Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Re: Re: an alternative

Originally posted by Shadowfax



no flames here. can you clarify your third point? i am not sure i understand it properly.


I think his third point was if yer gonna go, go big. You're going to end up spending $$ on a computer that won't be worth $ in a year or two so you might as well spend $$$ and get something you really like.


Lethal
 
Re: Re: Re: an alternative

Originally posted by LethalWolfe



I think his third point was if yer gonna go, go big. You're going to end up spending $$ on a computer that won't be worth $ in a year or two so you might as well spend $$$ and get something you really like.


Lethal

that makes sense. thanks. i agree with that too.
 
Font Smoothing

Quoted from SwitchHitter - 2. I swear (and my partner) agrees, that the screen resolution is blurry compared to my laptop pc (a 3 year old Toshiba Portege). I called up Apple and we worked on the screen resolution, but it all is set correctly. Am I going to have to accept a lower resolution? It seems that smaller letters, etc. are a tad blurry (this makes me sick as well).
------------------------------
SwitchHitter -

MacOS X anti-aliases its on-screen text. This is a feature of Quartz screen rendering. Check that you've selected the text smoothing you like best in the System Preferences/General panel. Go to the bottom of the window and try out the options. You can basically turn off font smoothing below a certain font size (12 pt or less), to get sharp, albeit jagged text.

Also assure you've selected the proper resolution for your monitor. If it's the 17" LCD, I believe that's 1440x900 (usually the highest listed). The default resolution for the LCD should be sharp and clear. Selecting any other resolution will generate a fuzzy, lower rez image.
 
Download Speed

Quoted from SwitchHitter - 1. I personally think it's slow to download pages of the internet, even with DSL.. my laptop (right next to it) is faster.. Any thoughts on why this is happening? Seems to happen with both Explorer and Safari..... (this makes me sick).
-------------------

SwitchHitter -

Internet Explorer 5.2.2 in MacOS X does render pages slowly, even via DSL (which I have). Sadly, Microsoft has let IE stagnate on the Mac, even as they've kept IE in Windows moving along nicely. That's why I'm using the Safari beta Apple just released. I can't imagine why your Safari experience would be slow. Perhaps it's one of perception...I've been so used to IE on the Mac that it's a wonder to have Apple now building its own browser, knowing that it'll actually get ongoing enhancements, speed and otherwise. It's MUCH faster to me, as are a couple of other alternatives (e.g., Chimera). Concerning straight downloading of files, I hit 140KBps bursts downloading over my DSL in Safari, depending on the source server, so I don't think there's anything wrong there.
:)
 
Originally posted by SwitchHitter
HEY FOLKS, I HOPE SOMEONE HAS SOME GOOD INSIGHT HERE..

1. I personally think it's slow to download pages of the internet, even with DSL.. my laptop (right next to it) is faster.. Any thoughts on why this is happening? Seems to happen with both Explorer and Safari..... (this makes me sick).

Did I make a mistake in buying an Apple???

i think you should wait for safari to go final, and i also think you should understand something about windows internet explorer. it's integrated into the OS. this is great for speed and all, but it also makes your computer an order of magnitude more vulnerable to viruses. on a mac, you can just delete the internet explorer.app, and it's gone, you never have to think about it again. try deleting the IE folder on your PC? ha! it will literally ruin your computer. you can fix it sort of, but it will mess your computer up in weird ways till you clean install.

i think you must also be really picky. i will admit that on my powerbook, pages load a little slower than some PCs i have seen. but in the same sentence, they load really fast still; i have no complaints. but perhaps there really is a problem with the computer. have you tried using another iMac like it? is it just as slow? have you tried a clean jaguar install?
 
Re: RAM upgrades

Originally posted by brian0526


OK, just got off the line with Crucial and took a little trip to the Apple store. I need some advice from you experts here.

Crucial's 512 MB DDR PC2100 ? CL=2.5 ? Unbuffered ? Non-parity ? 7.5ns ? 2.5V ? 64Meg x 64 is $99.00

Apple wants $200.00 to put a 512 MB module in the first slot (seems like robbery to me since they get to keep the 256 MB DIMM). They also want $200 for a 512 MB module in the second slot.

I know in the previous iMacs there was this little caveat that only authorized Apple servicers could replace that first module. I also believe it took a different module. The guy at Crucial told me this module should work for both slots in the new iMacs. Is there any way to confirm this?

I'd like to start out with at least 512 MB of RAM and I'd like to have that first slot have a 512 MB module so that if I want to add more RAM, I can do it easily. Should I just pay the Apple store to put a 512 MB module in the first slot even though I hate to pay $200 for a module that should only cost about 1/2 that plus they keep the 256 module?

