Gateway copies Apple

Discussion in 'Mac Help/Tips' started by jaykk, Apr 22, 2002.

  1. jaykk macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    #1
  2. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #2
    Huh? PC's? Copy Apple? There's a shocker! :D

    The thing that's really scary is how they describe the processor speed range:

    Did you guys get that? 1.6GHz is "slow". FOR CHRISSAKES, Apple! Get with it! We've just NOW hit the gigahertz barrier (with only one processor, mind you!) and they're already calling processors 600MHz faster than that SLOW!

    Okay... deep breaths... good God is Apple behind.
     
  3. ejm625 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    #3
    Dude, get with the program GHz is just the clock speed. It has very little to do with processor power.
     
  4. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    I went and took a lookl, they're not all that great looking. Even if they've 'copied' Apple, they didn't do a verygood job. The TiPB still blows away all the competition.:D
     
  5. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Europe
    #5
    I think the designs suck, they can't even make a good looking copy!

    Anyone remember the eMachine that looked like the G3 iMac?

    Ensign
     
  6. Geert macrumors 6502a

    Geert

    Joined:
    May 28, 2001
    Location:
    .be
    #6
    that's right!
    I think we haven't seen the last one of those wintel copycats.
    Sony is doing the same thing (check another thread)
     
  7. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #7
    At least they have finally gone past the beige boxes.... Only how many years after Apple did it???

    As for their laptops, still not as functional as the TiBooks, or iBooks for that matter. Plus you have to suffer with windblows on all of the gateway systems.

    I am waiting to see what Apple does to their tower cases next. Will it be at MWNY or MWSF?? When will we get a processor upgrade (next G level, not just speed bumps)? So many questions, so few answers...
     
  8. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #8
    You don't say!! :eek: No kidding. You know that... I know that... all of us here at MR know that. But the average Joe-Schmoe DOESN'T, and that's the point. Some regular old reporter doesn't.

    That's my point. The PC industry touts GHz as the biggest spec of a computer. Apple says it's not that important. About 95% of computers are PC's. Who do YOU think the average consumer is going to pay attention to?
     
  9. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #9
    amen Hemingray. AMEN.

    Its not that I want apple to just throw a 2.4 gHz g5 processor in the powermacs and call it even, it is just that for all of Apple's history (until the late pent. 3's) they were always better than the intel chips.

    Loyal mac users were always with superior hardware for a competitive price... we had the ability to run the same level of sortware... we had the ability and support to do everything that the intel chips did... usually better.

    When the G3's came out we had without a doubt the best computer available... the same may be argued for the G4.. Unfortunatly over the past few years (1998+ ??) we have fallen behind... Apple keeps updating their hardware, yes.. but we are not leading the revolution as much as we once were...

    It was once if you wanted to do desktop publishing or any creative work you HAD to have a mac... now it is the mac faithful (here, here!!) that are left carrying the torch.. and we have to tout the computers operating system and asthetic beauty as the reason to use apple

    There are benefits to using a mac, yes... but the apple i remember would have had a 3GZ chip by now... we have no reason to be over a gig behind and to have such a gap in statistics... Compaq hardware should not be cutting edge.. believe me.. i worked there :D

    Apple touts a digital hub, and sony is better implementing it.. I cannot import video into my computer without a $400 box from formac.. why???

    There is absolutly no way to get 5.1 sound out of a mac.. it cannot happen. period. end of sentence.

    I just recently purchased another mac.. and will continue to in the future.. but paying $3000 for a computer that is so relativly dated is arguably insane.. and it is hard toexplain that to the masses.

    especially when I cannot use my scanner... :)

    C-
     
  10. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #10
    Is 4.1 sound not good enough for you??? Why do you need five speakers anyway??? Creative makes the SoundBlaster audio card for the Mac you know (http://www.soundblaster.com/products/macintosh/) with support for 4.1 sound out, as well as multiple input types.

    I only have 5.1 sound on my tv for watching movies (Cambride Soundworks DTT3500 system)... I would much rather watch dvd's on a 27" tv then even a 21" monitor with the tower's fans making noise that you need to overcome. 4.1 sound should be more then sufficient for all your needs, even games and creating sounds/songs.

    How do you qualify a new system as dated??? Don't go by the speed numbers, since there are many factors to consider. I would consider a G3 beige as dated, but not a G4 produced in the past year to 1-1/2 years.
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    Maybe, just maybe, he's does sound editing or maybe, just maybe, he wants to encode 5.1 sound onto a DVD he's authoring, and to do so, it would help to be able to hear what he's editing.

