Mac book Pro or Air??

[Yebubbleman]

As for computer's look.. I agree they don't need to be beautiful to get the job done. However, when you can have both, just do it. A laptop doesn't need to be thin to perform well, but it surely helps when you need to haul it. And, as current human standard, thin is beautiful (lol).

If one can't haul a MacBook Pro, then one should seriously seek out physical therapy.

I have to disagree, slightly. If one wants to replace a broken MBP trackpad (remember, it's all glass), they have to take all the computer apart. But having dismembered friend's laptops to help in cleaning them... Macs are simply better built and thought than most PC laptops where you often struggle to find the hidden screw that holds is all.

If you want to replace a broken MBP trackpad, you undo the back panel, then you remove the battery, disconnect the trackpad cable from the logic board, then you unscrew the tri-wing screw holding the track pad in, and you unscrew the four little screws holding it in, and boom, that sucker is out of there. Then do the inverse to get it back in, just be careful to not tighten the tri-wing screw. That doesn't require a complete disassembly of the machine to do or get at, and I know because I've done a few dozen of them. I'm not too sure what info you have or where you got it, but I think it's wrong.

Plus, you get some hidden benefits in Macs: on the Magsafe corner, there's no practical reason why the connector board would be separated from the main board. Or why is there a large gap between the hard drive and the side. Every corner is somewhat isolated from the main board. If the computer falls, you just end up with a bent corner. Unsightly, but what's inside should be alive and well. Do that on a common PC. The computer is dead. Heck, they even put glass platter hard drives in some laptop PCs, rendering any free-fall detector mostly useless.

MagSafe is rad, and the separation of corners from the logic board is also rad, though I'm pretty sure Apple isn't the only one doing it that way. But still, the design and engineering of the MacBook Pro and how practical it is in its current form makes me firmly believe that it's worth the premium it costs. Though if you just want a machine that will run, it is by no means the most affordable machine out there.

I think you can't upgrade the CPU on an iMac, since it may be soldered. Same goes for the video card, unfortunately. I first thought they would be using a low-profile or otherwise standard video card, but unfortunately it's either proprietary or soldered. Therefore, I had to (reluctantly) recommend a PC to my customer willing to run Maya and still fitting its price point.

CPUs on the iMac have been socketed since the switch to Intel. Video cards have been slotted since the first aluminum iMacs as they were previously a part of the logic board. Since then, they have been the same form factor of graphics cards as is used on high-end gaming laptops, hence the current iMac having a Radeon HD 6970M, which is incidentally the best AMD HD 6 series card that you'll find on a gaming laptop.

"Forever" isn't correct. When my desktop PC failed after only 3 years, parts for it weren't commonly available anymore. It was cheaper to rebuild and keep the working parts (storage, ODD).

ATX cases haven't evolved much over the years. Provided you have good cooling, you can usually keep a case and a power supply forever. All other components are thereby interchangeable and upgradable, thusly making a custom built tower able to last virtually forever.

I still have to disagree. From a hardware standpoint, it's not uncommon to see standard issue Macs still in service at 4, 5, even 6 years without major issue. My gf's iBook G4 could really use one GB RAM, but is still in occasional use. A friend's white McBook (very first issue) has a noticeable yellowing and an itchy battery, but otherwise runs Snow Leopard fine. Another friends BlackBook is 2007 issue, squeaks when opened, but still manages to pull 4 hours out of the battery. I sold my own 2010 MBP to a very kind girl for $700: prominent cosmetic wear is the only issue. A PhD student 2008 MacBook Pro still runs as fast as new: a bit of discoloration on the screen. I negotiated to buy a 4-year used Intel iMac for a customer whose 2 year-old cheap-o-tower failed for some unknown reason.

Cheapo PC towers will fail. Similarly, don't get me started on how many iMac G5s I've seen kick the bucket. If you buy a cheapo computer it will fail. That's why you don't buy a cheapo computer. The PC tower in my sig will last me until I've determined that I have to upgrade every component and at that point I might as well buy a new case and power supply. Until then, I don't expect it to fail on anything; though if it does, I'll replace and upgrade the single failing component and I'll be back up and running for far cheaper than it would cost to do something like that in an iMac or a Mac Pro.

Whereas another customer's 1 1/2 yr Dell was already requiring a complete overhaul and cleaning. Friend's Acer, Gateway, Dell and an HP all saw their battery completely fail after 6-9 months to the point it doesn't hold even a minute of charge (on the models they had, the battery has a 3-month warranty). My other, university issue ThinkPad T40 ran at a glacial pace, and, as is the habit of many ThinkPads, just a week after the first blinking line on the screen, it was un-bootable. My sister's bf HP had a failed wifi card, of course, just outside warranty. Told him it would be cheaper to buy a new one on eBay than have it repaired. Recently got an older P4 tower, unstable under load despite brand new RAM, down clocking and plenty of cooling.

Dell, Acer, HP, and Gateway are all the worst of the worst in terms of PC brands. IBM/Lenovo is usually on their ****, but like Apple, there are the occasional bad apples (no pun intended). Again, I'm not talking about popular branded PCs, I'm talking about custom-built stuff. Though, that being said, it's not like Dell and HP's business lines don't also run forever...there are some really cheapo Dell Optiplexes that should've been put out of their misery years ago, still running as well as a Pentium 4 should allow today despite how cheapo the case and components are/were.

At least in my experience, I have constantly seen that a PC requires too much maintenance to be worth their otherwise low prices. What's better, a $600 PC lasting two years without issue, or a $1200 Mac that can last four or five years, often more, without needing major repair?

Again, in a corporate environment, the maintenance is configured to be done remotely and automatically when the image that was pushed to the machine was initially deployed. Beyond that, user accounts are locked down so that the user doesn't have to worry about any system maintenance as that stuff is taken care of for them by their IT department and even they have it down to a clockwork science. It's not at all as annoying as dealing with a home user that comes in with their machine caked with viruses. For those people, a Mac will ALWAYS be the better option. But for the large business and the IT department, Windows will always allow a greater freedom of customization, control, and will (provided the IT department isn't run by nimrods) require as seldom maintenance as a Mac would to a home user. Again, I say all of this as someone who is far more of a Mac fan than I ever will be of Windows.

On the software side, it's more about how you know and use your system. If you only use one or two apps and don't use the OS in itself, you won't see the Windows quirks that make it so frustrating to use. Remember I come from many years under Windows, had a long Ubuntu period, then OS X.

Remind me to pick your brain about an alternative to Ubuntu, I feel like it jumped the shark after 10.10, and I want another Gnome-based alternative.

I wouldn't use a LG burner, in any case. In my experience building computers for friends and customers, as well as reading about them, at best it's risky to use them in Linux, at worst, they simply fail without explanation. Sure they're cheap, and you get what you pay for.

I have one in my tower and the other is the external drive of which I spoke. The one in the tower is great and the only problem with my external LG one is that I don't have it hooked up, but I more blame my desk for lacking in space than I do the LG burner.

Otherwise, I also think slot-load isn't as necessary on a desktop as it is on a laptop.

It's not, and honestly, the slot-load optical drive was one of the worst inventions ever. Sure, it's sleeker than tray-load, but tray load is tons more reliable.

I just watched a friend as he quickly restored his HP PC after a hard drive change. Even getting Windows 7 to install was a pain. He had a valid key, yet Windows refused it. He had to resort to use a loader to get it to install. Then, all the applications, mostly well-known, trusted closed and open source, went in. I don't know where he forgot something, but he doesn't have sound anymore, and antivirus definitions aren't updated. automatically. We checked his configuration and couldn't find the cause.

Registry is Windows weakest point. It's fragile, and if anything goes wrong inside, or an application acts funky, you won't be able to find the source of malfunction. Hence, the fastest solution is to reformat.

Don't get me started on Product Activation. 70% of the time, provided the license is legal, it just works and there's no problem. But that 30% is annoying as all hell. In a corporate environment, they all use Windows 7 Enterprise Edition which is a Volume-License-only edition, so that is seldom an issue. Drivers can be annoying, but that goes with the territory of having a platform where you actually have the choice of what components to have or not have. The registry is annoying and cause of a lot of programs, though honestly, its existence makes sense; it's just stupid that they haven't refined it to not cause as many problems.

Here lies the issue: one would need to be a Microsoft's Certified Technician (or whatever they call it) to understand and properly configure it. In addition, many smaller pieces of software require administrative privileges to run properly, therefore it's simpler to alway run as administrator. I put that under "lack of ergonomics". In a large corporate setting, it's no big deal, although the running joke may be partly true that IT managers try to keep Microsoft as long as possible in the enterprise because it's their breadwinner. But on an individual PC where the creative, manager, and commercial are essentially one person who doesn't have all the necessary knowledge, there's no point in spending time to do maintenance (incorrectly) where they could spend slightly more to get an almost maintenance-free Mac.

Again, if your PC is a tool that you use to run a small set of apps on a regular basis to get work done, there's a very minimal amount of maintenance that even need be done, and half of it is maintenance that should also be done on the Mac. At the bare minimum, check for Windows Updates when you first boot the computer and once a day thereafter; if you do it often you'll never get more than five updates and installation will never take more than fifteen minutes. If you want to do Anti-Virus on the cheap, get Microsoft Security Essentials, in which case when you check for Windows Updates, you also check for updates to MSE's virus definitions file(s), so that's one-stop-shopping. Otherwise, after checking Windows Update, you have your Anti-Virus Program check for its updates, and that's it. About six mouse clicks all told and about 20 additional minutes of your time, which from a time-is-money standpoint is still a far better deal than a Mac. Most people who get viruses do so as a result of not doing those things. Mind you, at least two of those clicks, should also be done by Mac users to check and make sure that they have the latest updates too.

Mac OS X may be built for small IT departments, labs, and individuals, but it still makes an excellent server, being UNIX-like. Less administrative tools doesn't imply less ability. Apple already recognized their own potential as a niche, but truly usable server.

Apple's marketshare for Mac OS X Server is by far worse than server versions of Linux distros and Windows Server versions. Mac OS X Server isn't anywhere near as scalable as Windows and Linux servers. That's not to say it sucks and is entirely useless, because that's not the case at all. It's great, but it's very limited in what it can do and how it can do it. Furthermore, with the Xserve gone, and the rest of Apple's desktop line being what it is, and Mac OS X Server (much like Mac OS X client) not being allowed to run on non-Apple hardware, you aren't allowed a flexible range of configurations on which to run Mac OS X Server, which is a huge problem. A Mac mini Server may make a fantastic e-mail server, or a fantastic Calendar/Address Book Server (assuming you aren't going with Microsoft Exchange like the rest of the world), or a great Directory Server (assuming you aren't using Active Directory like the rest of the world), but a File Server, not so much. Plus, Lion Server really took it a step in the wrong direction, and if you check out Lion Server's page on the Mac App Store, you'll see that most people agree. So, no, while I like Mac OS X Server, I don't think it's even remotely the best choice for a server platform, unless you have a network of 10-40 Macs, no PCs, and low storage requirements.

 

[throAU]

Either will work.

However - if you're going to be carrying the machine around a lot, i'd seriously consider the Air, unless you need more than 4gb of RAM.

Why?

