Re:I want one!
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well I would still recommend waiting a year. Then they will have faster chips. And many flaws from long term use will be helped fixed (like the PowerBook paint peeling). Also you can hopefully get some more real benchmarks and not from people who are guessing. As well as seeing how people like them after a year. Lilke most things with computers never try to get version x.00 Try to get the next version up. That way they can fix many of the issues, that have not been expected.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In What Quantity?
by
TPIRman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The story is pretty useless until we get an idea of the quantity of shipping G5s we're talking about here. I'm betting it's just a trickle. When the PowerBook G4s first came out, the backorder queue remained quite long for weeks after Apple claimed the 'Books were "shipping," because the actual number of units being shipped was relatively small. I hope there's a flood of G5s making their way from Apple's factory in Taiwan, but from previous experience, I bet that isn't the case.
Re:Yeah, but they're dangerous!
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well the neat thing about technology, When you get a faster computer you start working with it without really noticing a major speed change. But then after a week you go back to your old system then you see the difference.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:hurray for apple
by
phillymjs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I would tend to believe the numbers, no matter how large.
Many people have been in a holding pattern, using old machines running OS 9 for two reasons:
1) They would need a new machine to really make the most of OS X, and they wanted to wait until the successor to the G4 was available.
2) They didn't want to make the move to OS X until a native QuarkXPress was available for it.
Both of those conditions have now been fulfilled. Apple will not be able to crank out these things fast enough (even moreso than usual) to meet all the pent-up demand.
I bet once the numbers are in, we'll find out that this was Apple's best quarter in a few years, maybe even since the return of Jobs.
2) I can't afford one because I'd rather spend 3000$ of my own time fixing Windows than the extra 1000$ it costs to buy a Mac.
Time is money, and this is where people get the equation wrong.
Actually, if you build it yourself, a very decent x86 box can be had for $600. Then again, you can get one from Dell or IBM or Compaq that is not horrible for that price with a monitor. The last machine I built cost me less than $500. The one I am building this week was around $200. New hardware.
As for Windows problems, I have none. You see there is this littel OS called Linux. Prhaps you have heard of it?
It would be pretty tough to build a $3000 - $5000 x86 desktop these days, and if you did, it would probably have at minimum twice the Ghz of the G5 per proc.
Re:Apple's Market Share
by
SirSlud
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, its that consumers still don't 'value' OSes at their true value. Just because Ladas were cheaper than Hondas didn't mean Ladas outsold. Why? Cause people knew Ladas sucked shit, and Hondas didn't.
If Microsoft advertising ever stops drowning everybody out and they stop forcing computer distributors to *only* offer their OS, then people still start to gain a little more visibility. It really wasn't all that long ago that people knew Amiga, Commadore, Apple, IBM existed.. and we'll see such a day again. When the average consumer understands that the OS market does offer a few choices, and that actually choosing a better OS is a money-saving decision, Apple will do better.
I know of at least two people recently who bought a whole new computer cause they fucked up their Windows installation and figured it'd be easier to buy a new machine. This is an excellant example of how little choice consumers feel they have in the OS world. Who the hell buys something, watches it break from every day use, and goes out to buy the exact same thing? Obviously, somebody who feels that there isn't much else to buy.
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and nobody ever felt alone suffering through Windows problems. When more of your friends have Apple, you'll be more likely to see the value of spending more on a computer (and subsequently buying computers/OS upgrades less often).. being a consumer is about being educated to make strong decisions. Ask anybody why they bought Windows today, and 95% of the time, the person will answer along the lines of "What else is there" or "Because of work/school/friend/game/application, I didn't have any other choice". 4% will say something along the lines of "Well, its the most popular OS, so how bad can it be?".. your usual leader-worshippers.. the same folks who equate financial success with product superiority (tho engineers know better.) The last 1% actually like Windows, but they also happen to be the 1% of the population that exhibits a distinct interest in sadomasochism.
And of course I run Windows. Because my neighbours do.. although at the rate I'm being asked to fix peoples computers, its probably worth the extra 1000$ for me to *not* have Windows and be able to feign ignorance when begged for help.
Linux is nice, but c'mon, if my neighbours can fuck up their Windows computers, fucking up Linux/BSD would be a piece of cake unless they were all sent to 'Whats a symlink, is it like a shortcut?' school.
So, lets compare out-of-the-box GUI'd commercial OSes. I wish I could include BeOS and Warp in the list, but alas, MS slayed them.
