Updated: Will Mac OS X.1, iPod, new iMac, and iPhoto convince you to buy a Mac?

[FOBSIDE]

<< OK, here is what I want from Apple.

I want them to port OS-X on the PC platform right next to Linux and Windows.

I want to be able to run OS-X on MY computer without having to buy Apple hardware.

There is nothing wrong with Apple hardware, other than they are way top of the line (elite) and of course there is a price for that.

We are in the PC market because we are in a tight budget and Apple is out of reach.

Of course such a thing will never happen especially now that M$ has attained ultimate control of Apple,much the same way whith anyone who dares commit mutiny against the Micro$oft dictatorship. >>



porting OSX to x86 platform will happen over steve jobs' dead body. apple did a fairly good job getting non mac users to buy macs just so they could play with mac osx. thats impressive. i disagree with the fact that all PC users are on a tight budget, especially in these forums. i know a few users here that have multiple boxes. i know some people say theyve used macs before and they dont like them but try using one for a month. dont just use it in lab at school or at your friends house. really use one if you have the opportunity.

 

[luv2liv]

on a little off topic... but why would anyone prefer the new LCD imac, or even a slim LCD PC by sony?

if people's desk are tight, opting for a more space saving design, y wouldnt they get a laptop? i can see a whole lot more benefits with a laptop like... portability, sleek design, small, shiny...to show off... etc.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< on a little off topic... but why would anyone prefer the new LCD imac, or even a slim LCD PC by sony?

if people's desk are tight, opting for a more space saving design, y wouldnt they get a laptop? i can see a whole lot more benefits with a laptop like... portability, sleek design, small, shiny...to show off... etc. >>



Latops are generally slower than desktops (even the small footprint desktops). But thats a very good question, I got an iBook over an iMac because I wanted a portable machine.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< on a little off topic... but why would anyone prefer the new LCD imac, or even a slim LCD PC by sony?

if people's desk are tight, opting for a more space saving design, y wouldnt they get a laptop? i can see a whole lot more benefits with a laptop like... portability, sleek design, small, shiny...to show off... etc. >>



laptops ARE generally more slower but its less so with apple's laptops. the same chips that go into their towers and other computer go into their laptops. there is no such things a mobile processor. its the same processor. the reason you would buy an imac over a notebook is because the ibooks are equal price but the lcd is smaller than then imac and the imacs lcd is better quality as well. the next laptop apple makes it a little high priced because its pretty powerful. theres quite a price jump between the imac and the powerbook.

 

[MGMorden]

I'd love a Mac, but at the moment I just can't afford one. PC's aren't just cheaper, they're fairly standard part-wise. I've got 2 PC's now, so if I need more power in one of them I just just replace the motherboard/cpu for now and then replace each part as I get the funds. If I were to get a Mac I've got to get all the money in one lump sum, which with my current limited income just isn't feasible. I do really like them though (I'm definately grabbing one after I get my degree + a job).

 

[Charles]

Apple claims that their Power PC G4 867 MHz processor is as fast or even faster than Pentium 4 1.7 GHz. Do you guys think this is possible?

They just released new articles, check it out:

Apple Myths
Megahertz Myths

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< Apple claims that their Power PC G4 867 MHz processor is as fast or even faster than Pentium 4 1.7 GHz. Do you guys think this is possible?

They just released new articles, check it out:

<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apple.com/myths/" target=blank>Apple Myths</A>
<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/" target=blank>Megahertz Myths</A> >>



the speeds are comparable in most tasks but the mac platform just blows windows out of the water when youre talking about processing power:megahertz ratio. i just understand why they dont all just use some common benchmarking notation so we know exactly whats up. although the processors in apple compouters are powerful, x86 processors are just coming out so fast at the rate theyre going, apple hardware is going to be left behind even if G4s are possibly twice as powerful as the same Mhz Pentium.

 

[Sunner]

G4's are faster on a per MHz basis, but not nearly enough to offset the difference in MHz.

I remember Carmack stating that a 1 GHz P-III was faster than a 800(or was that 7xx MHz?) G4, I cant remember if he was talking about Doom 3 or Quake 3 though, but Im fairly sure it was Doom 3.
And in the workstation article at Ace's a while back, a dual G4 800 MHz was fairly equal to a dual P-III 1 GHz in Lightwave rendering.

None of this matter for office work though, as any computer on the market at this time will be more than enough, but when you really need all the power you can get, x86's will be faster, significally faster in many cases.
Mac's used to be faster at one time, but then the cut throat competition between AMD and Intel started, and the x86's pulled away from just about everything in terms of uni processor performance, including almost all of the high end RISC architectures out there.

 

[Charles]

Do you think it's fair to compare G4 and Pentium 4 using Linux? Linux runs in both system right?