SSD is faster to boot, can go into deep sleep on the air (basically instant on), its lighter to carry and will handle the workload you sound like you'll be throwing at it.

SSD is also more resistant to being physically carted around - there is no hard drive head to crash.
Yes, you can add an SSD to an MBP, but it is $$$ and students are poor, right? And if you're not poor, the money you have should be going on beer...



However, if you're willing to carry a heavier machine, and willing to spend a bit more to upgrade the machine to SSD, a 13" macbook pro is superior. 16gb of RAM is fairly future proof for the next few years, the MBA can't have RAM upgraded at all. 4gb is all you get, ever.

 

[Cubytus]

If one can't haul a MacBook Pro, then one should seriously seek out physical therapy.

I lolled. Seems many girls out there need one XD.

If you want to replace a broken MBP trackpad, you undo the back panel, then you remove the battery, disconnect the trackpad cable from the logic board, then you unscrew the tri-wing screw holding the track pad in, and you unscrew the four little screws holding it in, and boom, that sucker is out of there. Then do the inverse to get it back in, just be careful to not tighten the tri-wing screw. That doesn't require a complete disassembly of the machine to do or get at, and I know because I've done a few dozen of them. I'm not too sure what info you have or where you got it, but I think it's wrong.

I think you need to remove the logic board, also, since the battery doesn't completely overlap the trackpad. Or does it?

But still, the design and engineering of the MacBook Pro and how practical it is in its current form makes me firmly believe that it's worth the premium it costs. Though if you just want a machine that will run, it is by no means the most affordable machine out there.

In my mind, laptops are built to be moved often. No point in buying a laptop if it never moves, and it's not a fashion statement. How old-school am I? Any Acer or VAIO run fine. It's how they handle wear and tear that make a difference.

CPUs on the iMac have been socketed since the switch to Intel. Video cards have been slotted since the first aluminum iMacs as they were previously a part of the logic board. Since then, they have been the same form factor of graphics cards as is used on high-end gaming laptops, hence the current iMac having a Radeon HD 6970M, which is incidentally the best AMD HD 6 series card that you'll find on a gaming laptop.

Seems right. However I also read the laptop-type graphics card is also very expensive to replace compared to its desktop counterpart, yet not widely available. Hence, my point about that customer's Maya experience is still valid.

ATX cases haven't evolved much over the years. Provided you have good cooling, you can usually keep a case and a power supply forever. All other components are thereby interchangeable and upgradable, thusly making a custom built tower able to last virtually forever.

Incidentally, the power supply in that previous tower PC of mine appeared to be utter crap as I strongly suspect it wasn't properly regulated and helped in the PCs demise. Remember this was originally a gamer's PC, not a cheap tower.
You need to keep up with wattage to power all your parts. If a 90W power supply provided enough current for my '99 PC, it seems very unlikely that anything less than 500W would do the job today. Therefore, only the case can be kept "forever". Also, case + power supply price isn't the costliest part. If you need to replace virtually all logic inside, you essentially pay for 85-90% of a new computer. That's not my definition of "upgrading" when everything gets replaced, as you said "The PC tower in my sig will last me until I've determined that I have to upgrade every component and at that point I might as well buy a new case and power supply."

Until then, I don't expect it to fail on anything; though if it does, I'll replace and upgrade the single failing component and I'll be back up and running for far cheaper than it would cost to do something like that in an iMac or a Mac Pro.

Still, if you find the necessary parts if it fails. Mac or PC, if they're not in production anymore, you can't repair. Perhaps you can upgrade, but it definitely won't be cheap. That's why it's advisable to get a longer warranty if it covers such failure cases: Apple, if the replacement part isn't available, will replace your system with at least equivalent one, free of charge.

Dell, Acer, HP, and Gateway are all the worst of the worst in terms of PC brands. IBM/Lenovo is usually on their ****, but like Apple, there are the occasional bad apples (no pun intended). Again, I'm not talking about popular branded PCs, I'm talking about custom-built stuff. Though, that being said, it's not like Dell and HP's business lines don't also run forever...there are some really cheapo Dell Optiplexes that should've been put out of their misery years ago, still running as well as a Pentium 4 should allow today despite how cheapo the case and components are/were.

Actually, there are many good Dells, but you have to choose your range wisely. Even then, a colleague was more than happy when Dell replaced a burnt-graphics card laptop of his with a brand new model after 3 years.

In the latter case, I'm referring to a custom-built PC that was formerly used in a mission-critical setting. Considering it's built with what I used to consider top PC components, it seems that manufacturers are just too lax with standards, leading to many failures from unknown source. That might work in a PC, but not on Mac, where quality check seems to be much more stringent than on PCs. E.g., you can't our any kind of value-branded RAM in a Mac, especially not a PowerPC.

Beyond that, user accounts are locked down so that the user doesn't have to worry about any system maintenance as that stuff is taken care of for them by their IT department and even they have it down to a clockwork science.

(...)

But for the large business and the IT department, Windows will always allow a greater freedom of customization, control, and will (provided the IT department isn't run by nimrods) require as seldom maintenance as a Mac would to a home user. Again, I say all of this as someone who is far more of a Mac fan than I ever will be of Windows.

And the user isn't free to run even known-safe software. So-called "portable" apps are just useless in the rare setting I need to have my software on hand to be efficient on a PC. That you can do on a properly-configured Mac without compromising security. University's PCs are slow, Win Seven-stuffed machines locked down to the core. Un-bootable on USB, no software I use on them. Internet café's one are reboot-disabled. Individuals don't want you to reboot their PCs. Hence, one would be screwed when using Portable applications.

My comment was actually about Mac in enterprise still requiring less maintenance than PCs. Locking them down while allowing users to be able to work on them isn't necessarily easy. Mac OS X is just built more securely than Windows, so less maintenance is required.

It's not at all as annoying as dealing with a home user that comes in with their machine caked with viruses. For those people, a Mac will ALWAYS be the better option.

+1.
When dealing with these customers, I just disinfect the PC offline using a bootable USB drive with ClamAv on it, then try to reboot and finish the job using Spybot. If it fails, reboot in Linux, dump all the hard drive contents to external hard drive, then reinstalling Windows, installing a strong, free antivirus, then carefully restore documents subtrees.

I had once a serious issue where I couldn't lay my hands on a Russian-localized Windows.

Remind me to pick your brain about an alternative to Ubuntu, I feel like it jumped the shark after 10.10, and I want another Gnome-based alternative.

My VM is still Ubuntu 11.10-based, but I had otherwise good experience using Fedora Core. I have to confess I don't really follow Ubuntu's news these days, since I am always joking that Ubuntu is OS X's beta.

It's not, and honestly, the slot-load optical drive was one of the worst inventions ever. Sure, it's sleeker than tray-load, but tray load is tons more reliable.

Having had laptops PCs with tray-load, there were simply too many occurrences when I didn't have enough room to open the tray, or it was dangerously close to a passage area. Plus, wear and tear on the Sager I used lead to a stuck tray, to the point the disc inside wouldn't even rotate. Since then, I will probably never accept a tray-load ODD for a laptop.

Drivers can be annoying, but that goes with the territory of having a platform where you actually have the choice of what components to have or not have. The registry is annoying and cause of a lot of programs, though honestly, its existence makes sense; it's just stupid that they haven't refined it to not cause as many problems.

In typical Apple-fashion, I'd prefer having fewer, perfectly working choices than an ocean of crappy accessories from unknown manufacturers without an updated driver. Yes, it happens more than you seem to remember.

Registry is basically unchanged since Windows 98. As all centralizations, it's a pain in the ass to live with, and impossible to debug. If you don't have proper linking management, just do with self-contained parameters. Wastes space, but surer.

At the bare minimum, check for Windows Updates when you first boot the computer and once a day thereafter; if you do it often you'll never get more than five updates and installation will never take more than fifteen minutes.

So my friend thought when he finally reinstalled his Win 7 Home Premium (as his license was only valid for this edition). 115 updates needed. Freezes in the middle. Need restart. Redo. Wait ~2hrs. Doesn't reboot by itself.

So I thought when I put a Win XP SP3 corporate ed. in my VM. There is always a set of ~5 updates that never seem to install. Each reboot, I'm asked to install them, again.

All stock editions.

If you want to do Anti-Virus on the cheap, get Microsoft Security Essentials, in which case when you check for Windows Updates, you also check for updates to MSE's virus definitions file(s), so that's one-stop-shopping. Otherwise, after checking Windows Update, you have your Anti-Virus Program check for its updates, and that's it. About six mouse clicks all told and about 20 additional minutes of your time, which from a time-is-money standpoint is still a far better deal than a Mac.

Where lies MSE in Win's tree? It was KO-ed on said Pentium 4 box at its first encounter with a strong virus I don't even know how it landed here, that also rendered Wi-Fi connections invisible, effectively blocking updates.

20 minutes spent is too much student-time to invest. Plus, Windows update had a nasty tendency to pop right in the middle of a rush. If I didn't apply them in less than 20 min, I'd get random lockups, freezes or application crashes. I know computers where not an exact science, but not that black magic was involved.

I'd rather spend more for Mac peace-of-mind than Windows supposed flexibility.

Most people who get viruses do so as a result of not doing those things. Mind you, at least two of those clicks, should also be done by Mac users to check and make sure that they have the latest updates too.

I did, on Windows, yet it caught 'something'.

On a Mac, automatic updates are swiftly pushed through, so I don't feel the need to check every night if there are updates.

Apple's marketshare for Mac OS X Server is by far worse than server versions of Linux distros and Windows Server versions. Mac OS X Server isn't anywhere near as scalable as Windows and Linux servers. That's not to say it sucks and is entirely useless, because that's not the case at all. It's great, but it's very limited in what it can do and how it can do it. Furthermore, with the Xserve gone, and the rest of Apple's desktop line being what it is, and Mac OS X Server (much like Mac OS X client) not being allowed to run on non-Apple hardware, you aren't allowed a flexible range of configurations on which to run Mac OS X Server, which is a huge problem. A Mac mini Server may make a fantastic e-mail server, or a fantastic Calendar/Address Book Server (assuming you aren't going with Microsoft Exchange like the rest of the world), or a great Directory Server (assuming you aren't using Active Directory like the rest of the world), but a File Server, not so much. Plus, Lion Server really took it a step in the wrong direction, and if you check out Lion Server's page on the Mac App Store, you'll see that most people agree. So, no, while I like Mac OS X Server, I don't think it's even remotely the best choice for a server platform, unless you have a network of 10-40 Macs, no PCs, and low storage requirements.

OS X Server, to my knowledge, can be legally virtualized. Wasn't it in fashion to virtualize? I don't use Exchange, sorry, this one is for big corporations only. Home or private use mail servers are either POP or IMAP. Large corporations aren't "the rest of the world". They are the corporate world, which by no means should be imposed upon users. They give a Windows bad aftertaste to a sweet fruit, operate crapppily from A to Z.

Curious you don't like the Mini Server as a file server. Without an ODD, I would find it far more interesting as a NAS, Time Capsule on steroids and all-around download machine.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I lolled. Seems many girls out there need one XD.