Thanks,
Brian

Well the 2 modules in the iMac are very different. Not that it makes a big difference in price, but the 'internal' slot is VERY difficult to access, and that's why it is preferable to upgrade your memory on the Apple store while precising 1 DIMM (unless you feel confident enough open up your iMac... all the way). The second one you can probably do it yourself.

NicoMan
 
Originally posted by SwitchHitter
HEY FOLKS, I HOPE SOMEONE HAS SOME GOOD INSIGHT HERE..

I just purchased the new Imac (the top end one) with 768mg ram, since they didn't have 1gig.

Anyway, a few observations from someone WHO HAS NEVER USED/OWNED a mac:

1. I personally think it's slow to download pages of the internet, even with DSL.. my laptop (right next to it) is faster.. Any thoughts on why this is happening? Seems to happen with both Explorer and Safari..... (this makes me sick).

2. I swear (and my partner) agrees, that the screen resolution is blurry compared to my laptop pc (a 3 year old Toshiba Portege). I called up Apple and we worked on the screen resolution, but it all is set correctly. Am I going to have to accept a lower resolution? It seems that smaller letters, etc. are a tad blurry (this makes me sick as well).

Did I make a mistake in buying an Apple???

Internet Explorer being slow is a fact on the Apple platform. Now Safari should be relatively snappy. But bear in mind that Safari is still a beta (evolving rapidly apparently, but Apple hasn't released new builds to the public in 2 weeks or so). But my experience is that IE on a good PC is still faster than Safari.

Now to the fonts: that is a bit 'controversial'. If you asked me the first time I used OSX I couldn't get my head around those fonts. The truth is, they are not exactly blurry, but if you look closely there are some pixels on the sides of letters that are of different color, 'pseudo-shades' in order to create a rounder appearance. The effect is a bit lost on very small fonts (if you look on the general section of the preference pane, you can adjust the font-smoothing), but it is really effective on medium sized fonts. Now I am so used to it I find the PC fonts so ugly (I have got got monitors on both my PowerMac and my PC at work, so that's not it).

But it takes some time getting used to it, I'll grant you that. And no you won't get headaches...

NicoMan
 
Originally posted by possible switch



*waits patiently to have all of his questions answered...* :D
As for the screen arm and dead pixels, from the people around those forums, they do not appear to be a common occurence. I am not saying it NEVER happens, but it doesn't happen often. From my own experience with LCDs, Apple LCDs are not better nor worse than any others in terms of dead pixels, so you should be ok with that. The tolerance levels (I don't have numbers in mind) depend on each manufacturer, I believe.

NicoMan
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: an alternative

Originally posted by Shadowfax


that makes sense. thanks. i agree with that too.

Yes, that's right. Let me explain a little more. I am looking to start doing some semi-serious video editing. So given my iBook 500, I can either:
a) struggle along and scream, because even the most loyal Macophile will agree the iBook (or probably any G3) is not enough for this purpoose and wait until I feel that I'm "outsmarting" Apple or some other company by finally buying below the market (not gonna happen) or

b) worry a little less about the price tag and more about the actual "cost"(i.e., wishing I always had something better and not doing editing because of what I said in (a)) and therefore proceeding with the purchase

Two other quick points:

a) I don't want to rehash "the argument" but my boss paid a very large sum of money for his Dell laptop. He travels frequently, but never takes it with him because it's "not set up" and he frankly doesn't see the value in proceeding. I am quite sure if he had a Mac laptop he'd be using it more. He's a smart guy and this literally could be an income producer for him and the Company he owns and I work for. So he (in theory) saved money on his laptop but it's now been nearly a year since he bought it. Guess what: it will be a bigger loser for him than my much-less priced iBook which I use at home and at work and take to business meetings.

b) When I said Apple's given us choices, I meant they have allowed people to choose from a broad range ($799 for the low end iMac to $2700 for the top-of-the line G4) of machines. We can argue they're not differentiated enough, but what Apple has done, I think, is include enough features at every level to allow a variety of purchasers to get what they want. Some people absolutely need a top-of-the-line G4. But some just need a reliable email and internet machine -- go for the eMac or yes, the old iMac. And let's not underestimate the consumer's sophistication. Most people (although blinded by numbers) will buy based on personal experience and recommendations. Apple's created a winning suite of software. I am confident within 6 months we'll see many, many new sales based on the iLife suite and people who want to enjoy their computers.

By the way, seems there are a lot of new people on the board who are here just to tell us how great Windows machines are. But their argument would be more effective if they could just tell me what they can do on their Windows machine that I can't do on my Mac (better). Let's exclude gaming because I frankly would probably buy a standalone game system. And remember, I'm a hardcore numbers guy at work. So please, the whole "it's only good for graphics" argument and the specious "processor speed" argument won't work on me.

