As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.
In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.
As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?
Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.
The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.
Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.
Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.
I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.
Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.
I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.
Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.
I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.
I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.
When he stops insulting me, I'll stop thinking he's an idiot. The ball is in his court, as he threw the first pitch.
Quote:
As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.
If that's all he said, then no one would be disagreeing with him. He's entitled to want what he wants, but that's no what he's been saying.
Quote:
In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.
I've been giving him an out, but he won't take it. All he's really been doing is trying to point out why it's inferior.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?
Now, where's the tub for the £0.02...?
If someone says "It's too expensive for ME", or " I THINK it's too expensive for most people", then fine. But, he's gone way beyond that.
Not a new issue, but interesting new possibilities are opening up.
It's an interesting article, but not new.
Back a ways, there was this thing called Bubble Memory. It was supposed to take memory far beyond where HDD's seemed capable of going. It came out of development, and actually had some products. It was expected that after some time, the price would drop precipitately, and the storage would grow significantly.
But, HDD manufacturers weren't put off so easily. They managed to get HDD development well beyond what the predictions were for it, and the day of the Bubble Memory revolution never came to pass.
I'm not saying that the same thing will happen to SSD's, it won't, but the death of HDD's won't happen for a long time.
I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.
I don't mean now. I mean if they introduced a mid tower, they could then overlap.
Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.[/quote]
Yes, they were. It wasn't by choice however, and it was for a very special reason. Unless they change chip makers again, it won't happen again.
OS 9. I dropped that for my graphics needs several years ago. Yes, it's about time.
Quote:
I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.
Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.
Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.
I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.
Then your test wasn't working properly. My experience with the 24" iMac in my daughter's school (it's an art school), have shown that the iMac is very fast indeed!
Don't try it on a 20" slow model. There is a big difference.
The Panasonics use Magnesium cases - lighter and stronger than aluminum. Dont forget - they maintain an ultralight laptop (sub 3lbs for 12" screen, and 3.3 lbs for 14" screen) while shock-armoring them. All Steve wants is to make them purdy.
Drop one of those laptops on concrete and expect a busted laptop. Be happy when it isn't...but the probability is only marginally better than with a normal laptop. These are not the same critters as the "fully-rugged" toughbooks. The Air with SSD will be as shock proof as any of those toughbooks. Meaning the drive still works but your screen is borked. And water resistant is all very well but not water proof. The Air will be as water resistant in its case. Neither should us try to use in the rain.
Quote:
Since this product is clearly not targeted at the design-crowd (RAM, HDD, video limitations) I am assuming that it is targeted at those who use ultralights, which demographically tend to be people who cherish light weight and form factor over features - businesspeople who travel a lot and use the laptop for their work. But Apple (IMHO) dropped the ball with two critical features (from conversations/usage from many people that I have talked to/worked with over many years) - larger HDD, and replaceable battery.
This is the first ultralight I can actually think about using as a primary computer AND can stick in a leather portfolio that is under an inch and a half thick. Its the full sized keyboard that does it.
I can leave my LaCie and optical drive in the rental car, hotel room, whatever and not haul those around with me. They are only moderate nusiances as carry ons. 64GB is plenty especially since I'm primarily living with a 32GB Bootcamp partition AND doing windows development at the same time while keeping around 10GB worth of imagery.
Trust me that I also have an assload of powerpoint documents for presentations. My iTunes library sits on my external drive, and I connect it when I want to sync my iPod.
All of my windows games are on there too. Not having the optical drive when on the plane is mildly annoying but not a deal killer. Too many of my games require a real mouse anyway.
Quote:
You can retort with "then go buy another computer" and I might end up having to do that. My point here was to vent my frustration that I have wanted to switch for the past year and was waiting for this machine to answer my needs. So yes, I might end up having to stay with another Windows machine against my wishes.
Well...if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Personally, I think its a great little machine because its an ultralite I can likely type on without feeling fat fingered and making scads of mistakes.
If the GMA3100 actually works with my application then I could use it as a primary machine....splitting it 32GB/32GB only sucks a little bit in comparison to what I have now.
These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.
Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.
Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.
Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.
Quote:
Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.
Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.
Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. You're blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.
The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.
Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.
The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.
Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures.
Er...I'd be using a RAID array on a NAS even with a Pro. Oh wait, I do since we didn't go FC.
Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?
I wouldn't be giving my guys 1.8Ghz C2D and thinking I'm being fiscally responsible. I'd be thinking I was being pennywise and pound foolish.
And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Those tests you supplied are, as anyone in the computer business knows quite well, totally worthless.
The only place spec is used is in comparing supercomputers. Even then, it's considered to be worthless, except for the problem that there are few programs that will run on all supercomputers other than spec.