Not to be sexist or stereotype, but most Mac-wielding girls that I see have some non-Air form of 13" Mac, and in the absence of the white polycarbonate MacBook, that's more often than not the 13" MacBook Pro.

I think you need to remove the logic board, also, since the battery doesn't completely overlap the trackpad. Or does it?

The battery completely overlaps the trackpad. You do not need to remove the logic board on any aluminum non-Air MacBook or MacBook Pro in order to remove the trackpad, I'm living proof (or rather the Aluminum MacBooks and unibody MacBook Pros that I've performed the swap on are living proof) of this. I work as an ACMT-certified Mac Technician at an Apple Authorized Service Provider. I get to see these things naked all the time.

In my mind, laptops are built to be moved often. No point in buying a laptop if it never moves, and it's not a fashion statement. How old-school am I? Any Acer or VAIO run fine. It's how they handle wear and tear that make a difference.

Truth.

Seems right. However I also read the laptop-type graphics card is also very expensive to replace compared to its desktop counterpart, yet not widely available. Hence, my point about that customer's Maya experience is still valid.

It's definitely pricier and less common (and also much slower) than its desktop counter-part; another reason why the iMac, for being a desktop, is a stupid machine, as is any all-in-one.

Incidentally, the power supply in that previous tower PC of mine appeared to be utter crap as I strongly suspect it wasn't properly regulated and helped in the PCs demise. Remember this was originally a gamer's PC, not a cheap tower.
You need to keep up with wattage to power all your parts. If a 90W power supply provided enough current for my '99 PC, it seems very unlikely that anything less than 500W would do the job today. Therefore, only the case can be kept "forever". Also, case + power supply price isn't the costliest part. If you need to replace virtually all logic inside, you essentially pay for 85-90% of a new computer. That's not my definition of "upgrading" when everything gets replaced, as you said "The PC tower in my sig will last me until I've determined that I have to upgrade every component and at that point I might as well buy a new case and power supply."

I bought a 700W PSU made by Cooler Master, which mind you, isn't a ****** brand by any means. I'm gonna venture that I'll replace the power supply out of wanting to upgrade it to a higher-wattage and/or quieter model before it dies on me. But one never knows.

Still, if you find the necessary parts if it fails. Mac or PC, if they're not in production anymore, you can't repair. Perhaps you can upgrade, but it definitely won't be cheap. That's why it's advisable to get a longer warranty if it covers such failure cases: Apple, if the replacement part isn't available, will replace your system with at least equivalent one, free of charge.

That problem is seldom applicable on a custom built PC tower as you're probably in need of upgrading that part anyway and you probably don't want just a replacement for the sake of keeping it limping along at the speed of slowness, same thing is true of an out-of-warranty Mac older than five years.

Actually, there are many good Dells, but you have to choose your range wisely. Even then, a colleague was more than happy when Dell replaced a burnt-graphics card laptop of his with a brand new model after 3 years.

I'd have to imagine that the tons of businesses and schools out there go with them for a reason. They're certainly not my PC brand of choice (as I'd go with Lenovo or Asus for a name-brand machine).

In the latter case, I'm referring to a custom-built PC that was formerly used in a mission-critical setting. Considering it's built with what I used to consider top PC components, it seems that manufacturers are just too lax with standards, leading to many failures from unknown source. That might work in a PC, but not on Mac, where quality check seems to be much more stringent than on PCs. E.g., you can't our any kind of value-branded RAM in a Mac, especially not a PowerPC.

The other thing you need to remember is that while the process of actually building the machine is more or less the same, and the process of shopping for all of the parts is more or less the same, the actual parts themselves have changed a lot over the years. There are people in the thread about Apple once having considered going with AMD for the 2011 MacBook Air ripping on AMD for problems that they haven't had in nearly a decade. These things do change much. As for RAM on a custom-built tower, it's very easy to find good RAM; Corsair, Kingston, Crucial; they're all great; incidentally the same companies make RAM for Macs, and they more or less use the same OEM parts that Apple does.

And the user isn't free to run even known-safe software. So-called "portable" apps are just useless in the rare setting I need to have my software on hand to be efficient on a PC. That you can do on a properly-configured Mac without compromising security. University's PCs are slow, Win Seven-stuffed machines locked down to the core. Un-bootable on USB, no software I use on them. Internet café's one are reboot-disabled. Individuals don't want you to reboot their PCs. Hence, one would be screwed when using Portable applications.

The University Macs that I'm used to have EFI firmware passwords, and are just as locked down until you get into the OS and then it isn't as much as it is on Windows. For the IT department Windows' locking down is fantastic, as it can be customized to exactly what they want the users to be able to do or not do, but for users, it sucks because not everyone is computer illiterate, and sometimes I want to be able to do what I want to do (which won't compromise the computer's pre-existing configuration in any way; but the IT guys don't know that).

My comment was actually about Mac in enterprise still requiring less maintenance than PCs. Locking them down while allowing users to be able to work on them isn't necessarily easy. Mac OS X is just built more securely than Windows, so less maintenance is required.

Well, it's a trade-off. On the one hand, there's nowhere near as much that you can do to lock down a Mac, but there's not much that you really need to do, but you can't really customize the way in which it is locked down or customized to really fit your specific needs of that computer for the purpose it is being used for. But on the other hand, sure, it requires more work for the IT people to customize the Windows image before it is deployed to the PC than it does the Mac image to be deployed to the Mac, but they are able to fine tune it so much more to fit their specific needs so much better. That being said, a managed PC in a corporate environment requires just as little maintenance as a managed Mac in the same environment, because all of that work is done and maintained automagically by the server and all of the configuring is preconfigured when the deployed image is being created. In both cases, it's pretty much pre-configure and go.

My VM is still Ubuntu 11.10-based, but I had otherwise good experience using Fedora Core. I have to confess I don't really follow Ubuntu's news these days, since I am always joking that Ubuntu is OS X's beta.

I completely forgot about Fedora Core, which was more or less in step with Ubuntu up until 10.04 (or at least, last I checked). I just hate the new Unity mode where it's like a crippled side-mounted OS X dock with a fraction of the customizability and usability of the actual OS X dock. I'm told that this is a design choice unique to Ubuntu...at least I hope it is, otherwise I will shift to KDE and use OpenSUSE; but I really would like to avoid that if at all possible.

Having had laptops PCs with tray-load, there were simply too many occurrences when I didn't have enough room to open the tray, or it was dangerously close to a passage area. Plus, wear and tear on the Sager I used lead to a stuck tray, to the point the disc inside wouldn't even rotate. Since then, I will probably never accept a tray-load ODD for a laptop.

There's no elegant AND reliable way to do an optical drive on a laptop. That said, if I see it gone on the next refresh of MacBook Pros, I will go postal. It's not a MacBook Air, don't make it one, Apple.

In typical Apple-fashion, I'd prefer having fewer, perfectly working choices than an ocean of crappy accessories from unknown manufacturers without an updated driver. Yes, it happens more than you seem to remember.

Not if you build the thing with off-the-shelf components, it doesn't.

Registry is basically unchanged since Windows 98. As all centralizations, it's a pain in the ass to live with, and impossible to debug. If you don't have proper linking management, just do with self-contained parameters. Wastes space, but surer.

I don't like it, but I understand why they implemented it as there is a certain degree of logic if you factor the rest of how Windows is designed. Again, it would be great if they redesigned it from the bottom up, but knowing Microsoft and how *****-whipped it is by third-party developers, they won't anytime soon.

So my friend thought when he finally reinstalled his Win 7 Home Premium (as his license was only valid for this edition). 115 updates needed. Freezes in the middle. Need restart. Redo. Wait ~2hrs. Doesn't reboot by itself.

So I thought when I put a Win XP SP3 corporate ed. in my VM. There is always a set of ~5 updates that never seem to install. Each reboot, I'm asked to install them, again.

All stock editions.

That does happen from time to time. Freezing in the middle will cause you problems. As for XP, I've had that problem a lot. I think it improves a lot in Vista and 7. XP's update system is retarded; depending on Internet Explorer to run the web-based application (why is it web-based?), let alone the ActiveX-based application to check for important system updates is beyond me. It was cute in Windows 9x/2000, not in XP.

Where lies MSE in Win's tree? It was KO-ed on said Pentium 4 box at its first encounter with a strong virus I don't even know how it landed here, that also rendered Wi-Fi connections invisible, effectively blocking updates.

MSE, itself will appear as an optional update in XP, Vista, and 7 if Windows Update doesn't detect any third-party anti-virus program already installed (as you don't want multiple anti-virus programs installed), and after that, all subsequent definitions files also appear as optional updates.

20 minutes spent is too much student-time to invest. Plus, Windows update had a nasty tendency to pop right in the middle of a rush. If I didn't apply them in less than 20 min, I'd get random lockups, freezes or application crashes. I know computers where not an exact science, but not that black magic was involved.

I'm just talking about running Windows Update each day (less frequently if you don't have MSE installed) before the user gets to work. It's really not all that time consuming, nor that hard. As a high school student, I did it all the time and it didn't inconvenience me at all. Now, I have a ritual where I run Software Update on my Mac before shutting it off and on my PC, I run Windows Update after booting it up. Both tend to take just as long, and given that I do them often, I'm never inconvenienced; Pro Solution right there.

I'd rather spend more for Mac peace-of-mind than Windows supposed flexibility.

On my primary personal machine, I couldn't agree more. My PC is primarily a gaming machine, but given that I am religious about checking for updates, I'm not at all inconvenienced by any of the cons typically associated with owning a PC.

On a Mac, automatic updates are swiftly pushed through, so I don't feel the need to check every night if there are updates.

Eh...it's not that much effort to check for updates, no matter what platform you're on.

OS X Server, to my knowledge, can be legally virtualized. Wasn't it in fashion to virtualize? I don't use Exchange, sorry, this one is for big corporations only. Home or private use mail servers are either POP or IMAP. Large corporations aren't "the rest of the world". They are the corporate world, which by no means should be imposed upon users. They give a Windows bad aftertaste to a sweet fruit, operate crapppily from A to Z.

Exchange and Windows Server are standards. They aren't just used in large corporations, they're used in small businesses too; they make up FAR more of the rest of the world than usage of Mac OS X Server. They are far more popular than Mac OS X Server will ever be, especially at the rate Apple is heading with it and the rest of its server product line. Believe me, I'd love to see it the other way around as in recently learning about both Snow Leopard Server (I take the Snow Leopard Server Essentials Exam for my ACTC 10.6 certification on Tuesday) and about Windows Server 2008 R2, I find the former much more palatable, but I don't think server admins particularly care about palatable given that, as a tool, the latter is far more scalable than the former will ever be.

Curious you don't like the Mini Server as a file server. Without an ODD, I would find it far more interesting as a NAS, Time Capsule on steroids and all-around download machine.

A Mac mini Server of my generation, tops out at 1TB between two 500GB hard drives; a Mac mini Server of current tops out at 1.5TB between two 750GB hard drives. All told, that's not a whole lot of storage for a file server, given that Time Capsules come in 2TB and 3TB models. If all I want is a file server or a Time Capsule on Steroids, I either buy a proper NAS, or a build a file server that can actually hold multiple 3.5" hard drives as two 2.5" hard drives topping at 750GB a piece is pretty pitiful if that's what you're doing. That said, if you're only hosting a small amount of stuff, that's fine. But honestly, my Time machine drive is 2TB and it's starting to warn me of space getting low. A Mac mini Server for that kind of a task seems like overkill in terms of functionality and underkill in terms of how much storage I have to actually play with.