The hardware shipped with G5s kick the stuffing out of any 600$ box, thankyouverymuch. Thats apples to oranges (shit, the gfx card in a G5 is half of you 600$ box alone.. and theres a DVD recorder in there.. )
So try again? Build me a PC box with the level of componants in an Apple rig.. which Alien Ware does. A rough check says their systems go from 1500-2500..
Its good that you can get what you need for 600 bucks, but your resulting rig would be a far cry from the capabilities of a G5. I'm not saying that you can't build a cheaper PC rig that can do the same things as a G5, but at least be fair if you're going to honestly try and crunch my glibly provided numbers in my orig post.
And I'm a FreeBSD developer.. a real *nix guy who builds his own PCs. Unless you can prove that you can appreciate what the Apple experience provides, theres no sense in pointing out that you can get what *you* like for cheaper.
OK. I own PCs and Macs and use both. I've use Macs since System 5, and PCs since DOS. The PC is mainly for working from home when I'm not building actual hardware at work. The Mac is where I do creative things and day to day stuff like email and web browsing.
The Mac is just nicer to use. That's really all there is to it, and yes that's subjective I guess, although even the hardcore Windows fanatics I know admit the GUI is a mess. As for price differences, there really isn't that much of a gap if you compare equivalently equiped machines of comparable quality.
The quality factor is important. I built my own PC, for example, and would never bother with some $500 gray box. There really is no bargain basement Mac, but I don't think I'd want one anyway.
As an aside, I find it weird that there is so much quibbling over a couple bucks in the personal computer world. I know a guy at work who bought a $60,000 car and a $5000 plasma television, and then spent three weeks online to save $100 on a PC (he paid $500 instead of $600). I consider my time to be money, and the time saved using my Mac pays for any price gap easily within a month.
It's very hard not to be biased about whatever you use. But I'll try.
I switched to Mac from Linux because it works. Add Fink to it, and it acts just like a Linux box. I have a PowerBook, and it's by far my favorite laptop (of many laptops I've owned).
What does "it works" mean? It almost never crashes. It almost never needs drivers. It runs MS Office. It's a Unix workstation: bash shell, X, KDE, Gnome, etc. It goes to sleep when the lid closes and comes back within 1 second when the lid opens (I rarely turn it "off"). iPhoto, iTunes, iPod, iMovie are excellent, simple, and easy (not power programs, but excellent for the basics). And most important, it's pretty (titanium or aluminum case).
I still use Debian/Dell on my servers. But for a laptop, OS X is incredibly useful.
It's not about speed anymore. About the PIII, I quit caring about speed. Everything after that is *fast*. My Powerbook 800 is probably about as fast as a PIII 800. For programming, documents, etc., speed isn't the issue anymore. The issue is usability. Personally, I really like KDE. I still use it on my Mac once in a while. I also like OS X. It just works.
Re:2 things keeping market share down
by
MoneyT
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In regards to #2. If you don't like it, sell it. Macs have very high resale value.
-- T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:What is up with slashdot?
by
thryllkill
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"hey paid for an PC that he could build for 500 bucks?"
have you ever looked at an alienware PC? The video card alone might run you $500.
Alienware PCs are gameing systems pure and simple. MACs, no matter how cool, fast, 64 bit, sexy, are not gameing systems. I am not talking theory here (they should be able to play games well) I am talking reality. And reality is that a lot, probably most, games are not released for the mac, and if they are it is a half-assed port sometimes years after the PC original came out. If this guy bought an alienware PC it means 3 things. 1.He wants to play games 2.He has more money than I do -and- 3.he is too lazy to build the same thing on his own with individual parts.
Now with his Alienware pC, when inspiration hits him he will be able to make that awesome Neverwinter Nights module he'd been thinking about for days. No matter how cool his Mac is he won't be able to do that...
--
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
Re:hurray for apple
by
WatertonMan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Because for many kinds of programs that doesn't work for finding buts. i.e. you have to get your program into the same state as it was earlier. For things like tracking down decompression errors, encryption errors, btree errors, and so forth, what you describe is next to useless. I admit that fix and continue is extremely usefull. I've been using it in Visual Studio for years. It's about time it came to Project Builder. But it really isn't helpful for many kinds of debugging.
The issue isn't fixing the bug it is finding the bug. Sometimes subtle logic bugs can take many days of iterating through the code to find.
Funny... People have been saying that since the beginning of the nineties... Yet Apple revolutionize again and again, and show better prosper than ever. This year we got the Music Store, the Power Mac G5, the 17" Powerbook, the new iPods... Apple and Dell are the only companies in the same industry that show profits right now.
Is Apple dead?
Not by a long shot...
