... they also seem to feel strangely threatened by those who use Apple. Either it's a case of "doth protest too much" or they feel challenged by people who don't choose what they do and aren't just like them.
It's nothing if not a 2-way street. AI flamebaits by writing these articles about MS's ads (rarely writing about Apple's own ads) because they feel Apple is "under attack" and are compelled to defend them repeatedly with these articles. (3 and counting.)
And of course the troops from both camps take the (flame)bait and people in both get their panties in a bunch.
Yeah, but that pesky "initial setup" gets you every time.
Quote:
- Vista Business and Ultimate both have automated backup, System Restore for reverting to previous system configurations without data loss and will keep previous versions of user files based on Microsoft shadow copy technology. Advanced backup solutions - like StorageCraft ShadowProtect, with hardware independent restore, will cost you less than us$70. What are we talking about here?
I assume he's talking about Time Machine. You don't need a special version of Mac OS X to get it. And by the way, Time Machine provides hardware independent restore--at no extra cost.
Quote:
Macs are more expensive than PCs. Even after purchasing additional iLife grade software.
No, Macs are at least price-competitive with PCs. On the other hand, Apple does not cater to the bottom feeder market. Incidentally, there is no "iLife grade software" available for Windows.
but if I wanted it I could easily find a mobo with it included in the price i quoted along with bluetooth and optical audio.
Okay. Go do that then and tell me which one you chose.
Quote:
My labor is free as I built it.
So, your time is worth nothing?
Quote:
Picasso will work fine as ilife replacement
Really? Does Picasso allow you to create and burn movie DVDs? Does it provide movie editing? How about a digital audio workstation? How about WYSIWYG web page creation and CMS? And does it provide full integration between all those functions?
No, it's not. Among other things, DDR3 provides lower latencies and greater energy efficiency.
Quote:
Your processor costs more because it's a mobile processor. performance is the same between the two.
No, it's not: For one thing, the iMac's Penryn XE processor provides Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. The Penryn also provides a much lower TDP of 44 W vs. the Wolfdale's 65 W.
You doing just a bit too much squirming in your rationalizations there, mitz...
No, Macs are at least price-competitive with PCs. On the other hand, Apple does not cater to the bottom feeder market. Incidentally, there is no "iLife grade software" available for Windows.[/QUOTE]
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not. You like that it turns on and does what you want it to do but that doesn't mean it's by any stretch competitively priced. They are solid systems that work well but they by no means are anything but mid range computers. I actually like them for what they are but don't pretend they are worth the money. I guess I come from the perspective that i like to know what I'm paying for. By the way Intel is at least as bad as Microsoft with their business practices. You've been had. No OS is worth the money you are paying for it. You are paying many hundreds of dollars more for an OS. My only argument is that Yes it's a solid system, Yes OSX is a nice operating system, No it's not competitively priced, No the components aren't worth the money you pay for them.
They way I look at it you want an OS that you can do what you want to do with it(I admit you get that with OSX). You also want components that can drive that OS to its full potential(you don't get that with Mac). You also want something you can upgrade (upgrading Ram and Hard drive barely counts as being able to truly upgrade a system).
No, Macs are at least price-competitive with PCs. On the other hand, Apple does not cater to the bottom feeder market. Incidentally, there is no "iLife grade software" available for Windows.
Quote:
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not. You like that it turns on and does what you want it to do but that doesn't mean it's by any stretch competitively priced. They are solid systems that work well but they by no means are anything but mid range computers. I actually like them for what they are but don't pretend they are worth the money. I guess I come from the perspective that i like to know what I'm paying for. By the way Intel is at least as bad as Microsoft with their business practices. You've been had. No OS is worth the money you are paying for it. You are paying many hundreds of dollars more for an OS. My only argument is that Yes it's a solid system, Yes OSX is a nice operating system, No it's not competitively priced, No the components aren't worth the money you pay for them.
They way I look at it you want an OS that you can do what you want to do with it(I admit you get that with OSX). You also want components that can drive that OS to its full potential(you don't get that with Mac). You also want something you can upgrade (upgrading Ram and Hard drive barely counts as being able to truly upgrade a system).
Okay. Go do that then and tell me which one you chose.
So, your time is worth nothing?
Really? Does Picasso allow you to create and burn movie DVDs? Does it provide movie editing? How about a digital audio workstation? How about WYSIWYG web page creation and CMS? And does it provide full integration between all those functions?
