Not all games are graphically demanding. For all we know, he may be thinking Bejewelled.
Exactly.
People had no problems playing games on hardware as basic as a Playstation or Xbox for quite some time. A Core ULV and even a GMA950 are easily more powerful hardware.
And do you really want a computer that will just sorta-work for 2.4 years then die? At least with a Mac, you'll have stable hardware, stable software, an easy-to-use UI, and a really slick-looking industrail design all on a unit that'll last you at least 4 years. Look at the number of people still carrying their 12" G4 PowerBooks around. And me? I'm using a G4 iMac that's going on 6-years-old this spring.
The things I listed above are worth the "$400 premium" ... at least to me.
-Clive
After reading your reply, and many more like it in the past 2 months, I took a chance and got a 20" Core Duo iMac last night. So no more Apple whining from me, just Mac related questions from now on whenever I get stuck.
So far so good, it just looks BIG on my desk, even next to my 19" Acer PC monitor. I wonder if I should have gone Mac Mini... But anyway, time to start playing with it.
After reading your reply, and many more like it in the past 2 months, I took a chance and got a 20" Core Duo iMac last night. So no more Apple whining from me, just Mac related questions from now on whenever I get stuck.
So far so good, it just looks BIG on my desk, even next to my 19" Acer PC monitor. I wonder if I should have gone Mac Mini... But anyway, time to start playing with it.
-Slav.
Congratulations! And welcome aboard!
By the way, I think the Mini would have been the best choice for you. Why not just pack up that iMac and send it over here...
By the way, I think the Mini would have been the best choice for you. Why not just pack up that iMac and send it over here...
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
The business guys still want and need an ultraportable. Just asked my wife, who is a workaholic senior manager at a large company who regularly attends meetings where everyone is clamoring for something more powerful than the cell phone (and easier to type on quickly) but smaller, lighter and cheaper than your average laptop. She wants something the size of a DVD tall case (about 8.5 inches diagonal), no optical drive, flash, no HD, long battery life. The screen needs to flip over to fit snug atop the device to allow direct touch interaction in cramped quarters (a commuter train in Tokyo does not have much elbow room) and to allow it to be used for presentations. Yeah, and it needs a digital TV tuner like her cell phone has, and a camera, and a LAN cable, and an HDMI output for presentations on the company's big plasma screen TV.
She is currently considering the Kohjinsha, which costs a mere 1000 bucks, because there is nothing else out there.
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
Did you buy a used iMac?
I'm not sure what you thought you were choosing, but they are both fine machines. There's not such a significant difference in CPU performance that you'd really miss it, unless you need 3D performance, then the iMac is likely the better choice. iMacs use faster and bigger drives, so there's another benefit in the iMac's favor.
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
Sorry to take advantage of you when you are stressed!
I got the Core Duo iMac myself--it is a fine machine and I am very happy with it. (And another one for upstairs would have been sweet!)
But they haven't made them in a while. Like Jeff implied, they phased it out for the Core 2 Duo shortly after I bought mine (ain't that the way of it) so either you did get a 2, you bought used or you got hosed. Either way, it is hard to say whether you got the right machine or not without knowing exactly what you are going to do with it, but the iMac is a fine computer for most regular use.
I bought it used and as I just got home from a 12 hour work day I think I made the right choice. Now it's time to do what you said and simply "Enjoy it". Thanks for the replies.
As addabox posted on the first page of this thread: Apple is "not calling it an ultra-portable."
So that would make all arguments about whether Apple is right in calling it an ultraportable, moot. Now, if they're aiming for the ultraportable market, but not calling it that, then maybe they're trying to redefine what at least some people think of when they think "ultraportable". But most will still think "screen smaller than 13 inches" when they think ultraportable. For those people, Apple will point to the iPhone, at least for a while.
Without an optical drive, it looks like Apple is pushing something else too: more use of flash media to transfer files manually between computers, along the lines of their dropping the floppy drive years ago. Since a flash card that holds nearly as much as a DVD, 4 gigabytes, can be bought now for the mid-$30s, with prices still dropping, it seems more people will be carrying one of these in their pocket or purse. It would be nice if Apple included a flash card reader slot built-in, as some Windows laptops have, instead of limiting flash media that can be plugged into their new portables directly, without use of a separate reader, to USB flash sticks, but I'm pretty sure Apple won't be including flash card slots on anything for a while, since they just don't "feel like it", and think it would be too PC-ish. I know Apple likes to reduce the number of ports, both for simplicity and for manufacturing cost savings, but I don't think by not including flash card slots on Macs, that Apple can eliminate the use of flash cards in favor of USB sticks--cameras use flash cards since they're thinner, and they're not about to have a clumsy USB stick arrangement instead.