If you're asking about the Mac mini in my signature, it was actually a very stupid purchase on my part. About a year ago, my Early 2006 iMac was starting to show signs of age and (a) there were games that I wanted to play on it, but couldn't, (b) I was sick of having my primary machine be a computer that I could only keep in one room, and (c) my 500GB hard drive was getting full and I wanted more internal storage. I built the PC tower in my signature to solve my gaming needs, and I bought the Mac mini Server (to use as a Mac running the non-Server version of Snow Leopard) to solve my storage needs, and I have the money saved up for whatever MacBook Pro replaces the current rev. Really, what I should've done was spent the money that I did on the Mac mini on a NAS and kept on using the Early 2006 iMac until it was finally time to pull the trigger on buying the MacBook Pro which would otherwise replace it. Though I think I'll just end up selling this Mac mini when I buy the MacBook Pro as I have no use for a second desktop Mac, when the MacBook Pro will be better and faster in every way, and I'll use the money I make on the mini to buy a NAS. So my set up will be PC tower, for gaming and any other basic internet/music/word processing stuff I'll want to do, my MacBook Pro for every non-gaming task, and my NAS for the things I can't fit and don't necessarily need on my MacBook Pro.

 

[Cubytus]

Not to be sexist or stereotype, but most Mac-wielding girls that I see have some non-Air form of 13" Mac, and in the absence of the white polycarbonate MacBook, that's more often than not the 13" MacBook Pro.

On the other hand, a very large majority of Air-wielding people are girls around my uni. But there's still a good amount of white PC MB still in service. Older girls seem to be more MBP-oriented. Perhaps they saw how inconvenient it was to NOT have an ODD?

The battery completely overlaps the trackpad. You do not need to remove the logic board on any aluminum non-Air MacBook or MacBook Pro in order to remove the trackpad, I'm living proof (or rather the Aluminum MacBooks and unibody MacBook Pros that I've performed the swap on are living proof) of this. I work as an ACMT-certified Mac Technician at an Apple Authorized Service Provider. I get to see these things naked all the time.

Ooooooh, you touch my tralala (Couldn't resist XD)

So bad that the trackpad isn't sold separately, otherwise I would have repaired the one I sold a few days ago. Same goes for the keyboard. It's impossible to find an aftermarket, "vertical return key" keyboard, let alone with the layout I'm looking for.

It's definitely pricier and less common (and also much slower) than its desktop counter-part; another reason why the iMac, for being a desktop, is a stupid machine, as is any all-in-one.

I wouldn't state it that way (does it show I tried to enter the Specialist position three times? Guess they didn't like my elitism and accent). The iMac is a surprisingly powerful machine, and even using non-standard components is no big deal provided you choose the right one for the beginning. You then get Apple's 5-star service (most of the time), and since they retain so much used value, you could always re-sell it and get a more powerful one. And all along its useful life, you'll get a machine that has been thoroughly thought, if I can say so. Most PCs component makers conceive their parts in isolation, without consideration for other's parts placement. Hence, you end up with funky air flow path, heating, noise, everything you don't usually get in an iMac, making it a much more silent machine.

I bought a 700W PSU made by Cooler Master, which mind you, isn't a ****** brand by any means.

My friend was convinced by the seller to try the Okia brand since it seemed so reliable at the time.

That problem is seldom applicable on a custom built PC tower as you're probably in need of upgrading that part anyway and you probably don't want just a replacement for the sake of keeping it limping along at the speed of slowness, same thing is true of an out-of-warranty Mac older than five years.

replacement = usually more powerful machine, since they don't make the slower, older one. Considering how fast technology moves, if you bought mid-range 2 years ago, you're unlikely to find exact replacements.

I'd have to imagine that the tons of businesses and schools out there go with them for a reason. They're certainly not my PC brand of choice (as I'd go with Lenovo or Asus for a name-brand machine).

Perhaps they do it like HP? As much as their consumer machines are pure crap, their business line provides both better quality and better, more flexible financing options. For large installed user base, perhaps leasing makes more sense than buying.

I wouldn't buy an Asus without extreme caution. Even though they come from the same factories as Macs. All Asus I laid my hands on were squeaky, buggy, noisy and otherwise unstable machines.

As for RAM on a custom-built tower, it's very easy to find good RAM; Corsair, Kingston, Crucial; they're all great; incidentally the same companies make RAM for Macs, and they more or less use the same OEM parts that Apple does.

My comment was about laptop memory. Kingston steals consumers: they charge $200 for an official MacBook Pro-compatible 8GB, while I got an 8GB kit from OWC for $60.

but for users, it sucks because not everyone is computer illiterate, and sometimes I want to be able to do what I want to do (which won't compromise the computer's pre-existing configuration in any way; but the IT guys don't know that).

Especially not in an university. That proves my point as portable applications being useless in most settings.

But on the other hand, sure, it requires more work for the IT people to customize the Windows image before it is deployed to the PC than it does the Mac image to be deployed to the Mac, but they are able to fine tune it so much more to fit their specific needs so much better. That being said, a managed PC in a corporate environment requires just as little maintenance as a managed Mac in the same environment, because all of that work is done and maintained automagically by the server and all of the configuring is preconfigured when the deployed image is being created. In both cases, it's pretty much pre-configure and go.

I would happily live with a locked down Windows installation on university's PC if only they used and automatically configured common software many ppl use such as Thunderbird, OpenOffice and Firefox.

I completely forgot about Fedora Core, which was more or less in step with Ubuntu up until 10.04 (or at least, last I checked). I just hate the new Unity mode where it's like a crippled side-mounted OS X dock with a fraction of the customizability and usability of the actual OS X dock. I'm told that this is a design choice unique to Ubuntu...at least I hope it is, otherwise I will shift to KDE and use OpenSUSE; but I really would like to avoid that if at all possible.

LMAO. I also found it to be a good beta, but not ready for production yet. At least Ubuntu evolves fast.

There's no elegant AND reliable way to do an optical drive on a laptop. That said, if I see it gone on the next refresh of MacBook Pros, I will go postal. It's not a MacBook Air, don't make it one, Apple.

What's inelegant in the profiled slot-load present in MBP?

Not if you build the thing with off-the-shelf components, it doesn't.

This was with O-T-S components, actually. I'm always pushing, in Ubuntu brainstorm division, to support fewer components perfectly than try to please everyone. It's simply not feasible economically and will lead to widespread in satisfaction instead of in satisfaction of a few.

Again, it would be great if they redesigned it from the bottom up, but knowing Microsoft and how *****-whipped it is by third-party developers, they won't anytime soon.

Problem is Microsoft actually has the leverage to force developers to move to more future-proof coding methods, in the name of better end-user experience. And when they try, it ends up botched.

MSE, itself will appear as an optional update in XP, Vista, and 7 if Windows Update doesn't detect any third-party anti-virus program already installed (as you don't want multiple anti-virus programs installed), and after that, all subsequent definitions files also appear as optional updates.

That sort of Windows inconsistency I dislike. Virus definitions are by no means "optional". They should even go before system updates that sometimes break mission-critical applications. Back in 2005, my internship supervisor expressly forbid anyone to install XP's SP2 on the lab machines. For the home user, there have been a ton a modifications to apply to make it usable.

Obviously Windows forged your behavior as it comes to updates. You have the right reflexes for maintaining a proper system, but these same reflexes may be counter-productive on a Mac: e.g., it's not advisable to use too much of Onyx's power.

On my primary personal machine, I couldn't agree more. My PC is primarily a gaming machine, but given that I am religious about checking for updates, I'm not at all inconvenienced by any of the cons typically associated with owning a PC.

I was never a gamer, so trust you on this one. I was also consistent with maintenance, but ultimately decided that, as well as other quirks and irritating bugs that never got corrected weren't worth it, especially since there was no easy way to make a full, Time Machine-like backup. And I wanted to get out the nightmare of having to pirate every piece of interesting software I wanted to use. Ubuntu was a nice first step, and since there was no built-for-Ubuntu laptops worth their money, I went Mac.

Eh...it's not that much effort to check for updates, no matter what platform you're on.

As Steve Jobs would have put it, I'm all for "forgetting" the machine is here. I don't want to think about the machine. I want to use its power. Bugs, lock-up, lack of ergonomics and update checking all get in my way. Given my inattention problem, I'd rather not do it.

Exchange and Windows Server are standards. They aren't just used in large corporations, they're used in small businesses too; they make up FAR more of the rest of the world than usage of Mac OS X Server. They are far more popular than Mac OS X Server will ever be, especially at the rate Apple is heading with it and the rest of its server product line. Believe me, I'd love to see it the other way around as in recently learning about both Snow Leopard Server (I take the Snow Leopard Server Essentials Exam for my ACTC 10.6 certification on Tuesday) and about Windows Server 2008 R2, I find the former much more palatable, but I don't think server admins particularly care about palatable given that, as a tool, the latter is far more scalable than the former will ever be.

They are not standards. They are de facto standards. IMAP, POP, SSL, iCal, those are standards. OS X Server is just a nice implementation of standards.

Interesting you're taking exams, but why on an officially outdated OS? It's just so expensive to be Apple-certified, considering the small market.

Time Capsule on Steroids, I either buy a proper NAS, or a build a file server that can actually hold multiple 3.5" hard drives as two 2.5" hard drives topping at 750GB a piece is pretty pitiful if that's what you're doing. That said, if you're only hosting a small amount of stuff, that's fine. But honestly, my Time machine drive is 2TB and it's starting to warn me of space getting low. A Mac mini Server for that kind of a task seems like overkill in terms of functionality and underkill in terms of how much storage I have to actually play with.

I could never quite build a theoretical NAS that could be all silent, low-consumption, non-SMB (many security issues), FTP, SFTP-accessible, with full 1Gbs transfer speed.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Ooooooh, you touch my tralala (Couldn't resist XD)

Always nice to see another Gunther fan.

So bad that the trackpad isn't sold separately, otherwise I would have repaired the one I sold a few days ago. Same goes for the keyboard. It's impossible to find an aftermarket, "vertical return key" keyboard, let alone with the layout I'm looking for.

It was (and might even still be) its own 922-xxxx part number; I have a few lying around. They make really nice-looking paperweights, though I doubt they function well for weighing down paper after a few dozen sheets.

I wouldn't state it that way (does it show I tried to enter the Specialist position three times? Guess they didn't like my elitism and accent). The iMac is a surprisingly powerful machine, and even using non-standard components is no big deal provided you choose the right one for the beginning. You then get Apple's 5-star service (most of the time), and since they retain so much used value, you could always re-sell it and get a more powerful one. And all along its useful life, you'll get a machine that has been thoroughly thought, if I can say so. Most PCs component makers conceive their parts in isolation, without consideration for other's parts placement. Hence, you end up with funky air flow path, heating, noise, everything you don't usually get in an iMac, making it a much more silent machine.

