Intel and Apple are clearly trying to lock down the Intel Mac hardware just as hard as PPC hardware was isolated from upgrades etc, but this time artificially. I somehow doubt that a user will be able to replace his processor or anything easily performed on the PC side, simply because Apple wants more hardware turnover.
That's the one thing I hope they don't do. As long as Intel don't change the socket design there's the chance that you can now buy a new CPU off the shelf from the same sources PC users can instead of an expensive PPC upgrade card. If they lock the CPU speeds or surface mount it in the iMac or PowerMac I'll be a bit miffed.
I was hoping we'd see G5 upgrades by now from 3rd parties but so far no. I guess it'd depend on some significant upgrades from IBM on the speed or power consumption which now looks a distant hope.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I do understand the design lineage of the handles a bit.
I like the handles. I also thought the G3/G4 powermac was a lovely piece of design.
The G5 however is larger and with less expansion. It's still nice design aesthetically but design isn't all about looks. It should have two optical drive slots and space for three drives.
Originally posted by Louzer
I love this. Nothing like the great disposable society talking. Why get just a piece when I can just buy everything again and again.
True, but that's the nature of people.
Originally posted by Louzer
And I think the thing difficult to grasp by those PC users is how Apple users don't mind throwing good money away having to rebuy pieces of their hardware, then being restricted to how you can use it.
Because when you actually do sell an old Mac, you've usually had twice as long out of it than a PC, you get back a lot more money than you would selling a similar age PC and the extra money you get means you get all new kit.
The last two Macs I've had, I've had no desire to upgrade past RAM upgrades. Where's the restriction?
Saying that, the last PC I had only got RAM upgrades too since I'm not a gamer. It didn't even have a sound card in it. The sound on my Mac is usually switched off ;-)
A 4 year old Mac still has some legs in it for other people to use. A 4 year old PC generally ends up on the scrap heap. Which is the disposable society's choice of computer again?
Originally posted by Louzer
And one final thing. People keep talking about trying to make their macs into the center of their media experience. Well, currently, most macs don't allow for...
(a) video in (either s-video, RCA jacks, or straight coax, you know, what most people have on their TV receivers)
Don't have any of those here. SCART only.
But I don't see many PCs with analog video capture either. And not so many have firewire built in so you end up having to buy both a firewire card AND an analog to DV convertor.
Originally posted by Louzer
(b) surround sound support on audio out.
OSX10.3 was when Core Audio got 5.1 and 7.1 support. M-Audio do a USB box to give you that on both Windows and Mac.
Originally posted by Louzer
(c) video capture software (DVR) for the added experience
See El Gato or CenterStage just for software
Originally posted by Louzer
(d) lot's of storage space for recorrded content
See Apple.com 1TB in the PowerMac, 500MB in the iMac.
Originally posted by Louzer
(e) extra optical drive bays for doing multi-DVD playback (or copying)
I've an external one. No big deal. Looks cute too with it's blue light. Matches my backup drive.
Originally posted by Louzer
Sure, people can add an eyeTV box to their macs, but wouldn't an internal piece be nicer then another non-matching piece of hardware. And where's the dolby 5.1 or 7.1 hardware? Oops, no way to upgrade to that except in a tower. Other pieces are either not possible or external options. Grand...
See above for some of those. Even when I was using a PC I always bought external SCSI kit instead of putting it all in my PC. That way I could switch it between computers or take the drive and attach it to another. I keep the same philosophy with my Macs and these even less kit needed external now than then.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
A 4 year old Mac still has some legs in it for other people to use. A 4 year old PC generally ends up on the scrap heap. Which is the disposable society's choice of computer again?
While you are right that the value holds up well, too well, IMO, to the point that current refurbished Macs are often a bit less expensive than 2 yr. old Macs that are a lot slower like it was when I was looking for iMacs, I wouldn't mind a G4 but for about the same price, I'd get a refurbed G5 from Apple, with a warranty.
My Dad is still making good use of a 1997/1998 computer, a dual processor Xeon workstation, 500MHz, 1GB dual channel ECC RAM. He might complain about the speed, but he somehow can't mentally separate the speed problems caused by slow internet has nothing to do with the computer. The computer is fine, I would personally use it as my daily computer without issue, it's been rock-solid.
