Mac Users and their upgrade options...

[RogueLdr]

Hello all, a question, if you will,

I notice that alot of Mac users that are looking for a good option in the way of replacements for their Macs very often say that they are waiting to see what Apple does next.

I have read, many times in these forums, tales from users of older hardware that are desperate for Apple to REALLY renovate their line of professional computers. But, it seems to me, many of those waiting for the "G5" are using Macs that are 3 or more revisions old.

Are there usage arenas that are so performance oriented that a professional could not use the current Quicksilver models to fill their needs? And if so, then what is unsatisfactory about the current lineup that necessitates having a Mac that outpaces these current machines?

RL

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Mac Users and their upgrade options...

Originally posted by RogueLdr
I have read, many times in these forums, tales from users of older hardware that are desperate for Apple to REALLY renovate their line of professional computers. But, it seems to me, many of those waiting for the "G5" are using Macs that are 3 or more revisions old.

Are there usage arenas that are so performance oriented that a professional could not use the current Quicksilver models to fill their needs? And if so, then what is unsatisfactory about the current lineup that necessitates having a Mac that outpaces these current machines?

It all depends what you are doing with your machine. And why shouldn't someone, who is using still one of the first G4s not to be desperate to get his hands on new really performant gear? A lot of those users are waiting for a real speed boost for more than a year to justify the expense of a new machine that costs normally quite more than just the bare price for the hardware that Apple delivers (RAM, HDs, etc... pp). A lot of these users were posponing their investment, because if they buy a new machine they want to have really current hardware and not a machine that is already only half as fast as a Wintel machine the day you buy it. Of course it starts to hurt meanwhile those users to still sit on their old G4, but they were just waiting (since a long time) for better hardware. Even as a pro the investmenet to buy a new wokstation that costs at least 5.000$ (no display included) in the lower high-end arena has to be planned carefully. You can't shell out that amount of money every 6 months just to be up-to-date again, especially wehn the technolgy lags behind anyway all the time.

You asked in which area you need as most perfomance as possible? Well, video and audio production and high-end graphics. Did you ever work in Photoshop with a picture e.g. 15"x10" (600dpi) with about 50 layers, using heavily effects and stuff? We are talking not about seconds anymore that you loses with a slow machine, it adds up to minutes or hours when everything takes twice as long.

Video rendering is all about pure muscles of the processor, the bandwidth of the memory and fast HDs. If a Mac is half as fast compared to a Wintel box, then a 2 hours rendering job on a Wintel box causes 4 hours on a Mac. Before people start to bash me, I know it's not that easy, but I just want to show up the principles how it affects the daily work when you need power.

Same thing for Audio. More and more the studio integrates into the computer, working with virtual effects and instruments, using very high sampling rates. All that again depends highly on the performance of CPU, memory and HDs... Adding some DSP cards (which are also quite expensive) doesn't solve the problem completely, since it doesn't change the bus speed. It just takes some workload from the processor in specialised areas (same can be said for video DSPs).

I have a QS 733 and a QS DP800 in my studio and I can tell you that I would be more than pleased to get finally something that isn't outperformed by even a medium priced Wintel box all the time. As I said before, time is money!

groovebuster

 

[Nipsy]

I think there are a lot of different levels of desire here, but there are three main catagories.

Those who are doing the pro level processor intensive stuff have modern hardware (as you can see from groovebuster's post), but could still use some speed, as they are actually hampered by delays. These are the people who value stability over both price and speed, but aren't silly enough not to want a reduction in one and an increase in the other.

Then there are the people who have an older system, which is showing its age, and just can't justify paying for new hardware until some massive revision occurs. They are probably prosumers (M$ Office, web, etc.). These people would like to see faster perfomance in common tasks, but don't whinge like the next bunch.

These are people who have now idea what they are talking about. These are the people who blame slow browsing on Apple, but won't use Mozilla because it isn't pretty. They call a machine slow because of FPS in games and such, not realizing they are running an Apache server in the background. They whine about the high cost of an Apple but don't know what TCO stands for. Very few of them have used OSX on a modern Pro machine, and none have seen/touched/used an Xserve (which is a damn fast server, but a truly mind boggling workstation, aside from the noise). They rant about how fast Wintel machines are, but but fail to mention how much time the Windows interfaces wastes. They yearn for the G5 as if it were a holy grail, even though Jaguar will solve many of their complaints. These are the people who will line up for Rev 1 G5s, and complain at no end when they have quirks.

