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

[Charles]

<<wow, you're right! Macs actually are cheaper when u add the hardware and software values together! >> And sometimes they are even better than Windows's

iPhoto - Better than Scanner and Camera Wizard in Windows XP.
iDVD
iMovie - Make Windows Movie Maker looks like a useless toy.
DVD Player - Gotta spend 40 bucks for 3rd party player.
iTunes - I have to admit that Windows Media Player 8 is very good.
QuickTime - The best streaming media platform so far.

What else???

 

[imgod2u]

If I can't build it myself, I'm not interested in buying it. A case that has similar features to the PowerG4 case with the pull-down motherboard access would be nice, although I wish it would be aluminum without the stupid colors. I see no advantage to using a Mac and the cheezy gimmicks won't help change that.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< If I can't build it myself, I'm not interested in buying it. A case that has similar features to the PowerG4 case with the pull-down motherboard access would be nice, although I wish it would be aluminum without the stupid colors. I see no advantage to using a Mac and the cheezy gimmicks won't help change that. >>



i understand that some people like to get their hands on their machines. i like doing that too. what would you consider a cheezy gimmick that apple has?

 

[TBC]

I find it funny that Imac can include a photo editor that will send your pictures to be printed to a specific predetermined photo developer, yet WindowsXP already has this, and there were lawsuits threatened due to the fact they included it with the operating system. Talk about hypocrites in this world. Why isn't Apple facing lawsuits over this?

The IMACS look nice, but I would *never* buy one due to the fact it would be foolish to buy something that is so propietary. Being propietary also drastically raises the price because Apple has no competition for their hardware. Not to mention the fact of it not being upgradable, you have to buy a whole new computer each time.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< <snip>

The IMACS look nice, but I would *never* buy one due to the fact it would be foolish to buy something that is so propietary. Being propietary also drastically raises the price because Apple has no competition for their hardware. <snip> >>



I guess you dont use Windows right?

 

[fivepesos]

first thing, from what ive used, i like OSX, id definitely pay ~300$ or so to run it on hardware I already own. thats almost a nonissue to me.

but hardware? i just cant justify spending the money on the hardware. new imacs, no thanks. they look nice and everything but ill take a pass on the whole integrated everything. and i personally dont believe they are a value system. for ~$1400 i could build a much better x86 system. ibooks, they have g3s that are being faced out, if im gonna invest in a laptop i want some solid upgrade path. than ti powerbook? $2300 for a STRIPPED laptop aint worth it in my mind. the only tibook that interests me is the midlevel 2400$ one, which is overpriced. see a patter to apples hardware yet? overpriced in my mind.

i dont think anyone hear can realy rationaly argue the speed edge of apples. maybe a 800mhz g4 compares with a low end athlon xp but i doubt it. even so, you can build a base athlon xp with comparable features for like 60% of cost.

i love OSX, but i hate apples prices. if they were like 2/3 of the price they are, id buy one. i might still buy one if i wasnt a poor student.

i have need for 3 systems:
desktop/workstation - reliable, fairly speedy desktop stuff, surfing, word processing, light programming
gaming - fast vid card, windows (mac and linux gaming aint there yet)
linux/bsd sandbox - gotta have my testbed for whatever

linux is fullfilling my workstation/sandbox needs on hardware i spent ~400$ on (abit bp6, dual cel 500s, 384mb ram, gf2mx, 60gb ata100 hard drive).
my gaming machine is in need of a ~300-400$ upgrade within 6 months. a new mac would set me back AT LEAST 1400$, and i just dont have it.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< first thing, from what ive used, i like OSX, id definitely pay ~300$ or so to run it on hardware I already own. thats almost a nonissue to me.

but hardware? i just cant justify spending the money on the hardware. new imacs, no thanks. they look nice and everything but ill take a pass on the whole integrated everything. and i personally dont believe they are a value system. for ~$1400 i could build a much better x86 system. ibooks, they have g3s that are being faced out, if im gonna invest in a laptop i want some solid upgrade path. than ti powerbook? $2300 for a STRIPPED laptop aint worth it in my mind. the only tibook that interests me is the midlevel 2400$ one, which is overpriced. see a patter to apples hardware yet? overpriced in my mind.