I know Apple likes to reduce the number of ports, both for simplicity and for manufacturing cost savings, but I don't think by not including flash card slots on Macs, that Apple can eliminate the use of flash cards in favor of USB sticks--cameras use flash cards since they're thinner, and they're not about to have a clumsy USB stick arrangement instead.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
I don't see why it's causing consternation. Apple have already said they're moving the line to LED backlights. It's such a minor spec change I'd expect them to do it without much fanfare as an in-line spec change.
As such, I still think this LED panel rumour is simply the MacBook getting LED screens and not some wank MacBook Thin 'ultraportable'.
It also wouldn't be entirely without precedent to see a much more significant change and then a massive change. eg. the iMac G5 2.1 with iSight released in October followed by the Intel iMac in January at MacWorld. I don't see why Apple couldn't wow us with an LED screen and Penryn CPU upgrades to the MacBook at MacWorld. I think that's much more likely than an 13.3" 'ultraportable' that is anything but 'ultraportable'.
Yeah, you're right, I'd even go so far as to say that the MB and MBP meet up pretty nicely in the middle in spec... not in price. I don't see how a slightly larger screen, 1 GB RAM, and last year's middle-of-the-road GPU warrant a $700 difference in price. Oh, and there's also the backlit keyboard and aluminium chasis... I bet THAT's expensive.
Way to charge for the word "Pro" Apple.
I suppose I should be used to it by now...
-Clive
I'm sorry, but you really don't see what warrants the $700 difference in price here?
MacBook: 13.3" CCFL screen
MacBook Pro: 15.4" LED-backlit screen (still one of the only laptops in the industry using this)
MacBook: GMAX3100 integrated graphics
MacBook Pro: 8600M GT - hardly last year's middle-of-the-road GPU. The 8600M GT is still essentially just about the best GPU that can be found in a 15.4" laptop, especially with the MBP's dimensions..
MacBook: 5.0 pounds, considerably heavier than many other 13.3" notebooks.
MacBook Pro: 5.4 pounds, making it one of the lightest (and also thinnest) 15.4" notebooks on the market.
All I want is a Sony Vaio TX with an Mac OS. The Sony is perfect: 11.1 in screen, 1.19 kg, optical drive included, etc. I suppose they could go to a 12.1 in screen, but otherwise, what more could one ask for except the Mac OS. Come on Steve, if Sony can do it, Apple should be able to.
It really depends on your needs th ough. The problem with the TX and the newer TZ is that they take the smallness too far; the screen real estate is limited and tiny, the keyboard is tough to type on (although the TZ's keyboard improves on the TX keyboard at least).
Also, performance of the TX and TZ is generally garbage; if you read through notebook forums to see the experiences people have with these machines, you'll find that bootup times, application usage, movie watching, etc. can be painful.
Sony's G series (12" carbon-fibre notebooks, under 2 pounds) are at least a bit more useable. And the Vaio SZ 13.3" notebooks are probably the best compromise between weight and performance, as the SZ at least is able to feature full CPU's, dedicated graphics, etc.
The TZ is cool in theory, but in practice, it has a lot of issues.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
True. I suppose for people who want to read a raw flash card instead of leaving/putting it in the camera, they can use one of the little enclosures that holds these cards, and has a USB plug.
Guess my head was still stuck on the idea of inserting disks, having started doing it when the Apple II came out.
Why assume that these displays are for a new product of any sort? Perhaps Apple is simply going to bring LED backlighting to the existing MacBook line.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
In my experience, in-camera extraction is a lot slower than just pulling out the card and reading it in a card reader. This experience is based only on five different cameras, but all of them were slower than a stand-alone card reader. The difference is about 10x with my newest one. For 260MB of photos, it really made a huge difference.
Not only that, each camera brand seems to have its own connector on the body. Lose the cable and you're stuck.
Comments
Not all games are graphically demanding. For all we know, he may be thinking Bejewelled.
Exactly.
People had no problems playing games on hardware as basic as a Playstation or Xbox for quite some time. A Core ULV and even a GMA950 are easily more powerful hardware.
This LED backlit screen is for the MacBook refresh.
