Aren't Macs Expensive??????

madamimadam

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2002
1,281
0
There is a myth out of the water when I tried just before to find a cheap machine for someone I know and the cheapest (keeping in mind I refusded to go to dell) was actually the IBM in at $AU1750+ running a celeron 1GHz and a 20GB HDD where as an iMac RRPs from $AU1900.

The difference between the machines:

IBM = celeron
Mac = G3 - Winner

IBM = 128KB L2 Cache
Mac = 256KB L2 Cache - Winner

Under video imaging the IBM has 4 USB ports
The mac, however has 2 USB and 2 Firewire - Winner

IBM = 3 yo OS, Win98
Mac = Up-to-date OS X and 9.2.2 - Winner

The only thing the IBM has over the mac is that its cheapest screen is 19"
 

madamimadam

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2002
1,281
0
Originally posted by irmongoose
haha. thats actually pretty funny.

well, i guess we wont see that kind of a competition once Apple gets rid of all the G3 iMacs....
I, for one, hope Apple keep up the CRT for a while yet and having such a low end processor is a FANTASTIC idea they should also persist with.

CRT iMacs just hit so many markets that the LCD ones are too pricey for.
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex
 

madamimadam

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 3, 2002
1,281
0
Re: Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex
I will flame away, firstly, the celeron is a piece of ****; the worst of the worst processors Intel has and is not even half comparable to the rest of their range. What do you mean, what model, it is the model with a 1GHz Celeron and win98, there is only one.... one of the A-Class to be exact. Windows 98 is OLD technology, it would be like me buying a new iMac with the last release of OS 8, it would work well but would COMPLETELY lack compatibility. Also, you can not say that 98 is not sold anymore; just because you can not buy it from Microsoft does not mean that IBM does not have ****loads on hand to sell cheaply. Also, if it is not sold by Microsoft anymore it HEAVILY suggests it is outdated, unlike OSX. To finish off, twice the cache makes a HUGE difference... just compare the 800 iMac to the 800 Powermac.
 

stfu_alex

macrumors newbie
Mar 8, 2002
1
0
Re: Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex
I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want) - Windows is just useless, and Linux will never be great for the average desktop user. and you really should investigate before flaming, I have a 600mhz G3 at the moment, and oh my; OSX runs perfect! I had a 800mhz Celeron with WindowsME/98SE, I'd really have to say my G3 blows it away. Intel/Microsoft are both terrible companies, bad companies usually make bad products.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Re: G3 imac

Originally posted by Mac_User
I dont think they should get rid of it. It is still awesome for schools!
and perfect for pc techies like me who don't need a mac for income but still want to enjoy a mac experience when i get home after fixing pcs in the real world

i have said this since the beginning, but we need a cheaper mac yet and 699 dollars (usd) would be a move in the right direction enroute to 399 usd in two years to keep up with emachines level of pricing

too many consumers go by price and apple should ALSO accomodate those users, too on a limited bto option on their web site (at least)

mind you, the current 799 dollar imac is still a GREAT deal for many uers out there like me

i have an ibook and at 1599 dollars, it was a little steep since we don't use it professionally (that much) to generate income like we do with out two pc boxes
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
I agree with jefhatfield.....again...

I use Macs for production & design purposes....I make my living with them....
and my TiBook did cost a bit more than I would have wanted to spend...but I guess that goes with priority....

all of this said, I think there should be a low cost "entry level" portable available....as described on macrumors many times....$600 average price level....G3 processor......128-256 MB RAM.....8 MB VRAM....5-10 gig HD.....

of course what I described above I'm sure would cost at a minimum of $1000 according to Apple's standards....but it's nice to imagine the impact it could make :p
 

idkew

macrumors 68020
there should be a cheap one....

i, like eye, am a crative "pro" (i am actually a college student trying to be a pro)

anyway, the top of the line makes much sense to me, but for those students out there, a cheap crt imac makes sense.

Most students use their computer for three things, email, web and papers.

that works just fine with 64 mb ram, a 5 gig hd, cd-rom, no firewire, just usb, no upgradeablitiy.... just a cheap but reliable $500 machine.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Re: I agree with jefhatfield.....again...

