Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac? - Page 7

Wow. I have to disagree. PC cases have always struck me as cheap, mostly badly designed, and not very well thought out. They're not very structurally sound, and I feel like I could cut my fingers on some of their edges. Having examined a G5 case in detail, I am amazed that they can sell that computer for the price that they do --- the case is very nicely designed and implemented in so many ways that a normal user would never see in day-to-day use.

PCs have lots of advantages over Macs, but case design is definitely not one of them.

--Andre

The bigger issue with porting to the Mac is not the BSD API layer (even Windows has a rough approximation of many UNIX and BSD-style calls), but instead the graphical user interface: designing the user interface so that it follows normal Mac conventions, instead of just being a straight translation of a Windows or X application. Having ported very large (more than a million lines of code) UNIX applications to Win32, it's been my observation that the system-level issues, eg. the BSD stuff you refer to, is often resolved within a week. What takes forever is the user interface, and making a program feel like a native application rather than a crude translation.

--Andre

Then you have probably never seen inside a quality PC case. My Lian Li's internal surfaces are all rolled aluminum with vinyl channel edges to protect the soft handed techie. And I could probably place 100+ lbs of stuff on top of it without a problem. As far as design goes, it gets great airflow, the power supply has no problems reaching the components, The hard drive enclosure can be completely removed in a matter of seconds, and the drives and etc are all thumb screwed for quick assembly/dissasembly.

I couldn't ask for anything more from the case itself.

Nice looking PC cases are few and far between, at least what's available to the semi-informed PC-building masses. Look at what they sell at Fry's, they're all pieces of shit - even the most expensive ones are ugly as sin, with excessive plastic flaps and pieces and pointless glowing lights. That said, I really like the Lian Li cases that they have on their website, but I find them to be incredibly similar to the Jonathon Ive's design, and not just that it's a minimalistic metal box - the meshing looks very similar as well. This only makes it more attractive to me personally because as I've preached time and time again I love the designs that Apple puts out.

I might end up buying one of them. The PC-101 case would look great in my current room set-up - I love the power button on the side and thi hidden drives. My case is about 4 years old now and it was the closest thing to a Mac case I could find but it's still of poor quality and does a horrible job keeping my computer cooled. $195 is quite a chunk though.

If they remind you of Ive's designs, its pure coincidence, since Lian-Li came out with their aluminum PC case line in 1993. Many of the designs haven't changed drastically since. Ive hadn't even designed his candy colored plastic iMac abomination at that time. I bought my PC-60 in '99.

You might want to check directron.com or local computer stores for pricing, but you can occasionally get really good deals on them.

You may be right. Which Lian Li case would you suggest? I'm currently building an HTPC, and am set on the Antec P180.

Have you examined the insides of a G5 case? It's pretty darn amazing: the cable, airflow, power and expansion management, as well as the nice little touches like rubber gaskets on the panels are very nice.