Which Macbook refresh?
Which Macbook refresh?
The next one.
And do you really want a computer that will just sorta-work for 2.4 years then die? At least with a Mac, you'll have stable hardware, stable software, an easy-to-use UI, and a really slick-looking industrail design all on a unit that'll last you at least 4 years. Look at the number of people still carrying their 12" G4 PowerBooks around. And me? I'm using a G4 iMac that's going on 6-years-old this spring.
The things I listed above are worth the "$400 premium" ... at least to me.
-Clive
After reading your reply, and many more like it in the past 2 months, I took a chance and got a 20" Core Duo iMac last night. So no more Apple whining from me, just Mac related questions from now on whenever I get stuck.
So far so good, it just looks BIG on my desk, even next to my 19" Acer PC monitor. I wonder if I should have gone Mac Mini... But anyway, time to start playing with it.
-Slav.
After reading your reply, and many more like it in the past 2 months, I took a chance and got a 20" Core Duo iMac last night. So no more Apple whining from me, just Mac related questions from now on whenever I get stuck.
So far so good, it just looks BIG on my desk, even next to my 19" Acer PC monitor. I wonder if I should have gone Mac Mini... But anyway, time to start playing with it.
-Slav.
Congratulations! And welcome aboard!
By the way, I think the Mini would have been the best choice for you. Why not just pack up that iMac and send it over here...
Congratulations! And welcome aboard!
By the way, I think the Mini would have been the best choice for you. Why not just pack up that iMac and send it over here...
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
The business guys still want and need an ultraportable. Just asked my wife, who is a workaholic senior manager at a large company who regularly attends meetings where everyone is clamoring for something more powerful than the cell phone (and easier to type on quickly) but smaller, lighter and cheaper than your average laptop. She wants something the size of a DVD tall case (about 8.5 inches diagonal), no optical drive, flash, no HD, long battery life. The screen needs to flip over to fit snug atop the device to allow direct touch interaction in cramped quarters (a commuter train in Tokyo does not have much elbow room) and to allow it to be used for presentations. Yeah, and it needs a digital TV tuner like her cell phone has, and a camera, and a LAN cable, and an HDMI output for presentations on the company's big plasma screen TV.
She is currently considering the Kohjinsha, which costs a mere 1000 bucks, because there is nothing else out there.
http://www.kohjinsha.com.sg/products/outline-sa.htm
I give you this post of mine from 19 months ago?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=44
And yeah, I want one too?
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
Did you buy a used iMac?
I'm not sure what you thought you were choosing, but they are both fine machines. There's not such a significant difference in CPU performance that you'd really miss it, unless you need 3D performance, then the iMac is likely the better choice. iMacs use faster and bigger drives, so there's another benefit in the iMac's favor.
So I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but I don't know what to think anymore. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Mini but got a Core Duo iMac instead. I hate this feeling, (buyers remorse I believe it's called?) I've owned a Mac for less than 24 hours and already don't know if I made a good decision just getting the correct Mac.
Sorry to take advantage of you when you are stressed!
I got the Core Duo iMac myself--it is a fine machine and I am very happy with it. (And another one for upstairs would have been sweet!)
But they haven't made them in a while. Like Jeff implied, they phased it out for the Core 2 Duo shortly after I bought mine (ain't that the way of it) so either you did get a 2, you bought used or you got hosed. Either way, it is hard to say whether you got the right machine or not without knowing exactly what you are going to do with it, but the iMac is a fine computer for most regular use.
Enjoy it!
-Slav.
The next one.
Ah, I see.
So that would make all arguments about whether Apple is right in calling it an ultraportable, moot. Now, if they're aiming for the ultraportable market, but not calling it that, then maybe they're trying to redefine what at least some people think of when they think "ultraportable". But most will still think "screen smaller than 13 inches" when they think ultraportable. For those people, Apple will point to the iPhone, at least for a while.
Without an optical drive, it looks like Apple is pushing something else too: more use of flash media to transfer files manually between computers, along the lines of their dropping the floppy drive years ago. Since a flash card that holds nearly as much as a DVD, 4 gigabytes, can be bought now for the mid-$30s, with prices still dropping, it seems more people will be carrying one of these in their pocket or purse. It would be nice if Apple included a flash card reader slot built-in, as some Windows laptops have, instead of limiting flash media that can be plugged into their new portables directly, without use of a separate reader, to USB flash sticks, but I'm pretty sure Apple won't be including flash card slots on anything for a while, since they just don't "feel like it", and think it would be too PC-ish. I know Apple likes to reduce the number of ports, both for simplicity and for manufacturing cost savings, but I don't think by not including flash card slots on Macs, that Apple can eliminate the use of flash cards in favor of USB sticks--cameras use flash cards since they're thinner, and they're not about to have a clumsy USB stick arrangement instead.