--
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Must -- not -- respond -- to -- trolling -- anonymous -- coward -- must -- not -- respond....
Can someone explain to me why I should buy A Mac when I can get a faster PC for less?
Why would anyone pay $2000+ for a Paul Reed Smith guitar when they could get a Fender Squire for $200? Why do people pay millions for Stradivarius violins?
A Mac is like a fine musical instrument. It usually isn't "just a tool." Attention to detail, fit and finish figure into the value.
A Mac is like a fine musical instrument.
Re:It's Not That Complicated
by
phillymjs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why do you think they still produce 3.5" 5400 RPM drives? Why do you think software driven modems became a success?
Because hardware companies are cheap.
Why do you think people assume LCDs have a better display?
I didn't know people assumed LCDs have a better display. The reason most people I know buy LCDs is to get a larger physical screen size without having to sacrifice desk surface area for a hulking CRT.
Remember, we're talking about people that buy a computer because it's cute, inexpensive, and named after fruit that matches the color.
Erm, no. We're talking about the professional market here. They knew the G5 was coming for the last year, just not exactly when. And I can tell you that every one of my clients, professionals one and all, were waiting for exactly what I said: the next generation of Macs beyond the G4, and OS X-native QuarkXPress. If you had read the articles in the Mac press since 10.2 was released, you'ld know that that was by far the predominant stance.
I was waiting to replace my primary home machine as well, nursing along a 6 year-old Power Mac-- finally last year I couldn't wait any longer and picked up a used G4 that had the horsepower to run OS X, because I needed to get familiar with it so I could effectively support it when the time comes. In January, the G4 goes bye-bye and I get a dual G5, which is what I was waiting for all along. I just hope Apple manages to catch up with demand by then.
~Philly
Re:That box!
by
dasmegabyte
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Excellent Pirsig mental diarrhea. For those of you who don't think reading is strictly for masochists, here's an attempt at simplifying this post:
True Quality is not about simply delivering a nice product. It is a process which does not stop throughout the products' design and manufacture. As soon as you begin to cut corners, you begin to whittle away at this.
"We don't need the nice box," you say. That's cool, and probably true. You don't really need rounded edges or a shiny back, either. And you don't need the Chicago font, or a glowbing blue backlight, or a hold button. Fact is, 99% of the unit is in the short run inconsequential to the production of a digital music player.
But in the long run, it's these inconsequential elements that make the difference between a truly great machine and a half assed one. Really fine details smooth over the parts that may not work so great. There is a lot more leeway given, hence the Apple fanatic's uncanny ability to look over some of the stupid shit Apple does. After all, quality is a combination of all the factors of a product...here's something that looks well made, sounds well made, feels well made and comes with well made accessories in a well made box. At what point does the box start mattering? Well, it's the first thing you see at the check-out when you're about to shell out a bunch of cash for the thing, or it's the first thing you see when it comes in the mail. It's very reassuring.
Besides, the box is at most 5% of the cost of the final product. If you don't include it, you either reduce the price of the product by 5% or increase your margin by a similar amount. If additional sales as a result of the cool box are more than that 5%, and don't come at the expense of people willing to buy the thing if it were ONLY 5% cheaper, it's worthwhile to keep it. And I guarantee you that's not the case with the iPod.
Re:hurray for apple
by
WatertonMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The initial versions of the G4 were very nice and very compititive. What happened though was the Motorola, for whatever reason, couldn't get the chip to scale well and couldn't deal with bandwidth. Realistically had Motorola been able to fix the bandwidth limitations of the G4 and get it to scale to 2 GHz it would be very competitive with the 970.
Had Motorola not fallen behind so badly then I think that we'd not be complaining so much (nor needing the horrible wait the last year for the 970).
The problem with the 970 / G5 is that it doesn't really have as many integer processing units. So it really isn't that much faster per clock cycle than the G4. (The benchmarks show this) However the bandwidth and vector units are very impressive. Perhaps the G6 will improve integer performance.
Re:hurray for apple
by
Steveftoth
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They're not lying at all though.
Listen, 64-bit is not a hardware issue as much as it is a software issue. Yes, the hardware support needs to be there first, but really it about wether or not the software will actually use the 64-bit modes.
It's not like 64-bit is always a win-win situation. Some programs will always run faster when compiled in a 32-bit addressing mode simply because 32-bit can be more efficient when not addressing large amounts of ram. Just like there are programs that can be written entirely withing the 16-bit addressing modes of the x86 that will outperform the 32-bit version. Though I would guess that today that number is rather small.