No, it's not. Among other things, DDR3 provides lower latencies and greater energy efficiency.
No, it's not: For one thing, the iMac's Penryn XE processor provides Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. The Penryn also provides a much lower TDP of 44 W vs. the Wolfdale's 65 W.
You doing just a bit too much squirming in your rationalizations there, mitz...
No really that processor was made originaly as a mobile processor. Thats why the wattage is so low. Theres nothing wrong with mobile processors, I actually used to use some amd mobiles in rigs. They cost more though cause they do use less wattage. The throttling is something designed for less power usage in laptops. Come on you know that as well as I do.
Sure there are slight difference is ddr 3 but it's nothing you notice until you get up into higher speeds beyond 1066. The ddr3 overclocks better. I've never heard of a mac guy doing serious overclocking.
My time is worth a descent inexpensive system. Thats what I'd get from that.
You left out the line where I said you could get other opensource that could pick up slack. Although Ilife might be nice I'm not sure it's worth the price difference. Media center does some of those very things in vista. If you want a nice media player use VLC.
You can actually and it's a pretty easy process. I've done it myself. Same as installing any OS so no, it's not the same thing. I was comparing hardware only. If you wanna compare the OS, that's another thing entirely.
I didn't look very hard, this probably doesn't even have the right socket for that processor but it does have optical audio and firewire. Trust me if I can find this in 2 minuets I could find one with bluetooth in 5.
It's just an example of "yes you can find these aspects on a MOBO.
This one was about $130 I think..... I allowed between 150 and 200 in my spec.
You left out the line where I said you could get other opensource that could pick up slack. Although Ilife might be nice I'm not sure it's worth the price difference. Media center does some of those very things in vista. If you want a nice media player use VLC.
I love opensource/free software. Support for most such software is either spotty or nonexistent. Being a geek, myself, I usually don't have an issue Googling a problem to try and find a solution.
Other people may not have the desire to sift through a sea of websites and message boards to find a solution.
Again, it comes down to personal preference. It makes absolutely no sense to tell people they've been had, when they know all along exactly what they are doing.
Specs aside, it's the TOTAL EXPERIENCE that is of far greater value to many Mac users. Who cares about the specs as long as it does what you want it to do, and is a joy to use in the process?
I'm not fighting for Windows per say. But yeah I can pick up a copy of vista basic for the same as OSX and I can use it on any PC. Also I can download it in about 2 hours for free . Xp is same situation. I can get it for cheaper than Mac OSX. Linux is free of charge in all it's many flavors.
But essentially when you buy a Mac your paying many hundreds of dollars for the premium of using OSX.
So that being said it's head and shoulders by a few hundred bucks more expensive than MS.
Get real. You just lost all credibility with that. What do you like to use? USB? That is a lame rip-off of Firewire. And it's slower, even when the specs say otherwise. Look at any real world test. The original firewire spec beats USB II hands down, not to mention Firewire 800 which leaves USB II in the dust. USB 1 was only a very quick rip off of the firewire spec that apple PUBLISHED to make it an open standard. After that, Apple was the first to adopt their own tech, ripped of by intel, and put USB in the original iMac. PC users thought that was really dumb, couldn't fathom life without a floppy disk, until a year or two later when all their systems followed suit.
This reminds me of when the DOS boys would argue that parallel ports were better for printing. Apple was using a serial interface. Just like virtually everyting in computing, they criticise it relentlessly when Apple first develops or promotes it, then much later they copy it relentlessly and pretend they were behind it all the time.
So many examples of this, even down to the trackball/trackpad placement on notebooks. Apple was the first to put it in front of the keyboard. It looked weird! Now all notebooks are made this way.
I once heard the CEO of AOL (of all companies) claim that AOL started in 1995. It didn't, it started in the 80's but was Mac only. DOS could not handle it, nor could the prehistoric versions of windows 286/386/win3/win3.1... So it was Mac only at first. He was talking to a group of mostly Windows users. Knows his audience, I thought to myself... so he rewrites history to make it resemble their world... Sad, really.
I'm not fighting for Windows per say. But yeah I can pick up a copy of vista basic for the same as OSX and I can use it on any PC. Also I can download it in about 2 hours for free . Xp is same situation. I can get it for cheaper than Mac OSX. Linux is free of charge in all it's many flavors.
But essentially when you buy a Mac your paying many hundreds of dollars for the premium of using OSX.
