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

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by von Rothbart, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. SGladwell

    SGladwell Senior member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Any 32-bit processor, which for a consumer at this point means anything that is not an AMD Athlon64.

    Or Apple/IBM G5. [​IMG]
     


  2. mr_economy

    mr_economy Senior member

    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Or Apple/IBM G5. [​IMG]

    True, I left that out mainly because I feel Apple is basically abandoning the old architecture. In my opinion, buying any kind of IBM-based Mac at the moment is a bad choice as far as future usage is concerned. I understand that the Intel version of OSX can run older Mac software, but I believe it does so via emulation, which degrades performance and is worthless for porting 64-bit applications to a 32-bit architecture. It's too bad really, would have been nice to finally have two competitive 64-bit architectures.
     


  3. Matt

    Matt [email protected]

    Messages:
    11,179
    Likes Received:
    114
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    deleted (misread the post i was quoting)
     


  4. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim In Time Out

    Messages:
    19,179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    Photoshop, and itunes were made for the mac, so its no big suprise that they are faster. As for booting up the OS faster, yeah, Mac's do that. I'll concede that point. I solved that problem by never shutting off my computer.There is no boot up time. I bet I come out of sleep mode faster than your Mac boots up.

    As for not doing anything wrong... PC's don't give THEMSELVES virii. So at some point in time, you opened some bad porn, or downloaded an attachment that you shouldn't have... and it can happen on Mac's too. It just happens less because it's not worth the time to write malware for 3% of the population when you could write it for 97% of the population. But that may be changing. There have been a few things recently targeted at Apple. I can't wait to see all you smug "Mac's don't get virii" people burn. It will happen. And me, being the asshole that I am, will probably laugh at you behind your backs.
     


  5. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim In Time Out

    Messages:
    19,179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    Your 9 year old PC cannot use 8 GB of RAM. Any 32-bit processor, which for a consumer at this point means anything that is not an AMD Athlon64, is capable of addressing only 4 GB of RAM. Increasing memory usage demands of programs was/is a major driving force behind the push toward 64-bit computing.

    I use an Athlon 64
     


  6. SGladwell

    SGladwell Senior member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    True, I left that out mainly because I feel Apple is basically abandoning the old architecture.

    Its no so much a feeling as a fact. Though one might argue that it wasn't so much Apple's abandonment as IBM's lack of interest in developing the PPC except as a game console (Xbox and so on) chip. Hence the lack of what Apple's sorely needed for the last year and change, a PowerBook-ready G5. I think that if IBM or whatever Motorola's chip part is now called (Transmeta?) had developed a mobile G5 or even a mobile dual-core G4 that the Intel switch never would've happened.

    In my opinion, buying any kind of IBM-based Mac at the moment is a bad choice as far as future usage is concerned.

    I wouldn't do it. I didn't do it. But I'm not sure I agree, because the core stuff that everybody uses (Safari, MS Office, iLife) isn't getting any better and won't so far as I can tell in the foreseeable future. I'd be pretty surprised if using the best PPC-compatible version of Safari, iLife, and Office isn't perfectly viable 5 years hence.

    I understand that the Intel version of OSX can run older Mac software, but I believe it does so via emulation.

    My own experience with Apple's emulation technology (Rosetta) is that it is seamless and plenty fast, though the only programs I run under Rosetta are Word, Excel, and Quicken. Everything else I use (Safari, Camino, the iLife suite, Keynote from the iWork suite because it is immensely superior to MS Powerpoint) is Universal already.
     


  7. Matt

    Matt [email protected]

    Messages:
    11,179
    Likes Received:
    114
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    I solved that problem by never shutting off my computer.There is no boot up time. I bet I come out of sleep mode faster than your Mac boots up.
    an interesting point - however my mac wakes from sleep faster than my pc wakes. Also, waking my PC involves pressing the power button, and since you cant tell whether it has 'noticed it' or not, sometimes you press it twice - and then the machine shuts down, which drives me nuts. This is a design fault of my particular machine rather than PCs in general, but hey, its the only one I got. The Mac, I can hit any key and it wakes. And it does so much faster.
    the fact is the virus writers are faster than the antivirus people, so when they hit they hit. we have a company policy where we update all definitions weekly (on a Monday), but if a new virus comes along on Wednesday, it goes crazy - and it does propogate itself. I NEVER run strange exes etc, but if Norton doesnt get them on entry, they go berserk in your address book resending themselves and so on. It normally kills a couple of hours at least while I start up in safe mode, download new definitions, rescan the machine, hope for the best.
    i dont care, i just happy that there are less viruses.
     


