iMac vs. eMac - let's get it on!

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>

    But isn't it time Apple upped the bus to 133 mhz and 4xAGP in all its machines?.....................................</strong>

    <hr></blockquote>



    Of course, but you know how Steve is.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 28
    posterboyposterboy Posts: 147member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>........But isn't it time Apple upped the bus to 133 mhz and 4xAGP in all its machines?.........</strong><hr></blockquote>



    With the line getting ever thinner between "i" machines and "Power" machines, the 100 MHz vs 133 MHz is one of the only ways left to tell which is which.

    Not that I am argueing, I wish that my iBook had a 133 Bus, but in Apples mind, if I really wanted a 133 bus and a decent graphics card I would have spent 4000$ (CDN) on a powerbook instead of 2900$ (CDN) on the iBook; And I would have if I had the extra 1100$, but like most people my age, I didn't.



    --PB
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 28
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    [quote]Originally posted by PosterBoy:

    <strong>



    With the line getting ever thinner between "i" machines and "Power" machines, the 100 MHz vs 133 MHz is one of the only ways left to tell which is which.

    Not that I am argueing, I wish that my iBook had a 133 Bus, but in Apples mind, if I really wanted a 133 bus and a decent graphics card I would have spent 4000$ (CDN) on a powerbook instead of 2900$ (CDN) on the iBook; And I would have if I had the extra 1100$, but like most people my age, I didn't.



    --PB</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The thing is, consumer windows machines aahve a faster bus. Also, OSX is a hog and requires ever more power to make it work properly. Stevo should tell motorola to match the price of comparable athlons and P4's or we make the switch. Then, we can get over the 1 GHZ plateau already for the lowest priced machines. Its time to open up the hardware because we are falling further and further behind..........................................
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 28
    prestonpreston Posts: 219member
    i will hold off. I absolutely love using my iBook's LCD. Apple's are truly the best implimentations of LCD technology. The 17" studio displays are also a joy, as well as the iMac displays.



    If I only wanted 1024x768, then I would use my ibook. I want 1280x960 or 1600x1200.. therefore I will save my pennies
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 28
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Hopefully Apple will release an updated iMac with a sharper native resolution sometime soon. 1280x960 may be too large for a 15" display (or maybe not, considering the 12" iBook @ 1024x768), but 1152x864 would be better than 1024x768. Ah, 1280x960 would be the best, and 1152x864 wouldn't look too bad on it if you chose to use that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 28
    posterboyposterboy Posts: 147member
    [quote]Originally posted by steve666:

    <strong>



    The thing is, consumer windows machines aahve a faster bus. Also, OSX is a hog and requires ever more power to make it work properly. Stevo should tell motorola to match the price of comparable athlons and P4's or we make the switch. Then, we can get over the 1 GHZ plateau already for the lowest priced machines. Its time to open up the hardware because we are falling further and further behind..........................................</strong><hr></blockquote>



    True, consumer windows machines have 133 Bus speeds, but pro Win boxes have 266 bus speeds.

    Our consumer-to-pro-bus-gap (tm) is 33 MHz, theirs is 133 MHz.

    When PowerMacs have DDR (or RD or whatever they finally decide to use) and 266 bus speeds, iMacs, iBooks and eMacs will all have 133 Bus speeds. Its annoying. I wish that they'd get off their asses allready.

    But I dont think they should "open up the hardware", because that is one of the leading causes of instability in Windows. I think they should encourage other companies to make their products Mac Compatible, because in doing so the companies would actualyl have to adhere to some standards.



    --PB



    [ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 28
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>Hopefully Apple will release an updated iMac with a sharper native resolution sometime soon. 1280x960 may be too large for a 15" display (or maybe not, considering the 12" iBook @ 1024x768), but 1152x864 would be better than 1024x768. Ah, 1280x960 would be the best, and 1152x864 wouldn't look too bad on it if you chose to use that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Of course it'd be nice, but most 15" LCDs have a 1024x768 resolution.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 28
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Do you guys have super vision or something? I have a 17 inch monitor at 1024x768 and i can baely see the type in AOL. My eyesight is 10x20 which is very good but the type is annoyingly small and I can't seem to be able to change it................................................ .......................
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.