 

[Charles]

 

[wepopfresh]

I use my Tibook as a desktop replacement. There really is no benefit in buying a powermac when tehpowerbook is just as good, and mobile. The fastest powermac really isn't that much faster then the powerbook, you may shave a minute or two off composite rendering and some time on images, but in the real world, they both suffice.

The tibook, at 1995.00+ is a great match for any pc laptop. If you don't see that, you're hopelessly married to your PC.
I'm not going to say that the processor walks circles around intel when it comes to doing tasks, but the processor is comparable to everything on the market in the laptop arena.

Fot the people that like AMD laptops, I ask why? From what I have seen the Athlon 4 is somewhat anemic compared to its XP brother. Nowadays, i see duron and athlon pc's in the bargain section and reduced price sections everywhere. Thats a shame, too, i use amd on two pc rigs at home and was hoping they could knock the pc notebook market into a price war and performance war.

IF a g5 were to come out, i would look at it. I don't think I would take anything less than that for an apple desktop.

But in the meantime, my tibook, my 1.4 athlon , and 1.0 athlon will do the job nicely.



I do hope they kill the g3 market, though.

 

[Diable]

<< Do you think it's fair to compare G4 and Pentium 4 using Linux? Linux runs in both system right? >>



Yes its fair and Duke Of URL has done it, here's a link to there tests. They found a 500mhz G4 was about equal to a 800mhz P3 in kernel compilation and LAME encoding.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<<
IF a g5 were to come out, i would look at it. I don't think I would take anything less than that for an apple desktop.

I do hope they kill the g3 market, though. >>



yes, i think desktops have been using the g4 processor for way too long. even if g4 processors have twice the power of a p4, that Mhz gap just makes it incomparable.

as far as the g3 market, they will kill it in due time. g4's are designed especially for OSX which means the g3's are slowly being phased out. although the ibook running 500+ Mhz is still really fast. except for certain applications, there isn't much difference in speed between the g4 400 Titanium and the g3 500 ibook. if the prices are going to go up on ibooks if they make them g4s, i say leave the g3 market for a while. those are cheap, powerful mobile computers.

 

[jhu]

now that jordan hubbard works for apple, i think my next computer will be a mac

 

[thetaz]

Those of you who complain that a GeForce2MX is not enough, you have to remember that those who buy macs are not into buying the latest, greatest hardware. Apple likes to put chips into their systems that are reliable, not brand new chips that cost nearly $200 more. All the people here complaining about this, need to get it into their head. Look at it this way: that $1500 you spend on an Apple will last you a lot longer than the $1500 you spent building an Intel/AMD system. The person who builds an Intel/AMD system with that kind of money is going to drop $300 upgrades into the thing when they gotta have the latest nVidia card every 4 months. Gimme a break. $300 for a video card!? What justifies spending that much on one? BUY A CONSOLE! No more gaming upgrade worries. Apple is well aware that people like to upgrade, but they leave it for PC peeps. By using a single well-thought out configuration they are much better able to support it, optimize applications, and more since they have a much better idea of what types of systems Apple users have.

Besides, if you are looking for good gaming these days...the console broadband stuff is going to be heating up this summer. If you want serious gaming, buy a console. I hate to say it, but I really don't use my PC to game any more unless it's a multiplayer game. Console games are starting to finally cater to the PC crowd, but I've always been happier playing console games than computer games. Playing multiplayer with friends in front of your tv is awesome, and I wouldn't trade anything for it. Computer games just don't allow this level of fun, in your face gaming.

 

[nino]

First of all -have you MAC users seen the inside of the MACs. Nothing there that ISN'T a pc part OTHER than the MOBO and processor.
Same HD, same video, LCDs made by the same people that make them for PC (albeit a little higher quality), same ram, etc..

I think Apple is making a huge mistake by NOT releasing OS X on the x86 platform but I also believe that they have a contract with MS
NOT to do this. Remember that most MAC users still use Office for the MAC and if they released and OS then they'd have a problem
with MS.

I think it's a big mistake on apple's part because they could make a lot more money selling the OS than selling hardware parts. Steve Jobs
would be considered for Time's Man of the Year award because we finally have an OS for any platform and total file compatibility.
This would be a massive step for computing and other than the deal with MS I can't figure out why they don't do it. Apple's cost on software is
reasonable and their upgrades are TRUE upgrades and their price for upgrading is reasonable when compared to MS's ridiculous upgrade
pricing.

I'm using Linux these days and love it and I'm sure that most people would welcome OSX over MS's software.

Any ideas why we don't see it on the x86?

 

[dartblazer]

Apple is a hardware company, that offers software. I would imagine they make most of their money on the hardware part of thing and the software part is icing on the cake.

But let's get this thread back on topic.

the iMac and iPod are great. they're not the biggest or fastest things around but they do it with style, and with ease. It goes into the whole widget concept. and iPhoto is really cool. look at all the stuff you can do from one program.