Thanks.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: an alternative

Originally posted by scorpion


Yes, that's right. Let me explain a little more. I am looking to start doing some semi-serious video editing. So given my iBook 500, I can either:
a) struggle along and scream, because even the most loyal Macophile will agree the iBook (or probably any G3) is not enough for this purpoose and wait until I feel that I'm "outsmarting" Apple or some other company by finally buying below the market (not gonna happen) or

b) worry a little less about the price tag and more about the actual "cost"(i.e., wishing I always had something better and not doing editing because of what I said in (a)) and therefore proceeding with the purchase

Scorpion, you and I are in the same boat. I've got an iBook SE (FW) the last clamshell and the ibook right before yours. I work with teenagers and when we go on retreats or outings I usually carry my digital camcorder along to catch everything and then make a movie to show the parents. The parents and kids love this! However, iMovie 3 isn't supported on the clamshell!!!:mad: :mad: (Crazy that Apple wouldn't support it's computers that are 2 years old....) Well, I'm in the market for a new mac. I had been thinking about the iMac but what you say rings true. You've given me something to think about....I do have a question.

BTW which powermac did you get?
 
G$

I bought the "low-end" G4 1 Ghz single processor but added a SuperDrive for $200 more (I never realized they could essentially custom-build this.). I will probably buy the 17" flat panel next week. (The 20 looks nice though). So yes, I am into Apple for $2,300 before discounts but I will have two pieces of equipment which should serve me for at least 2-3 years. I'm quite sure it will be fine for my needs and the big plus is, it's expandable! worst case scenario is I use the G4 for Excel and Word in two years.

Let me know what you decide. Hope this helps.
 
It was the full install of KDE 3. But I did do it in FINK and in Console Mode.

Macs are some of the slowest depreciative machines out there. I still can't find a good Powerbook 500 G4 for under 1200$. :(

And yes, numbers don't matter. It's all penal envy and bragging, nothing more. If the machine works well, use it. Remember, it's not about speed but how you use it! </lame>

LOL.

Finally, IE for mac is slow. The last I remember, they were working on IE 6 for mac to make it A) render exactly like IE 6 for PC and it was suppose to be their first full cocoa api app...

Which might shake up the mac browser market even more if they did that.

It's like the late 90s all over again except better macs and worse government ;)

GPT
 
Just out for myself...

I'm finally gonna buy one! Woo Hoo! If I get the top end with only 512 in slot 1, then I can buy another 512MB from Crucial. Still haven't priced this one up but I'm sure I'll save money!

And I'm sure somebody's answered this already, but...

Do the new iMacs boot OS9, or just X?
 
Originally posted by MacBandit


Will the installer not let you install? In what way do they prevent you from using it?


Clamshalls only have 800x600 screen rez, iMovie 3 requires at least 1024x768.

It's a silly artificial limit, people says it runs fine in 800x600 (by starting it up in 1024x768 and then switching to a lower rez) but it just won't start up in it.

 
I've been an Apple user for almost 20 years and my biggest disappointment is that the Mac hasn't caught up as a gaming machine. Frankly, I can't understand why Apple doen't put in the necessary hardware to make their iMacs competitive with PCs for gaming. I think an awful lot of college age people go PC for gaming. And once lost to the "Dark Side", they don't come back. For that reason, I'm disappointed in the latest iMac revision.
 
Originally posted by russoesq
I've been an Apple user for almost 20 years and my biggest disappointment is that the Mac hasn't caught up as a gaming machine. Frankly, I can't understand why Apple doen't put in the necessary hardware to make their iMacs competitive with PCs for gaming. I think an awful lot of college age people go PC for gaming. And once lost to the "Dark Side", they don't come back. For that reason, I'm disappointed in the latest iMac revision.
And i thought i was the only one. actually this is getting better everyday and with all the 1 gigers out there i would say from the gigers on up are going to be true gaming machines!the future of mac is getting brighter and brighter for the gamers:)
 
Re: G$

Originally posted by scorpion
I bought the "low-end" G4 1 Ghz single processor but added a SuperDrive for $200 more (I never realized they could essentially custom-build this.). I will probably buy the 17" flat panel next week. (The 20 looks nice though). So yes, I am into Apple for $2,300 before discounts but I will have two pieces of equipment which should serve me for at least 2-3 years. I'm quite sure it will be fine for my needs and the big plus is, it's expandable! worst case scenario is I use the G4 for Excel and Word in two years.

Let me know what you decide. Hope this helps.

