Reading mode: Light Dark

Now will you buy a Mac?

Go to last post
AshMills said:
mmm... except that within hours of its release for XP it would have
been downloaded 100million times by unscrupulous P2P users....
Not sure how that would affect Apple's profits...
Click to expand...
Requiring activation (ala XP) helps to deter some. As for millions of users in China and some over here who will use it illegally, they would have likely never used it otherwise in the first place anyway, so they cannot be counted as "losses". In fact, by helping to create a tidal wave of use for OS X they could, in fact, be helping Apple.
 
Had I not just bought a duo-core sony about a month ago. (They don't run hot btw - the fan hardly ever comes on if that's any clue) - I looked at the Power Book Pro, but I had too much Windows software I'd have to replace, and I needed to be able to connect to work easily.
 
comes down in line with pc's. If Mac increases their volume they may be able to do this. (I love the way the Mac looks, but it is a bit esoteric in the way it hides what the computer is doing for us techno geeks ;) Also, how about bringing back the Lisa :(
 
Robert A said:
The Mac OS might be better than Windows, but there's nothing out
there that I can't get with Windows. Besides, who wants to reboot
everytime you switch between OSs?
Click to expand...
At the moment you cannot get Aperture or Lightroom for Windows. There is actually quite a bit of other interesting software that is Mac only.

As for rebooting, there was a virtualization product announced today that lets you run Windows XP at almost full speed at the same time as OS X:

http://www.parallels.com/en/download

Free for now (beta version) and just $49 when released.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
 
Intel (mobile) CPUs have a higher work/watt ratio right now than AMD or PIV. Unfortunately they have a lower total work output than the workstation CPUs from AMD or Intel. AMD leads Intel significantly in work/cpu numbers.

If you want the fastest workstation machine, you should buy AMD
If you want a fast workstation machine Intel or AMD are fine

If you want the hardest working laptop/power balance, you choose mobile Intel.
snowboard9 said:
The Intel 5 year old Netburst architecture is what AMD has been
competing with for servers and desktops. I'm afraid the AMD party
is over with the new core duo design. As far as notebooks are
concerned, Intel is 1-2 generations ahead - far and away.

Apple did not choose Intel because of the old design, it's about
the new high performance design and focus on energy consumption.

I agree Intel stock has taken a drubbing, but that's entirely a
different conversation. As far as AMD stock is concerned, I mean,
it could only go up !! Their stock has remained constant for 30
years - seriously. A dollar in AMD stock in 1970 is worth about a
dollar today. Who's behind?
johnrg said:
Not dated at all... AMD controlling the high end now where the
profit is and beginning to move down stream with complete 64 bit
solutions. I guess Intel's a good fit with chipsets etc...AMD is
allowing a more open arrangement for chipsets. We will see in a
year or so how things shake out but Intel has had a difficult time
as of late. Seen it's stock price?

John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 
And exactly how is spending $299 for a bottom-of-the-line Dell a better deal than spending 1/3 that much to buy XP, if you want it, to run on a much faster Mac?

I'm sure there are Mac owners who want to run PC software and this will give them that opportunity. For them that's great. But for the most part I can't see why someone would want to deal with all the viruses, malware, patches, drivers drivers drivers, the kludgy interface, the ugly UGLY fonts, the system bloat, the instability and on and on and on.

My first PC was a 286, back in the dark ages. But then I found Macs an I never went back. I use a Dell at work for tasks that are not too demanding. It crashes once every two days or so. Next to it is an OSX Mac that I use for more processor-intensive photo work. The only time it ever needs to be rebooted is if we're installing new software.

And as for road warriors, my Powerbook is indispensable. Sure it costs more than an entry-level XP laptop. It should -- it's better. It's just what i need for working on the road, when my job depends on it. More expensive? Yeah. A Better value? Much.

Obviously PCs are all the machine that a lot of people need or want. A LOT of people. And that's fine for them. But I can't be convinced by any of the anti-Mac flaming and FUD that goes on in this and other forums that the PC is a better machine for me, or that XP is a better OS, for my uses.

Cheers,
--David
 
From a man who for tax reasons declares his income as $1 a year? And gives himself corporate "gifts" to make his wages up..

Gates is loaded, but at least he pays some tax, and gives cash to charity and medical research, jobs is a tight a* ...no thanks!

