Too much made about hardware?

satchmosatchmo
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
G5, DDR, Dual processors....you get it.

Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?



Isn't the ultimate reason we're using a Mac because of it's ease, OS and simplicity?

It's because things work logically and you are much more productive.



I mean if two computer systems were placed in front of you and you could pick one for free, which would you pick?

1) a 3GHZ Pentium no name beige box w/17" monitor or

2) a 800 mHZ iMac w/ 15"



Sure, it depends on your needs, but what I'm getting at is the user experience. What good is a screaming fast machine if you spend most of the time trying to figure out it's interface or how to simply install some hardware.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    ricrocketricrocket Posts: 142member
    Satchmo - I'd amend #2 to include a 17", or #1 to include a 15" monitor - just to better emphasize your point (screen size is a whole other ball game from processer speed...)



    rr.
  • Reply 1 of 16
    the power of xthe power of x Posts: 105member
    Thats a good point, but beyond that their are some people who need more power for applications such as rendering and such. I don't know of how many people on the boards here who actually use the full power potential of their machines, but when it's needed it's nice to have it on hand versus waiting long periods of time to continue on with tasks. Just my take.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    One of the reasons the new iMac is selling so well is the processor specs are finally approaching something reasonable. Apple's consumer apps also depend on a generous dose of power. iDVD, iMovie and iPhoto wouldn't be useable without a fast processor, neither would OSX for that matter. If these apps get more features, that usually means more processor needs. Killer apps come from pushing platform limits.



    Stick your head in the sand and mumble about MHZ myths, but Apple would be more than happy to sell GHZ+ machines to the masses if they could.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    altivec_2.0altivec_2.0 Posts: 995member
    If I had to choose between a 3Ghz Pentium4 and a 800Mhz G4.



    800Mhz G4



    Not much else I can say.



    "Master" of the Mac :cool:
  • Reply 5 of 16
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    These are the types of arguments you bring up when you're on the bottom. If Apple/Mot were trouncing Intel/ADM the you'd all be crowing.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>These are the types of arguments you bring up when you're on the bottom. If Apple/Mot were trouncing Intel/ADM the you'd all be crowing.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ...this from a man who is running linux on mac hardware, apparently you'd go for the 800mhz g4 too
  • Reply 7 of 16
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>These are the types of arguments you bring up when you're on the bottom. If Apple/Mot were trouncing Intel/ADM the you'd all be crowing.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Perhaps, but you're missing the point. I choose to use Macs regardless of Apple's position.

    When Apple was left for dead (how many times?), I didn't switch platforms.

    Macs work--and very well for my needs. All I suggest is to take a step back and realize one can get too caught up with numbers and jargon that manufacturers (including Apple) are feeding us. Heck there are many out there who still use a MacPlus for simple word processing!
  • Reply 8 of 16
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    Greater performance enables greater usability. As machines get faster they allow applications to have better and more usable interfaces, in addition to speeding up existing interfaces. Simple examples of this are live window dragging and resizing vs using outlines, live scrolling, real-time MPEG encoding, 32-bit desktops (instead of 8-bit), etc. I think there are going to be some interesting new interface elements appearing now that 3D hardware has become standard across all machines, and it wouldn't be possible without the more powerful hardware.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Sure I'd choose the Mac, but that doesn't mean I would be happy about the choice I was forced to make. I'd rather not have to sacrifice hardware performance for the privilege of using OS X.







    I realize that Apple needs huge margins to subsist, but the current situation still sucks.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by ricRocket:

    <strong>Satchmo - I'd amend #2 to include a 17", or #1 to include a 15" monitor - just to better emphasize your point (screen size is a whole other ball game from processer speed...)



    rr.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A 15 inch LCD screen equal to a 17 inch CRT screen for the size of the image.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote]A 15 inch LCD screen equal to a 17 inch CRT screen for the size of the image.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Wrong.



    A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable image. A 15" LCD has a 15" viewable image. Notice any difference?



    If you would like proof then go to <a href="http://www.outpost.com,"; target="_blank">www.outpost.com,</a> do a search on 17" monitors, and check out the viewable area on them. You find out that you are wrong.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>



    Wrong.



    A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable image. A 15" LCD has a 15" viewable image. Notice any difference?



    If you would like proof then go to <a href="http://www.outpost.com,"; target="_blank">www.outpost.com,</a> do a search on 17" monitors, and check out the viewable area on them. You find out that you are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Yes it's 16 viewable, but in general with CRT screen the image is not expanded to all the viewable size of the screen if you dont want to many distorsions in the angles.

    I own a sony F500 , when i use the ASC (automatic system of centring) i loss 1,5 inch of viewable latteraly and 1/2 inch vertically on the 1280 per 1024 mode. Of course on the manual mode i can do better, but i never use the entire viewable image avalaible.

    So in a practicle way, a 17 inch CRT equal a 15 inch LCD. Perhaps there is a small difference, but smaller than the difference between a 17 inch LCD and 17 inch CRT.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    ricrocketricrocket Posts: 142member
    Actually, Satchmo doesn't specify lcd or crt - my point is just that as I understood his question, it was the box that mattered and the difference in screen sizes would have distracted people from his key point. Screen size is a completely different factor.



    rr.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>Greater performance enables greater usability. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sure, I concur. I'm all for improvements to make usability greater.

    My point is directed at those who complain over minute details and specs that may not really matter in their daily use.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by janitor:

    <strong>



    ...this from a man who is running linux on mac hardware, apparently you'd go for the 800mhz g4 too</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If I were to buy new it would be an Athlon. Macs are over priced.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    How many different threads has the (pretty damn stupid I might add) 15" LCD 17" CRT argument gone on in?

    I'm pretty sure some of you are using the exact same posts from earlier threads too....



    Since I don't see anybody selling a 3 Ghz machine, I'd go with the one that actually exsisted
Sign In or Register to comment.