--Andre

Actually, for most people - i.e. people who don't necessarily care about computers but just want something on which they will be able to play their music and edit their photos and learn about the difference between roped and Neapolitan shirtsleeve jacket shoulders - you're exactly wrong. The all-in-one makes perfect sense. Especially a modern laptop such as the MacBook Pro or desktop AIO such as the iMac with a large, vibrant screen and a modern graphics card that allows use of a second monitor to extend the desktop beyond the built-in one. And by the time one needs to replace a good computer, after 5-7 years let's say, screen technology will have advanced so far that one might as well get a new monitor anyway. The difference between my TiBook's screen, which was by far the best in its day, and my MacBook Pro's screen, which is the best of today's screens, is such that if I had to use them both at the same time I would quickly get a headache. You seem to place a huge premium on upgradability, especially of things that matter very little like processors. But surely you realize what a minority position yours is. Even someone like me, who has swapped out RAM and/or hard drives in every computer he's owned, and uses external FireWire drives extensively, and doesn't sit down at a desk without connecting his Mac to a second monitor, is an outlier. The bottom line is, people rarely upgrade their computers, be they PC or Mac users. The number of people in either the Mac or other world who are going to do even something really easy, like plugging in a non-iPod FireWire hard drive or running a DVI cable to a second monitor and thereby extend the desktop, is minute. Yes, there is a Mac upgrade industry that goes beyond RAM and drives for enthusiasts. See OWC's website for an example. I would venture to guess that most Mac users, just like most PC users, have never found occasion to bother. And given that most of the important tasks (Safari, Mail, iCal, iTunes, Address Book, Quicken, MS Office; iPhoto and iMovie work but are kind of slow) run seamlessly and speedily on a 5+ year old 500mHz G4 using the latest version of the operating system (OSX 10.4.6) what's the use of messing with things like processors anyway? I'm sorry but if you think something like this: is more attractive than something like this that could fit into any one of those four drive bays: or something like this, which is no bigger than the monitor you'd have to attach to that other case anyway Well, I guess there's no accounting for taste. Given that several posters have invoking the name Lian Li I expected to find some style there. Maybe something like this computer that was blurbed in the current issue of dwell and is a rare non ugly non Mac (at least until you turn on the screen and have that garish blue and green crap on the bottom, or realize that it's probably both far more expensive than a mini and less capable): But instead of finding something that looks it that was consciously designed to fit into a modern living space unobtrusively - except when everyone who sees it effuses praise over how small and wonderful it is, which is the Mac mini owner's typical guest reaction - all I see is a huge giant rectangular box that has to be put somewhere. It might be built nicely - and not need a putty knife to change the RAM or HD, as the mini requires - but it's still a very very very large box that by sheer din of bulk commands attention to itself. To be fair, I don't like G5 towers, either. They're huge and ugly, though better looking than anything at lian-li.com. (And more ergonomic, because they have carrying handles.) Even Jonathan Ive can't make a huge box attractive. I understand that some technical or design fields might need that kind of hulking modularity, but most people with regular mainstream needs have no need for such a large ugly contraption cluttering up their rooms. Especially now, when you can buy an ultra-powerful computer in somewhat pricey fold-up format (MBP) or surprisingly inexpensive desktop format (iMac) that takes up no more space than most monitors alone. And, I hasten to add, with well-designed keyboards and mice (at least since the Mighty Mouse) that are part of a cohesive design theme instead of being dumb generic add-ons.

While I found the rest of your post to be on point, I'm going to step in and say that I do like some big boxes. I love the G5 box for its commanding architectural yet ergonomically cute (tiny buttons, carrying handles) presence, and the sheer fact that something so huge with so much of the newest technology packed inside could be as quiet as a mouse. Also, as someone who uses pretty demanding software (design editing, mostly Adobe), something about a big box says, "yes. I can do everything," and I like that. Lastly, the fact that the drive bays are hidden from plain view without the use of an extra door (something I don't like about the Lian Li PC-101 tower, but what can you do?) is a really cool added touch.

I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. The only conceivable problem here to me is someone who says, "I want the Mac OS but I don't want to buy a Mac." Unfortunately for them (seems to be a rare case - most people who want the OS also like the Mac computers), there's just nothing you can do.

If Dell had their own fancy OS that people loved and critics acclaimed, do you think they would sell it out to other computer-building companies? I doubt it - they'd want people to be forced to buy their hardware for the OS to work.

I understand your point entirely. You cannot go out and buy the pieces for your Mac, you have to go with Apple's configurations. I fail to see how this is a problem for anyone. If you want versatility, go with a Windows computer. If you want hardcore programming and open source, go for *nix. If you want OS X, go for a Mac.

I personally don't understand why anyone would want boot camp on their computers except to run games. I have a Mac because I don't like Windows OS. I use Win as infrequently as possible. Why would I want to use up more of my pretty little PowerBook's HD with more crappy Microsoft software?

That little computer is the same one I posted in the design thread months ago.
I think the general consensus was that it is practically useless. I DO like the ceramic shell though, an interesting idea that made me post it to begin with. I thought that people who like Mac Mini's would enjoy it. Unfortunately its white and I can't really see much of an upgrade path. So it might as well be a Mini to me. I won't be buying one.