Anyhow OsX is very nice...it should be made available to all pc users..as for the hardware..well I am stuck with intel on macs...I prefer AMD..and why would I buy something that I can build myself faster, cheaper, and nicer..

Nice try apple but no cigar!
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
From a man who for tax reasons declares his income as $1 a year?
And gives himself corporate "gifts" to make his wages up..

Gates is loaded, but at least he pays some tax, and gives cash to
charity and medical research, jobs is a tight a* ...no thanks!
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. All of these billionaires manage their tax liability professionally, and Jobs has been drawing salary from Pixar (now Disney) rather than Apple.

--
Everything is true, up to a point.
 
Why purchase a Mac just to run XP? It seems silly and a waste of money.
 
It's not something I'd pay extra for, but if Apple sell a Mac at the same price as a PC with the same spec then why not.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
From a man who for tax reasons declares his income as $1 a year?
And gives himself corporate "gifts" to make his wages up..

Gates is loaded, but at least he pays some tax, and gives cash to
charity and medical research, jobs is a tight a* ...no thanks!
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I don't make by PC purchasing decisions based on some CEO's form of compensation. I agree it's nice to have CEO's give their money away but it's not on my list of criteria.
Member said:
Anyhow OsX is very nice...it should be made available to all pc
users..as for the hardware..well I am stuck with intel on macs...I
prefer AMD..and why would I buy something that I can build myself
faster, cheaper, and nicer..
Click to expand...
Yes, I will consider Apple based on OSX and their very stylish design. I couldn't care less what's under the hood. In fact Intel is my preferred choice since I consider power dissipation and mutliple core to be the most important tech decision. Yeah, AMD has nice producs today but Intel's new products I consider to be superior.

I have been building PC's for personal use for 25 years. The faster, cheaper, nicer is an illusion. Nicer? Pahhleez - I guess it all depends what you call nicer. Maybe faster, cheaper might fly - but not much. It has more to do withthe satisfaction of having built it yourself.
Member said:
Nice try apple but no cigar!
Click to expand...
--
Sports, Urban, Street Photography Enthusiast in Dallas

 
For the answer to the OP - yes, I would certainly consider Apple, especially now. Their industrial design is beautiful, the machines work pretty well and now with the ability to dual-boot OSX and XP...what's not to consider??

As for the rest of this conversation I constantly have to laugh at (what I feel) is the (mostly) mindless replay of media know-it-all that people read from "pop culture" idiots.

For instance, NetBurst was NOT a failure. NetBurst was designed to run code optimized by certain compiler functions that unrolled JMP/etc loops. Functions NO ONE was actually turning on in the compilers because they were (a) lazy and (b) didn't want to write to a "new" system - the P6 - that might not be "mainstream"

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1895908,00.asp

The software developers didn't write to NetBurst in most software. Therefore CPU's that used the "old" designs of the PIII core - the AMD and the P-M** - performed better on the tests the pop review sites did to them, that being heavily 3D intensive.

So Intel made a new design, that nobody used, that "failed". Like it's a BIG surprise.

And now we're going "Back to the Future" to look for our CPU core...in a basic, but better optimized, PIII-"sourced" system. AMD stuck with a less-developed less "forward thinking" PIII-style core that they optimized to the max (and did a nice job) but a design that the software engineers actuall WROTE to. Why does a NetBurst do higher synth benchmarks than an AMD yet the AMD's seem to run the 3D software in RL faster?

Didn't you bother to ask yourself? Or did you just write the whole thing off because that's what the on-line magazines told you to do?

Anyway, back on topic. Who, I feel, wouldn't want to own an Apple - once you actually touch, feel and use the product instead of just relying on others to tell you "Apple sucks"? The stuff is BEAUTIFUL, awesome feel and design with a high pride-of-ownership everytime you use it. NO, I DO NOT own a Apple but I am smart enough to admit that every time I touch the hardware you have to go "Oooh, nice!". Imagine a PowerBook/MacBook that now can run whatever you want ...

DROOL.
 
dinoSnake said:
For the answer to the OP - yes, I would certainly consider Apple,
especially now. Their industrial design is beautiful, the machines
work pretty well and now with the ability to dual-boot OSX and
XP...what's not to consider??