i dont think anyone hear can realy rationaly argue the speed edge of apples. maybe a 800mhz g4 compares with a low end athlon xp but i doubt it. even so, you can build a base athlon xp with comparable features for like 60% of cost.

i love OSX, but i hate apples prices. if they were like 2/3 of the price they are, id buy one. i might still buy one if i wasnt a poor student.

i have need for 3 systems:
desktop/workstation - reliable, fairly speedy desktop stuff, surfing, word processing, light programming
gaming - fast vid card, windows (mac and linux gaming aint there yet)
linux/bsd sandbox - gotta have my testbed for whatever

linux is fullfilling my workstation/sandbox needs on hardware i spent ~400$ on (abit bp6, dual cel 500s, 384mb ram, gf2mx, 60gb ata100 hard drive).
my gaming machine is in need of a ~300-400$ upgrade within 6 months. a new mac would set me back AT LEAST 1400$, and i just dont have it. >>



if youre a student, there are student prices available. you would be able to get the iMac for under 1300. if youre talking about paying for the OS to run on your hardware, its not going to happen. but the fact that you said youd be willing to pay for software brings up another point. you get a ton of software when you buy an apple computer. the OS, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, and a bunch of little other things that come packaged with the OS. the software itself is worth over $500. where can you find a machine as powerful as the iMac with and 15" LCD monitor and all that software? Macs aren't as expensive as people make them out to be at all. Yes $1300 is a lot to pay at once but constant updates to a Wintel setup gets just as expensive.

 

[imgod2u]

<< i understand that some people like to get their hands on their machines. i like doing that too. what would you consider a cheezy gimmick that apple has? >>



The fruity colored iMacs, the new desklamp iMac, the fruity colors, the "it's sexy" commercials and all of that stupid PR from "it's twice as fast" to all the idiot's software (iTune, iPhoto, i-everything, etc.), I consider cheezy gimmicks. Focus on the really important things about computing and not about how the fruity or flashy new look will impress the simple-minded. Although Apple has done this, they often pay a lot more attention to cheezy gimmicks than the heart and core of computers. I don't care what it looks like but 131 fps in Q3A at 1024x768 is unacceptable. Having an iMac in which if I wanted to upgrade the computer, I'd have to throw the whole thing away is certainly unacceptable and not being able to natively run Windows or Linux or any OS I want is definitely unacceptable.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< i understand that some people like to get their hands on their machines. i like doing that too. what would you consider a cheezy gimmick that apple has? >>



The fruity colored iMacs, the new desklamp iMac, the fruity colors, the "it's sexy" commercials and all of that stupid PR from "it's twice as fast" to all the idiot's software (iTune, iPhoto, i-everything, etc.), I consider cheezy gimmicks. >>



I havent played much with iPhoto yet, but iTunes isnt that bad. Its simple and that works for me sometimes



<< Focus on the really important things about computing and not about how the fruity or flashy new look will impress the simple-minded. Although Apple has done this, they often pay a lot more attention to cheezy gimmicks than the heart and core of computers. >>



I agree that they spend a lot of time with the looks, but they definitely pay attention to the core of the computer. I dont think many companies have totally redesigned their OS in a release like Apple did with Mac OS X.



<< I don't care what it looks like but 131 fps in Q3A at 1024x768 is unacceptable. >>



And I dont play games. The hardware works fine for me



<< Having an iMac in which if I wanted to upgrade the computer, I'd have to throw the whole thing away is certainly unacceptable >>



But you wont have to upgrade as much. I dont see much of a reason to upgrade much more than the ram/hard drive anyhow. The un-upgradability of Macs I think is a legitimate concern though.



<< and not being able to natively run Windows or Linux or any OS I want is definitely unacceptable. >>