I also read Apple's examples. Again, it says nothing useful for what we're talking about.
The only tests that have any value to this conversation are the ones I posted from Macworld, so far, at least.
if you ever go to the tech sites, you will see that they use both synthetic tests, which show some technical differences between processors and systems, and real-world programs.
You will also notice that for EVERY synthetic test suit they use, they will say that they do it because of interest, but that it has NO value in dteermining how the computer will perform in the real world of programs.
This is without exception.
So forget your spec numbers, and come back into the real world, and go read the Macworld tests.
Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.
You're misunderstanding what the tests say.
Spec was devised to read cpu performance directly in one very small area. It measures nothing else. It doesn't rell us anything about real integer performance, which is what most programs use.
It doesn't tell us anything about vector processing capabilities, which all processors now have, to a greater, or lessor extent.
Considering that OS X, and Windows both push most floating calculations off into the vector processors hardware, the numbers are less than useful. They are deceiving. This has been a criticism of spec testing for years now.
As far as for the Macworld tests, they DO make a comparison between all machines. The numbers themselves aren't important. What IS important is the difference between the numbers for the various machines under test.
And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.
Simply genius.
Oh, and the reason that the T3400 is seeing $300-$400 off right now is likely because Dell is trying to dump all their older Conroe boxes before they get their Wolfdales in volume. Buy now and get 2007 tech that is 5% slower or buy later and not get the $300instant savings.
Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?
They still haven't got the Harpertown Xeons, either.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
If I remember in the keynote correctly Steve said the MBA battery life if 5 hours with wireless networking on. Since the emphasis of the machine is on wireless. With the wireless off the MBA battery should last much longer.
If I remember in the keynote correctly Steve said the MBA battery life if 5 hours with wireless networking on. Since the emphasis of the machine is on wireless. With the wireless off the MBA battery should last much longer.
In all fairness the MBA does have a more powerful CPU and integrated video card than these ultra-portables, but I figure it should give you about an extra hour.
Comments
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
I'm not sure there's any need for that...
As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.
Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.
In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.
As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?
Now, where's the tub for the £0.02...?
Not a new issue, but interesting new possibilities are opening up.
Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.
The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.
Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.
Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.
I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.
Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.
I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.
Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.
I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.
I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.
I'm not sure there's any need for that...
When he stops insulting me, I'll stop thinking he's an idiot. The ball is in his court, as he threw the first pitch.
As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.
If that's all he said, then no one would be disagreeing with him. He's entitled to want what he wants, but that's no what he's been saying.
In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.
I've been giving him an out, but he won't take it. All he's really been doing is trying to point out why it's inferior.
As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?
Now, where's the tub for the £0.02...?
If someone says "It's too expensive for ME", or " I THINK it's too expensive for most people", then fine. But, he's gone way beyond that.
Discussion here got me thinking about the underlying trends driving pricing of SDDs vs. HDDs: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2...s-macbook.html
Not a new issue, but interesting new possibilities are opening up.
It's an interesting article, but not new.
Back a ways, there was this thing called Bubble Memory. It was supposed to take memory far beyond where HDD's seemed capable of going. It came out of development, and actually had some products. It was expected that after some time, the price would drop precipitately, and the storage would grow significantly.
But, HDD manufacturers weren't put off so easily. They managed to get HDD development well beyond what the predictions were for it, and the day of the Bubble Memory revolution never came to pass.
I'm not saying that the same thing will happen to SSD's, it won't, but the death of HDD's won't happen for a long time.
I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.
I don't mean now. I mean if they introduced a mid tower, they could then overlap.
Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.[/quote]
Yes, they were. It wasn't by choice however, and it was for a very special reason. Unless they change chip makers again, it won't happen again.
OS 9. I dropped that for my graphics needs several years ago. Yes, it's about time.
I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.
Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.
Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.
The iMac would blow away that Dell in all tests.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...cprobench.html
I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.
Then your test wasn't working properly. My experience with the 24" iMac in my daughter's school (it's an art school), have shown that the iMac is very fast indeed!
Don't try it on a 20" slow model. There is a big difference.
The Panasonics use Magnesium cases - lighter and stronger than aluminum. Dont forget - they maintain an ultralight laptop (sub 3lbs for 12" screen, and 3.3 lbs for 14" screen) while shock-armoring them. All Steve wants is to make them purdy.
Drop one of those laptops on concrete and expect a busted laptop. Be happy when it isn't...but the probability is only marginally better than with a normal laptop. These are not the same critters as the "fully-rugged" toughbooks. The Air with SSD will be as shock proof as any of those toughbooks. Meaning the drive still works but your screen is borked. And water resistant is all very well but not water proof. The Air will be as water resistant in its case. Neither should us try to use in the rain.