Ironically, the iMac is way way worse in terms of how much heat is generated versus how much of it is properly dissipated than any cheapo HP desktop. It's really terrible. You have all of those desktop components in such a needlessly thin enclosure. There are more thermal sensors on the iMac than there are on any of the other four Mac product lines. It's to the point where the pin on the SATA power cable that is ordinarily reserved for the Hard Drive data access LED is repurposed to be a connector that sends data from the Hard Drive's own temperature sensor via custom Apple firmware on the drive itself to the logic board. This also means that if you ever want your iMac's hard drive replaced, it will HAVE to be with an Apple drive as any other drive will cause all sorts of stupid problems. Again, only on the iMac do you get this kind of crap. Also, if you factor out the screen and only factor the hardware muscle inside, I'm sure most would rather the money go to faster internals and a good screen with maybe not as high of a resolution as for the internals you get with the iMac, it's not very fast for its price. While I did like the iMac G3, and pre-iSight G5 models (save for the high failure rate of those logic boards), for the most part, as far as desktops go, the iMac has always been an impractical machine.

replacement = usually more powerful machine, since they don't make the slower, older one. Considering how fast technology moves, if you bought mid-range 2 years ago, you're unlikely to find exact replacements.

Sure, but I'll find something faster that'll still work with what I have.

I wouldn't buy an Asus without extreme caution. Even though they come from the same factories as Macs. All Asus I laid my hands on were squeaky, buggy, noisy and otherwise unstable machines.

Every Asus I've ever owned and used has been perfectly solid. Also, I figure that a motherboard company that is well known and much loved would make a better name-branded PC than the likes of Dell or HP which use the cheapest components they can buy to make the profit that they do.

My comment was about laptop memory. Kingston steals consumers: they charge $200 for an official MacBook Pro-compatible 8GB, while I got an 8GB kit from OWC for $60.

Kingston is overpriced and not even remotely worth it. I usually go with Crucial as it's usually the same OEM as Apple and they're way reasonably priced; plus I've never had a Crucial RAM stick go back. My stepfather got the 8GB kit for his 2011 Mac mini for $50. Dirt cheap for maxing out a brand new Mac if I do say so myself.

I would happily live with a locked down Windows installation on university's PC if only they used and automatically configured common software many ppl use such as Thunderbird, OpenOffice and Firefox.

My university had Office and Firefox. They didn't include Thunderbird because Thunderbird is an app that is personalized upon first use and it's a computer that is used by many in the course of a day, so that makes sense...plus, it's not like there isn't the option of Webmail. Incidentally, U3 thumb drives help you get around that restriction by putting programs on the Thumb drive and just running it from there; nothing is saved locally, the program still runs, win-win.

LMAO. I also found it to be a good beta, but not ready for production yet. At least Ubuntu evolves fast.

I haven't touched it since the Ubuntu 10.04 days, during which Ubuntu didn't suck and the two OSes were more or less identical on the surface.

What's inelegant in the profiled slot-load present in MBP?

Nothing, but I was talking about inelegant AND reliable. The MacBook Pro's Superdrive is only the former.

This was with O-T-S components, actually. I'm always pushing, in Ubuntu brainstorm division, to support fewer components perfectly than try to please everyone. It's simply not feasible economically and will lead to widespread in satisfaction instead of in satisfaction of a few.

Really, it shouldn't be on Ubuntu to provide support for hardware; it should be on the hardware manufacturers to provide support for Ubuntu; that's how Microsoft does it, and really, I don't see it working in any other way, unless Ubuntu did limit support, but that'd almost kill the point of it being a Linux distro to begin with.

Problem is Microsoft actually has the leverage to force developers to move to more future-proof coding methods, in the name of better end-user experience. And when they try, it ends up botched.

Microsoft could do that, but then developers would resist (as they have in the past) and then businesses would resist (as they have in the past), and then they'd have a dud that never got adopted like Vista. The only reason they were able to really do it with Windows 7 was because they were able to implement "Windows XP Mode" on Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate Editions for legacy software that just wouldn't work with XP.

That sort of Windows inconsistency I dislike. Virus definitions are by no means "optional". They should even go before system updates that sometimes break mission-critical applications. Back in 2005, my internship supervisor expressly forbid anyone to install XP's SP2 on the lab machines. For the home user, there have been a ton a modifications to apply to make it usable.

They likely have all MSE related stuff listed as optional to avoid more anti-trust non-sense. They're no longer in your face about installing certain things. I agree, it should be a much higher priority update. But such is the line Microsoft has to walk nowadays.

Obviously Windows forged your behavior as it comes to updates. You have the right reflexes for maintaining a proper system, but these same reflexes may be counter-productive on a Mac: e.g., it's not advisable to use too much of Onyx's power.

I'm not familiar with Onyx. Otherwise, I was more or less raised to maintain my computer as doing so will prevent all sorts of nasty things. When I went to college in 2003, I brought a Pentium II Toshiba laptop running Windows XP and a FlowerPower iMac G3 running 10.2, and when the Sasser virus hit, I had the only PC in my entire dorm to not be infected because I had downloaded the Windows update that patched the security hole that it used. While it's overkill for the Mac, I never miss anything, and I feel like that can only be a good thing.

As Steve Jobs would have put it, I'm all for "forgetting" the machine is here. I don't want to think about the machine. I want to use its power. Bugs, lock-up, lack of ergonomics and update checking all get in my way. Given my inattention problem, I'd rather not do it.

Fair enough, but again, like I said, if you do it often, there's not much to actually do when you do it. You have to brush your teeth before you go to bed, and I'm sure there are those times when walking to the bathroom is more of an inconvenience than you'd like, especially after a long bender; but you do it, and you do it a lot, and to the point where it's an automatic habit and then you don't have to pay all that much attention to the annoyance of having to do it in the first place, because it is just that automatic.

They are not standards. They are de facto standards. IMAP, POP, SSL, iCal, those are standards. OS X Server is just a nice implementation of standards.

Fair point, but that's semantics. Point being, Exchange is used more commonly than it isn't, hence Apple's push with Snow Leopard, and iOS 2 to include native support for it. Also iCal isn't a standard; CalDav is, and the ics format is, but iCal itself isn't.

Interesting you're taking exams, but why on an officially outdated OS? It's just so expensive to be Apple-certified, considering the small market.

I love messing around with computers and as you (and certainly to an extent, I, as well) feel a noticeable difference in working with Windows versus Mac OS X, that difference is far more pronounced when working with them for a living. I am capable working with Windows, but the idea of climbing up the Windows IT latter scares me as I feel like it'd be a career that would lead me to either pick up some serious depression or go postal. The Windows IT sub-culture seems more focused on a separation between the IT people and those that they support, which irks me on a social level given that I'm a huge people person IRL. Working on and with Apple stuff, I get an impression that's almost a complete 180. It's humanizing and while the variety of issues and tasks isn't what it is in the Windows world, it's still fun and I don't feel like I'm in this tower of nerd-dom separated from all of the non-nerds speaking a language that they don't want to know; it doesn't feel like it's middle school all over again which is what I can almost taste in the Windows IT world. So, long story short, while there aren't that many openings for such a job, I want my resume to look as good as it can so that when that opportunity comes along, I stand out for it.

As for my Snow Leopard Server test/certification (which I passed, by the way), you ask a great question and I have two answers.

One, while I have my Apple Certified Support Professional 10.7 certification and could've just as easily gone straight to the Apple Certified Technical Coordinator 10.7 certification with the Lion equivalent of what I just took and passed, I have heard from just about everywhere and everyone that Lion Server is both radically different (and for the worse), but also dumbed down. So I figured that from the standpoint of getting a well-rounded education on Mac OS X Server in general, I should go back, learn Snow Leopard Server, and then learn Lion Server from the standpoint of what changed from one to the next.

The second reason is that while Lion certifications stop at the Lion equivalent of the Snow Leopard test that I just took and passed, the Snow Leopard certifications have three more electives that each grant their own certification, but if you go all out Pokemon on it and get them all, you get the title of "Apple Certified Systems Administrator", which apparently gets Apple IT jobs super fast. That said, with the recent announcement of Mountain Lion, even if it is a fancy title, you're right, it'll be two OS versions old very soon, so I'm only going to take one of the elective cert exams, which is on Deployment, which is something that I've wanted to become much better acquainted with as far as Macs go, and not do the other two because they look like they're neither interesting, nor fun, nor pertinent to anything I want to be doing in IT anyway. Then I'll move on from Snow Leopard and proceed on with the Lion Server cert and then I take a break until Mountain Lion test material is available. Sorry for the long answer.

I could never quite build a theoretical NAS that could be all silent, low-consumption, non-SMB (many security issues), FTP, SFTP-accessible, with full 1Gbs transfer speed.

The NAS I bought to use for when I replace my Mac mini with the MacBook Pro I'm going to buy supports AFP and SMB (though I can't imagine not being able to turn one or both protocols off), which I imagine will be all I'll use it for. I mean, I guess SMB would be useful too, but I'd only want it to be read-only so that in the unlikely event that my PC does get infected, that infection doesn't spread anywhere.

 

[8281]

I have an idea...use the $1000 gift to purchase a SSD for your Dell, and then pocket the extra cash to purchase an iPad in a month

 

[tomtendo]

I did not read any of what you wrote, but I still would go with the MacBook air. The Pro is going to be an outdated design. I strongly believe that the CD Rom drive will not exist on any laptop within the next 1-2 years.

And you can't beat a flash hard drive. Super fast.

 

[Cubytus]

It was (and might even still be) its own 922-xxxx part number; I have a few lying around. They make really nice-looking paperweights, though I doubt they function well for weighing down paper after a few dozen sheets.

Couldn't find it on eBay, neither on iFixit.

This also means that if you ever want your iMac's hard drive replaced, it will HAVE to be with an Apple drive as any other drive will cause all sorts of stupid problems.

I read about it also. Found that really stupid. Hard drives do fail, and Apple sells them at a premium. Didn't knew they also modified the HDD's firmware. I acknowledge there's much heat generated out of a i-based iMac, but not so much out of a Core-based one.

Sure, but I'll find something faster that'll still work with what I have.

I'm always reasoning in terms of cost effectiveness. Is it more cost-effective to replace the defective part, even for a faster one, or simply go with an all-new machine?

Every Asus I've ever owned and used has been perfectly solid. Also, I figure that a motherboard company that is well known and much loved would make a better name-branded PC than the likes of Dell or HP which use the cheapest components they can buy to make the profit that they do.

...yet they don't make much profit, in terms of margin. Also, all the Asus MoBo I used tended to fail rather early. Their laptops are in line with that, unfortunately, and I also find it weird considering expectactions I had. Not to say I wouldn't buy an Asus again, but actually be very wary about it :S

Kingston is overpriced and not even remotely worth it. I usually go with Crucial as it's usually the same OEM as Apple and they're way reasonably priced; plus I've never had a Crucial RAM stick go back. My stepfather got the 8GB kit for his 2011 Mac mini for $50. Dirt cheap for maxing out a brand new Mac if I do say so myself.

Their value / PC-intended line is fine.. I heard very good feedback about Mushkin, also. And once, read about one guy who had a very bad experience using Crucial RAM, including bad customer service.