So that being said it's head and shoulders by a few hundred bucks more expensive than MS.
No, you are paying the same money or sometimes even a bit more for a decently configured PC that looks like it was made in the 80's next to the Mac, and you can't reliably run OS X on it which is hands-down the best OS ever made. Now, you can hack your PC and run OS X, but you have no support for that (kinda like running windows actually, no real support for that, either.)
No, you are paying the same money or sometimes even a bit more for a decently configured PC that looks like it was made in the 80's next to the Mac, and you can't reliably run OS X on it which is hands-down the best OS ever made. Now, you can hack your PC and run OS X, but you have no support for that (kinda like running windows actually, no real support for that, either.)
Um, well.... I'm not sure what to say to that. You say that the specs on USB 2 are better but then go ahead and refer to old specs vs old specs. Yes I use 2.0 and had the good fortune of getting my hands on usb 3.0 a month ago along with a engineering mobo that supports it. Anyhow... 2.0 outperforms firewire if its Mobo integrated(no pci slots involved).
I'm not sure that you've seen what you can do with PCs nowadays in builds. Um, they don't look like beige boxes unless you want them to. I have an ITX form factor MOBO running amd that looks nothing like what your accustomed to. Small, silent, aluminum. You are trying to argue from a 1980 perspective and I gotta tell you things have changed in 29 yrs.
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not.
And you have the gall to lie like this immediately after being bitch-slapped on your pitiful attempt to build a comparable PC to the high-end iMac?
Comments
You keep going round in circles. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I'm going to stop now.
What a HYPOCRITE!
... they also seem to feel strangely threatened by those who use Apple. Either it's a case of "doth protest too much" or they feel challenged by people who don't choose what they do and aren't just like them.
It's nothing if not a 2-way street. AI flamebaits by writing these articles about MS's ads (rarely writing about Apple's own ads) because they feel Apple is "under attack" and are compelled to defend them repeatedly with these articles. (3 and counting.)
And of course the troops from both camps take the (flame)bait and people in both get their panties in a bunch.
- Windows Easy Transfer will transfer your documents and settings between different computers and Windows versions.
That is in no way comparable to Migration Assistant:
Windows Easy Transfer
Step One: "Install the small software application that was included with your cable..."
Good one, Microsoft.
- I have never-ever purchased codec for any of my Windows computers. Please provide some details.
Microsoft has some of your details right here:
Plug-ins for Windows Media Player
Windows has some burning capabilities on it's own
"Some burning capabilities?" That's comforting...
Time for maintenance beside initial setup?
Yeah, but that pesky "initial setup" gets you every time.
- Vista Business and Ultimate both have automated backup, System Restore for reverting to previous system configurations without data loss and will keep previous versions of user files based on Microsoft shadow copy technology. Advanced backup solutions - like StorageCraft ShadowProtect, with hardware independent restore, will cost you less than us$70. What are we talking about here?
I assume he's talking about Time Machine. You don't need a special version of Mac OS X to get it. And by the way, Time Machine provides hardware independent restore--at no extra cost.
Macs are more expensive than PCs. Even after purchasing additional iLife grade software.
No, Macs are at least price-competitive with PCs. On the other hand, Apple does not cater to the bottom feeder market. Incidentally, there is no "iLife grade software" available for Windows.
Firewire is junk
Interesting...
but if I wanted it I could easily find a mobo with it included in the price i quoted along with bluetooth and optical audio.
Okay. Go do that then and tell me which one you chose.
My labor is free as I built it.
So, your time is worth nothing?
Picasso will work fine as ilife replacement
Really? Does Picasso allow you to create and burn movie DVDs? Does it provide movie editing? How about a digital audio workstation? How about WYSIWYG web page creation and CMS? And does it provide full integration between all those functions?
http://www.apple.com/ilife/
If it does, I must have missed it...
DDR 3 1066 is essentialy the same as ddr2 1066
No, it's not. Among other things, DDR3 provides lower latencies and greater energy efficiency.
Your processor costs more because it's a mobile processor. performance is the same between the two.
No, it's not: For one thing, the iMac's Penryn XE processor provides Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. The Penryn also provides a much lower TDP of 44 W vs. the Wolfdale's 65 W.
You doing just a bit too much squirming in your rationalizations there, mitz...