I hope that the Mac continues to be a hybrid of 32 and 64 bit programs for awhile. It won't be expensive to maintain compatability from the OS perspective, and it will ensure that all of us that don't want to upgrade will be able to run all the software for awhile.
Apple already has the infistructure in place so that people with G5s will be able to run G5 versions and people with G4s will be able to run a G4 version. Their executable format allows for multiple versions of the same program so that the developers can simple recompile for the G5 ahead of time and package it with the G4 version in the same file. (like the old 'fat' binaries of yore with 68k and ppc code in them)
Besides, you can't 'just recompile' and get benefits of 64 computing. It's not that simple. If you don't program with the intent of being x-platform then you can't recompile and have it work. Also, as you hinted, the G5 has a radically different idea about what kind of code it optimal compared to the G4, thus any code targeted for the G4 will perform sub-standard. We'll just have to wait a month or two until all the software catches up to the hardware. The G5 will only seem to get faster and faster as more software is retargeted for it.
The G5 is more then a step up in clock speed, it's a whole new generation of processor, a bigger step from the G3 to G4. But no matter how you look at it, it's a step up. Maybe not as big as you want it to be and this is something that I think a few people are (still) sore about.
try describing a sunset to a blind person...
by
mojoNYC
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
and you'll know what it's like for a mac user to try to explain the 'difference' between mac and pc (or maybe a better metaphor might be 'try explaining sex to a virgin??)
here's a clue, it ain't in the processor speed, it's in the software, stupid...sure pcs have the same kinds of programs, but they don't run nearly as well...the latest examples being the iPod, iTunes and the Apple Music Store--each one was being done on the pc, yet Apple came in and changed the game with its products, with an experience that's totally superior in every way (my girlfriend gave me her old iPod when she got a new one--it sat on my shelf for a couple of weeks, until i finally started to use it, and no shit, it changed my life! i can now carry my entire cd collection in my pocket, and the thing works like a champ)...here's a tip, to any flamers that say 'so what' about any of these examples, i would bet the farm that they've never actually USED any of them!;>
-mojo
Re:What is up with slashdot?
by
dasmegabyte
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, it's very easy. A lot of the slashdot readers put a lot of time, money and knowledge into inferior, yet popular platforms. These are people who stayed up late nights trying to get a kernel to compile or getting a system to run stable after hacking some nuance of the bios which resulted in a 3% speed increase to memory operations.
And now Apple comes around a makes a machine that's fast, nice looking, and doesn't require all of this extra knowledge and work to use.
Of course they're annoyed. Of course they're threatened. If Apple's stuff is any good, then they've been wasting their time.
So they spread FUD about broken applications, inconsequential complaints about how a $600 bargain PC is cheaper than a $3000 high end work station, or slander about how Apples are effeminate. It's all bullshit meant to make them feel better about a perceived waste. People do it all the time...just listen to the arguments people make about the benefits of sinking $10,000 into a $15,000 honda, rather than buy a $25,000 BMW.
It's childish in a way. Isn't there more to computing than JUST running an OS as fast as possible? If you do your computer stuff in Linux and like it, fine. I use Windows 2000, Gentoo and OSX 10.2 and none of them is better than any of the others for EVERYTHING. Granted, I spend more time tweaking the Gentoo box than either of the other two, but once I'm done I can just ignore it, and let it chug away serving web pages, databases, etc to its hearts content. Admining the 2k box is generally to keep it from falling apart in DLL hell...and admining the Apple machine is usually accepting that "you can't do that" on an apple;).
Re:hurray for apple
by
waynelorentz
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That 17% number could be right, if every shop is run like the one I'm in.
The majority of the machines are IBM clones. The ones in the art department are Mac. They all need to talk to each other. It took the Wintel-head IT guys forever to figure it out, and it still doesn't work right all the time.
The IT guys are afriad to upgrade the Macs because they think they'll break what little works of the network now. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that OSX simplifies networking, they are afraid of anything outside their comfort zone, which at this time only includes Windows 2000.
Re:It's Not That Complicated
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have a Rev B bondi iMac that I use as my router. I just installed Debian, plugged in a USB ethernet adapter, set up some iptables rules, and I've hardly touched it since.
And why not? iMacs are every bit as much "real" computers as any ugly beige PC is. Their PowerPC CPUs are just us powerful as any other PowerPC CPU of the same speed (in fact, I believe that Cicso uses PowerPCs in some of their routers); their IDE hard drives are the same as any PC IDE hard drive; their ethernet and USB controllers are just as fast as any comparable PC part.
The appearance of a computer has nothing to do with it's usefulness or its capabilities, so I don't see why someone would not want to buy an attractive computer. Why would you want to have some ugly beige box sitting on your desk when you can have one that is just as useful and not offensive to the eye?