Originally posted by eyelikeart
I use Macs for production & design purposes....I make my living with them....
and my TiBook did cost a bit more than I would have wanted to spend...but I guess that goes with priority....

all of this said, I think there should be a low cost "entry level" portable available....as described on macrumors many times....$600 average price level....G3 processor......128-256 MB RAM.....8 MB VRAM....5-10 gig HD.....

of course what I described above I'm sure would cost at a minimum of $1000 according to Apple's standards....but it's nice to imagine the impact it could make :p
hey eye,

how does this sound

500 mhz g3
256 to 384 MB RAM
5 or 6 GB HD
12.1 active matrix screen
cd-ROM
1 usb
1 firewire
ac power adapter
headphone port
os x
netcaspe and internet explorer
appleworks
a couple of games to toss in
slightly larger form factor
airport compatibility with card sold seperately
only one speaker

total price $849.00

...and geared toward students and educators who have an additional 50 dollar discount
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
I will flame away, firstly, the celeron is a piece of ****; the worst of the worst processors Intel has and is not even half comparable to the rest of their range.
You'll get no arguments from me that the Celeron does not suck, but you still haven't specified what you're comparing it to. Is it in fact a 700MHz G3? If it is, and it's running OS X while the Celeron is running Win98, the Celeron will feel dramatically faster.

What do you mean, what model, it is the model with a 1GHz Celeron and win98, there is only one.... one of the A-Class to be exact.

Okay, then perhaps I just don't understand your comparison. What motivated you to compare this particular IBM to whichever iMac you're comparing it to? Why did you choose an IBM that was $150 less expensive? You also didn't say why you didn't look at Dell or any other PC manufacturers less expensive than IBM.

Windows 98 is OLD technology, it would be like me buying a new iMac with the last release of OS 8, it would work well but would COMPLETELY lack compatibility. Also, you can not say that 98 is not sold anymore; just because you can not buy it from Microsoft does not mean that IBM does not have ****loads on hand to sell cheaply. Also, if it is not sold by Microsoft anymore it HEAVILY suggests it is outdated, unlike OSX.

Yes, Windows 98 is old, and yes, it does suck. I sold my PC last week. It ran Linux. The guy who bought it wanted Win98 installed. I won't go into the 14+ hours of pain that entailed. However, despite Win98's outdatedness, despite its instability and its ugliness etc., there is no denying that it is MUCH faster than OS X, and even running on a slower CPU than an equivalent Mac's, it will cause the PC to feel faster. Also, Win98 is still capable of running orders of magnitude more software than the Mac. If you're not satisfied with that, though, and want to install XP, then you can simply spend the money you saved by buying the IBM to upgrade. Am I saying that because Win98 is faster, it is better than OS X? No. I'm saying that it's faster.

To finish off, twice the cache makes a HUGE difference... just compare the 800 iMac to the 800 Powermac.
This is not necessarily so. Compare a 200MHz MIPS R4400SC w/ 2MB of cache to the identical chip with 1MB cache. Barely any difference on anything but highly tuned code. Can more cache be better? Yes. But depending on the speed of the cache, the code being run, and the architecture of the CPU, less cache can also be better. The Celeron is a budget processor designed to skimp on areas like this, but basically, stating that "more cache automatically = better" is like stating that "more megahertz = better." It's an oversimplification.

Before you call me a PC weenie, I am a TiBook/OS X user. But, again, unless you can detail the reasoning you used in comparing the two computers you did, your comparison was retarded. Don't take it personally.

Alex
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Re: Re: Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

Originally posted by stfu_alex
I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want) - Windows is just useless, and Linux will never be great for the average desktop user. and you really should investigate before flaming, I have a 600mhz G3 at the moment, and oh my; OSX runs perfect! I had a 800mhz Celeron with WindowsME/98SE, I'd really have to say my G3 blows it away. Intel/Microsoft are both terrible companies, bad companies usually make bad products.
First of all, let me say that I love your nick. I am touched that someone found me so annoying that they saw fit to honor me in their own nick. Thanks. :)

To reply to the first part of your comment - I never said Windows 98 didn't suck. To me, it's positively wretched. However, in my previous comment, I didn't say it wasn't. I merely said it was faster. I have probably used just as many different operating systems as you have, ranging from all the Windows flavors to all the Mac OS versions to IRIX and Linux and BeOS and the various BSDs. I don't see how that's in any way relevant to the point I was trying to make, though.