As for the rest of this conversation I constantly have to laugh
at (what I feel) is the (mostly) mindless replay of media
know-it-all that people read from "pop culture" idiots.

For instance, NetBurst was NOT a failure. NetBurst was designed to
run code optimized by certain compiler functions that unrolled
JMP/etc loops. Functions NO ONE was actually turning on in the
compilers because they were (a) lazy and (b) didn't want to write
to a "new" system - the P6 - that might not be "mainstream"

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1895908,00.asp

The software developers didn't write to NetBurst in most software.
Therefore CPU's that used the "old" designs of the PIII core -
the AMD and the P-M** - performed better on the tests the pop
review sites did to them, that being heavily 3D intensive.

So Intel made a new design, that nobody used, that "failed". Like
it's a BIG surprise.

And now we're going "Back to the Future" to look for our CPU
core...in a basic, but better optimized, PIII-"sourced" system.
AMD stuck with a less-developed less "forward thinking" PIII-style
core that they optimized to the max (and did a nice job) but a
design that the software engineers actuall WROTE to. Why does a
NetBurst do higher synth benchmarks than an AMD yet the AMD's seem
to run the 3D software in RL faster?

Didn't you bother to ask yourself? Or did you just write the whole
thing off because that's what the on-line magazines told you to do?

Anyway, back on topic. Who, I feel, wouldn't want to own an Apple
  • once you actually touch, feel and use the product instead of just
relying on others to tell you "Apple sucks"? The stuff is
BEAUTIFUL, awesome feel and design with a high pride-of-ownership
everytime you use it. NO, I DO NOT own a Apple but I am smart
enough to admit that every time I touch the hardware you have to go
"Oooh, nice!". Imagine a PowerBook/MacBook that now can run
whatever you want ...

DROOL.
Click to expand...
Just bear in mind one thing...Intel Duo is a 32bit CPU...when everything goes 64bit...you are stuck...AMD do forward thinking stuff...intel lag behind..why would you put the second best cpu in a computer more expensive?

IT looks good, wow now thats great!! marketing over substance!
 
Fix_My_Head said:
And exactly how is spending $299 for a bottom-of-the-line Dell a
better deal than spending 1/3 that much to buy XP, if you want it,
to run on a much faster Mac?
Click to expand...
The second computer eliminates the need to dual boot which will increase productivity. You could also use the second computer as a repository for file backups. Why spend $300 on an external usb drive when you can get a whole extra computer for that price. Use one for burning cd's and printing while doing photo editing on the other. Need any more reasons?
Fix_My_Head said:
I'm sure there are Mac owners who want to run PC software and this
will give them that opportunity. For them that's great. But for the
most part I can't see why someone would want to deal with all the
viruses, malware, patches, drivers drivers drivers, the kludgy
interface, the ugly UGLY fonts, the system bloat, the instability
and on and on and on.

My first PC was a 286, back in the dark ages. But then I found Macs
an I never went back. I use a Dell at work for tasks that are not
too demanding. It crashes once every two days or so. Next to it is
an OSX Mac that I use for more processor-intensive photo work. The
only time it ever needs to be rebooted is if we're installing new
software.
Click to expand...
Are you running windows 3.1 on that Dell? Either it is some ancient relic or you or your IS department must have done something stupid to the machine. Any machine built in the last few years should be perfectly stable with Windows 2000 or XP for weeks on end. I don't think your comparing even remotely similar products.
Fix_My_Head said:
And as for road warriors, my Powerbook is indispensable. Sure it
costs more than an entry-level XP laptop. It should -- it's better.
It's just what i need for working on the road, when my job depends
on it. More expensive? Yeah. A Better value? Much.
Click to expand...
Again, your compating completely dissimilar products. I could spend $3000 on a dell workstation and compare it to an Imac and say the PC is far superior. If you are comparing equal dollar amounts the differences between XP and OSX are pretty much a wash.
Fix_My_Head said:
Obviously PCs are all the machine that a lot of people need or
want. A LOT of people. And that's fine for them. But I can't be
convinced by any of the anti-Mac flaming and FUD that goes on in
this and other forums that the PC is a better machine for me, or
that XP is a better OS, for my uses.