The posters here are about 25%, 25%, 50%.

 

[RogueLdr]

groovebuster:

I can see your point in not wanting to have to spend a high amount of money on a regular basis to keep your system current, but the systems that you have have been out for a good bit longer than 6 months and cost a good deal less than $5000 (upgrades excluded). If there is such a disparity between the performance of a Pentium4 based system and a G4, why are Macs used so often in video and audio arenas? I would find it hard to believe that it is out of a sense of loyalty if that means that it will cost more in time (labor) to complete a job.

RL

 

[RogueLdr]

Nipsy...

I would have to agree with you on you percentages. As far as those waiting for massive revisions over G3 B&Ws, though, Wouldn't you think that a dual 1GHz G4 with 2MB L3 cache per processor would satisfy that condition?

RL

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by RogueLdr
I can see your point in not wanting to have to spend a high amount of money on a regular basis to keep your system current, but the systems that you have have been out for a good bit longer than 6 months and cost a good deal less than $5000 (upgrades excluded). If there is such a disparity between the performance of a Pentium4 based system and a G4, why are Macs used so often in video and audio arenas? I would find it hard to believe that it is out of a sense of loyalty if that means that it will cost more in time (labor) to complete a job.

1) A DP800 costed 3.500$, of course I have to include the price for RAM, HDs videocard, etc...pp.. otherwise I don't have a system that meets the needs for what I want to do with it! And then you go easily over 5000$. Do the math! I already told you in my post that you can't just take the "naked" price of the machine!

2) You consider my machines old? You are making fun, right? The DP800 was the state-of-the-art workstation by Apple just a year ago. The DP 1000 gives me maybe 5-10% better performance in real life. So what the heck? I have to run a business! I can't shell out another few thousand bucks for maybe 10% better performance when I am lucky!!! Do you just try to provoke or do you have simply problems to understand what other people tell you? Oh... and sorry that I can't justify to buy a second DP machine instead of the QS733... but I have to earn the money before I spend it and it was onyl supposed to be a back-up system. That it was a waste of money with the missing L3 cache is another subject, but it is still better than nothing.

3) Macs are still used in audio and video very often because of tradition and workflow. If you based your whole set-up for years on one platform you don't change it just over-night to another. The risk is too high to have too long off-times when you don't get your system to work properly. Not to mention the time you need to get used to the new environment. The gap in performance started to hurt since end of last year. Since then the gap in perfomance really widened more and more. Why do you think the pros are all bitching because they can't get better hardware from Apple? When you choose a platform it is a decision you have to make for a long time, you have to plan ahead. At the moment a lot of pros consider switching to AMD or Intel boxes if Apple doesn't come up with some decent hardware. The only thing that holds them back is that "monster" Windows so far. But not for long anymore.
So don't underestimate the economical intelligence of the pros. They know exactly what's good for them and what not. I just know that a lot of pro Mac users are checking prices meanwhile for Windows set-ups already, including me! I normally buy a new Mac every 1-1.5 years. But I have to say that the DP800 was already a compromise back then, because I wasn't convinced by it's performance at all and I am still not.

4) Show me the pros (in need of speed) who are switching from Windows to the Mac with the given towers made by Apple compared to the people who are ready to switch from Mac to a Windows box... You would be very surprised if you would do some research on that.

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by RogueLdr
I would have to agree with you on you percentages. As far as those waiting for massive revisions over G3 B&Ws, though, Wouldn't you think that a dual 1GHz G4 with 2MB L3 cache per processor would satisfy that condition?

RL

I hope you don't mind when I answer too.

Someone who is still working with a G3 B&W is not in the market for a computer that costs 4.000$ without a monitor. Otherwise he would have bought a new machine already way before or would head for an iMac these days. At the max they would be interested in the little tower, but at the moment the value of a QS800 is rediculous with the given price. There is a reason why Apple has three different pro models in their offer... and none of them is worth the money at the moment. So I don't see why anyone would buy one of the ccurrent models for the given prices, except you are extremely desperate to get a new machine because your old one is broken or you need an extra workplace to get your job done.

groovebuster

 

[iGav]

It seems to me that alot of the people that winj and moan about speed are those using a particular type of model..... (although not in this thread, but generally) this model seems to be a G4 400....... that is like 3 years old.... they probably moaned about the speed as soon as they bought it it 1999....... These people have probably never even used a Dual 1Ghz loaded with RAM and a decent Graphics card in anger before......

