Detailed Notes about IBM 970

[scem0]

Originally posted by MacBandit


$2,200? You can get a Dual867 for $1,600 and it is more machine then 99% of all computer users need.

That is true, but for $500 you can get a PC that is more then 99% of all computer users need.

You know, Apple DOES have a marketing department who knows a lot more about this subject than you do. And last time I looked, Apple and Dell were the two healthiest computer consumer companies going. They were the only two to even make a profit a couple quarters ago.

I think their pricing scheme does quite nicely, regardless of how much I like it from a consumer standpoint.

That is true, but what I said is true too. Apple's pricing works for apple (sometimes) but it doesn't work for me, or most people. As soon as I get a high-paying job, and can afford macs, I will buy them. Unfortunately, I am 15, and my mom isn't interesting on spending $3,000 on a computer she would have trouble turning on. LOL she turns on the monitor, and I have to explain to her why the computer won't turn on.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Reframing

Originally posted by allpar
Here's the core issue for me, and I suspect a lot of others.

I need a computer which won't have me falling asleep while Photoshop 7 or GoLive 6 loads... yet, I don't have $1,600 to blow on something that will be obsolete in six months. A PC would cost me about $1,000 if I wanted to go for all-out quality - buying the best case, the best motherboard, a good replaceable processor, etc.

There's no real way to get a fast, cheap Mac that fits my needs. The emac comes with a monitor built in, which makes the form factor untenable for me. The iMac and PowerMacs are too expensive, and again the iMac has its own monitor. I have an excellent 19" monitor already...I need a computer to power it, one where Explorer doesn't hang for absurd lengths of time while drawing pages that a cheap Duron 950 system does in the blink of an eye. I need a computer that will load PS7 or GL6 in the time it took my Mac Plus to load Word... or my G3 to load PS3 and GL3.

I'd LOVE a motherboard upgrade. The PC world is running 200 MHz busses with ATA133 on $700 computers. I'm stuck with 66 bus and ATA33, and to go up to an old-fashioned 100 (or is it 133?) bus and ATA66 (100?) would cost me $1,600?

Yes, I'm whining and moaning. Give me a cheap, reasonably fast computer in a plain box and I'll buy it. By cheap, Steve Jobs, I don't mean $1,400. I mean UNDER $1,000. Or about $1,000... that's what state of the art cost me in 1988 and again in 1993.

I highly doubt that your getting the best everything for $1,000. Also you complain about it being outdated well your $1,000 box will be outdated before it's built.

Ther are only a couple PC's I'm not talking about manufacturors but computers themselves running 200Mhz Bus'. In fact Apple is the first manufacturor to make a production computer with a 166Mhz bus.

I'm sorry but in 1988 state of the art was much closer to $4,000 if not more. Computer prices in general are cheaper now then they were then.

 

[scem0]

Re: Re: Reframing

Originally posted by MacBandit



I highly doubt that your getting the best everything for $1,000. Also you complain about it being outdated well your $1,000 box will be outdated before it's built.

Ther are only a couple PC's I'm not talking about manufacturors but computers themselves running 200Mhz Bus'. In fact Apple is the first manufacturor to make a production computer with a 166Mhz bus.

I'm sorry but in 1988 state of the art was much closer to $4,000 if not more. Computer prices in general are cheaper now then they were then.

I beg to differ. A 2.8 GHz pentium with a good motherboard and all the latest hardware (yes, you can find one on eBay for ~$1,000) is not already outdated. Not to mention a 533 MHz FSB... 🙄

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Everyone is different

Originally posted by scem0


I don't think the experience is very similar at all... I don't think you are talking about me, becuase I never said they were similar, but I want to comment on this. They are not similar, and very hard to compare, because they are so different. Macs have a whole mac community, sort of like MacRumors 😀 - and people who use macs generally know more about computers, and enjoy the computer experience more. But PCs have more expandability, more people use them, they are faster in most of everything, and they have more compatibility. Overall (at this moment, I think in a year it will be the opposite) I think the PC experience is better, but that is arguable. It is mostly opinion, but right now, I can't stand to wait 20 seconds just to get on a browser that would browse faster on a similarely priced PC.