Has all of this convinced me to buy Mac? No. I made up my mind about two years ago when i first started using a Mac. Even if you're the biggest PC lover in the world, i encourage to go to an Apple store and try out a Mac for 20 minutes or so. At least just give it a try.

If you like it but dont have enough money to buy a new machine check out ebay. you can buy a 400MHz G3 B&W system for about $400, it'll do all the things you want, probably not as quickly but it will still get them done. I have one and it runs "about" as fast as my Duron 1.0GHz system. Or a G4 system isnt that much more expensive, probably about $150 to $200 more.

And if you get sick and tired of it you can sell it in about a year for $350. Which is one of the great things about apple hardware, it retains its value alot more than pc hardware.

And all of the comments of if you want to play games go buy a console i think is BS. Apple needs to pick it up on this one. Big time. The iMac now has a halfway decent video card that should be able to play most if not all games. I do see this as one big drawback of the mac platform. so if you really need to play games, and dont like consoles, look away from the mac platform because there isnt much for you.

 

[FOBSIDE]

lets assume that everyone actually pays for their own software in this world. (fat chance huh? )

anyway, if you buy an apple computer it comes with: the OS itself, iTunes 2, iMovie 2, iPhoto, and if you buy a SuperDrive, you get iDVD 2. if you actually take into account the software that comes with every apple machine, youd realize youre getting much more than with a Wintel machine. with a Wintel machine you gotta get the OS which is more expensive than apple's OS. if you want any of this software, its either expensive or theres nothing comparable out there. its not just about the hardware but thats how apple sells its hardware. they create an environment where you want to work in and they say "only on apple"

 

[aa_koch]

I still spend some of my time playing games, and I enjoy "messing around with the hardware" too much to replace my PC. (I know there are games for the Mac platform, but many of the games I play are not available. Besides, my Radeon kicks the crap out of that GeForce2 MX... ) But I surely wouldn't mind buying a Mac if I needed it for work. (PowerMac, Power Book, or iMac... yummy. ) Unfortunately, I don't even have a real job yet so I am sh*t outta luck until then...

By the way... that iPod is great and I'd love to get one, too -- but $399 is a bit too steep for me. (We pay even more than that for it over here in the Netherlands.) If only it was $299, I would get one last week.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< By the way... that iPod is great and I'd love to get one, too -- but $399 is a bit too steep for me. (We pay even more than that for it over here in the Netherlands.) If only it was $299, I would get one last week. >>



the iPod is awesome and the work that probably went into making it, makes it worth $400 but thats still steep to consumers. slashdot released an article on an mp3 player they called the iPod killer which was also $400 and held 10 gigs i believe. the thing was huge tho! it was the size of the old game gears from sega. it was ridiculous. part of the appeal of the iPod is that its small yet still efficient.

 

[ultimatebob]

<< I just want an i-book and OSX

I want to telnet into my laptop >>



You don't need a Mac for that! You could install Windows 2000/XP telnet services on a PC laptop, or install Linux on it. Either option is a LOT cheaper than buying an iBook.

 

[Charles]

I want all of Apple's digital hub product.

 

[paperguy]

I have used Macs for many years and love their operating systems. The latest stint has been with the G3 and G4. Six years ago I jumped into the PC market, with a Cyrix and now have updated three times. It is a blessing and a sin at the same time. I keep pumping money into my PC, while the Macs keep trudging along as they did from day one. I have yet to try OS X, but if it is like the other systems in the Mac lineup, how sweet it must be! The only drawback is my Macs at work love to crash. But in all actuality, it is just allows me an extra break while at work.

 

[luv2liv]

FOBSIDE
wow, you're right! Macs actually are cheaper when u add the hardware and software values together! i never thought of that one. i mean, getting all those professional software for editing movies and digital contents would cost a bundle. i've never used the video editor on Macs, but if its good as Adobe Premiere... thats a huge savings already

still, gaming is much better on the Wintels. theres no way console gaming beats computer in terms of graphics. i mean, TV resolution is fixed at 352x240, or something. reading text is blurry, sitting next to the TV doesnt help either, i start seeing huge gots all over the place. and no, having a 50inch tv doesnt help either. RTCW is awesome at 1600x1200!!! unbelievable pyrotechnics! so is NHL 2002 on the PC at 1600x1200. im glad i have a 22 inch monitor
its sad but true that console systems have more action/fast paced games, but my PS1 emulator for winxp works wonders!!! YAY

 

[FOBSIDE]

I think thats the first time someone in these forums has said i was right. Gaming is only better on Wintels because of the market share. Sure there are newer/faster/better video cards for Wintel systems but I guarantee you that if Apple had the same market share, they would be making games for Apple too and Apple would then put out drivers for some of the newer cards. It's a cycle. Until Apple gets more market share, game companies are scared to program for them and Apple isn't "forced" to put out better hardware for gaming.