I cant run Mac OS X on PC hardware. Thats Apple's fault. Its Microsoft's fault I cant run Windows on PPC platform though. And Linux will run on PPC hardware just fine. Along with OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< The fruity colored iMacs, the new desklamp iMac, the fruity colors, the "it's sexy" commercials and all of that stupid PR from "it's twice as fast" to all the idiot's software (iTune, iPhoto, i-everything, etc.), I consider cheezy gimmicks. Focus on the really important things about computing and not about how the fruity or flashy new look will impress the simple-minded. >>



knowledgable computer users want to know about computing. the average computer user doesnt know or doesnt care about these things. i believe it is important for apple to emphasize the fact that their processors are faster than x86 processors with the equivalent Mhz. if people didnt know that speed of a processor is not measured purely in Mhz, then apple's processors look inferior and no one wants their product to look inferior. the "its sexy" thing appeals to people who do not know much about computers. while that is not most of the people here, it is most of the people that use computers. iPhoto, iTunes and iMovie are excellent pieces of software. iTunes allows mp3 playback, cd playback, cd ripping and compression, as well as CD writing. i dont know of too many programs that do all of that. iTunes is quite useful actually when dealing with iTools. you can create photo albums for the web with a click of a button. iMovie is a powerful movie editing tool and its bundled with Mac OS X. i think that beyond the cheezy commercials, apple's products are really powerful and not as expensive as most people think when you consider that theyre bundled with all the software. im in no way a mac zealot. i have a windows machine and a linux machine. i just want to make sure people are well informed when it comes to macs. apple products get rejected by a lot of people that arent informed.

i just though of something...cheezy commercials? look at the XP commercials. the OS can make you fly and makes you happy. flying, happy people use XP. everyones got their cheezy commercials.

 

[imgod2u]

<< knowledgable computer users want to know about computing. the average computer user doesnt know or doesnt care about these things. i believe it is important for apple to emphasize the fact that their processors are faster than x86 processors with the equivalent Mhz. if people didnt know that speed of a processor is not measured purely in Mhz, then apple's processors look inferior and no one wants their product to look inferior. the "its sexy" thing appeals to people who do not know much about computers. while that is not most of the people here, it is most of the people that use computers. iPhoto, iTunes and iMovie are excellent pieces of software. iTunes allows mp3 playback, cd playback, cd ripping and compression, as well as CD writing. i dont know of too many programs that do all of that. iTunes is quite useful actually when dealing with iTools. you can create photo albums for the web with a click of a button. iMovie is a powerful movie editing tool and its bundled with Mac OS X. i think that beyond the cheezy commercials, apple's products are really powerful and not as expensive as most people think when you consider that theyre bundled with all the software. im in no way a mac zealot. i have a windows machine and a linux machine. i just want to make sure people are well informed when it comes to macs. apple products get rejected by a lot of people that arent informed.

i just though of something...cheezy commercials? look at the XP commercials. the OS can make you fly and makes you happy. flying, happy people use XP. everyones got their cheezy commercials. >>



As I said, the majority of people may be impressed with the flashy gimmicks and everything, but the question of this post was more like a poll, I simply voiced my opinion. As for the XP commercials, they've stopped now, and as cheezy as they were, it was just due to overhype. I haven't seen such commercials for Win2k, Win98, or WinME. Apple has persistently used cheezy gimmicks to try and reach the layman and it apparantly works, but not for me.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< Apple has persistently used cheezy gimmicks to try and reach the layman and it apparantly works, but not for me. >>



very well then. its all good. i just hope that cheezy commercials dont prevent you from buying good products. youll be missing out on a lot, not just apple.

 

[giambi77]

I just got an iPod and I love it! I don't have a mac yet though....I just go over to my friends house, and sync the iPod with his dual G4-600MHZ (overclocked) PowerMac

 

[Eug]

I just installed XP for the first time (Pro Corporate). I already have an OS X.1 iBook.

XP has a lot of good things going for it. It's comparatively fast and it maintains the usability that Win 2000 have. And the boot up time is much quicker. But it's still not as user friendly as OS X.

OS X is still easier to use and makes more intuitive sense most of the time (but not all of the time). And, the bundled software with OS X is better. However its main problem is that it's slow. My XP Celeron 880 feels a lot speedier than my iBook 600, and that's not just because of the hard drive speed. It is interesting though, having the opportunity with OS X to learn about Unix with such a beautiful GUI as OS X. No dual boot required for Unix in OS X.

I have a Firewire hard drive on the way... I wonder if I should format it HFS+ and get MacDrive for the PC, or else format it FAT32. OS X doesn't understand NTFS, and Windows doesn't understand HFS+ without MacDrive. Both understand FAT32, but Macs like to put extra info files in FAT32 because the file system can't properly handle Mac resource forks, etc. (Ironically, NTFS can, over a network.)