Well then I guess I have no taste.
This is what the living room PC looks like BTW. Black keyboard, Klipsch speakers, silver and black printer/scanner, mouse. I do editing on this comp. Thus the CRT. I don't like using an LCD to photoshop/video edit. The only ones with true enough color representation, sharpness, and size are all REALLY pricey. The mini looks (and performs) like a toy in comparison. And to me, thats bad. But at least you can hide it in a drawer somewhere The iMac is gross looking and you CAN'T hide it in a drawer. Cause its all one friggin peice. My computer is shiny and professional looking. It fills my desk, but then again, ITS SUPPOSED TO.

Why do you draw comparison between your full-sized tank, which you use to video and photo edit, and the Mac Mini, which is designed for simple operations like internet surfing and CD copying? I would much rather compare the Mini to a similarly-priced Dell or other pre-built computer for a fair comparison. The mini isn't going to perform better than you custom built set-up, which is 25x the size.

It would be more proper to compare your set-up to the Apple G5, which is the top computer on the market for editing.

In my experience (and I do a lot of photo editing and printing on both Laser and Inkjet based printers, from Hp, Canon and Epson), color representation on the Mac Cinema Display LCD monitors is near perfect. They have a fairly low contrast ratio, which tends to create more natural looking photographic representation on screen. Some may still prefer a CRT, but I, a loyal CRT buyer, have recently decided to entirely support LCD, as response times are getting low enough that ghosting is almost completely eliminated. The Apple Cinema displays have a typical response time of 16ms, which is the absolute peak for most other LCD displays.

I don't have the know-how to get into technical comparisons between how windows handles software versus how Mac handles software, but I can vouch for the latter and say that speed matters much less than comfort. Mac OS X is perfect for design software, with how it handles window palettes, has the blank backdrop, and the amazing exposé tool which makes going from one document to the other even easier than Windows' start menu.

I think at some point you're going to have to admit that your tastes on the "grossness" of iMacs and overall hatred of one-piece computers is rooted in a personal vendetta and not much else. You'd be hard pressed to use any argument about functionality against them, except for heat and upgradability issues. Simply saying "it's supposed to fill up my desk" isn't going to be enough to convince anyone of their inferiority. Calling it a toy isn't much of an argument either because for most computer owners, computers are a toy and a convenience and not much else. Why on earth buy a tank of a machine if it's not going to be used like one?

Seems like a simple equation to me: if you want a computer for heavy software usage, and/or games, get a full desktop. But for those who dont use Adobe, Max, Reason, Maya, ProTools, Final Cut, etc., why would you use up so much desk space, when you have the option of something smaller than the size of your monitor?

I won't argue for their upgradability - all one-piece computers are pretty difficult to upgrade aside from RAM (which is arguably the most important thing one can upgrade anyway, unless you're a gamer, in which case video card has first priority).

Lastly, Macs are white or silver - end of story. It's not a custom item. It's a vision shared by Jobs and Ive. It's a fully designed, fully built product. It's not meant to be customizable. Don't like the way it looks? Don't buy it. That doesn't by any means place some objective standpoint (which you seem to insist on) that it's gross or ugly or pointless. It just means that you, one person, don't like white computers. Personally, I don't like black computer equipment as it reminds me too much of early 90s IBMs. Therefore I don't buy black computers.

That's specious reasoning. Since Macs look and behave like toys they can't be as useful as "professional looking" PCs. Macs can do everything your PC can, and probably better too... You seem very confused/ignorant with the Mac lineup and Macs in general as you compare your desktop to the mini, which is their low-end consumer product, and keep claiming stuff that's simply untrue (and which reeks of zealotry). Oh, and I'd take a nice widescreen LCD display over your CRT day. The days of poor color representation and slow refresh rates are long since over. Most professionals use LCDs these days, and a lot actually use Apple displays (though I wouldn't mind getting a Dell if I could get it cheaper as they share much of the technology)

