Choosing a Mac computer for the holidays

[MacBytes]

Category: Reviews
Link: Choosing a Mac computer for the holidays (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041213134838)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[wdlove]

They spend the first part of the article giving reasons not to purchase a computer. I like the idea that they point to all the reasons why a Mac is the best choice.

[wordmunger]

I actually like the fact that they suggest reasons why you might not need a new computer. Not everyone needs a new computer, and the article suggests easy ways for non-experts to extend the life of their computers.

The Mac section is especially well done. It's quite a convincing argument for purchasing, say, an eMac over a bargain-basement Dell. A nice, sound article written in language that non-experts can understand.

[nagromme]

People often ask me for computer advice... buying a Mac is my second recommendation. The first is not to get one yet :) Computers always get better and cheaper. If you CAN stand to wait, it's always to your advantage.

[zelmo]

People often ask me for computer advice... buying a Mac is my second recommendation. The first is not to get one yet :) Computers always get better and cheaper. If you CAN stand to wait, it's always to your advantage.

A good piece of advice. Whenever I think it's time for a new computer, I force myself to think about it for at least 6 months, then revisit to see if the need is any more acute. If not, wait another 6 months. Rinse, repeat. If I didn't do this, I'd buy a new computer every year instead of every 2-3 years.

[paulypants]

The Buffalo News! I'll have to pick up a copy today and annoy my few remaining PC loving friends with this article :p

[Mainyehc]

People often ask me for computer advice... buying a Mac is my second recommendation. The first is not to get one yet :) Computers always get better and cheaper. If you CAN stand to wait, it's always to your advantage.

Personally, I'm advising people to wait some 1-2 years to buy *A MAC*... I try not give biased advices, however, I can't reccomend a PC right now, and don't feel like doing so in the near future. I only do so if the person in question has some financial problems and *really* needs a new PC. Otherwise, I usually say something like "Don't buy a PC right now, XP is pure crap when compared with Panther and especially Tiger (and by itself :D) and Longhorn is still more than one year away!!" :rolleyes:

Who knows how Mac OS X 10.5 will be like! Yet, we're very confident it will kick ass! And Macs are becoming more fairly priced and affordable (those aren't synonyms, the eMac has always been very affordable and the iMac has always been somewhat affordable; however, as everyone's well aware, the old iMac G4 was ******** overpriced when compared to the new iMac) year after year.

If things keep evolving this way, and if Apple can take advantage of the "iPod halo effect", we may see some great offerings from Apple, with comparable prices to those of the x86 hardware, but still with the same stunning design quality. I predict that, if nothing goes wrong, in two years time, an iBook and an eMac will be relatively much better spec'ed machines, while retaining the same price points, or maybe even lower ones. Now THAT would be awesome!

[shamino]

A new computer is better than a new hard drive????
Or you could buy and install a second hard drive. Well, not really. Experts can do that, but for most of us, it's cheaper to get the bigger hard drive in a new computer without any of the installation complications.
I realize that many people can't install a hard drive, but all of the good computer stores (and even many of the bad ones) offer installation services. I would find it hard to believe that a new computer (including all the work of transferring files from one system to the other) could possibly be cheaper or easier than installing a new drive.

Ditto for a CD/DVD burner. Internal ones can be installed by stores, if you can't do it yourself. And any computer sold in the last 3-5 years will have a high-speed interface for an external (FW or USB 2.0 or both).

Same goes for needing memory.

Now, there are perfectly good reasons to get a new computer. A faster processor and faster bus speeds is the biggest. If you've maxed out your motherboard's memory capacity and need more. If you need a new video card and you don't have the right kind of slot (AGP 8X or PCI Express). If you need another hard drive and have no empty bays in the case.

As for the rest of the article, he's dead-on. The eMac needs a memory upgrade, IMO, since 512M isn't really enough. But that's not a big deal. A 256M DIMM is inexpensive and easy to install. And if you can't install it, you can order your eMac with it pre-installed or have your dealer install it for you. Apple's price for the upgrade to 512M is $75 - a bit high but not unreasonably so.

[dejo]

The eMac's Combo drive and built-in software records and plays on CDs and DVDs.

I found one error he made. The Combo drive that comes with the $799 eMac is not capable of burning DVDs. You need a SuperDrive-equipped eMac for that, and those cost $999. Other than that, I applaud his attempt to "price-match" the cheap Dell with the quality eMac.

[sjk]

Whenever I think it's time for a new computer, I force myself to think about it for at least 6 months, then revisit to see if the need is any more acute. If not, wait another 6 months. Rinse, repeat. If I didn't do this, I'd buy a new computer every year instead of every 2-3 years.Probably healthier for your psyche and wallet not succumbing to temptations of technolust. :)

[sjk]

The eMac needs a memory upgrade, IMO, since 512M isn't really enough.Seems enough if you're only using the system for e-mail, web browsing, document writing, etc. I wouldn't want to do those things on a Mac with the standard 256MB. But, sure, iLife apps (sans iTunes) can benefit from >512.
Apple's price for the upgrade to 512M is $75 - a bit high but not unreasonably so.$75 is a decent price for a non-generic 512MB DIMM, if that's all the RAM you'll ever put in the system so "losing" the original 256 seems irrelevant.

Typically I'd rather keep Apple's original 256 then add another 512 from a third-party vendor. Someone starting with that 256+512 may do it with the intention of tossing the 256 if insufficient RAM eventually becomes an issue. But knowing I'd add a 1GB DIMM to my eMac I decided to pay Apple $75 for the 512 upgrade, figuring that way the system remains decently usable while getting a replacement if either of them fails.