By the way, the reason I installed XP was because Norton's software install hosed my Win 2000 box. :disgust: ...Now Eug goes looking for XP updates for his Win software.....

 

[SinNisTeR]

<< No >>

 

[Eug]

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


By the way, I've used iPhoto to create two books now. Both have been shipped. I'll post pix when I get them.

However, the problem with iPhoto is that unlike iTunes, it actually isn't all that well designed. It needs some serious work. (I don't know if it's true that they dumbed it down to appease Adobe, but that's what the unsubstantiated rumours claim.)

 

[aceline]

I use an iMacDV as a secondary system - especially for Photoshop and Final Cut 2 projects. I have it networked to my DSL line at home (easy to do) and utilize the DVD and Firewire features (although my PC rig has them too) so as not to lose any juice on my PC while I'm doing the bulk of my daily work.

It was definitely worth the investment to learn about the system that all of us have grown to ignore through the years. Coming from a PC tech background, learning the basics - and even the ins/outs of the Mac OS (extension manager, etc...) - makes sense and hasn't been too difficult. However, I can understand the hype and distaste of Windows that most Mac nuts have - they have never had to deal with the true guts of an operating system (registry, etc...). At this point, I don't think that the Mac OS is anywhere near as customizable and tweakable as Windows - and of course, that is the basis for the Mac supporters - it's simplicity.

Not bad to have around - but it will be awhile before a Mac is considered as my main system.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< However, the problem with iPhoto is that unlike iTunes, it actually isn't all that well designed. It needs some serious work. (I don't know if it's true that they dumbed it down to appease Adobe, but that's what the unsubstantiated rumours claim.) >>



even iPhoto as a non-editing tool, i think its a pretty impressive piece of software. i was most impressed with the automatic resizing of all the thumbnails, the automatic support of almost all digital cameras, and the interaction with iTools for publishing images.

 

[Eug]

<< even iPhoto as a non-editing tool, i think its a pretty impressive piece of software. i was most impressed with the automatic resizing of all the thumbnails, the automatic support of almost all digital cameras, and the interaction with iTools for publishing images. >>


To be quite honest, I don't thing it's all that big of a deal. XP's Windows Explorer will resize an image depending on how big your size the screen, although that's not really thumbnails. Also, the digital camera support isn't even a function of iPhoto per se. It's dependent upon pre-existing drivers - ie. even without iPhoto you can still automatically download pix with Image Capture.

Even just as an image storage program, iPhoto has a long way to go. All of your pix are in the same parent screen. Very irritating.

I do like how it interacts with iTools. Strangely enough, the iDisk loaded faster on my Win 2000 box than it did in OS X. Go figure.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< Even just as an image storage program, iPhoto has a long way to go. All of your pix are in the same parent screen. Very irritating. >>



huh? thats what creating different albums is for though or am i not understanding what you mean.

 

[Ih8canada]

-iBook +Titanium Powerbook = had them for 1 month already.

 

[Eug]

<<

<< Even just as an image storage program, iPhoto has a long way to go. All of your pix are in the same parent screen. Very irritating. >>



huh? thats what creating different albums is for though or am i not understanding what you mean. >>


All pix are in the main top folder in iPhoto. Then you can create folders which have "copies" of the original pix.

If you have hundreds or definitely if you have thousands of photos, iPhoto becomes completely unworkable. Ie. You can't have just subfolders of pix categorized. You MUST have all photos in that main top directory. Imagine trying to scroll through 2000 pix in the same directory.

Moreover, if you change anything in an album subfolder it changes it in the main top folder as well. So, if you screw up your working photo, you don't have the original to go back to.

But then again, it only allows stuff like rotation and cropping. You can't even adjust the brightness or colour levels. Even the most basic user needs these. ie. iPhoto is so limited people have to use another program like Photoshop LE before using iPhoto.

Oh, in iPhoto, there is NO WAY TO MAKE A BACKUP OF ANYTHING. If you want to back up the pix, you have to manually copy the entire folder. However, the folder not user friendly, partially because it renames all of your pix to cryptic numbers. Furthermore, EXIF data is lost I believe after edits. (Not sure on this one.)