    Maybe, just maybe.

    Sure, 4.1 may be sufficient for my needs, or yours, but then again, imovie would be more than enough for me, but not a video pro.
     
  12. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #12
    4.1 would be fine for most things.. but soundblaster doesn't work in osx... and probably never will...

    http://www.insidemacgames.com/reviews/view.php?ID=156

    http://www.macbuyersguide.com/hardware/misc/SoundBlaster_Live-Mac.htm

    and 5.1 would be great for DVDSP authoring...

    Like most people I qualify a system as dated when it is incapable of using modern technology (running OSX, editing video, surround sound, TVR, and so on.... etc)

    The mac has most of the actual hardware ability to do any of these things, but is basically lacking the software and support to perform the task.

    Im not saying anything that hasn't been said before and there are people here who know much more than I do.. I just wanted to agree with Hemingray and point out that the Mac could/should be a much more powerful machine...

    But at least my text is anti-aliased :D

    C-
     
  13. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #13
    Ok, we don't know if the soundblaster will ever work under OS X or not. Unless you have info from Creative saying that they are NOT going to make it run under OS X, assume nothing.

    So by your definition, any system that Apple has produced from the G3 233 forward is not dated since they CAN run OS X for one. You CAN do video editing and so on, I'm not saying it will be blinding fast, but it can be done. TVR can be added via external devices or internal PCI cards to just about any Mac system. It might not do it right off the bat, but it's NOT difficult to give the system those capabilities.

    Unless you are heavy into video, or have a web site where you want to do live broadcasts via the computer, there is not much of a need/demand for the TVR capacity in computers. Yes, some people do need that, but realistically, what kind of percentage of computer users does that compose??? 5%, 10%??? Either number would be generous.

    I have a bud that was doing 3D work on a pre-G3 Mac, and he only recently upgraded to newer systems. He picked up an G3 iMac (before the G4's came out) to do email and the internet. Later he got one of the G4 towers (pre-QuickSilver), think it was the 867, since he didn't have the cash to get the dual, nor could he justify the expense.
     
  14. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #14
    Im not specifically debating the "age" of apples hardware, im just commenting on the slow development of innovation and adoption of technology, and perhaps the comment that a G3 233 is comparable to a quicksilver is the perfect point. The ram.. bus speed, and processor in my quicksilver are two years old in the PC world.

    Im not argueing "the beauty that is apple"... im just wondering why the computer industry has gone from:

    1997: Apple = simple, elegant and cutting edge power
    1997: MSoft = sea of hardware/software incompatability issues

    2002: Apple = sea of hardware/software incompatability issues
    2002: MSoft = cutting edge power

    The excuse that only 10% of computer users need/want certain functionality is a futile point as apple is only 4% of computer users... Apple is a great company; but cannot say that they are the industry leader they once were... ignoring the modern technology that is used by consumers isn't a wise decision and goes agains't the digital hub strategy.

    The Compaq Presario 8000, Dell Dimension 8200, HP Pavilion 790, Gateway 700XL and Sony RX600 are all serious competitors to the top of the line G4 w/ superdrive and they support fuctionality that apple cannot...

    Why are we unable to get current technology on our computers when we pay sometimes twice as much? This is not the apple way.... at least not how i remember it.

    I spent several weeks researching how to get TV/Video footage into my quicksilver... a basic feature for a "digital hub" and I encountered roadblocks because of the lack of OSX support and the lack of good quality (ie: non-usb).

    I dont work for apple and I don't expect anything to change.. but dont bash PC's and mindlessly tout the greatness of apple when there is work to be done to catch up to what the PC companies are doing in some areas. "Stealing" the TiBook look is a small matter, while we can't even support DDR ram.

    As it has always been it comes down to the operating system preference... and you need to trade one for the other...

    Hugs and Kisses'

    C-

    .......................................
     
  15. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #15
    i know i definitely liked the ability to use rca to capture audio and video into my older mac, whereas now with the quicksilver i'd have to get an add on. which is fine. but i had a fuse card which now won't work with os x. i could get the igniter, but i'm not looking to spend more money on it as of yet.

    just something i liked and miss the ease of having. not that i "need" it as of now...
     
  16. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #16
    You could do like I've decided to do: keep a beige G3 tower next to my G4 so I have the best of old-school and modern Mac technologies right on my desktop. :) G3 runs OS 9, has RCA and ADB ports; G4 runs OS X, has USB and FireWire ports. Couldn't be happier. :D
     

Share This Page