Re:hurray for apple
by
Mr.+Show
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
as a professional developer, even $2499 is recovered in a few days when you're tracking an extremely nasty bug.
Then write better code:)
Seriously, though, I am also both a C++ Win32 and Apple developer. I agree that PB is not as good as Visual Studio, but that's not the point. It's like saying that iMovie is not good enough because Final Cut Pro is better. Well, you pay $1000 for Final Cut Pro, so it should be better. Similarly, you pay an arm and a leg for Visual Studio, which gives Microsoft the resources to invest in adding more features and making it a richer development environment. You get what you pay for. That's life. And while there are some things about PB that drive me nuts, for free development tools I think PB and IB are pretty good (IMHO, IB spanks VC++ for UI design -- can't speak for VB or "C#" though), and I'm looking forward to XCode.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I would still recommend waiting a year. Then they will have faster chips. And many flaws from long term use will be helped fixed (like the PowerBook paint peeling). Also you can hopefully get some more real benchmarks and not from people who are guessing. As well as seeing how people like them after a year. Lilke most things with computers never try to get version x.00 Try to get the next version up. That way they can fix many of the issues, that have not been expected.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The story is pretty useless until we get an idea of the quantity of shipping G5s we're talking about here. I'm betting it's just a trickle. When the PowerBook G4s first came out, the backorder queue remained quite long for weeks after Apple claimed the 'Books were "shipping," because the actual number of units being shipped was relatively small. I hope there's a flood of G5s making their way from Apple's factory in Taiwan, but from previous experience, I bet that isn't the case.
Well the neat thing about technology, When you get a faster computer you start working with it without really noticing a major speed change. But then after a week you go back to your old system then you see the difference.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I would tend to believe the numbers, no matter how large.
Many people have been in a holding pattern, using old machines running OS 9 for two reasons:
1) They would need a new machine to really make the most of OS X, and they wanted to wait until the successor to the G4 was available.
2) They didn't want to make the move to OS X until a native QuarkXPress was available for it.
Both of those conditions have now been fulfilled. Apple will not be able to crank out these things fast enough (even moreso than usual) to meet all the pent-up demand.
I bet once the numbers are in, we'll find out that this was Apple's best quarter in a few years, maybe even since the return of Jobs.
~Philly
you mean
2) I can't afford one because I'd rather spend 3000$ of my own time fixing Windows than the extra 1000$ it costs to buy a Mac.
Time is money, and this is where people get the equation wrong.
Actually, if you build it yourself, a very decent x86 box can be had for $600. Then again, you can get one from Dell or IBM or Compaq that is not horrible for that price with a monitor. The last machine I built cost me less than $500. The one I am building this week was around $200. New hardware.
As for Windows problems, I have none. You see there is this littel OS called Linux. Prhaps you have heard of it?
It would be pretty tough to build a $3000 - $5000 x86 desktop these days, and if you did, it would probably have at minimum twice the Ghz of the G5 per proc.
No, its that consumers still don't 'value' OSes at their true value. Just because Ladas were cheaper than Hondas didn't mean Ladas outsold. Why? Cause people knew Ladas sucked shit, and Hondas didn't.
.. and we'll see such a day again. When the average consumer understands that the OS market does offer a few choices, and that actually choosing a better OS is a money-saving decision, Apple will do better.
.. being a consumer is about being educated to make strong decisions. Ask anybody why they bought Windows today, and 95% of the time, the person will answer along the lines of "What else is there" or "Because of work/school/friend/game/application, I didn't have any other choice". 4% will say something along the lines of "Well, its the most popular OS, so how bad can it be?" .. your usual leader-worshippers .. the same folks who equate financial success with product superiority (tho engineers know better.) The last 1% actually like Windows, but they also happen to be the 1% of the population that exhibits a distinct interest in sadomasochism.
.. although at the rate I'm being asked to fix peoples computers, its probably worth the extra 1000$ for me to *not* have Windows and be able to feign ignorance when begged for help.
If Microsoft advertising ever stops drowning everybody out and they stop forcing computer distributors to *only* offer their OS, then people still start to gain a little more visibility. It really wasn't all that long ago that people knew Amiga, Commadore, Apple, IBM existed
I know of at least two people recently who bought a whole new computer cause they fucked up their Windows installation and figured it'd be easier to buy a new machine. This is an excellant example of how little choice consumers feel they have in the OS world. Who the hell buys something, watches it break from every day use, and goes out to buy the exact same thing? Obviously, somebody who feels that there isn't much else to buy.