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not. You like that it turns on and does what you want it to do but that doesn't mean it's by any stretch competitively priced. They are solid systems that work well but they by no means are anything but mid range computers. I actually like them for what they are but don't pretend they are worth the money. I guess I come from the perspective that i like to know what I'm paying for. By the way Intel is at least as bad as Microsoft with their business practices. You've been had. No OS is worth the money you are paying for it. You are paying many hundreds of dollars more for an OS. My only argument is that Yes it's a solid system, Yes OSX is a nice operating system, No it's not competitively priced, No the components aren't worth the money you pay for them.
They way I look at it you want an OS that you can do what you want to do with it(I admit you get that with OSX). You also want components that can drive that OS to its full potential(you don't get that with Mac). You also want something you can upgrade (upgrading Ram and Hard drive barely counts as being able to truly upgrade a system).
No, Macs are at least price-competitive with PCs. On the other hand, Apple does not cater to the bottom feeder market. Incidentally, there is no "iLife grade software" available for Windows.
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not. You like that it turns on and does what you want it to do but that doesn't mean it's by any stretch competitively priced. They are solid systems that work well but they by no means are anything but mid range computers. I actually like them for what they are but don't pretend they are worth the money. I guess I come from the perspective that i like to know what I'm paying for. By the way Intel is at least as bad as Microsoft with their business practices. You've been had. No OS is worth the money you are paying for it. You are paying many hundreds of dollars more for an OS. My only argument is that Yes it's a solid system, Yes OSX is a nice operating system, No it's not competitively priced, No the components aren't worth the money you pay for them.
They way I look at it you want an OS that you can do what you want to do with it(I admit you get that with OSX). You also want components that can drive that OS to its full potential(you don't get that with Mac). You also want something you can upgrade (upgrading Ram and Hard drive barely counts as being able to truly upgrade a system).
So windows is cheaper to purchase than mac osx?
Interesting...
Okay. Go do that then and tell me which one you chose.
So, your time is worth nothing?
Really? Does Picasso allow you to create and burn movie DVDs? Does it provide movie editing? How about a digital audio workstation? How about WYSIWYG web page creation and CMS? And does it provide full integration between all those functions?
http://www.apple.com/ilife/
If it does, I must have missed it...
No, it's not. Among other things, DDR3 provides lower latencies and greater energy efficiency.
No, it's not: For one thing, the iMac's Penryn XE processor provides Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. The Penryn also provides a much lower TDP of 44 W vs. the Wolfdale's 65 W.
You doing just a bit too much squirming in your rationalizations there, mitz...
No really that processor was made originaly as a mobile processor. Thats why the wattage is so low. Theres nothing wrong with mobile processors, I actually used to use some amd mobiles in rigs. They cost more though cause they do use less wattage. The throttling is something designed for less power usage in laptops. Come on you know that as well as I do.
Sure there are slight difference is ddr 3 but it's nothing you notice until you get up into higher speeds beyond 1066. The ddr3 overclocks better. I've never heard of a mac guy doing serious overclocking.
My time is worth a descent inexpensive system. Thats what I'd get from that.
You left out the line where I said you could get other opensource that could pick up slack. Although Ilife might be nice I'm not sure it's worth the price difference. Media center does some of those very things in vista. If you want a nice media player use VLC.
You can actually and it's a pretty easy process. I've done it myself. Same as installing any OS so no, it's not the same thing. I was comparing hardware only. If you wanna compare the OS, that's another thing entirely.
trees. in. way.
I didn't look very hard, this probably doesn't even have the right socket for that processor but it does have optical audio and firewire. Trust me if I can find this in 2 minuets I could find one with bluetooth in 5.
It's just an example of "yes you can find these aspects on a MOBO.
This one was about $130 I think..... I allowed between 150 and 200 in my spec.
You left out the line where I said you could get other opensource that could pick up slack. Although Ilife might be nice I'm not sure it's worth the price difference. Media center does some of those very things in vista. If you want a nice media player use VLC.
I love opensource/free software. Support for most such software is either spotty or nonexistent. Being a geek, myself, I usually don't have an issue Googling a problem to try and find a solution.
Other people may not have the desire to sift through a sea of websites and message boards to find a solution.
Again, it comes down to personal preference. It makes absolutely no sense to tell people they've been had, when they know all along exactly what they are doing.
Specs aside, it's the TOTAL EXPERIENCE that is of far greater value to many Mac users. Who cares about the specs as long as it does what you want it to do, and is a joy to use in the process?
So windows is cheaper to purchase than mac osx?