Many people object to Apple shipping systems with 256MB but I preferred that with my iMac G5 since I replaced it with two (paired) 1GB DIMMs. A 256 DIMM is "disposable" but a 512 DIMM wouldn't be if that's what they shipped with.

Btw, I think the eMac is underrated. I still use it for most CD/DVD burning since it's got a faster, more reliable SuperDrive than the iMac. Overall disk I/O is faster on the eMac; it's been a disappointment with the iMac when working with large image/video files. And with the Automatic processor setting on the iMac certain things are actually slower than on the eMac. Hmm, maybe it's the iMac G5 that's overrated? ;)

I'm satisfied with all my Mac systems, even ol' pokey iBook G3/600.

[shamino]

$75 is a decent price for a non-generic 512MB DIMM
If I could buy a 512M DIMM for $75 in stores, I would be doing so now. But this price is including the fact that you're not getting the original 256M DIMM at the same time. As a differential cost, it's high.
Typically I'd rather keep Apple's original 256 then add another 512 from a third-party vendor.
I think I said something along those lines. But I also recognize that many people are unwilling (and in rarer cases, unable) to upgrade memory themselves. That was the point of the original article - whose author would have you replace the entire computer to get a bigger hard drive.
Many people object to Apple shipping systems with 256MB but I preferred that with my iMac G5 since I replaced it with two (paired) 1GB DIMMs.
I don't have a problem with them selling a stripped-down configuration. But in doing so, it is important that customers aren't fooled into thinking that that configuration will be a good one.

I would actually like an option to order the computer with no memory, and install it all myself. But from a marketing point of view, that would be disaster for Apple - people would buy the systems like that and then complain that it doesn't work.
Btw, I think the eMac is underrated.
No doubt about that. It's an awesome machine for its price.

[sjk]

But this price is including the fact that you're not getting the original 256M DIMM at the same time. As a differential cost, it's high.Yes, you've still payed for the 256MB. But if you're not going to use then $75 for the 512MB DIMM is worth considering.
I would actually like an option to order the computer with no memory, and install it all myself.Like many of us here, I'm sure. :)
But from a marketing point of view, that would be disaster for Apple - people would buy the systems like that and then complain that it doesn't work.Same sort of people who'd buy systems with the skimpy 256MB and wonder why they're sluggish... or not buy 'em because they're sluggish. I've argued before that Apple may lose sales by "showcasing" 256MB-crippled systems with 256MB at Apple Stores. First iMac G5 at the Apple Store here was like that; clearly less responsive than my eMac. I knew better, but what kind of impression does that give naive perspective customers? And showcasing non-pro systems with more than 256MB, while selling them with only that much, looks bad. Sorta along the lines of what you wrote:
I don't have a problem with them selling a stripped-down configuration. But in doing so, it is important that customers aren't fooled into thinking that that configuration will be a good one.I did read something awhile back about most Apple Store customers upgrading RAM, tho'.

Whether or not the amount of pre-installed RAM mattered has been relative for me ...

The 128MB soldered my iBook G3 motherboard was the frustrating three years ago. Later, the single user-accessible DIMM slot on the G4 iMac, with 256MB pre-installed and a premium price to upgrade it, played a big factor in my not buying one. Paying $75 for 512MB on the eMac was acceptably lame. And the 256MB that came with my iMac G5 was "too much" since I replaced it, but better that than 512MB.

Consensus is that 256MB isn't enough for any Mac system, with minor exceptions. Seems an "average" customer buying a non-pro system, or someone buying a system for "average" use, suffers most. The Power Mac users suffer least because most will add more RAM, with enough slots to often keep the original DIMM(s). And on systems with only two "slots" it's weak not shipping with a single 512MB (SD-)DIMM pre-installed, even if some users will replace it (except on the iBook).

Re: underrated eMac. MacInTouch's Performance Comparison: eMac G4, iBook G4 and iMac G5 (http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html), which I noticed shortly after making that comment, pretty much supports that. :)

[shamino]

Same sort of people who'd buy systems with the skimpy 256MB and wonder why they're sluggish... or not buy 'em because they're sluggish.
Yep. IMO, the boxed systems should all ship with 512M of RAM. Any smaller configurations should be BTO options - so you have to explicitly select them from the web form. And when you do, the web site should make you confirm it with a message box like "if you buy a system with no memory, you will have to install your own in order to use it."

But maybe I'm expecting too much from a sales/marketing department.
Consensus is that 256MB isn't enough for any Mac system, with minor exceptions.
You'll get no argument from me. 256M is enough to do basic things, like checking e-mail, but it's uncomfortable if you start doing real work.

Surprisingly, moving from 256M to 512M provides a disproportionate increase in overall performance. On my system, I am able to run iTunes, FileMaker Pro, Photoshop Elements, Firefox and AIM all at the same time. I don't notice significant degradation with all this running.

I can only conclude that the system's own requirements are completely satisfied by 256M, leaving some free memory, but not enough for large applications. After an upgrade to 512M, the system requirements are still satisfied, but now there's a lot of headroom for apps.

[sjk]

256M is enough to do basic things, like checking e-mail, but it's uncomfortable if you start doing real work.What surprised me was how pokey a freshly booted iMac G5 with 256MB felt doing even some basic things. In hindsight I suspect the Processor Performance being set to Automatic may have contributed more to that than sparse RAM; I easily notice the difference between that and Highest on my system. There's only so much you testing you can do on Apple Store systems, as we know from Rob-ART Morgan's experience (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65200,00.html?tw=wn_1culthead) a couple months ago. ;)

Anyway, this topic can be discussed ad nauseam without any new insights so it's time to move on, like everyone else already has ...