Originally posted by JeffDM
While you are right that the value holds up well, too well, IMO, to the point that current refurbished Macs are often a bit less expensive than 2 yr. old Macs that are a lot slower like it was when I was looking for iMacs, I wouldn't mind a G4 but for about the same price, I'd get a refurbed G5 from Apple, with a warranty.
True. New computer prices have dropped so much in the last few years that the new computers are forcing down used prices too. I think I paid about £1900 for an iBook in 2001 and a new iBook is £699 and way more capable.
The iMac G5 I have cost me about £1500 last year and now it's about £1000.
Originally posted by JeffDM
My Dad is still making good use of a 1997/1998 computer, a dual processor Xeon workstation, 500MHz, 1GB dual channel ECC RAM. He might complain about the speed, but he somehow can't mentally separate the speed problems caused by slow internet has nothing to do with the computer. The computer is fine, I would personally use it as my daily computer without issue, it's been rock-solid.
That couldn't have been a cheap computer back then though. I built a dual Celeron 550Mhz in 2000 which cost me about £1300. It's worth about £100 now and barely runs XP. It's been through two power supplies and sounds like a jet engine too compared to an iMac - and does less.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That couldn't have been a cheap computer back then though. I built a dual Celeron 550Mhz in 2000 which cost me about £1300. It's worth about £100 now and barely runs XP. It's been through two power supplies and sounds like a jet engine too compared to an iMac - and does less.
New, no, but I bought it used for far less and upgraded it for a lot less then I could have bought even a much weaker Mac. It's now probably worth a lot less than a Mac mini, but I think it is more capable than a mini. Heck, except for the heavy-duty processing, the old workstation doesn't really feel slower than a dual G5 for basic tasks, such as the Web, email, even opening Open office on the workstation is about as fast as Neo Office on the Mac.
Said workstation isn't very loud either, the entire computer's cooling consists of only two 12cm fans, it was definitely quieter than an iMac under load. Even if an iMac at idle is quieter, the irritating high pitch under load was a turn-off, comparitavely, the workstation has a low, quiet rumble.
Until I bought a Mac, I would buy all my computers used, but it's not worth buying a Mac used, the minimal price difference, more features and faster units, combined with the fact that the new ones include a warranty are reasons I avoid a used Mac.
If any one company did that, there wouldn't be a need for numerous companies in the same business.
I don't mind using external drives. I don't find that to be a really big deal. Two optical drives isn't necessary either; which doesn't mean that I wouldn't LIKE to have them. It's a bit less convenient when copying a disk, but not that big of a deal.
And Louzer's contention that Apple's QC is that bad is simply wrong. While Apple has had some well publicized problems, their QC is much better than the industry average. Dell had to recall 1.5 million machines and 750,000 batteries. I can give other examples of recent problems for every major computer company. They just don't get the headlines Apple does.
And while it's true that all in ones can break down more often because of their nature, they don't seem to.
Here in NYC, we have at least 200 thousand Macs in the school system. I work with that. Apple's iMacs, of any vintage, have been much more reliable than the 75,000 Dells we have. They also remain in service much longer.
The Dell's go down about every 7 months, while the iMacs go down about once every 19 months.
When either unit goes down, there is no computer on station. It doesn't matter if the monitor is sitting on the desk or not. The same thing is true at home. If your machine is down, and needs repair, you're out of service. If you want to stare at the monitor until the machine comes back, fine. But it doesn't do you any good. so that's not a valid reason not to get an iMac.
To say that people would get a $999 Mac and a monitor instead of an iMac is a red herring. No doubt SOME might. But people who I've spoken to who bought an iMac, have, in many cases bought it instead of a PC, where they could have gotten two pieces instead. A lot of them have bought it because they liked the design as much as liking (or more than) the OS.
Dell had to recall 1.5 million machines and 750,000 batteries
And how many machines did Dell sell during that period? Don't "forget" to tell us that little piece of information, because that changes things.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And how many machines did Dell sell during that period? Don't "forget" to tell us that little piece of information, because that changes things.
Dell has what 20+ models? The dell recall represents recall of a particular model just as the Apple recalls have. It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]Dell has what 20+ models?
Nobody is stopping Apple from having 200+ models.
The dell recall represents recall of a particular model just as the Apple recalls have. It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
Yes. Yes, it is.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's not really important what percentage of total sales it is.
Gene Clean and I seldom agree
"Three types bread may contain an unusually high amount of flour." is quite an issue when you only produce five types as a whole. It is much less noteworthy, however, when two-hundred different types, all of which sell a lot.