Since this product is clearly not targeted at the design-crowd (RAM, HDD, video limitations) I am assuming that it is targeted at those who use ultralights, which demographically tend to be people who cherish light weight and form factor over features - businesspeople who travel a lot and use the laptop for their work. But Apple (IMHO) dropped the ball with two critical features (from conversations/usage from many people that I have talked to/worked with over many years) - larger HDD, and replaceable battery.
This is the first ultralight I can actually think about using as a primary computer AND can stick in a leather portfolio that is under an inch and a half thick. Its the full sized keyboard that does it.
I can leave my LaCie and optical drive in the rental car, hotel room, whatever and not haul those around with me. They are only moderate nusiances as carry ons. 64GB is plenty especially since I'm primarily living with a 32GB Bootcamp partition AND doing windows development at the same time while keeping around 10GB worth of imagery.
Trust me that I also have an assload of powerpoint documents for presentations. My iTunes library sits on my external drive, and I connect it when I want to sync my iPod.
All of my windows games are on there too. Not having the optical drive when on the plane is mildly annoying but not a deal killer. Too many of my games require a real mouse anyway.
You can retort with "then go buy another computer" and I might end up having to do that. My point here was to vent my frustration that I have wanted to switch for the past year and was waiting for this machine to answer my needs. So yes, I might end up having to stay with another Windows machine against my wishes.
Well...if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Personally, I think its a great little machine because its an ultralite I can likely type on without feeling fat fingered and making scads of mistakes.
If the GMA3100 actually works with my application then I could use it as a primary machine....splitting it 32GB/32GB only sucks a little bit in comparison to what I have now.
Ok these have the full case.
These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.
Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.
Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.
Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.
Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.
That's exactly how i would feel about it.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2249835,00.asp
Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.
Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.
The iMac would blow away that Dell in all tests.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...cprobench.html
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. You're blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html
Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html
iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html
MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html
Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html
iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html
MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)
Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...nch.html?t=205
The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.
Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...nch.html?t=205
The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.
Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures.
Er...I'd be using a RAID array on a NAS even with a Pro. Oh wait, I do since we didn't go FC.
Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?
I wouldn't be giving my guys 1.8Ghz C2D and thinking I'm being fiscally responsible. I'd be thinking I was being pennywise and pound foolish.
And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.
Simply genius.
Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.
Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html
Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html
iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html
MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)
Those tests you supplied are, as anyone in the computer business knows quite well, totally worthless.
The only place spec is used is in comparing supercomputers. Even then, it's considered to be worthless, except for the problem that there are few programs that will run on all supercomputers other than spec.
I also read Apple's examples. Again, it says nothing useful for what we're talking about.
The only tests that have any value to this conversation are the ones I posted from Macworld, so far, at least.
if you ever go to the tech sites, you will see that they use both synthetic tests, which show some technical differences between processors and systems, and real-world programs.
You will also notice that for EVERY synthetic test suit they use, they will say that they do it because of interest, but that it has NO value in dteermining how the computer will perform in the real world of programs.
This is without exception.
So forget your spec numbers, and come back into the real world, and go read the Macworld tests.
Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.
You're misunderstanding what the tests say.
Spec was devised to read cpu performance directly in one very small area. It measures nothing else. It doesn't rell us anything about real integer performance, which is what most programs use.
It doesn't tell us anything about vector processing capabilities, which all processors now have, to a greater, or lessor extent.
Considering that OS X, and Windows both push most floating calculations off into the vector processors hardware, the numbers are less than useful. They are deceiving. This has been a criticism of spec testing for years now.
As far as for the Macworld tests, they DO make a comparison between all machines. The numbers themselves aren't important. What IS important is the difference between the numbers for the various machines under test.
And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.
Simply genius.
Oh, and the reason that the T3400 is seeing $300-$400 off right now is likely because Dell is trying to dump all their older Conroe boxes before they get their Wolfdales in volume. Buy now and get 2007 tech that is 5% slower or buy later and not get the $300instant savings.
Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?
They still haven't got the Harpertown Xeons, either.
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks
If I remember in the keynote correctly Steve said the MBA battery life if 5 hours with wireless networking on. Since the emphasis of the machine is on wireless. With the wireless off the MBA battery should last much longer.
If I remember in the keynote correctly Steve said the MBA battery life if 5 hours with wireless networking on. Since the emphasis of the machine is on wireless. With the wireless off the MBA battery should last much longer.
In all fairness the MBA does have a more powerful CPU and integrated video card than these ultra-portables, but I figure it should give you about an extra hour.