  8. mr_economy

    mr_economy Senior member

    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    As for not doing anything wrong... PC's don't give THEMSELVES virii. So at some point in time, you opened some bad porn, or downloaded an attachment that you shouldn't have... and it can happen on Mac's too. It just happens less because it's not worth the time to write malware for 3% of the population when you could write it for 97% of the population. But that may be changing. There have been a few things recently targeted at Apple. I can't wait to see all you smug "Mac's don't get virii" people burn. It will happen. And me, being the asshole that I am, will probably laugh at you behind your backs.

    In the case of the worms floating around the last couple years, the PCs did indeed essentially give themselves virii. In many cases, a newly formatted machine would be infected with the worm before it even had a chance to download the patches to protect itself.

    Also, the *nix kernel of OSX makes it much less susceptible to virii. Granted the way Apple currently manages user accounts (I believe all users by default have root access) is not the most secure. But with a proper update to run security permissions the way *nix is meant to be used, hosing a machine running OSX is quite literally impossible. Without a root kit, any virus infected a *nix user account has access only to the files in that user's specific directory.

    Windows does not work this way. If you turn down the default permissions to a user account in XP, you're literally crippling what that user can do. With *nix, you have the ability to use separate permissions depending on what action is being taken. Microsoft has apparently implimented something similar in Windows Vista, so we'll see how well it works for them.

    Then it's not "9 years old", and I doubt many or any of its components are either.
     


  9. mr_economy

    mr_economy Senior member

    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    I wouldn't do it. I didn't do it. But I'm not sure I agree, because the core stuff that everybody uses (Safari, MS Office, iLife) isn't getting any better and won't so far as I can tell in the foreseeable future. I'd be pretty surprised if using the best PPC-compatible version of Safari, iLife, and Office isn't perfectly viable 5 years hence.

    I can go along with that, but I still think the G5 would be a terrible purchase. It is incredibly pricey for a machine based on a dying architecture. A potential buyer would be far better to wait for the new G5 equivalent to be released. You're right though, for typical browsing and office suit tasks there probably will not be such an increase in demand that it would render the PPC-era machines obsolete.
     


  10. Matt

    Matt [email protected]

    Messages:
    11,179
    Likes Received:
    114
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    I can go along with that, but I still think the G5 would be a terrible purchase. It is incredibly pricey for a machine based on a dying architecture. A potential buyer would be far better to wait for the new G5 equivalent to be released.
    I wouldnt buy anything now unless they do some seriously heavy duty discounting of the PPC machines. Redundancy is coming. Ive posted a lot about how happy I am with my Lombard, but I should note that Apple has now made it essentially redundant, as it cant install anything about 10.3.9 (which I am running quite happily). It will never be Tigerable, I cant use the new iLife and so on. The Pismo is next on the chopping block, and forced redundancy is working its way through the icebooks too.
     


  11. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim In Time Out

    Messages:
    19,179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    Laptops and desktops are two different things man. but $5K? You got hosed.

    This PC was originally an AST Advantage, with a P2 with ?MB of PC-100 RAM and a hard drive.that I don't think was even in the GB yet. I can't be sure. My dad bought it from Costco when I started my Junior year of HS for around $500. including a 14.4 modem and 15" monitor. The last original peice remaining was gotten rid of about two months ago (the keyboard)

    The Athlon 64 processor, Asus motherboard and PC 3200 ram that is in there now was a bundle deal for $249.95. The WD 100GB hard drive was $50 at Fry's, The 19" monitor was $150, the SB Audigy audio and Sapphire Radeon 9700 pro video card were about $99 each. New case/PS was $50 OR $100

    And yeah, I've bought a few mice, some cables, cd burner, and etc for it, but nothing major. The burner in there right now cost me 19.95 I believe. in case you were wondering.

    so stretch the $1100, give or take a few hundred, and you can believe it or not. Upgrading a few peices at a time, getting a few deals, doing some online shopping... take it or leave it.
     


  12. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim In Time Out

    Messages:
    19,179
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    Then it's not "9 years old", and I doubt many or any of its components are either.
    Ok, lets put it this way then... I have not purchased a new computer to replace it in nine years. Yes, it has been upgraded. THAT WAS MY POINT . Way to nitpick something to death and totally miss the point. You have historically NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT WITH A MACINTOSH. Things may change, but I'll believe it when I see it.
     