Re your comment about the 600MHz G3 blowing away the 800MHz Celeron running Win98SE: I have a 550MHz PowerBook G4, which, according to most benchmarks, is faster than the 600MHz G3. I use OS X. I'm in OmniWeb right now, and as I scroll this web page, I feel like I'm on a P133 with a Trident video card. Mozilla and IE are a bit faster, but all in all, this OS is a dog. It's a beautiful dog, and there is no other dog I would rather be running, but it is a dog nonetheless. Unless you have 32MB of RAM in your Celeron, I find it very hard to believe that the speed of your G3 running OS X comes anywhere close to an 800MHz Celeron running Win98. My previous PC was a 550MHz AMD K6-2 running Linux with the same amount of ram as my TiBook (256MB). It absolutely blew the lid off this TiBook running OS X in terms of performance (not taking into account Altivec-accelerated apps, the only one of which I use is iTunes). OS 9 was a different story, of course, but I never use OS 9, so that's irrelevant.

No argument that Intel and Microsoft aren't bad companies, though. I agree 100%. No disagreement that they make bad products, either. But, again, I never said they didn't.

Alex
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
actually, most comparisons i see in magazines or articles or posts comparing pcs to macs and vice versa are often exercies in "spin"

working towards my grad degree in pc hardware engineering (networking hardware, security, and support to be exact) made me realize that even comparisons of pcs to pcs and macs to macs is just not that easy

and i am just a hardware side guy, we would also need the input of an experienced software side person and someone else who could tie it all in together to try to make sense of it all

the phds i know in the field and in education tell me they seriously have no clue because in the IT field, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know

sometime look at mark minasi's books or scott mueller's books, or even a book on basic wafer design and one could see what i am talking about

but the two above posts, though against each other, are brave enough and get an idea of some general picture

i am just waiting for a full fledged chip engineer with some silicon valley experience (or equivalent) to step in and clarify some issues

dummmies such as me and a lot of posters here (not meant in a bad way---i should say newbies...most of us are learning the craft) a lot like to talk about processor speed, bus, and cache

so someone out there, please enlighten us!
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a ****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a ****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.
i tend to agree with you

but which apps are we talking about when we get both machines in front of us?

...i am sure that there are some posters here who have exactly those machines mentioned

...but you are right about windows...it's so much better to work with macs on most things and i use my ibook three out of every four times i boot up vs. my k6-II compaq laptop and my poor pentium desktop...well, i guess that puppy just collects dust :p
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hate to break it to you Alex, but a 1GHZ celeron will benchmark lower than a PIII 500 MHZ. Get your hands on them, and test it yourself, it is very disturbing. Also, the G3 600 that is in both my iMac and iBook is WAY, MUCH MORE, SO SO MUCH FASTER than any Celeron that I have ever owned, worked on, or seen in a store. Besides who gives a ****, the Celeron runs windoze. Nuff said.
Yes, I don't find it hard to believe that a 1GHz Celeron is slower than a 500MHz P3. So was my 550MHz K6-2, which should put it about on par with the Celeron. So in that case, please refer to my previous post about the K6-2 blowing the lid off the 550MHz G4 in non-Altivec apps.

I also agree that a 600MHz G3 is, theoretically, faster than a 1GHz Celeron. However, what I said was that, with the G3 running OS X and the Celeron running Win98, the Celeron will feel much, much faster. Win98 won't be more stable, or better looking, or more pleasurable to use, or anything else - and I didn't say it would be - but it will feel much faster. This is not taking into account OS 9, which completely changes the picture - I hope you were referring to the G3 being faster than the Celeron in OS 9 rather than OS X, although due to the extreme implausibility of it being faster in OS X, this is the only explanation I can come up with.

Alex
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by jefhatfield
working towards my grad degree in pc hardware engineering (networking hardware, security, and support to be exact) made me realize that even comparisons of pcs to pcs and macs to macs is just not that easy
...
i am just waiting for a full fledged chip engineer with some silicon valley experience (or equivalent) to step in and clarify some issues
...
dummmies such as me and a lot of posters here (not meant in a bad way---i should say newbies...most of us are learning the craft) a lot like to talk about processor speed, bus, and cache
I really agree with you here. The problem is, the discussions that could go on about this would require an MS in computer science and several volumes of books to understand. I think even if a Ph.D in computer engineering jumped in and enlightened us, he/she would have a hard time doing it in less than a few hundred pages. And an even harder time getting us to comprehend everything. I was a CS major. I'm now a geography major. That CS **** was not for me. :)

As a substitute, in my opinion, the closest approximation to a fair comparison would be to sit down in front of the machines being compared and weighing their respective benefits and shortcomings. Sure the "OmniWeb Scroll Test" above is not scientific, but I think it does get my point across rather effectively without being misleading. All in all, I think it all comes down to being fair.