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and nobody ever felt alone suffering through Windows problems. When more of your friends have Apple, you'll be more likely to see the value of spending more on a computer (and subsequently buying computers/OS upgrades less often)
And of course I run Windows. Because my neighbours do
"Old man yells at systemd"
Linux is nice, but c'mon, if my neighbours can fuck up their Windows computers, fucking up Linux/BSD would be a piece of cake unless they were all sent to 'Whats a symlink, is it like a shortcut?' school.
.. and theres a DVD recorder in there .. )
.. which Alien Ware does. A rough check says their systems go from 1500-2500 ..
.. a real *nix guy who builds his own PCs. Unless you can prove that you can appreciate what the Apple experience provides, theres no sense in pointing out that you can get what *you* like for cheaper.
So, lets compare out-of-the-box GUI'd commercial OSes. I wish I could include BeOS and Warp in the list, but alas, MS slayed them.
The hardware shipped with G5s kick the stuffing out of any 600$ box, thankyouverymuch. Thats apples to oranges (shit, the gfx card in a G5 is half of you 600$ box alone
So try again? Build me a PC box with the level of componants in an Apple rig
Its good that you can get what you need for 600 bucks, but your resulting rig would be a far cry from the capabilities of a G5. I'm not saying that you can't build a cheaper PC rig that can do the same things as a G5, but at least be fair if you're going to honestly try and crunch my glibly provided numbers in my orig post.
And I'm a FreeBSD developer
"Old man yells at systemd"
The Mac is just nicer to use. That's really all there is to it, and yes that's subjective I guess, although even the hardcore Windows fanatics I know admit the GUI is a mess. As for price differences, there really isn't that much of a gap if you compare equivalently equiped machines of comparable quality.
The quality factor is important. I built my own PC, for example, and would never bother with some $500 gray box. There really is no bargain basement Mac, but I don't think I'd want one anyway.
As an aside, I find it weird that there is so much quibbling over a couple bucks in the personal computer world. I know a guy at work who bought a $60,000 car and a $5000 plasma television, and then spent three weeks online to save $100 on a PC (he paid $500 instead of $600). I consider my time to be money, and the time saved using my Mac pays for any price gap easily within a month.
--- Ban humanity.
It's very hard not to be biased about whatever you use. But I'll try.
I switched to Mac from Linux because it works. Add Fink to it, and it acts just like a Linux box. I have a PowerBook, and it's by far my favorite laptop (of many laptops I've owned).
What does "it works" mean? It almost never crashes. It almost never needs drivers. It runs MS Office. It's a Unix workstation: bash shell, X, KDE, Gnome, etc. It goes to sleep when the lid closes and comes back within 1 second when the lid opens (I rarely turn it "off"). iPhoto, iTunes, iPod, iMovie are excellent, simple, and easy (not power programs, but excellent for the basics). And most important, it's pretty (titanium or aluminum case).
I still use Debian/Dell on my servers. But for a laptop, OS X is incredibly useful.
It's not about speed anymore. About the PIII, I quit caring about speed. Everything after that is *fast*. My Powerbook 800 is probably about as fast as a PIII 800. For programming, documents, etc., speed isn't the issue anymore. The issue is usability. Personally, I really like KDE. I still use it on my Mac once in a while. I also like OS X. It just works.
In regards to #2. If you don't like it, sell it. Macs have very high resale value.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
have you ever looked at an alienware PC? The video card alone might run you $500.
Alienware PCs are gameing systems pure and simple. MACs, no matter how cool, fast, 64 bit, sexy, are not gameing systems. I am not talking theory here (they should be able to play games well) I am talking reality. And reality is that a lot, probably most, games are not released for the mac, and if they are it is a half-assed port sometimes years after the PC original came out. If this guy bought an alienware PC it means 3 things. 1.He wants to play games 2.He has more money than I do -and- 3.he is too lazy to build the same thing on his own with individual parts.
Now with his Alienware pC, when inspiration hits him he will be able to make that awesome Neverwinter Nights module he'd been thinking about for days. No matter how cool his Mac is he won't be able to do that...
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
The issue isn't fixing the bug it is finding the bug. Sometimes subtle logic bugs can take many days of iterating through the code to find.
Apple as we know it is dead.
Funny... People have been saying that since the beginning of the nineties... Yet Apple revolutionize again and again, and show better prosper than ever. This year we got the Music Store, the Power Mac G5, the 17" Powerbook, the new iPods... Apple and Dell are the only companies in the same industry that show profits right now.
Is Apple dead?