It's quite funny to see that people are still on about current mac hardware, even though it's generally accepted that there're new models coming out in just a few weeks, models that are likely to see quite a large performance boost over the current Dual 1Ghz mac........ of course they'll still be some people that even to these the new machines will be no good....... and that they're holding out for the fabled G5......

And as a Pro Mac user.... I must say that I'm not even considering switching over to a PC...... that'd mean Windows and no Final Cut Pro...... nightmare......

 

[Nipsy]

Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by groovebuster


I hope you don't mind when I answer too.

Someone who is still working with a G3 B&W is not in the market for a computer that costs 4.000$ without a monitor.

Yep, the whiners in the 50% are mostly high schoolers, who play games, and post from hardware that is more than sufficient for their needs (homework, etc.). While some of the younger folks here are exceptionally rational, and well spoken for their age, many others can be a little hotheaded. These loud few make up most of the posts about the utterly slow Mac. For them, MHz == penile stature.

The prosumers you hear from are more likely to be on a 2-3 year old machine (due to depreciation cycles). Very few prosumers with a QS are vocal in thier whining (however, they're aching for speed boosts like the rest of us).

As for groovebuster's points about defection from the platform, I agree that smaller studios have sometimes had to leave the Mac because of hardware costs, but I also know larger ones are switching to the platform for the first time ever because of OSX. I just served as consulting technologist with a firm that moved 300 machines from Win2K to OSX, because the TCO and stability issues SAVED them money.

I further think that M$ new licensing schema will increase Macintosh business use in the 50-500 station arena, both in the creative, and white collar markets. With the cost of Windows servers per user vs. Xserve, I have heard rumblings from many a CFO about moving to Apple. I have also seen graphics & design studios in the 25-50 seat range moving to Apple because 2 Xserves plus a support package, and 50 Apple 1GHz Duallies is cheaper than 2 Proliants, 50 Dell workstations, and a full time IT professional.

As much as Apple is annoying its followers with pricing in hardware (and now services), they are really impressing the world at large with Xserve/OSX/TCO and most importantly, not being M$.

Whether this will be a dramatic shift, or a slow crossing remains to be seen.

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by iGAV
It seems to me that alot of the people that winj and moan about speed are those using a particular type of model..... (although not in this thread, but generally) this model seems to be a G4 400....... that is like 3 years old.... they probably moaned about the speed as soon as they bought it it 1999....... These people have probably never even used a Dual 1Ghz loaded with RAM and a decent Graphics card in anger before......

It is maybe not everyone can shell out the money for a DP 1GHz and they want a decent pro machine at the entry level that is performing significantly faster than the current GS800, which is definetely not worth the money anymore.

Not everybody has an upgrade cycle of 1 year, most ad agency have more likely 3 years. So I can understand them pretty well.

Originally posted by iGAV
It's quite funny to see that people are still on about current mac hardware, even though it's generally accepted that there're new models coming out in just a few weeks, models that are likely to see quite a large performance boost over the current Dual 1Ghz mac........ of course they'll still be some people that even to these the new machines will be no good....... and that they're holding out for the fabled G5......

Maybe it is because new(!) PowerMacs were rumored since almost a year now and never arrived so far. I don't blame them to remain sceptical and wait until they really can put their hands on one of those machines and see some decent benchmarks for real world tasks, before they are satisfied again.

Originally posted by iGAV
And as a Pro Mac user.... I must say that I'm not even considering switching over to a PC...... that'd mean Windows and no Final Cut Pro...... nightmare......

Do whatever you like, but don't make your own standards the reference for everyone who is working with a computer. Since Windows2000 the PCs are not that bad anymore. Of course Windows is a joke regarding the UI, but it is stable in most cases and a Dual Win-Box is outperforming a PowerMac easily, being often twice as fast. Final Cut Pro is a nice piece of software, but it still doesn't make the Macs faster than they are. I would be the last one who would complain if that would change soon again, preventing me to go after an alternative for the Mac.

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by Nipsy
As for groovebuster's points about defection from the platform, I agree that smaller studios have sometimes had to leave the Mac because of hardware costs, but I also know larger ones are switching to the platform for the first time ever because of OSX. I just served as consulting technologist with a firm that moved 300 machines from Win2K to OSX, because the TCO and stability issues SAVED them money.