And, there is NO DIRECT WAY OF SAVING YOUR WORK. If you have done some edits, the only way of forcing a save of your work is to exit the program. There is no "save" button. So say if iPhoto crashes (and it does crash) before it autosaves or before you exit, your last few minutes of work is lost. Also, if you create a book, you can't save it as a separate file either. You can output the .pdf file, but that's useless, because you can't edit the .pdf file later on a different computer (or even on the same computer), and you can't send the .pdf file to Apple for printing.

BTW, the book preview function of iPhoto is screwed up. With non-4:3 images, it does NOT display what the final book will look like. You have to output it to .pdf first to make sure, but most people don't know this. It only works fine with 4:3 images in my experience.

Or, if you change a book page from 3 pix to 2 pix, it will change the rest of the pages too, to "compensate". ie. Page 1 has 3 photos of cats. Page 2 has 3 photos of dogs. If you remove one cat pic from Page 1, it "steals" a pic from Page 2 so now Page 1 has 2 cats and 1 dog, and Page 2 has 2 dogs and an empty space. How bizarre. In other words, you don't design the book page by page easily. To correct this scenario, you either have to insert another cat pic, or else manually change the page format to a 2 page format.

And of course, it's slow as molasses.

Hate to say it, but iPhoto is really a mediocrely (is this a word?) designed program. It looks good on the outside, and that's what the reporters see when they give it good reviews, but if you look anywhere else, including on the photo and Mac forums, iPhoto is not very well regarded.

I think all of this is lost on the reporters, because they don't play with it enough. iPhoto is great if you have 35 pix and don't print a book. However, I have hundreds of photos, many carefully named and all catalogued in appropriately named subdirectories. iPhoto can't use any of this organization and info. And I have now submitted 3 books (at US$30 a shot, plus $$$ for shipping), so I have gotten to know full well the huge limitations of the program in real work. iPhoto doesn't just need a bug fix, it needs a complete redesign or else a lot of missing features need to be incorporated.

I love my iBook, iTunes, etc. etc., but I don't think Apple should brag about iPhoto at all at this point.

 

[esun]

I guess No would suffice, but since everyone else is giving reasons, I might as well.

First of all I'm used to the PC, in terms of both hardware and software. I know everything about my computer inside and out, and I like it that way. Learning a new platform like the Mac would be both expensive and time-consuming, and since my PC is serving me well, I don't see any point.

Second, Macs are more expensive than PCs in general IMO. I know that for $1000-$1500 I could build an extremely fast, top-of-the-line Athlon XP system, and for $500 I could build a great budget Duron system. Similarly for $1000 I could have a great laptop.

It's not that I dislike Macs for any particular reason (well, there is one. My friend incessantly rants about them at school, but I guess that's more of an indirect hatred of Apple), and if I'd started out using Macs, then I'd probably still be using them now. But since my first home computer (that I can remember) was a 66 MHz IBM PC, I've never bothered with Macs, and probably never will unless I'm either rich or I have a particular need for a Mac.

 

[Charles]

<< iPhoto doesn't just need a bug fix, it needs a complete redesign or else a lot of missing features need to be incorporated. I love my iBook, iTunes, etc. etc., but I don't think Apple should brag about iPhoto at all at this point. >>

In your opinion, what's the best image management system for Mac? Well, iPhoto might be good for beginners but not for power users, right?

 

[Eug]

<<

<< iPhoto doesn't just need a bug fix, it needs a complete redesign or else a lot of missing features need to be incorporated. I love my iBook, iTunes, etc. etc., but I don't think Apple should brag about iPhoto at all at this point. >>

In your opinion, what's the best image management system for Mac? Well, iPhoto might be good for beginners but not for power users, right? >>


To be honest, I dunno, since I do everything manually. I just store the pix in appropriate named directories (eg. Eug's Xmas dinner), and name the important files with something that make sense. I've tried a few image managers, but I find I don't need all the extra features.

Ironically, while I download all my pix on my Mac, I transfer them to the PC over the network when I get the chance since I have a dedicated drive there for pix and stuff. I also edit them on the PC since I have a 19" monitor on it. (My Mac is an iBook.)

So, even if I did get an image manager it'd probably be for PC anyway.

By the way, I think people should stop thinking of iPhoto as an image management program, because it fails miserably at image management. I think of it more of a quick and dirty book publisher and web page editor for images.