Not by a long shot...
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Can someone explain to me why I should buy A Mac when I can get a faster PC for less?
Why would anyone pay $2000+ for a Paul Reed Smith guitar when they could get a Fender Squire for $200? Why do people pay millions for Stradivarius violins?
A Mac is like a fine musical instrument. It usually isn't "just a tool." Attention to detail, fit and finish figure into the value.
A Mac is like a fine musical instrument.
Why do you think they still produce 3.5" 5400 RPM drives? Why do you think software driven modems became a success?
Because hardware companies are cheap.
Why do you think people assume LCDs have a better display?
I didn't know people assumed LCDs have a better display. The reason most people I know buy LCDs is to get a larger physical screen size without having to sacrifice desk surface area for a hulking CRT.
Remember, we're talking about people that buy a computer because it's cute, inexpensive, and named after fruit that matches the color.
Erm, no. We're talking about the professional market here. They knew the G5 was coming for the last year, just not exactly when. And I can tell you that every one of my clients, professionals one and all, were waiting for exactly what I said: the next generation of Macs beyond the G4, and OS X-native QuarkXPress. If you had read the articles in the Mac press since 10.2 was released, you'ld know that that was by far the predominant stance.
I was waiting to replace my primary home machine as well, nursing along a 6 year-old Power Mac-- finally last year I couldn't wait any longer and picked up a used G4 that had the horsepower to run OS X, because I needed to get familiar with it so I could effectively support it when the time comes. In January, the G4 goes bye-bye and I get a dual G5, which is what I was waiting for all along. I just hope Apple manages to catch up with demand by then.
~Philly
Excellent Pirsig mental diarrhea. For those of you who don't think reading is strictly for masochists, here's an attempt at simplifying this post:
True Quality is not about simply delivering a nice product. It is a process which does not stop throughout the products' design and manufacture. As soon as you begin to cut corners, you begin to whittle away at this.
"We don't need the nice box," you say. That's cool, and probably true. You don't really need rounded edges or a shiny back, either. And you don't need the Chicago font, or a glowbing blue backlight, or a hold button. Fact is, 99% of the unit is in the short run inconsequential to the production of a digital music player.
But in the long run, it's these inconsequential elements that make the difference between a truly great machine and a half assed one. Really fine details smooth over the parts that may not work so great. There is a lot more leeway given, hence the Apple fanatic's uncanny ability to look over some of the stupid shit Apple does. After all, quality is a combination of all the factors of a product...here's something that looks well made, sounds well made, feels well made and comes with well made accessories in a well made box. At what point does the box start mattering? Well, it's the first thing you see at the check-out when you're about to shell out a bunch of cash for the thing, or it's the first thing you see when it comes in the mail. It's very reassuring.
Besides, the box is at most 5% of the cost of the final product. If you don't include it, you either reduce the price of the product by 5% or increase your margin by a similar amount. If additional sales as a result of the cool box are more than that 5%, and don't come at the expense of people willing to buy the thing if it were ONLY 5% cheaper, it's worthwhile to keep it. And I guarantee you that's not the case with the iPod.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Had Motorola not fallen behind so badly then I think that we'd not be complaining so much (nor needing the horrible wait the last year for the 970).
The problem with the 970 / G5 is that it doesn't really have as many integer processing units. So it really isn't that much faster per clock cycle than the G4. (The benchmarks show this) However the bandwidth and vector units are very impressive. Perhaps the G6 will improve integer performance.
They're not lying at all though.
Listen, 64-bit is not a hardware issue as much as it is a software issue. Yes, the hardware support needs to be there first, but really it about wether or not the software will actually use the 64-bit modes.
It's not like 64-bit is always a win-win situation. Some programs will always run faster when compiled in a 32-bit addressing mode simply because 32-bit can be more efficient when not addressing large amounts of ram. Just like there are programs that can be written entirely withing the 16-bit addressing modes of the x86 that will outperform the 32-bit version. Though I would guess that today that number is rather small.
I hope that the Mac continues to be a hybrid of 32 and 64 bit programs for awhile. It won't be expensive to maintain compatability from the OS perspective, and it will ensure that all of us that don't want to upgrade will be able to run all the software for awhile.
Apple already has the infistructure in place so that people with G5s will be able to run G5 versions and people with G4s will be able to run a G4 version. Their executable format allows for multiple versions of the same program so that the developers can simple recompile for the G5 ahead of time and package it with the G4 version in the same file. (like the old 'fat' binaries of yore with 68k and ppc code in them)
Besides, you can't 'just recompile' and get benefits of 64 computing. It's not that simple. If you don't program with the intent of being x-platform then you can't recompile and have it work. Also, as you hinted, the G5 has a radically different idea about what kind of code it optimal compared to the G4, thus any code targeted for the G4 will perform sub-standard. We'll just have to wait a month or two until all the software catches up to the hardware. The G5 will only seem to get faster and faster as more software is retargeted for it.