I further think that M$ new licensing schema will increase Macintosh business use in the 50-500 station arena, both in the creative, and white collar markets. With the cost of Windows servers per user vs. Xserve, I have heard rumblings from many a CFO about moving to Apple. I have also seen graphics & design studios in the 25-50 seat range moving to Apple because 2 Xserves plus a support package, and 50 Apple 1GHz Duallies is cheaper than 2 Proliants, 50 Dell workstations, and a full time IT professional.

So far I didn't experience anything like that in Germany. And I have quite well my contacts everwhere. It is right that a lot of people are getting more interest again for the Apple platform, especially since the Xserve showed up and M$ is changing it's licensing policy. But I know that a lot of people who make the decisions are waiting for OS X 10.2 and want to see first if there is performant gear coming up any time soon. If Apple is really able to close the gap to the Wintel-world perfomance wise or even to leave them behind with a G5 system, then I know a lot of companies in the creative business will accelerate their windows machines with 9.82m/s^2 out of the last open window those machines will ever face in their existence. If not they will most probably stick with Windows still.

But the creative sector alone can't make Apple survive on the long-run. And here Linux is starting to be a real alternative to Windows for the office sector. The big advantage is that you can use it with your already existing hardware and you don't have pending license fees. M$ Office can be replaced with OpenOffice. collaboration software you can provide completely web-based. That's all the people shall do with their machines anyway. The only bad thing is still that you need a good adminstrator to maintain the machines, in case there is a problem popping up.

If Apple finally would introduce something like the cube again for a really competetive price I am pretty sure that they couldn't meet the demand for machines like that, since they would be the perfect office computers. The little tower is just too pricey and loud to be a real alternative for office use and the eMacs/iMacs are too unflexible and expensive with the included monitor. They just target a totally different market.

We'll see... surely big things gonna happen soon, but I learned to stay sceptical until it happened. I got disappointed too often lately...

groovebuster

 

[backspinner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by groovebuster
a real alternative for office use and the eMacs/iMacs are too unflexible and expensive with the included monitor. They just target a totally different market.

That is something I think is not true fo a lot of businesses. In my office it's true that monitors survive the wintel boxes, but only to find after one more half year that the monitor breaks down. It would be so much more easy to put an eMac on somebodies desk and plug it in and ready you are! Office workers don't need expandable machines and workplaces need to get better these days. Not only in furnature but also in noise levels and monitor quality. eMacs are perfect for offices, power macs are to noisy and costly.

 

[Nipsy]

Well, I'll tell you what I have always advocated in hardware layout:

Top of the line machines are given to developers, IT, and graphics users.

After a year, they are recycled to executives.

Ater another year, they are again recycled to support personnel.

This seems to work wonders (in both Apple and Wintel environs) as everyone has the hardware which is appropriate to their tasks.

The company I just worked for (groovebuster, they switched from January to May, so 10.2 wasn't the deciding factor) is heavily biased towards web & sofware design, so the artists & programmers all got duallies. The execs & editors all got 933s, and the support staff alll got 800s. In about January, I'll prolly go back to work for them for a few months to rotate (if there is hardware to support a rotation). The girl at the front desk got the one and only iMac ordered. I put in 4 Xserves for them last week.

This model has worked well in a few companies (both Mac & PC) where I've been either consultant or CTO. The only downside is arrogant execs who think they NEED the latest machine to run a mail proggie and a browser as well as an Office Suite.

Also, groovebuster, in the States, I've yet to see Linux considered seriously on the desktop, although it is giving Sun some heartburn. The small issues with Office compatibility, retraining for Gimp, etc. outweigh the savings of Open Source. Frankly, most Americans are too stupid for Linux (they NEED the Aqua on top to hide the gritty bits).

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by backspinner
That is something I think is not true fo a lot of businesses. In my office it's true that monitors survive the wintel boxes, but only to find after one more half year that the monitor breaks down. It would be so much more easy to put an eMac on somebodies desk and plug it in and ready you are!

What would change if the monitor comes seperate? You still just plug the computer and you can go. It doesn't change the usabilty of the Mac, but you can change the monitor without changing the machine, or if there is a hardware failure you just have to switch the computer.

I think it is a great advantage if the office staff can choose itself which monitor they want to plug. Besides that I had the opportunity to check out an eMac lately and the display quality didn't really convince me. It is just average or even lower. Not very cool when you have to work with it from 9 to 5. Also a lot of offices go for 19" standard these days. To add a little bit more of flexibility at this point wouldn't hurt.