I know Apple likes to reduce the number of ports, both for simplicity and for manufacturing cost savings, but I don't think by not including flash card slots on Macs, that Apple can eliminate the use of flash cards in favor of USB sticks--cameras use flash cards since they're thinner, and they're not about to have a clumsy USB stick arrangement instead.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
Ah, I see.
I don't see why it's causing consternation. Apple have already said they're moving the line to LED backlights. It's such a minor spec change I'd expect them to do it without much fanfare as an in-line spec change.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
As such, I still think this LED panel rumour is simply the MacBook getting LED screens and not some wank MacBook Thin 'ultraportable'.
It also wouldn't be entirely without precedent to see a much more significant change and then a massive change. eg. the iMac G5 2.1 with iSight released in October followed by the Intel iMac in January at MacWorld. I don't see why Apple couldn't wow us with an LED screen and Penryn CPU upgrades to the MacBook at MacWorld. I think that's much more likely than an 13.3" 'ultraportable' that is anything but 'ultraportable'.
Yeah, you're right, I'd even go so far as to say that the MB and MBP meet up pretty nicely in the middle in spec... not in price. I don't see how a slightly larger screen, 1 GB RAM, and last year's middle-of-the-road GPU warrant a $700 difference in price. Oh, and there's also the backlit keyboard and aluminium chasis... I bet THAT's expensive.
Way to charge for the word "Pro" Apple.
I suppose I should be used to it by now...
-Clive
I'm sorry, but you really don't see what warrants the $700 difference in price here?
MacBook: 13.3" CCFL screen
MacBook Pro: 15.4" LED-backlit screen (still one of the only laptops in the industry using this)
MacBook: GMAX3100 integrated graphics
MacBook Pro: 8600M GT - hardly last year's middle-of-the-road GPU. The 8600M GT is still essentially just about the best GPU that can be found in a 15.4" laptop, especially with the MBP's dimensions..
MacBook: 5.0 pounds, considerably heavier than many other 13.3" notebooks.
MacBook Pro: 5.4 pounds, making it one of the lightest (and also thinnest) 15.4" notebooks on the market.
-Zadillo
All I want is a Sony Vaio TX with an Mac OS. The Sony is perfect: 11.1 in screen, 1.19 kg, optical drive included, etc. I suppose they could go to a 12.1 in screen, but otherwise, what more could one ask for except the Mac OS. Come on Steve, if Sony can do it, Apple should be able to.
It really depends on your needs th ough. The problem with the TX and the newer TZ is that they take the smallness too far; the screen real estate is limited and tiny, the keyboard is tough to type on (although the TZ's keyboard improves on the TX keyboard at least).
Also, performance of the TX and TZ is generally garbage; if you read through notebook forums to see the experiences people have with these machines, you'll find that bootup times, application usage, movie watching, etc. can be painful.
Sony's G series (12" carbon-fibre notebooks, under 2 pounds) are at least a bit more useable. And the Vaio SZ 13.3" notebooks are probably the best compromise between weight and performance, as the SZ at least is able to feature full CPU's, dedicated graphics, etc.
The TZ is cool in theory, but in practice, it has a lot of issues.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
True. I suppose for people who want to read a raw flash card instead of leaving/putting it in the camera, they can use one of the little enclosures that holds these cards, and has a USB plug.
Guess my head was still stuck on the idea of inserting disks, having started doing it when the Apple II came out.
Most cameras also come with USB cables to plug them in to your Mac. Some even have docks. That's the preferred method of attaching them to a Mac for Apple - just look how iPhoto works.
USB sticks make a lot more sense than cards for sneakernet transfers if you really have to. Card slots? WTF for.
In my experience, in-camera extraction is a lot slower than just pulling out the card and reading it in a card reader. This experience is based only on five different cameras, but all of them were slower than a stand-alone card reader. The difference is about 10x with my newest one. For 260MB of photos, it really made a huge difference.
Not only that, each camera brand seems to have its own connector on the body. Lose the cable and you're stuck.