No I was not referring to you. What mac takes 20seconds to start a browser? My computer takes only 30secs to start and like 1sec to open a browser.

I do believe that Macs are better built it. It has a lot to do with the control Apple can have over there computers. They build the OS they build the hardware and they make sure that whatever goes in it is not only compatible but also reliable.

The problem with Windoze is that it has to be built to the lowest common denominator. In other words at has to work with any computer that it is accetable to license it for right down to the 600Mhz Celeron with 64MB of ram and a cpu base graphics card that uses 12MB of that ram for vRam.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Reframing

Originally posted by scem0


I beg to differ. A 2.8 GHz pentium with a good motherboard and all the latest hardware (yes, you can find one on eBay for ~$1,000) is not already outdated. Not to mention a 533 MHz FSB... 🙄

That is actually only a 133Mhz FSB but but it is as they say Quad-Pumped. What else does it have? A good hard drive of 80GB or larger will cost you $150 and up. Does it even come with RAM or a graphics card?

 

[scem0]

My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

 

[scem0]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reframing

Originally posted by MacBandit



That is actually only a 133Mhz FSB but but it is as they say Quad-Pumped. What else does it have? A good hard drive of 80GB or larger will cost you $150 and up. Does it even come with RAM or a graphics card?

I just bought a 2.4 GHz p4 with an OS (XP), CD Burner (a really fastone), 40 Gig 7000 RPM HD, Geforce 2 MX, and everything else I need for $600. It has a bunch of good RAM. 512 megs of PC2700 DDR RAM.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

That could definitely be true. All I know is every time I go to price a PC from a major manufacturor and add on all the features that I want that I get from a Mac standard I end up with a computer within $200-300 of the Mac.

 

[scem0]

I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by scem0
I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.

What kind of companies. Small no names? Ones with questionable warranties (could go out of business tomorrow) with no customer support.

 

[3G4N]

10 seconds here, $100 there.
put yer nit-peckers in your mouths,

shut up and work.

if it's too slow, go get another
computer, and quit whining.

This isn't a democracy.
Vote with your wallets.
You get what you pay for.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

Well, you've got a few faults here.

1: Browser opening speed on a PC is very fast. Why? Because the browser (IE) is already open when the OS comes up. Add IE to your startup apps in OS X and you'll get the same performance boost. On a 800MHz P3 Mozilla takes about 30 seconds to come up unless it is set to "load with Windows", in which case it comes up as fast as it can draw its window. On a 2.2GHz P4 Mozilla comes up much faster, but still in the 5-10 second range.

2: A 333MHz iMac does not compare to anything available today. If you are comparing a $333 Wintel computer today to a Mac, it needs to be a Mac currently sold at $999 to qualify for "3x the price" of the Wintel alternative. Compare a $1000 Wintel machine to a $3000 Mac.

 

[springscansing]

Originally posted by scem0
My iMac 333 MHz g3 takes 20-30 seconds to open feature-rich browsers such as mozilla, and netscape. It taked ~15-20 seconds to open IE and Chimera. What i am saying is that your Mac takes 1 second to open a browser, and a PC that takes 1 sec to open a browser is 1/3 the price.

Your iMac is messed up man. IE opens in 5 seconds on my 7600/120.

 

[springscansing]

Mozilla loads in 4 seconds on my DP450, just for a reference.

I think mr. spinnyhead avatar needs to get his facts straight. 🙄

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reframing

Originally posted by scem0


I just bought a 2.4 GHz p4 with an OS (XP), CD Burner (a really fastone), 40 Gig 7000 RPM HD, Geforce 2 MX, and everything else I need for $600. It has a bunch of good RAM. 512 megs of PC2700 DDR RAM.

I'm assuming without monitor. I'm assuming XP Home, not "Pro/I might want to actually use a network someday".

Quality of parts is questionable. Off the shelf costs:

40 Gig 7200 RPM HD: $75
GeForce 2 MX: $50
CD Burner: $75
512 MB PC2700 DDR RAM: $180 (crucial.com)
2.4GHz P4: $190
Decent Power Supply: $50
Cheap MB: $200

Adds up to $820 without a monitor or case or software taxes. Given that the above prices are for "middling quality" components, not high-quality, I wouldn't trust that $600 PC. They've cut corners somewhere.