And the eMac has a fan and is not as quite as a cube... I still would prefer a machine where the only moving part is the HD (or the optical drive).

Originally posted by backspinner
Office workers don't need expandable machines and workplaces need to get better these days. Not only in furnature but also in noise levels and monitor quality. eMacs are perfect for offices, power macs are to noisy and costly.

That's exactly what I said, a tower is not an option! But I know that an all-in-one computer for a lot of people is either. Apple would attract a lot more people in company business if they would offer something like the cube again. A nice side-effect would be, that if a company really wants to switch from PC to Mac, they can keep their monitors and can save a lot of money.

groovebuster

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Nipsy
Well, I'll tell you what I have always advocated in hardware layout:

Top of the line machines are given to developers, IT, and graphics users.

After they a year, they are recycled to executives.

Ater a year, they are recycled to support personnel.

This seems to work wonders (in both Apple and Wintel environs) as everyone has the hardware which is appropriate to their tasks.

Yup, I also know companies where they do that rotation thingy. But I also know businesses, where they don't do it that way. In bigger companies I experienced that the different departments have their own budget for their IT-infrastructure and just because of that it is almost impossible to rotate the hardware through the whole company.

Also there are companies who just have the need for office computers, since they don't have a development department or something like that.

Another thing is, that in normal offices with accountants and executives they care a lot about noise pollution. When you work as a sales guy in an office with for example 4 other dudes, the noise of 5 PowerMacs is remarkable. Those guys want it quite. Therefore a lot of companies I know use thin clients in the "normal" office area (not to mention the folks with the Laptops). Noise pollution really became a big subject the last few years. I can't really imagine an executive working with a PowerMac, except it is in a noise reducing box under the table.

But I guess we are also talking about different company cultures in general, since you are in the US and I am in Germany.

Originally posted by Nipsy
The company I just worked for (groovebuster, they switched from January to May, so 10.2 wasn't the deciding factor) is heavily biased towards web & sofware design, so the artists & programmers all got duallies. The execs & editors all got 933s, and the support staff alll got 800s. In about January, I'll prolly go back to work for them for a few months to rotate (if there is hardware to support a rotation). The girl at the front desk got the one and only iMac ordered. I put in 4 Xserves for them last week.

Actually that sounds like a dream job you are having! Still need a partner? But I don't have a green card!

Originally posted by Nipsy
Also, groovebuster, in the States, I've yet to see Linux considered seriously on the desktop, although it is giving Sun some heartburn. The small issues with Office compatibility, retraining for Gimp, etc. outweigh the savings of Open Source. Frankly, most Americans are too stupid for Linux (they NEED the Aqua on top to hide the gritty bits).

Well, here the companies already start to switch here and there parts of their departments where it is possible. Since the users just shall _use_ the machines and not administrate them the retraining isn't that much of a problem. M$ Office is a big problem, since OO doesn't work with VB scripts in M$-documents.

By the way... How do you address the problem, that there is no Outlook for MacOS X and that Entourage is a stand-alone app that doesn't communicate with an outlook server?

I don't think that Americans are too stupid for Linux (you said that, not me). You can configure the system in a way that the user doesn't even get a clue that there could be a command line, just like in Mac OS X. He can just do what he's allowed to, to do his job. Another side-effect is, that he can't bring viruses from home on the machine with a disk or play games and stuff, since he probably doesn't use Linux at home.

But actually I also would prefer to see more Macs in the companies, Linux is OK but lacks the elegance of the MacOS, not to mention the media and multimedia capabilities build in the Mac... it is just the better concept, also for office users.

groovebuster

 

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by groovebuster

By the way... How do you address the problem, that there is no Outlook for MacOS X and that Entourage is a stand-alone app that doesn't communicate with an outlook server?

By not using Exchange!

I don't think that Americans are too stupid for Linux (you said that, not me).

Your average office worker in most of the U.S. thinks AOL is high technology, IM is a new development, and doesn't know the difference between the internet and the www. I should, for the sake of full disclosure, mention that I am one of those people who feels that everyone should know more about their computer, because I am a technocrat. Then again, my girlfriend feels everyone should know how to cook...I refuse to buy into that myth.

Sadly, these people (some of whom just aren't tech savvy, many of whom are downright stupid) would require enough retraining in KDE or Gnome to invalidate the switch. People have a reasonably simple time adapting from Wintel to OSX because there is application parity. Sadly, with Linux, mainstream business apps are not in sync.