  13. tiger02

    tiger02 Militarist

    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    Apple is locked in to the Mac "look and feel"

    Interesting sentiment considering Apple's recent complete redesign of the UI. I do agree that *no* current GUI is inherently logical, but OS X is a few steps up from Windows (and maybe a half step back from 9.x). So when everyone is more or less equally clunky, I choose 1. the one that looks best to me and 2. the one I'm more comfortable with/grew up on.

    I happen to like the direction Apple is going with integrating the home computer better into daily life; I'd like them to be even more aggressive about it. How did they let the XBox 360 into the living room before the Mac Mini? Big mistake there.

    Tom
     


  14. Matt

    Matt [email protected]

    Messages:
    11,179
    Likes Received:
    114
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    The Athlon 64 processor, Asus motherboard and PC 3200 ram that is in there now was a bundle deal for $249.95. The WD 100GB hard drive was $50 at Fry's, The 19" monitor was $150, the SB Audigy audio and Sapphire Radeon 9700 pro video card were about $99 each. New case/PS was $50 OR $100 And yeah, I've bought a few mice, some cables, cd burner, and etc for it, but nothing major. The burner in there right now cost me 19.95 I believe. in case you were wondering.
    You have historically NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT WITH A MACINTOSH. Things may change, but I'll believe it when I see it.
    i did pretty much the same stuff to my blue and white G3 a few years ago Slim. Was running an LG DVD/CDRW combo drive, had a 768 meg of non-specific ram in it, had a WD 80 gig drive in it running as a slave to the Apple 6 gig that came factory (itself just a Quantum). I originally overclocked it, and then later installed a g4 processor upgrade that cost me a couple hundred mail order. And of course your 19 inch monitor would work on it too if the Apple one had ever died on me (it didnt). I never upgraded the video card cos I never needed to (I dont get into gaming, so never had that much strain on it), but from memory the BWG3 just had a Radeon something or other in it anyhow. Did all that myself too, so no expensive techs required. That machine - which I guess is a 98 model or thereabouts - found its way into the clutches of my ex gf's dad, and he still uses it today.
     


  15. SGladwell

    SGladwell Senior member

    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Laptops and desktops are two different things man. but $5K? You got hosed.
    More like $5400, including the essential add-ons like PCMCIA modem and ethernet. [​IMG] Prices for these things drop; a MacBook Pro is about a grand less than a TiBook G4 was when those came out in 2001. In 1997, it was still easy to buy an $8000 laptop, especially if you went with a top-line IBM. (PowerBooks were probably up there too, but I wasn't following the Mac side of things until the TiBook came out.) There were very few laptops with usable screens; 12.1" 800x600 was standard, 13.3" 1024x768 was brand new and extremely expensive, and larger screens did not yet exist. The Dell Inspiron 3000 was actually the second cheapest 13.3" screen laptop around, behind a generic brand that actually sold the exact same machine but without Dell's support package. And believe me, laptops back then needed the highest caliber support you could buy!
    This PC was originally an AST Advantage, with a P2 with ?MB of PC-100 RAM and a hard drive.that I don't think was even in the GB yet. I can't be sure. My dad bought it from Costco when I started my Junior year of HS for around $500. including a 14.4 modem and 15" monitor. The last original peice remaining was gotten rid of about two months ago (the keyboard)
    You have your timeframe, specs, price, or all three off. Back then, specs mattered on computers much more than they do now - the ancient iBook G4 is more than enough horsepower for most people today, but an entry level notebook was a path to frustration in 1997 - and I was paying attention. The P2 didn't come out until the summer of 1997, when I was finishing my 1st year of undergrad. The PPro was out in 1996, and P1-MMX came out in early 1997; because I remember my parents asking me if they should go with the Pro or the MMX in March of 1997. (I said Pro, with the real rationale being that MMX sounded lame and Pro sounded cool.) And all through that time they never dipped below $2500. In fact, my roommate bought one of the very first P2 systems, a Dell Dimension P2-233 (don't remember full spec, it wasn't mine after all) for about $3500 during the summer of 1997, after doing the math and realizing that building it himself would cost more even if he counted his labor as free.
    The 19" monitor was $150
    Presumably, then, it's a 19" CRT with a max resolution in the 1600x1200 range, or comparable to a 20" (edit) iMac. So what's this about Apple's screens being too small?
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by