Great. Let us know how you like it! I'm looking at buying the DP 1Ghz. The price has been reduced to $1994.00 and it already has a superdrive (just not 4x) It does lack APEx and Bluetooth but I've no real need for wireless networking. I'm looking at getting a CRT instead of an apple LCD just for $$$ purposes. I can't justify a $700 monitor. (At least right now)

And yeah iMovie 3 doesn't suport the monitor resolution on my iBook. :rolleyes: :confused:

I'm hoping that Macworld will do some benchmarks on the 1Ghz pbooks, imac and pmac (both SP & DP).
 
Originally posted by russoesq
I've been an Apple user for almost 20 years and my biggest disappointment is that the Mac hasn't caught up as a gaming machine. Frankly, I can't understand why Apple doen't put in the necessary hardware to make their iMacs competitive with PCs for gaming. I think an awful lot of college age people go PC for gaming. And once lost to the "Dark Side", they don't come back. For that reason, I'm disappointed in the latest iMac revision.

I also responded to the thread over at Mac Gaming discussion, but I'll ask the same question here:
I do hope you are not referring to the 1 GHz iMac, 'cause I believed this one would be a good gaming Mac. 1 GHz G4, DDR RAM (512 MB?), GeForce 4 MX, 133 MHz bus....
I agree with you that the low end (800 MHz) is way behind....
 
I agree with macsrgr8 the 1 giger will handle everything you throw at it that is currently available. The only game and engine that iam looking at is DOOM3 and that thing i think is going to make a lot of people cry like me. My current 8oo no l3 will make it look like a slide show! only want slide shows coming out of my iphoto.So I know the next mac i Buy will have to run that game like my current one runs UT. Steve please build the 970 into a mac and release it this year.But for anyone outhere looking at the new imac it will burn through anygame you can currently buy.
 
Re: Just out for myself...

Originally posted by iTry
I'm finally gonna buy one! Woo Hoo! If I get the top end with only 512 in slot 1, then I can buy another 512MB from Crucial. Still haven't priced this one up but I'm sure I'll save money!

And I'm sure somebody's answered this already, but...

Do the new iMacs boot OS9, or just X?

I think they only boot X.

The memory question I can answer. I just bought my iMac and had them install the 512 in the first slot. They charge you $200 (no installation fee if you buy AppleCare). They would also charge $200 for the second one.

Crucial charges $99 for the module for the second slot. So, I'm going to try running mine with the 512 and, if I need more, buy a 512 from Crucial. I figured it was worth the extra money to buy the first one from Apple, especially you need to have an authorized Apple servicer install the module in order not to void your warranty (I'm pretty sure that's true). So, even if you did buy the module from Crucial you'd have to spend some of the savings having someone else install it. All-in-all, I figured it worth it to pay Apple for the first 512. By the way, I do get the useless (to me anyway) 256 MB module back. Maybe I'll try to sell it on eBay.

Brian
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I agree with macsrgr8 the 1 giger will handle everything you throw at it that is currently available. The only game and engine that iam looking at is DOOM3 and that thing i think is going to make a lot of people cry like me. My current 8oo no l3 will make it look like a slide show! only want slide shows coming out of my iphoto.So I know the next mac i Buy will have to run that game like my current one runs UT. Steve please build the 970 into a mac and release it this year.But for anyone outhere looking at the new imac it will burn through anygame you can currently buy.

If they make Doom 3 dual proc aware, I'll bet you a dual 1 GHz with Radeon 9700 should be sufficient to make it look like a fast forwarded movie :D .
Mr. Carmack is an OS X freak isn't he? ID Software even demo-ed Doom 3 on a 800 MHz G4 with GeForce 3 Ti, didn't they at MWTokyo 2001?
 
Re: Re: Just out for myself...

Originally posted by brian0526


I think they only boot X.

The memory question I can answer. I just bought my iMac and had them install the 512 in the first slot. They charge you $200 (no installation fee if you buy AppleCare). They would also charge $200 for the second one.

Crucial charges $99 for the module for the second slot. So, I'm going to try running mine with the 512 and, if I need more, buy a 512 from Crucial. I figured it was worth the extra money to buy the first one from Apple, especially you need to have an authorized Apple servicer install the module in order not to void your warranty (I'm pretty sure that's true). So, even if you did buy the module from Crucial you'd have to spend some of the savings having someone else install it. All-in-all, I figured it worth it to pay Apple for the first 512. By the way, I do get the useless (to me anyway) 256 MB module back. Maybe I'll try to sell it on eBay.

Brian




Ok i Just have a question on this Ram ordeal... ok i'm soon to be swithcher tomorrow when i get my new imac at the apple store.. now i want to upgrade to 512 DDR226 1DIMM from the 265.. is it really $200 for them to upgrade it when its $95 dollars on the apple website? can u help me understand and when i called the apple store the apple guy said they may not be able to do a complete 512 he said may be only a 300 something i forget the numbers... i dunno.. i'm still a newbie:) thxs... plz help me
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.