If you want cut-rate, a Mac is not an option for you, and never will be (knock on wood).

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by scem0
I would recommend eBay. There are so many companies that are competing against each other, so there are a lot of custom build pentium and AMD processor machines, at great prices.

Umm, if that's your source, you'd do better assembling it yourself. No-namers offer no usable warrantee (no guarantee that they'll be around to help if you need it), and no name to be tarnished if they fail to do a full burn in, and no volume to get volume discounts from manufacturers. You might as well cut out the assembler and extra shipping and do it yourself.

Again, if they're making a PC cheaper than you can assemble it, I can guarantee you they're skimping somewhere.

 

[reyesmac]

Apples a different kind of computer company. You pay more because when the competitions computers are obselite yours will still be running pretty well. They last longer and have style. They do not always have the fastest or cheapest drives/video cards. They rarely ever keep legacy parts that are now mainstream and affordable. They are the computer for someone who does not want to buy things to put inside it except more ram. They have an excellent operating system that at times is the only reason to stick with the platform, it is more than enough to justify not switching IMO.

But, it is not the computer for everyone, it is not the first computer you should buy. It is the tool that will help you be more productive once you are computer literate. Or, it is the computer you should buy if you do not plan on buying another computer for about 6 years. Because even if it looks like it is slower than PC's it is more power than the average person needs for a Mac.

I will be buying a 500mhz G4 upgrade card for my Blue G3, it should be more than enough to do what I do with my machine. But I also think that while waiting for the G5 to arrive, I will also get my wife the PC that she needs for her work. And I wont mind it one bit, because I will have years worth of games to play, more choices in arcade emulation programs which I like, and more choices in video importing than I currently have. I wouldnt recomend someone use a slow USB video capture device over a much faster PCI device. The PC would be used by me only as a device that captures information into my Digital Hub Mac. That and a nice gaming system.

I just don't feel like spending lots of money for something that needs to be replaced every few years. I don't like doing the same things on my computer, I like to use new programs and new OS's, but does it make sence to spend that much on a Powermac if you are not planning to make money with the machine?

 

[scem0]

No corners were cut. My system I bought is an official dell computer that (I am guessing something like this happened) a company bought a whole bunch of, and got a really good deal from Dell, and then they had 3-4 extra, and they sold them on eBay. It is all quality parts from Dell. I can return it if the product doesn't work.

As for my startup times with the iMac. That is with a jam packed HD, a bunch of other programs open (my mom never quits progs), and most of the system resources being used. I only have 160 Megs of RAM in that comp too. I don't use that comp though, and I haven't in a long time, so my guesses may be wrong. I use a g4 450 which is much faster.

I am fully aware that IE is integrated into windows, but browsing is still faster on windows.

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Everyone is different

Originally posted by SonnyCA
Serious professionals, who get serious work done, are not swayed by the performance arguments I read in here and on other boards. There is little justification in moving to an entirely different computing platform, with all of its requisite software re-investment costs. We're doing just fine.

So I am not serious professional? Thanks a lot...

Sorry, but you totally missed the point. Regarding the software... That is not true. All the updates together of the Adobe Design Collection for example cost about the same as the collection itself when you buy it new.

And not to forget that also MacOS X requires a lot of Software investment. You tell me that a lot of companies still work with old gear? I know! And that is just the point. They DON'T buy new equipment! That's why Apple suffers. And as soon as they HAVE to, they are thinking if it is worth to pay at least 2,000$ for a barebone Mac or 600$ for something else, that is even faster -> lasts longer.

To question people's professionality just because they have a different point of view is unprofessional! 😀

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by reyesmac
Apples a different kind of computer company. You pay more because when the competitions computers are obselite yours will still be running pretty well.

Can we stop those fairy-tales, please? Those times are over since a long time! Why should the usability of another Computer decrease when it is not an Apple Macintosh? I know people who work still with old 4 or 5 years old Windows machines and they are not less usable than Macs from that time...

They last longer and have style.