My university had Office and Firefox. They didn't include Thunderbird because Thunderbird is an app that is personalized upon first use and it's a computer that is used by many in the course of a day, so that makes sense...plus, it's not like there isn't the option of Webmail. Incidentally, U3 thumb drives help you get around that restriction by putting programs on the Thumb drive and just running it from there; nothing is saved locally, the program still runs, win-win.

Actually, mine also has Firefox included. But they could definitely pre-configure Thunderbird, at least with universities' settings, using their login script.

The blocking here seems to be on .exe's not present on the C: drive (local or virtual) (Even the D: (Data) isn't allowed to run an exe.).

Nothing, but I was talking about inelegant AND reliable. The MacBook Pro's Superdrive is only the former.

I still don't get it. From my experience on Macs, laptops and desktops, teh superDrive was a pleasure to use

Really, it shouldn't be on Ubuntu to provide support for hardware; it should be on the hardware manufacturers to provide support for Ubuntu; that's how Microsoft does it, and really, I don't see it working in any other way, unless Ubuntu did limit support, but that'd almost kill the point of it being a Linux distro to begin with.

It's not even remotely comparable. Microsoft has anywhere between 80 and 97% of the PC market thanks to coercive licensing signed with manufacturers, whereas Ubuntu, with ~1-3% market share (at best) is negligible. Sometimes generous manufacturers open up their specs, but most don't. Therefore, considering Canonical's limited resources, it's in their best interest to work with the manufacturers that are Linux-friendly, as well as a select few, well-known others that have been reverse-engineered.

It wouldn't mean "kill everything else", of course, but rather provide a list of "recommended" hardware, much as they put their logo next to the "recommended" software. The former would be Canonical-supported, ensuring best compatibility, the latter would be community-supported. That way, Ubuntu could still work on any hardware, but there would be an additional level of quality-check.

Microsoft could do that, but then developers would resist (as they have in the past) and then businesses would resist (as they have in the past), and then they'd have a dud that never got adopted like Vista.

You're underestimating market share power here. Vista was botched, required a much more powerful computer than common at the time of its launch, and even in native mode, didn't worked very well. And, coding methods are invisible to the end-user, except if he notices less bugs, hang-ups, etc. Microsoft had YEARS to prepare developers to the new OS. I guess MSDN has coding guidelines for "good" appliction?

There's a slight similarity with Lion, which left developers only with MONTHS to get used to the new OS. I think it is backfiring on Apple to some extent, since I find Mountain Lion to come out quite fast. New users liked both Vista and Lion, but former ones hated broken backward-compatibility.

IMHO it was really silly to try to cram iOS features inside a desktop OS.

They likely have all MSE related stuff listed as optional to avoid more anti-trust non-sense. They're no longer in your face about installing certain things. I agree, it should be a much higher priority update. But such is the line Microsoft has to walk nowadays.

In that case, it would have been much more user-friendly to have Windows present a random array of common antivirus applications, much as they do with Internet browser in european editions of Windows (?).

I'm not familiar with Onyx.

Have a look. Don't touch anything yet, but just install and open it. It will ask for an administrator's password.

Fair enough, but again, like I said, if you do it often, there's not much to actually do when you do it.

I think you can set up a script that automatically does it for you..

Working on and with Apple stuff, I get an impression that's almost a complete 180. It's humanizing and while the variety of issues and tasks isn't what it is in the Windows world, it's still fun and I don't feel like I'm in this tower of nerd-dom separated from all of the non-nerds speaking a language that they don't want to know; it doesn't feel like it's middle school all over again which is what I can almost taste in the Windows IT world. So, long story short, while there aren't that many openings for such a job, I want my resume to look as good as it can so that when that opportunity comes along, I stand out for it.

Geez, I really wish you could work at the local Apple Store, then. Don't think I'm underestimating your skills here, but "humanizing" and "fun" have all but disappeared from this store, being replaced by "dumb" and "empty". There's no connection anymore that appears even remotely "personal", it's all pre-formatted, corporate-issue answers.

(...)I have heard from just about everywhere and everyone that Lion Server is both radically different (and for the worse), but also dumbed down.(...)

Crap, I didn't thought Lion was so bad even on the inside. iOS contamination has occurred

Sorry for the long answer.

That's fine, actually I wondered if these certifications were worth the cost, considering Apple is likely to remain a minor player in the IT department.

The NAS I bought to use for when I replace my Mac mini with the MacBook Pro I'm going to buy supports AFP and SMB (though I can't imagine not being able to turn one or both protocols off), which I imagine will be all I'll use it for. I mean, I guess SMB would be useful too, but I'd only want it to be read-only so that in the unlikely event that my PC does get infected, that infection doesn't spread anywhere.

If it's like the very serious issue that was detects in the WiFi Protected Setup protocol, quite a lot of affected devices just can't have this feature disabled. This is especially worrying since this was just an add-on feature that is not necessary for proper operation.

I have a hard time imagining what kind of off-the-shelf this NAS would be.

I did not read any of what you wrote, but I still would go with the MacBook air. The Pro is going to be an outdated design. I strongly believe that the CD Rom drive will not exist on any laptop within the next 1-2 years.

And you can't beat a flash hard drive. Super fast.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Couldn't find it on eBay, neither on iFixit.

Weird. I'll have to give it a looksee in GSX, next time I decide to log in.

I read about it also. Found that really stupid. Hard drives do fail, and Apple sells them at a premium. Didn't knew they also modified the HDD's firmware. I acknowledge there's much heat generated out of a i-based iMac, but not so much out of a Core-based one.

Sandy Bridge improves upon this, but it's still pretty bad and has been since they went to the current design.

I'm always reasoning in terms of cost effectiveness. Is it more cost-effective to replace the defective part, even for a faster one, or simply go with an all-new machine?

Obviously, in a PC tower, if you're rocking a Core 2 Duo, on the eve of desktop Ivy Bridge CPU launch even with the AMD FX out as well, and you're considering whether or not to upgrade your dead GeForce 8800 GT to a modern day GeForce or Radeon, yeah, it might just make sense to just replace the machine, but it's nice to have the flexibility to get a new card and reuse it if you want to upgrade/replace everything else at a later time. That kind of flexibility makes a PC tower far more flexible than any Mac desktop.

...yet they don't make much profit, in terms of margin. Also, all the Asus MoBo I used tended to fail rather early. Their laptops are in line with that, unfortunately, and I also find it weird considering expectactions I had. Not to say I wouldn't buy an Asus again, but actually be very wary about it :S

Again, very weird, that has not been my experience with them at all.

Their value / PC-intended line is fine.. I heard very good feedback about Mushkin, also. And once, read about one guy who had a very bad experience using Crucial RAM, including bad customer service.

I've bought Crucial for five Macs thus far, one of which is the Mac mini Server that I use currently, haven't had any problems whatsoever.

Actually, mine also has Firefox included. But they could definitely pre-configure Thunderbird, at least with universities' settings, using their login script.

At that point, it's much more cost/time-effective to just direct users to their webmail, which just about every e-mail provider has.

I still don't get it. From my experience on Macs, laptops and desktops, teh superDrive was a pleasure to use

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather Apple's internal optical disc drive than none at all, but out of four Macs that I've owned with Apple's slot-load optical drive, three have had to have theirs replaced. That's a bad failure rate, even for Apple.

It's not even remotely comparable. Microsoft has anywhere between 80 and 97% of the PC market thanks to coercive licensing signed with manufacturers, whereas Ubuntu, with ~1-3% market share (at best) is negligible. Sometimes generous manufacturers open up their specs, but most don't. Therefore, considering Canonical's limited resources, it's in their best interest to work with the manufacturers that are Linux-friendly, as well as a select few, well-known others that have been reverse-engineered.

If you are Joe Graphics Card Maker, then aside from probably changing your middle and last names, it's not like you can't make drivers for your hardware for either Microsoft or Canonical for Windows or Ubuntu respectively. Neither OS/company is closing off the ability to publish and make drivers available. I agree, if we're looking at this from the standpoint of Canonical supporting stuff, yeah, they should work with known partners and let anyone else fend for themselves or put forth the effort to extend their stuff to Canonical so that Canonical can offer up support; but closing off support is kind of stupid and counter to Linux, be it Canonical's Ubuntu or Joe Blow's HomeBrewed Linux (I tend to imagine that most open-source OSes work like moonshine).

It wouldn't mean "kill everything else", of course, but rather provide a list of "recommended" hardware, much as they put their logo next to the "recommended" software. The former would be Canonical-supported, ensuring best compatibility, the latter would be community-supported. That way, Ubuntu could still work on any hardware, but there would be an additional level of quality-check.

Right. Yeah, that would be fair. Again, completely aside from drivers, I worry that Ubuntu jumped the shark as the interface in 11.04 and later makes me want to punch a kitten, and I love kittens.

You're underestimating market share power here. Vista was botched, required a much more powerful computer than common at the time of its launch, and even in native mode, didn't worked very well. And, coding methods are invisible to the end-user, except if he notices less bugs, hang-ups, etc. Microsoft had YEARS to prepare developers to the new OS. I guess MSDN has coding guidelines for "good" appliction?

Apple holds WWDC every year. It's their pow-wow in which all of their developers come together and are given up-to-the-minute guidelines and SDKs for all of the latest Apple operating systems. Even with Apple's marketshare growing, it's small enough and controlled enough for Apple to keep everyone and everything in line. Microsoft has many times the amount of developers that Apple does and that kind of organization for Microsoft to pull off would be nothing short of chaotic. To their credit, they are trying with this new "Metro" initiative, but it's still going to be an uphill battle for them, and that has nothing to do with Windows vs. Mac OS X, at least nowhere near as much as it has to do with 90% vs. 10%.

There's a slight similarity with Lion, which left developers only with MONTHS to get used to the new OS. I think it is backfiring on Apple to some extent, since I find Mountain Lion to come out quite fast. New users liked both Vista and Lion, but former ones hated broken backward-compatibility.

Devs had more or less the same amount of time to deal with Lion than they did with Snow Leopard. That said, Mountain Lion doesn't add much that devs need to worry about. Pretty much just Gatekeeper (if you want to pay Apple $99 a year) and the Notification center. For everything else in place, there's not much that developers need to mess with to update their apps for it. And really, the only thing that sucked for Backwards compatibility in Lion was no Rosetta, which, as far as I can tell, was a needless decision given how lightweight it is.

IMHO it was really silly to try to cram iOS features inside a desktop OS.

Meh, none of them did anything to make the OS suck; it's not like every iOS feature in Lion can't be turned off or ignored. Plus it looks like the notifications system in Mountain Lion will kick the crap out of Growl, which is nice.

Geez, I really wish you could work at the local Apple Store, then. Don't think I'm underestimating your skills here, but "humanizing" and "fun" have all but disappeared from this store, being replaced by "dumb" and "empty". There's no connection anymore that appears even remotely "personal", it's all pre-formatted, corporate-issue answers.

I thank you very much. Actually, I've felt that is pretty much the case with all Apple Stores. If you can, I suggest making it out to a Microsoft Store; they were set up by the same guy that originally designed the Apple Stores. It really is a lot like the Apple Stores of 2001-04, and is thusly much friendlier. Sadly, I think they wanted to increase efficiency rather than increase warmth. Sad thing that is. But yeah, "humanizing" and "fun" and "warm" and "non-isolating" are all things that really need to be more present in the IT world. Sure, we will know more than those that don't, but that doesn't mean that we all can't behave like we're family if we're working at the same place or for the same people.