 

[kiwi_the_iwik]

What can I do for my Cube?

I'm hanging to upgrade my Cube - I've got the 450Mhz 20GbHD DVD/Rage 128 version with 768Mb Ram, so you can see that it needs a little jolt in the right direction.

Don't get me wrong, though - it's a top-class little workhorse. It's just that it now has the capability of doing so much more, especially since the latest and greatest entertainment titles are leaving it in the dust (i.e. Wolfenstein's system requirements are beyond the little guy already!)

My Options:

• Now that companies like Sonnet and Powerlogix have finally recognised that Cube owners felt left out for such a long while, I can now put a 1Gb board inside for a relatively low charge.

• The graphics card needs a kick - and the GeForce 3 is realistically about as far as I can go, due to the size of the card, and the 2xAGP port's limitations (which is good enough - Quartz Extreme should work quite happliy in that environment).

• I can increase the Hard Drive to a hearty 80Gb - any extra space would be gained via FireWire drives (after all - we can't be greedy, can we?).

• When the new PowerBooks come out later on in the year, we'll probably find that a slot-loading SuperDrive has been added to the range - one of the main reasons why PowerBooks haven't been given them is that there are problems with having a DVD authoring unit work on an angle, due to errors during the read/write process. Hopefully, this difficulty will be rectified by the time the new TiBooks are released. My plan is to get the drive, and replace it with my DVD unit.

• A nice Airport card will cut down the cables around the unit (a base station positioned at the broadband point of entry into the house would be fine, too...).

• All of these modifications would cause an increase in core temperature. Thankfully, Apple provided a mount inside the casing at the bottom for a small 12V fan unit - complete with a plug-in point for the power. How thoughtful...

So, as you can see, I've got a few options available - and I don't have to lose the cool shape of the Cube in the deal.

 

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Nipsy


By not using Exchange!

When you say that it sounds so simple.

I wish it would be that easy... but what, if you have a heterogenous network, Macs are just some of the clients and the IT-department blocks any possibility to get rid of M$-servers? (The admin did his MSCE for something, huh?) Just recently I was doing a little bit consulting for the company of a friend. They use outlook and will not change it, decision of the boss: "The M$ stuff costed a sh*t-load, I don't throw it out just like that!". The Mac can't join the party. That was the reason why they didn't switch to the Mac in their "creative department". 12 Macs were planned, 0 are left...

Believe it or not, but that how it works in a lot of companies still...

groovebuster

 

[Manowatt]

Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by RogueLdr
...As far as those waiting for massive revisions over G3 B&Ws, though, Wouldn't you think that a dual 1GHz G4 with 2MB L3 cache per processor would satisfy that condition?

RL

As a Yosemite owner, I'd have to say that yes, a new QS Dual 1gig would certainly do the trick. However, there's always that notion that as soon as you buy that Mac, a new Mac will come along a few weeks later that makes your machine obsolete.

So some of us play the waiting game just to be sure we get our money's worth.

 

[mmmdreg]

for average consumers who spend their time on the internet with music and a game here or there, many of todays consumer-level machines are fast enough and therefore it is not much of a matter of speed for them, but <insert here>...However, pro's are always in continuos search of more speed because there can never be enough...software always becomes more complex and the machines have to be able to not only keep up, but evolve faster than the software is slowing them...

 

[iGav]

Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by Manowatt


As a Yosemite owner, I'd have to say that yes, a new QS Dual 1gig would certainly do the trick. However, there's always that notion that as soon as you buy that Mac, a new Mac will come along a few weeks later that makes your machine obsolete.

So some of us play the waiting game just to be sure we get our money's worth.

The thing is though that macs are generally only updated every 6 months........ so if you buy when they release a revision then you know that you're going to have 6 months of use before they release another one.....

Now the idea of buying a PowerMac now is not the best of idea's...... new PowerMacs are just around the corner (generally accepted fact) and are likely within the next month...... so of course if you want the best (value) hardware for the longest possible time, buying now really isn't an option......

Now there's alot of talk about people having to update NOW... IMMEADIATELY... otherwise something on a biblical scale will happen to them or their work???? Now if they've been using their machines for the last x months... what has happened all of a sudden that stops the Mac producing the work??? surely they can stretch out for another few weeks........ until the new PowerMacs are released??