They use the same parts as other standard PCs... so there is no reason to believe, that they last any day longer than the average Windows-PC. And style? Well, last time I saw my PowerMac 7500 (it is still running well at some friend's place) I didn't find it that stylish. And who knows how we think about newer macs in a few years? Not to mention that the new PowerMacs are anything but really beautiful. "Style" often has the problem that it becomes outdated and old-fashioned.

But, it is not the computer for everyone, it is not the first computer you should buy. It is the tool that will help you be more productive once you are computer literate. Or, it is the computer you should buy if you do not plan on buying another computer for about 6 years. Because even if it looks like it is slower than PC's it is more power than the average person needs for a Mac.

Is there any logic in your statement??? 😱 Just no comment...

I just don't feel like spending lots of money for something that needs to be replaced every few years. I don't like doing the same things on my computer, I like to use new programs and new OS's, but does it make sence to spend that much on a Powermac if you are not planning to make money with the machine?

Then you shouldn't buy a computer at all...

groovebuster

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Can we stop those fairy-tales, please? Those times are over since a long time! Why should the usability of another Computer decrease when it is not an Apple Macintosh? I know people who work still with old 4 or 5 years old Windows machines and they are not less usable than Macs from that time...

Here is were you missed the point. 4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac. Hell I still know of a few companies in the area that are using old MacSEs for there cash register, business management, and accounting. Those things are old and still very much a useable computer. Oh and they have the original external hard drives and they still work.

In case you don't know the MacSE was originally sold in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989.

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Here is were you missed the point. 4 or 5 years is not old for a Mac. Hell I still know of a few companies in the area that are using old MacSEs for there cash register, business management, and accounting. Those things are old and still very much a useable computer. Oh and they have the original external hard drives and they still work.

In case you don't know the MacSE was originally sold in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989.

I didn't miss it at all. And I know all the Macs from the beginning. The first Mac I ever worked with for longer was a SE/30 (why they didn't order the SEs with an internal HD?). But where is the argument against the Windows machines? I showed that old PCs are still in use too and you tell me that I missed the point? My mother-in-law is studying again since a few years and she is writing all her papers on an 386-PC with DOS and StarWriter and it works just fine. She doesn't need more. So what?

It is always depending on the tasks you need to do. If you need just a simple wordprocessing machine, almost any computer from the last 15 years will do it, no matter which brand or OS. But there are also a lot of computers that are just not enough anymore for what you need to do with it. For example, I finally retired my PowerMac7500 last year (already upgraded to a PPC604e/200MHz) and gave it to someone else who doesn't need more power, because it was just too slow for a lot of tasks on my daily schedule.

4 or 5 years can be very old for a Mac, depending on what you want to do with it and which software you are running. It is not much different compared to the PC-world. And that's just what I wanted to point out... It is just the same!!! It isn't any better as a lot of Mac users want to believe.

Maybe you should think the other way around... since PCs were always way cheaper than Macs, people didn't mind to buy new hardware more regularly and to benefit from the speed increase. But that doesn't mean that their computers didn't work anymore. Actually I hardly met any people who replaced their PCs because they blew up, it was always because they wanted to run newer software or needed more power under the hood for games or new kinds of things that were impossible before. Exactly the same reasons why you want a faster/better Mac, also as a pro...

Does MacOS X run on a SE?? I guess not. What about MacOS 9?? Hmmm... also not! MacOS 8.1? Too bad, also that won't move it, latest supported OS is 7.5.5... excludes a lot of the "newer" software... What about a Photoshop newer than PS 2.0??? Oh, I forgot... b/w-screen, doesn't matter anyway... and damn... I can't plug my FireWire-drive to it...

Do you still think that I missed the point? 😉

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by springscansing


Pro audio work with Digital Performer, Logic, or MAX/MSP? 🙂

- Springs

What kind or argument is that? There are alternatives. To bring example of a software product that isn't available (anymore...) is lame. Shall I list the pro software products that are not available for the Mac platform (at least in a current vesrion)? The list would be way longer...

groovebuster

 

[mum]

Yeah, I guess the list of PC apps "missing" on the mac platform is long, but when it comes to pro audio and design the lack of software on PC's is pretty apparent too.

 

[groovebuster]

... examples?

And I mean examples that provide functionality that you can't have with an alternative product as well?

groovebuster