Crap, I didn't thought Lion was so bad even on the inside. iOS contamination has occurred

Lion Server doesn't suck for any reasons pertinent to the design integration of iOS. It's just dumbed down, which, to be fair, is something that the Server OS market as a whole is trending towards...Apple is just pushing that along much faster with Lion Server, especially since there is no longer any rack-mountable server that can run it.

That's fine, actually I wondered if these certifications were worth the cost, considering Apple is likely to remain a minor player in the IT department.

Worth the cost, probably not. Looking good to stand out in a Mac-centric position, definitely. That's my logic, at least. Right now, my Mac OS X Deployment 10.6 certification that I'm preparing for will probably do me no good on my resume, but it's good skills, and the material is fun.

I have a hard time imagining what kind of off-the-shelf this NAS would be.

I got this one:


http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...4&TId=2&SF=1&gclid=CKax0LjP1q4CFUUHRQodOT9PBg

 

[thekev]

Sandy Bridge improves upon this, but it's still pretty bad and has been since they went to the current design.

I never understood some of their design changes on the imac line. They mostly felt like changes just to say they did something, but you really don't gain desk real estate from a slightly thinner imac. You don't gain anything. It also tends to inch it away from eventual mac pro replacement territory (which is how many on here see it) as workstations generally are balanced to run reasonably (not within degrees of throttling) under heavy loads. It's pretty obvious where their designs are trending, and it's also annoying.

 

[Cubytus]

Obviously, in a PC tower, if you're rocking a Core 2 Duo(...)

A PC tower sporting a Core 2 Duo, especially the latter version, is not exactly what I would call an old, un-upgradeable machine. I consider upgrading when the current machine grows too slow to my taste, or when it can't perform common operations fast. The current, Pentium 4 3.2GHz-based tower I have sitting in the corridor is one that would be more economical to replace altogether, rather than upgrade.

At that point, it's much more cost/time-effective to just direct users to their webmail, which just about every e-mail provider has.

Browsers are heavy, slow beasts. In fact, I'm against all forms of web-based apps since they make the experience so slow and limited.

Besides, although the university does have a Web interface for their email boxes, it's really a spare tire. Why?
1- native mailbox provides space like it's 1996 (60MB) (and still doesn't officially support SSL).
2- most people redirect the provided address to their own mailboxes, despite warnings that this setup is unsupported and u. can't be held responsible if blablabla...

Sure, the login script could always read what the user configured as redirection mailbox, and open / configure the right application. Or simply pre-configure Thunderbird with standard university settings. But it's not like they're considering how to lose less time (otherwise they would have installed Macs )

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather Apple's internal optical disc drive than none at all, but out of four Macs that I've owned with Apple's slot-load optical drive, three have had to have theirs replaced. That's a bad failure rate, even for Apple.

Seems you have a bad experience with that part, as I had with Asus' products.

If you are Joe Graphics Card Maker, then aside from probably changing your middle and last names, it's not like you can't make drivers for your hardware for either Microsoft or Canonical for Windows or Ubuntu respectively. Neither OS/company is closing off the ability to publish and make drivers available. I agree, if we're looking at this from the standpoint of Canonical supporting stuff, yeah, they should work with known partners and let anyone else fend for themselves or put forth the effort to extend their stuff to Canonical so that Canonical can offer up support; but closing off support is kind of stupid and counter to Linux, be it Canonical's Ubuntu or Joe Blow's HomeBrewed Linux (I tend to imagine that most open-source OSes work like moonshine).

You've just taken a different path to land where I am.

Actually, some companies DO make Linux drivers for their stuff, and guess what? When something doesn't work right, the Linux community always points at these non-free, non-open-sources parts the poor user places in its OS, accusing them of being the sole source of problems. E.g., the common issue Ubuntu has is, it can't go to sleep, or hibernation, or wake up, or just properly manage power usage (it's not unusual for a Ubuntu laptop to have a fan whining, being out of battery after, say, 3h when the same laptop on Windows lasting 4 to 5 hours.

So well, even with proprietary Linux drivers, Canonical-supported hardware would be more interesting since a user wouldn't have to get caught in the never-ending war against the proprietary between fanatics and the manufacturer.

That wouldn't mean to close off others, but act in a positive way, much as WHQL is supposed to be for the Windows world. Free publicity for the manufacturer, perhaps lay new "Linux-friendly" label that other distributions could use and refer to. But again, the very small and narrow market segments that all Linux-es distro represent (blame it on illegal Microsoft OEM licensing requirements) are unlikely to attract many manufacturers looking for publicity.

Again, completely aside from drivers, I worry that Ubuntu jumped the shark as the interface in 11.04 and later makes me want to punch a kitten, and I love kittens.

I don't like it, either. For me, it looks like Lion, i.e. a wrong mix between a made-for tablet interface and more desktop-like interface. PCs are not tablets, and tablets are not PCs. When the iPad came out, finally, someone made a table interface right, explaining why the TabletPC, with its classical Windows interface, never was really successful. Same with the few snapshots of Metro I've seen: they don't seem to be very well designed for standard desktop PCs.

Apple holds WWDC every year. It's their pow-wow in which all of their developers come together and are given up-to-the-minute guidelines and SDKs for all of the latest Apple operating systems. Even with Apple's marketshare growing, it's small enough and controlled enough for Apple to keep everyone and everything in line. Microsoft has many times the amount of developers that Apple does and that kind of organization for Microsoft to pull off would be nothing short of chaotic. To their credit, they are trying with this new "Metro" initiative, but it's still going to be an uphill battle for them, and that has nothing to do with Windows vs. Mac OS X, at least nowhere near as much as it has to do with 90% vs. 10%.

Devs had more or less the same amount of time to deal with Lion than they did with Snow Leopard. That said, Mountain Lion doesn't add much that devs need to worry about. Pretty much just Gatekeeper (if you want to pay Apple $99 a year) and the Notification center. For everything else in place, there's not much that developers need to mess with to update their apps for it. And really, the only thing that sucked for Backwards compatibility in Lion was no Rosetta, which, as far as I can tell, was a needless decision given how lightweight it is.

You're right on this one, Microsoft can't possibly invite them all. I'm pretty sure even Apple doesn't invite all its developers.

Yet, newsletter exist, and as long developers are registered in MSDN or Apple Developper Program, they could be informed of changes to come.

Rosetta could have been included in Lion (that's one of the major reasons I dislike Lion, since will be necessary as long as my scanner doesn't die off), and, if Apple didn't want to support it anymore, open its source and let the community take over. Mission Control is also a big step backwards.

I don't agree, at all, on the other statement: Apple did it wrong with Lion: there were so many changes, and so short a time to prepare that old-time users (and I guess, programmers) was less than stellar, and most applications don't require Lion where, in contrast, very soon after Snow Leopard came out, mot applications were upgraded and required SL, ditching Leopard. Lion is not even a year old they are already pushing out its successor.

I thank you very much. Actually, I've felt that is pretty much the case with all Apple Stores. If you can, I suggest making it out to a Microsoft Store; they were set up by the same guy that originally designed the Apple Stores. It really is a lot like the Apple Stores of 2001-04, and is thusly much friendlier. Sadly, I think they wanted to increase efficiency rather than increase warmth. Sad thing that is. But yeah, "humanizing" and "fun" and "warm" and "non-isolating" are all things that really need to be more present in the IT world. Sure, we will know more than those that don't, but that doesn't mean that we all can't behave like we're family if we're working at the same place or for the same people.

I was referring to it more from the customer's side, but right. The current Apple Store experience is mostly crappy, light-years of what it was when the store opened in Spring '08. Even more worrisome is this one is supposed to be a flagship store, setting the standard for all other Apple stores.

Actually, I met with the local Windows Guru (since there's no Microsoft store yet in my town. I guess having both a large surface and a large part of its population being poor or just tourists just kills the incentive) at a talking for both Microsoft and Apple technologies, he's actually a very nice, respectful yet knowledgeable guy, much like the Apple personnel used to be.

Who was sponsoring the event? Micro Boutique. Their flagship is Apple's products, yet they have selected a few, high-quality PCs to diversify the offer. VAIO, Toshiba, a few HPs. No Acer or Gateway there.

Lion Server doesn't suck for any reasons pertinent to the design integration of iOS. It's just dumbed down, which, to be fair, is something that the Server OS market as a whole is trending towards...Apple is just pushing that along much faster with Lion Server, especially since there is no longer any rack-mountable server that can run it.

Dumbing down a server a bit is not necessarily bad since simpler means the administrator would use less of its expensive time to run it.

Isn't the Mac Mini Server rack-mountable using a special tray?

I got this one:


http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...4&TId=2&SF=1&gclid=CKax0LjP1q4CFUUHRQodOT9PBg

Doesn't seem they have much information on it. BTW, wouldn't a less-powerful PC tower do the same kind of job for less money?

If I decide to buy it, that would be anywhere else than Tigerdirect. But thanks for the link.

I never understood some of their design changes on the imac line. They mostly felt like changes just to say they did something, but you really don't gain desk real estate from a slightly thinner imac. You don't gain anything. It also tends to inch it away from eventual mac pro replacement territory (which is how many on here see it) as workstations generally are balanced to run reasonably (not within degrees of throttling) under heavy loads. It's pretty obvious where their designs are trending, and it's also annoying.

From my POV, the iMac is un-ergonomic. Sits too high on its stand. Not adjustable. Puts constant strain on the neck as one needs to stare up to be able to see the top of the screen.

I hope the next design would remove the lower, metal part of the face, place everything behind the screen, lowering it to a more comfortable level.

 

[thekev]

Isn't the Mac Mini Server rack-mountable using a special tray?

It definitely doesn't make for much of a server solution, but yeah I think Sonnet makes one.

From my POV, the iMac is un-ergonomic. Sits too high on its stand. Not adjustable. Puts constant strain on the neck as one needs to stare up to be able to see the top of the screen.

I hope the next design would remove the lower, metal part of the face, place everything behind the screen, lowering it to a more comfortable level.

It is, but a lot of Apple products aren't built 100% around functionality. Apple fans see something by another manufacturer and it's not the superior ergonomics that are noticed. Instead they complain that it's ugly. Height adjustability would be great, but you'd most likely require more of a weighted base. Much of the time the focus seems to be on grabbing people rather than making the most functional product, and some things are just weird, like the perception that they're more reliable. It always compares against a biased control target, usually the cheapest possible PC, because no one would ever run anything but OSX unless they were completely broke right?

Edit: I'm still waiting on full displayport features from thunderbolt (one of the reasons I haven't upgraded any machines).

 

[Cubytus]

It is, but a lot of Apple products aren't built 100% around functionality. Apple fans see something by another manufacturer and it's not the superior ergonomics that are noticed. Instead they complain that it's ugly. Height adjustability would be great, but you'd most likely require more of a weighted base.

The base doesn't need to be weighted, the iMac is really well centered.