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by groovebuster …
But the creative sector alone can't make Apple survive on the long run.
…

You finally answered your own question and didn't even realize it!

Apple is (obviously) catering to consumers right now because that's where the most customers and potential $ is/are. That's what the "switch" campaign is all about. That's why the flat panel iMac got hyped at MWSF and not the DP1GHz PowerMac.

Apple knows it has the creative sector securely onboard, but they need the huge consumer base to really make inroads into the Wintel marketshare. If they lose a few impatient creative users/firms they more than make up for it with even a few thousand new consumer customers.

As a company Apple has to do what's in in their best interest, not yours. They are stil commited to professional users, but their focus is elsewhere right now...be patient.

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nipsy...

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You finally answered your own question and didn't even realize it!

Sorry, but I don't care what they are doing for consumers, I never said that they shouldn't take care of them.

I was talking about the pro business and draw a concrete line between pro and consumer machines. And we were talking about pro machines here, not consumer machines. So I don't know why you are bringing that up here now again!?!?

Don't be too sure that the creative sector is all settled with Macs... As far as I remember Adobe makes more than 50% of their revenues with Windows-Software. Same for Macromedia. That shouldn't make people too self-confident about the mac-platform. I remember times when Adobe made almost 100% with mac software, right? If it is that bad to work with Windows I wonder why 50% of the people work with Windows on creativity software?

And I also don't care if Apple needs those consumers to increase their piggy bank from 4 to 5 billion dollars, I just want new and fast hardware once in a while...

Why shall I be patient? Do I owe something to Apple? I guess not! I payed a premium all the time for their products. Since they will charge me for an update (that is at least 50% of a service update) the full price, I lost any patience with them. For me it is just business now, no sentimental feelings anymore. I need new gear and a working MacOS X and they shall deliver it as soon as possible. PERIOD! I remember the saying that "customer is king"! Well, the OS problem will be (hopefully) settled on August 24th...

I said already a few times before in other threads, that I will wait until the end of August for new machines. If they don't come or are not worth the cash I will buy something else... that easy.

Maybe I'll be back one day, maybe not... but I really don't feel like being dependent on the grace of Apple all the time if I will get new and performant hardware or not, since they only upgrade their products every 6 months. The last update of the QS machines was a joke!

So when I talked about Apple can't survive just with all the little pixel pushers in the pro business, I meant only the pro business. If they can't get into normal offices that are not related to creative work they can go home soon. Just consumer computers and video/audio-workstations are not the answer to their problems if they don't pick up serious pro business all over the place. Of course they released the Xserve and maybe the next PowerMacs will be nice... but it's MAYBE! Nobody knows so far. So I remain sceptical... Apple taught me to be in the past.

Gee... I never thought I would be talking about Apple like that.

groovebuster

 

[Rower_CPU]

Are all Germans this stubborn?

Wouldn't you agree that 50% marketshare is a HUGE advantage in ANY market? They know they can rely on creative professionals (graphics, audio, video) to continue using Macs. Now look at the 5% (or even less) they have of the consumer market. There is a definite threat there of losing ground to cheap PCs...and there is the potential of much larger gains.

You don't owe Apple anything, but you sure seem to think that they owe you something. They don't. Get over it. If you leave they have 100 consumers to take your place.

But as you said, we wil see what happens in August. Until then, let's all settle down.

 

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by groovebuster


When you say that it sounds so simple.

I wish it would be that easy... but what, if you have a heterogenous network, Macs are just some of the clients and the IT-department blocks any possibility to get rid of M$-servers? (The admin did his MSCE for something, huh?) Just recently I was doing a little bit consulting for the company of a friend. They use outlook and will not change it, decision of the boss: "The M$ stuff costed a sh*t-load, I don't throw it out just like that!". The Mac can't join the party. That was the reason why they didn't switch to the Mac in their "creative department". 12 Macs were planned, 0 are left...

Believe it or not, but that how it works in a lot of companies still...

groovebuster

Yep, I've seen that scenario, and in that situation I've used Exchange as a forwarding system via a small Linux pop box.

Exchange has a few good ideas, implemented poorly by youknow who. I've also found that in smaller companies with whom I usually work, the expense and complexity of using Exchange is usually not worth it. IMAP is a pretty damn good systemm and UNIX based post offices are light years faster, and less resource intensive than Exchange. Sadly, when you fall victim to the Beast, sometimes you feel like you should remain one.