Cheers,
--David
Click to expand...
Based on your post, my impression is that you are a bit ignorant of the current state of PC development. If you prefer Macs, that's fine, but for MY needs, it is not even an option. Plain and simple, the work that I need to do absolutely can not be done on a Mac.

--
Nick
 
dinoSnake said:
For the answer to the OP - yes, I would certainly consider Apple,
especially now. Their industrial design is beautiful, the machines
work pretty well and now with the ability to dual-boot OSX and
XP...what's not to consider??
Click to expand...
Great you agree that OSX and the Apple design is what most people care about that purchase Apple.
dinoSnake said:
As for the rest of this conversation I constantly have to laugh
at (what I feel) is the (mostly) mindless replay of media
know-it-all that people read from "pop culture" idiots.
Click to expand...
Let me see. Are you professing to be an expert on the topic? I have 21 years in the computer industry, including 7 at Intel and now optizmize compilers for Intel and AMD products. What do you do to scoff at opinions in this forum?
dinoSnake said:
For instance, NetBurst was NOT a failure. NetBurst was designed to
run code optimized by certain compiler functions that unrolled
JMP/etc loops. Functions NO ONE was actually turning on in the
compilers because they were (a) lazy and (b) didn't want to write
to a "new" system - the P6 - that might not be "mainstream"
Click to expand...
Nobody said Netburst was a failure. In fact it was a huge success when you figure Intel shipped several hundred millions of the things. The issue with netburst is it was designed for deep pipes because at the time, the industry was moving to multimedia - video and graphics. Those data types LIKE deep pipes. In fact most multimedia benchmarks slanted to Intel whereas AMD won the productivity and gaming. Both of those app types have often jumpy code, unlike media where you loop the same instructions repeatedly (think pixels on a screen). Gaming also does not like to live long in cache so a built in memory controller with low latency is best for that.

While true that most SW developers dd not turn on the "netburst switch" when compiling, that was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was Netburst should have been superceded after 3 years, not 5, when it was clear that scaling Mhz to compete was a poor tradeoff for energy consumption and cooling costs.
dinoSnake said:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1895908,00.asp

The software developers didn't write to NetBurst in most software.
Therefore CPU's that used the "old" designs of the PIII core -
the AMD and the P-M** - performed better on the tests the pop
review sites did to them, that being heavily 3D intensive.

So Intel made a new design, that nobody used, that "failed". Like
it's a BIG surprise.

And now we're going "Back to the Future" to look for our CPU
core...in a basic, but better optimized, PIII-"sourced" system.
AMD stuck with a less-developed less "forward thinking" PIII-style
core that they optimized to the max (and did a nice job) but a
design that the software engineers actuall WROTE to. Why does a
NetBurst do higher synth benchmarks than an AMD yet the AMD's seem
to run the 3D software in RL faster?
Click to expand...
AMD stuck with nothing.First they bought Nexgen and fired their crappy engineers. Then INTEL HELPED THEM by restricting their X86 license agreement to NOT COPY the Intel bus. That FORCED AMD to find their own way - and they did. Then they fired Sanders and put in a real CEO. Amateurs like you won;t be able to find that in teenager sites like extreme.tech which you cite above.

As for compilers, more than 1/2 of SW developers use Intel designed compilers, the other half use GNU and YES, they do use the Netburst switch.
dinoSnake said:
Didn't you bother to ask yourself? Or did you just write the whole
thing off because that's what the on-line magazines told you to do?
Click to expand...
No I didn;t bother to ask myself. I am all knowing like you, only way smarter with 1000x more experience .
dinoSnake said:
Anyway, back on topic. Who, I feel, wouldn't want to own an Apple
  • once you actually touch, feel and use the product instead of just
relying on others to tell you "Apple sucks"? The stuff is
BEAUTIFUL, awesome feel and design with a high pride-of-ownership
everytime you use it. NO, I DO NOT own a Apple but I am smart
enough to admit that every time I touch the hardware you have to go
"Oooh, nice!". Imagine a PowerBook/MacBook that now can run
whatever you want ...

DROOL.
Click to expand...
Yep, back to the topic. Apple is a way cool company that designs way cool products. It is not so much for the propeller head that shops Fry's but it has a place in the home to do a great job in 99% of what most people want to do with a computer.

--
Sports, Urban, Street Photography Enthusiast in Dallas

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top