The G5 is more then a step up in clock speed, it's a whole new generation of processor, a bigger step from the G3 to G4. But no matter how you look at it, it's a step up. Maybe not as big as you want it to be and this is something that I think a few people are (still) sore about.
here's a clue, it ain't in the processor speed, it's in the software, stupid...sure pcs have the same kinds of programs, but they don't run nearly as well...the latest examples being the iPod, iTunes and the Apple Music Store--each one was being done on the pc, yet Apple came in and changed the game with its products, with an experience that's totally superior in every way (my girlfriend gave me her old iPod when she got a new one--it sat on my shelf for a couple of weeks, until i finally started to use it, and no shit, it changed my life! i can now carry my entire cd collection in my pocket, and the thing works like a champ) ...here's a tip, to any flamers that say 'so what' about any of these examples, i would bet the farm that they've never actually USED any of them!;>
-mojo
Well, it's very easy. A lot of the slashdot readers put a lot of time, money and knowledge into inferior, yet popular platforms. These are people who stayed up late nights trying to get a kernel to compile or getting a system to run stable after hacking some nuance of the bios which resulted in a 3% speed increase to memory operations.
;).
And now Apple comes around a makes a machine that's fast, nice looking, and doesn't require all of this extra knowledge and work to use.
Of course they're annoyed. Of course they're threatened. If Apple's stuff is any good, then they've been wasting their time.
So they spread FUD about broken applications, inconsequential complaints about how a $600 bargain PC is cheaper than a $3000 high end work station, or slander about how Apples are effeminate. It's all bullshit meant to make them feel better about a perceived waste. People do it all the time...just listen to the arguments people make about the benefits of sinking $10,000 into a $15,000 honda, rather than buy a $25,000 BMW.
It's childish in a way. Isn't there more to computing than JUST running an OS as fast as possible? If you do your computer stuff in Linux and like it, fine. I use Windows 2000, Gentoo and OSX 10.2 and none of them is better than any of the others for EVERYTHING. Granted, I spend more time tweaking the Gentoo box than either of the other two, but once I'm done I can just ignore it, and let it chug away serving web pages, databases, etc to its hearts content. Admining the 2k box is generally to keep it from falling apart in DLL hell...and admining the Apple machine is usually accepting that "you can't do that" on an apple
Hey freaks: now you're ju
That 17% number could be right, if every shop is run like the one I'm in. The majority of the machines are IBM clones. The ones in the art department are Mac. They all need to talk to each other. It took the Wintel-head IT guys forever to figure it out, and it still doesn't work right all the time. The IT guys are afriad to upgrade the Macs because they think they'll break what little works of the network now. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that OSX simplifies networking, they are afraid of anything outside their comfort zone, which at this time only includes Windows 2000.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
I have a Rev B bondi iMac that I use as my router. I just installed Debian, plugged in a USB ethernet adapter, set up some iptables rules, and I've hardly touched it since.
And why not? iMacs are every bit as much "real" computers as any ugly beige PC is. Their PowerPC CPUs are just us powerful as any other PowerPC CPU of the same speed (in fact, I believe that Cicso uses PowerPCs in some of their routers); their IDE hard drives are the same as any PC IDE hard drive; their ethernet and USB controllers are just as fast as any comparable PC part.
The appearance of a computer has nothing to do with it's usefulness or its capabilities, so I don't see why someone would not want to buy an attractive computer. Why would you want to have some ugly beige box sitting on your desk when you can have one that is just as useful and not offensive to the eye?
as a professional developer, even $2499 is recovered in a few days when you're tracking an extremely nasty bug.
Then write better code :)
Seriously, though, I am also both a C++ Win32 and Apple developer. I agree that PB is not as good as Visual Studio, but that's not the point. It's like saying that iMovie is not good enough because Final Cut Pro is better. Well, you pay $1000 for Final Cut Pro, so it should be better. Similarly, you pay an arm and a leg for Visual Studio, which gives Microsoft the resources to invest in adding more features and making it a richer development environment. You get what you pay for. That's life. And while there are some things about PB that drive me nuts, for free development tools I think PB and IB are pretty good (IMHO, IB spanks VC++ for UI design -- can't speak for VB or "C#" though), and I'm looking forward to XCode.