I'm not fighting for Windows per say. But yeah I can pick up a copy of vista basic for the same as OSX and I can use it on any PC. Also I can download it in about 2 hours for free
But essentially when you buy a Mac your paying many hundreds of dollars for the premium of using OSX.
So that being said it's head and shoulders by a few hundred bucks more expensive than MS.
Get real. You just lost all credibility with that. What do you like to use? USB? That is a lame rip-off of Firewire. And it's slower, even when the specs say otherwise. Look at any real world test. The original firewire spec beats USB II hands down, not to mention Firewire 800 which leaves USB II in the dust. USB 1 was only a very quick rip off of the firewire spec that apple PUBLISHED to make it an open standard. After that, Apple was the first to adopt their own tech, ripped of by intel, and put USB in the original iMac. PC users thought that was really dumb, couldn't fathom life without a floppy disk, until a year or two later when all their systems followed suit.
This reminds me of when the DOS boys would argue that parallel ports were better for printing. Apple was using a serial interface. Just like virtually everyting in computing, they criticise it relentlessly when Apple first develops or promotes it, then much later they copy it relentlessly and pretend they were behind it all the time.
So many examples of this, even down to the trackball/trackpad placement on notebooks. Apple was the first to put it in front of the keyboard. It looked weird! Now all notebooks are made this way.
I once heard the CEO of AOL (of all companies) claim that AOL started in 1995. It didn't, it started in the 80's but was Mac only. DOS could not handle it, nor could the prehistoric versions of windows 286/386/win3/win3.1... So it was Mac only at first. He was talking to a group of mostly Windows users. Knows his audience, I thought to myself... so he rewrites history to make it resemble their world... Sad, really.
I'm not fighting for Windows per say. But yeah I can pick up a copy of vista basic for the same as OSX and I can use it on any PC. Also I can download it in about 2 hours for free
But essentially when you buy a Mac your paying many hundreds of dollars for the premium of using OSX.
So that being said it's head and shoulders by a few hundred bucks more expensive than MS.
No, you are paying the same money or sometimes even a bit more for a decently configured PC that looks like it was made in the 80's next to the Mac, and you can't reliably run OS X on it which is hands-down the best OS ever made. Now, you can hack your PC and run OS X, but you have no support for that (kinda like running windows actually, no real support for that, either.)
No, you are paying the same money or sometimes even a bit more for a decently configured PC that looks like it was made in the 80's next to the Mac, and you can't reliably run OS X on it which is hands-down the best OS ever made. Now, you can hack your PC and run OS X, but you have no support for that (kinda like running windows actually, no real support for that, either.)
Um, well.... I'm not sure what to say to that. You say that the specs on USB 2 are better but then go ahead and refer to old specs vs old specs. Yes I use 2.0 and had the good fortune of getting my hands on usb 3.0 a month ago along with a engineering mobo that supports it. Anyhow... 2.0 outperforms firewire if its Mobo integrated(no pci slots involved).
I'm not sure that you've seen what you can do with PCs nowadays in builds. Um, they don't look like beige boxes unless you want them to. I have an ITX form factor MOBO running amd that looks nothing like what your accustomed to. Small, silent, aluminum. You are trying to argue from a 1980 perspective and I gotta tell you things have changed in 29 yrs.
But it's not like your running an OS off Firewire or USB and most of what you want to do with it will never max out those specs on either.
Im being serious with this question because I dont know... how many rpm is the included hd on an imac?
No they aren't. This is a myth. Apple is not competitively priced. It's just not. Most of you don't seem to know enough about components to know it's not.
And you have the gall to lie like this immediately after being bitch-slapped on your pitiful attempt to build a comparable PC to the high-end iMac?
Amazing...
Anyhow... 2.0 outperforms firewire if its Mobo integrated(no pci slots involved).
OMG, WTF? He's an idiot.
When possible I use Sata. But honestly.... I made a mistake and was comparing usb 2.0 to firewire 400. USB 2.0 is not as fast as 800.
But it's not like your running an OS off Firewire
Well, you see, there's the thing, mitz: On a Mac, you actually can boot and run your OS off an external FireWire drive. Cool, eh?
also your hard drive needs to be at a good speed to get there anyhow.
Im being serious with this question because I dont know... how many rpm is the included hd on an imac?
Yeah, you do know, right? I mean, you spent a great deal of time trying to configure a home-built to match the iMac, right? So you do know, don't you?
7200 RPM