Alex
 

erova

macrumors member
Jan 18, 2002
94
0
washington dc
cheap portable etc.

jef sounds like you describe the preTi black powerbooks...definitely a solid machine for only 800 if apple was to ever do that...

good to see you back, gocyrus. your insight here on this post is definitely fresh, original and thought provoking. i agree with you wholeheartedly that macs are expensive. so is a mercedes. now go throw your celeron into the trunk of your kia or fall down some stairs.
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
Celeron vs. the G3!

While the original Celeron was a *total* piece of crap, they're not as bad as they used to be.

The real problem is that Celeron is the rock-bottom processor from Intel and nobody's going to put a Celeron in anything but their crappiest box. Meaning, crappiest motherboard, I/O, video, etc.

So, generally, I would guess that a G3 would be faster than a Celeron at anything within 30% clockspeed. But, then again, it really depends upon what you're trying to do with the machine. If you're talking about which machine feels "snappier", then the Win98 box will probably win even if it's only got a PII in there.
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
Re: Re: I agree with jefhatfield.....again...

Originally posted by jefhatfield
hey eye,

how does this sound

500 mhz g3, 256 to 384 MB RAM, 5 or 6 GB HD, 12.1 active matrix screen, cd-ROM, 1 usb, 1 firewire, ac power adapter, headphone port, os x, netcaspe and internet explorer, appleworks, a couple of games to toss in, slightly larger form factor, airport compatibility with card sold seperately, only one speaker

total price $849.00

...and geared toward students and educators who have an additional 50 dollar discount
jef....reading that made me feel like a 12 year old boy looking at a nudie mag for the first time again! he he he...

yes I think that would be an incredible hardware feat for Apple to reach....I was actually scaling down on my RAM specs...glad to see u bumped them up! :p
 

AlphaTech

macrumors 601
Oct 4, 2001
4,556
0
Natick, MA
Re: Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

Originally posted by alex_ant
What model IBM is this, and what model iMac? The fastest the G3 reached in the iMac was 700MHz, and a 1GHz Celeron is certainly faster than a 700MHz G3. Not to mention that when comparing Windows 98 to OS X, the Celeron will feel three times faster. Twice the L2 cache won't save the Mac here. And Windows 98 is not sold anymore. It was replaced first by Windows Me, and then by Windows XP.

This sounds like a very unfair comparison, to say the least. Just because we're all Mac users doesn't mean we ought to swallow such nonsense and blind ourselves to the obvious. *Gasp!* A dissenter. Flame away, but this is just retarded.

Alex
Windblows 98 is just butt nasty. More crash prone then OS 8.5 ever was.

As for not being able to buy it (why anyone would is beyond me), I guess you haven't been to either a Best Buy or CompUSA lately. They BOTH have copies on the shelves still. I believe that you can even find it in online and mail order catalogs.

Windblows me, and xp are just as nasty... Don't get either UNLESS it ships on a system. Even then, don't count on the drivers being there for the system. I lost count of how many reports of speakers not working for people after they 'upgraded' to me or xp.

If you are getting a computer... BUY A MAC!!. The old addage of 'you get what you pay for' rings 100% true in this case. Pay the extra few dollars and get a system that you will be able to use for several years. Get a cheap peecee, and expect to replace it at least every couple of years, if you don't rip it's guts out and do updates on your own.

I am praying that m$ pulls windows from the shelves, or they get away from what hexpee does for registering. I would never purchase an OS that REQUIRES you to register with the maker in order to use it for more then 30 days... can you say monopoly??? The judges did... I know you can too.
 

Beej

macrumors 68020
Jan 6, 2002
2,139
0
Buffy's bedroom
Re: Re: Re: Aren't Macs Expensive??????

Originally posted by stfu_alex
I have tried almost every OS under the sun, the only ones that are good enough to even compete with MacOSX is BeOS and QNX (laugh if you want)
Hey, I thought I was the only one in the world that even knew QNX existed, let alone thought it was any good! I'd be lying if I said it was even in the same league as OS X, though...

But hey, someone else knows what QNX is! He he! :D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.