I agree, but SGladwell provided the models to compare against my computer. I didn't bring up the G5 tower because I was talking to HIM. And he didn't bring it up. I am not the confused one here. Funny you should mention the Apple Cinema Display. Up until last year when they were updated, they weren't the "best" at anything. Substandard resolution and refresh etc. You were overpaying for the shiny aluminum case. If you haven't noticed, Apple has been quietly upping their display resolutions and refresh times to match ... DELL. The 24" Dell Widescreen monitor that I have for my media center is the same exact same Samsung LCD as the Apple Cinema Display. It shorts the blue end of the spectrum and is slightly off on the greens. This annoys me, and its why I don't use my LCD for photoshop. It was also half what the ACD is, has multiple inputs, a built in card reader, and a lower gloss screen coating. Oh and a 12ms refresh just in case you wanted to know. Low contrast ratio is now a selling point? See... I don't feel that way. In fact The higher the contrast ratio (the closer to a CRT) the better, as far as I'm concerned. I can always turn the contrast down if I need to, but I dont. Why do you insist that I'm trying to convince you? When have I ever tried to sell you a computer? To the best of my knowledge, everything I've said here about the appearance of Apple computers has been very clearly stated as MY OPINION. As far as filling up my desk goes, I don't care what you think. Not being large enough to appear to scale is a valid argument. A mini would look retarded on my desk. And I still think those one peice computers are ugly. If you really want to continue this discussion, you could try bringing up some valid points of your own instead of criticizing the validity of my OPINIONS every chance you get. I could give two shakes about "most computer owners" I feel the same way about them as I do "most automobile owners".Go ahead and "surf the internet". Be my guest. But if I get one more goddamn chain letter I am going to beat you to death with my wireless keyboard. Thank God, he finally gets it. I hate white computers, I think they are gross and ugly, and I won't buy them.

That is not what I said. I thought we'd been over this. My PC is more versatile when it comes to upgrading, and is better at gaming. Plus I get to decide how it looks instead of Steve Jobs. Some macs, like the mini, would do very little of what my PC can. One Mac, the G5 can do very much of what my computer can, but still isn't very good at gaming and still has limited upgradability. The new Intel Yonah dual core chips are faster than mine, but you still have a limited upgrade path, since you are dedicated to the Intel Yonah platform. The "speed" which you mac people are mostly talking about is your OS and limited hardware selections being designed to work together, whilst being a relatively closed, OS system. Windows isn't THAT much slower. Certainly not slow enough that I would have any desire to switch to OSX. I don't feel like I'm confused or ignorant at all. I did not compare my PC to the mini, I was responding to SGladwell's comparison of my desktop to the mini and the iMac. Personally I think its a mute point. The mini is for surfing the web and downloading stuff from iTunes. For these purposes, It suffices, and is actually relatively inexpensive for what it is. I can only comparitively beat it pricewise by a couple hundred bucks, if I were to try and build one, and my case isn't quite as small.If thats even important. BUT it's not a serious computer that will run apps or play games. And again, for the billionth time I hate white electronics. I'm sorry if this strikes you as Zealotry, but so be it. I HAVe a nice widescreen LCD, and I'll tell you right now that there is a difference. "Professionals" can do whatever they want, but there isn't a 19"+ LCD out there under $1500 that can come more than "close" when it comes to color representation and contrast. Two things I work with quite a bit. I have a sneaking suspicion that more "professionals" would still be using CRT if the companies would make them more available. I went to seven computer stores in my area, and NONE of them had a professional grade CRT for sale. Why? Because profit margins are higher on LCD and everyone from the manufacturer on down is pretty much in league to make that happen. LCD's are acceptable, but they still aren't great. I'll keep my Dell 2405FPS hooked up to my media center, and my CRT hooked up to my workstation as long as I can.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. In this area, I think you're a little blinded by other biases, though, including the opposite impulse then I have when it comes to computer hardware. You want to see it in all its glory, I just want to use the shit...


I should take a picture of my living room Mac mini on top of one of my front three speakers, 3-way powered midfield studio monitors by Genelec. I bet you'd get a good laugh out of a 6.5x6.5x2 computer on top of a speaker with a 12" woofer.



Why is it supposed to?

Oh, and I'm not entirely anti-CRT. Though I hate its depth I still haven't gotten around to replacing mine, a Sony-made Sun-badged 24" widescreen that I acquired through a departmental housecleaning when I was a grad student. It was free, though I had to buy a beefy Herman Miller desk to support its 90+ lb mass and moving it down the East Coast was not fun. Happily, it has the same native resolution (1920x1200) and pixel density as the 23" Apple Cinema Display (or contemporary equivalent) that will replace it should it ever die.