Much of the time the focus seems to be on grabbing people rather than making the most functional product, and some things are just weird, like the perception that they're more reliable. It always compares against a biased control target, usually the cheapest possible PC, because no one would ever run anything but OSX unless they were completely broke right?

When it fails despite a high price tag (such as the Asus I laid my hands on) and one legitimately looks for help either getting warranty service, or in the community, and each keep on blaming the other manufacturer for the failure, well, that surely doesn't contribute to perception of quality. PC users contribute to this bias, boasting they can build a computer with the same power as a Mac, fir a third of the price, forgetting along the way that quality comes at a premium.

 

[thekev]

The base doesn't need to be weighted, the iMac is really well centered.

Given the lack of an imac to physically examine in detail right now, I'm trying to envision this. My concern isn't entirely the balance of the current design. The concern is how it would balance with a height adjustable stand which doesn't typically use the chin type design. Most of the basic stands tend to be telescopic with a somewhat larger weighted footprint. I'm not using cheap displays for reference either . What are you suggesting would make for good adjustability without weighting? Some of them lack huge bases, but the bases themselves are much heavier. In the case of other manufacturers, they're probably looking at costs and avoiding as much custom design as possible there while providing functionality. Apple places a much higher priority on aesthetics than others.

When it fails despite a high price tag (such as the Asus I laid my hands on) and one legitimately looks for help either getting warranty service, or in the community, and each keep on blaming the other manufacturer for the failure, well, that surely doesn't contribute to perception of quality. PC users contribute to this bias, boasting they can build a computer with the same power as a Mac, fir a third of the price, forgetting along the way that quality comes at a premium.

All computers can fail. I just wish the failure rates weren't quite so bad on some models, and this includes Apple. I never use self built references for a reason. No oem could profit using that as their point of reference. They have to add something to differentiate themselves there. That one is in favor of Apple. Regarding blaming component manufacturers, ipad backlight bleed, imac yellow screen tinge (by the way some but not all other manufacturers deal with these same panels and correct much of this by panel blocking as I often mention because variation is a given in mass market display panels), macbook pro NVidia problem, G5 logic boards and IBM, first generation macbook temperatures. Quite often the blame is placed elsewhere even in the case of Apple. It's not always that they're different. They're just perceived differently, but many of the problems are the same. This is why I tell people that a problem free computer does not exist.

I think the guys that compare to custom built machines are silly too. If by some chance I was going build a custom PC, just constructing a top quality machine would be significantly higher than what many of these guys suggest. I've priced it out without going cheap on anything and avoiding manufacturers with poor support or warranty terms in case anything needs to be RMA'd. When you go by that standard, what might have cost $800 can jump to $1400. Usually my criticism of Apple would be on something like the mac pro where they like to upgrade to cheaper parts of a newer generation but keep the price the same.

 

[KylePowers]

From my POV, the iMac is un-ergonomic. Sits too high on its stand. Not adjustable. Puts constant strain on the neck as one needs to stare up to be able to see the top of the screen.

I hope the next design would remove the lower, metal part of the face, place everything behind the screen, lowering it to a more comfortable level.

I had this issue too... then I raised my chair

Just being facetious of course.

 

[Cubytus]

Most of the basic stands tend to be telescopic with a somewhat larger weighted footprint. I'm not using cheap displays for reference either . What are you suggesting would make for good adjustability without weighting? Some of them lack huge bases, but the bases themselves are much heavier. In the case of other manufacturers, they're probably looking at costs and avoiding as much custom design as possible there while providing functionality. Apple places a much higher priority on aesthetics than others.

The G4 iMac had a weighted base, since it contained the computer itself.

The iMac could include a rail on the back, and keep the current stand. Or, make a different stand that would include a vertical, rigid rail. I really like the chin design. It's so slim that you can FINALLY put something on it, be it a paper, pencils, etc., all you can't do on a standard weighted base.

All computers can fail. (...) This is why I tell people that a problem free computer does not exist.

That's a fact, and that's why I tell people to look at Macs not because they fail less (which tends to vary widely, as reading these forums reveal), but because they can get so good service (at least usually) at having it repaired. No one blaming the other: if it's dead under normal use and warranty, we'll repair it, period.

As a side note, maybe this kind of "negative" statement was one reason I wasn't taken for a Specialist job.

Usually my criticism of Apple would be on something like the mac pro where they like to upgrade to cheaper parts of a newer generation but keep the price the same.

Who wants to upgrade a MacPro with cheap parts? Apple? They certainly don't use cheap parts. e.g., I read many times about "dead pixels" warranties from different OEMs... Just noticed how Apple don't have a specific one? I assume they go "if it's dead, we'll replace it". No question so as to count the number of dead pixels, their color, their place...

@KylePowers: I LOL'ed.

 

[thekev]

Who wants to upgrade a MacPro with cheap parts? Apple? They certainly don't use cheap parts. e.g., I read many times about "dead pixels" warranties from different OEMs... Just noticed how Apple don't have a specific one? I assume they go "if it's dead, we'll replace it". No question so as to count the number of dead pixels, their color, their place...

@KylePowers: I LOL'ed.

I cannot quite picture the imac suggestion from your description. By rail you either mean something telescopic like most display stands where they use a spring mechanism to balance the weight of the panel, although it has to be slightly more complex so that it doesn't have bounce back toward the lower part of its range. Actually that's the only thing I've seen used. I haven't seen any kind of pressure type lock given that it would either be prone to creep and annoying to tighten down or oversized and "ugly" to compensate for this. I've seen plenty of rail systems, but I cannot fully picture what you are suggesting.

Most dead pixel warranties (note most) have gotten a lot better as the technology has matured. It's a difficult thing to price in given that display manufacturers oem the panel most of the time. These things have become heavily commoditized. Basically outside of TN, Samsung and LG pretty much edged the others out with a combination of price/good enough quality/design. The other guys take that, apply their own engineering to lessen the sample variation between units which was still an issue (well a lesser issue) even with specialized panels, and ship that. Many of them adopted 0 dead pixel policies from at least 2005 on. Early on even Apple was weird about it. Most of them replaced it even with one if it was in or toward the center.

You're slightly misreading what I said about cheap parts. They go with much cheaper cpu models than they did 2008 and before in their base model. 2006-2008 you were looking at 2 very expensive cpus. Now it's a single $300 cpu. It's less expensive than the one in the top macbook pro (which costs almost as much as the one needed for the 6 core mac pro). This was probably Apple's way of raising their margins on a line with slipping volume. Nehalem was a strong generation in terms of single threaded performance gains. They transitioned to a single core base configuration there in the hopes of not going backward on speed (it varied, but later OSX revisions favored the quad nehalem in most stuff). I'm just saying this did happen. You can look up what they used as opposed to what they use now if you like.

They really are neglected workstations. They could use better gpu support especially for workstation drivers with 10 bit support back again (it came in Leopard then disappeared SL on). Adding a drive to an optical bay should be a baseline option so that you could have a fast boot drive and the rest turned into a 4 drive raid configuration. I'm not sure what they're going to do with it. It tends to have a longer upgrade cycle in general, but there were issues in recent years that made upgrades impractical at certain points and hastened the trend toward smaller devices.

I'll give an example here. Application builds were stuck in 32 bit mode (as they weren't even possible in 64 until Snow Leopard no matter what Apple's marketing team would like you to believe). This meant that you were limited on ram that could be addressed directly. Providing a faster cache isn't quite the same, and it had some quirks that I don't fully understand (willing to admit that). At this point even notebooks were getting to where they could hold around 4GB without spending much, yet workstations weren't gaining a lot past there at the single application level. The benefit was mostly that you could run several applications and each could address to that level, but this didn't make it compelling to buy a new machine to really handle more ram. Another thing was gpus. Apple never seems to have really amazing OpenGL performance (they did better in the past), and some people require it.

Anyway lack of features and a partial stagnation in performance on their base models probably hurt their upgrade cycles from such customers.

 

[Cubytus]

I cannot quite picture the imac suggestion from your description. By rail you either mean something telescopic like most display stands where they use a spring mechanism to balance the weight of the panel, although it has to be slightly more complex so that it doesn't have bounce back toward the lower part of its range. Actually that's the only thing I've seen used. I haven't seen any kind of pressure type lock given that it would either be prone to creep and annoying to tighten down or oversized and "ugly" to compensate for this. I've seen plenty of rail systems, but I cannot fully picture what you are suggesting.

Just like the serrated mechanism there is on good quality pliers. Rotate the computer a few °, freeing the mechanism, replace it horizontally, and it's locked. No compression mechanism to screw, nothing to creep. Of course, industrial engineers may come with a more elegant solution.

This was probably Apple's way of raising their margins on a line with slipping volume. Nehalem was a strong generation in terms of single threaded performance gains. They transitioned to a single core base configuration there in the hopes of not going backward on speed (it varied, but later OSX revisions favored the quad nehalem in most stuff). I'm just saying this did happen. You can look up what they used as opposed to what they use now if you like.

The current MacPro also is less expensive than it was back in 2006-2008.

It tends to have a longer upgrade cycle in general, but there were issues in recent years that made upgrades impractical at certain points and hastened the trend toward smaller devices.

Alas, that is still in line with Apple's trend toward iPhone OS-based devices. They are fun, useful and compact, and they drive the majority of Apple's profitability, but there is still a need for "heavier" computing power. A tablet can't do it all.

Anyway lack of features and a partial stagnation in performance on their base models probably hurt their upgrade cycles from such customers.

Honestly, I was never really interested in a MacPro, hence didn't pay much attention. They filled the lower-end gap with the Mini, but there's still nothing between a higher-powered (but only upgradeable to a limited extent) iMac and a low-end Mac Pro. The gap is quite large.

 

[thekev]

The current MacPro also is less expensive than it was back in 2006-2008.

Alas, that is still in line with Apple's trend toward iPhone OS-based devices. They are fun, useful and compact, and they drive the majority of Apple's profitability, but there is still a need for "heavier" computing power. A tablet can't do it all.

Honestly, I was never really interested in a MacPro, hence didn't pay much attention. They filled the lower-end gap with the Mini, but there's still nothing between a higher-powered (but only upgradeable to a limited extent) iMac and a low-end Mac Pro. The gap is quite large.

The gap is large in potential for expansion. The price from top imac to low mac pro isn't much. The performance is similar/close enough. You do lose a display and pay more money, and they could do a bit better. It's only awkward because of how different the overall configuration comes out. The Mac Pro can't use a thunderbolt display anyway, so do not factor that into the cost .

The old one was not more expensive. You're incorrect there. Here's how it went. 2006 = dual core 2.66 x 2 cpus for $2500. Those cost more than the cpus in the current 8 core that costs $3500 if you compare both at time of release. 2008 = base configuration again dual socket 8 core $2800 or you can custom downgrade to a single socket while still using the dual board and cpu type for $2300. 2009 they went to a single socket only type cpu and board to cut costs so it would still cost less than the $2300 model from the previous year and and much much less than building the 8 core (which is what they stocked at the retail stores). They moved the price to $2500, and an 8 core moved up to $3300 using cheaper cpu parts.

At no point did it decrease in price. Before that the G5 started at $2000 and a couple times they had previous models at $1500 but those were total junk (the $1500 ones) and no one bought them.