Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New PowerMacs and 20" LCD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by Abstract
I still can't understand the purpose of the 1Ghz G4 PowerMac when they could have simply kept the Dual 867Mhz PowerMacs as their low end computer. They could have priced the dual 867 at the same price the single 1Ghz is at now!!!And even if they couldn't, I'm sure the extra $150-$200 dollar difference between having a dual 867 and a single 1Ghz would have been worth it.
I think it's because Apple's product strategy is to only have 3-5 different variations on one product, making it easy to choose which one you want, and keeping it organized.
It just came to me. . .the cooling! Maybe it's a whole lot quieter with one processor for people who only need one processor!
Re: Which GPU do I want?
Welcome!
I would recommend the ATI 9700 Pro - it is the current top-of-the-line graphics card as far as I know. (And officially endorsed by Jon Carmack in case you wanted to play Doom III if they release it for Macs).
Originally posted by appeLappe
Hi there! This is my first post!
Ive noticed that you can choose to update the GPU to either the Geoforce4 Ti or the ATI 9700 Pro for the same price.
Anyone has any thoughts on which to choose?
Welcome!
I would recommend the ATI 9700 Pro - it is the current top-of-the-line graphics card as far as I know. (And officially endorsed by Jon Carmack in case you wanted to play Doom III if they release it for Macs).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
Okay, hold on a minute. Are you talking about upgrading your CPU? I can tell you that in 12 years of owning PCs I've only attempted to upgrade a CPU once (which was a failure), and have never otherwise seen any benefit in doing so. The one time it failed because I was using an NEC computer whose motherboard overrode the BIOS's ability to use faster processors (100MHz was the hard-coded limit for the motherboard, although the chipset and BIOS both supported up to 166MHz Pentium chips ...) Other than that rather short period of time (MMX was big, and my 100MHz Pentium didn't support it and many programs I needed to run were optimized for MMX), I've always found that when I start wanting to upgrade my CPU it is cheaper and easier to just replace the whole box and relegate the old box/CPU to the basement server pasture.
Back to upgrading a CPU. First, "$200" is not the price of your average CPU upgrade. Unless you bought a behind-the-curve CPU to start with, the motherboard you currently own will generally not accept the latest CPU. You have to also replace the motherboard. Which often (in my experience, at least, from DIMMs to FPO to EDO to SDRAM to DDR to RAMBUS to DDR 2 ...) means replacing memory, which of course isn't as expensive as it used to be but it still doesn't come free. Nowadays you'll also likely have to add in a new fan/cooling system.
Take a new CPU at $200 and a new motherboard at $150 and a new gaggle of memory at $200 and you're quite a bit beyond what Mac users pay when they want to upgrade their CPU (with a daughtercard CPU that works on their existing motherboard). Granted, your $550 gave you the latest motherboard features as well, which is a nice side-effect, but in my experience working with PC upgrades, the $200 CPU upgrade is pure, unadulturated myth.
And don't just take my word for it. Look into it at Tom's Hardware and cNet/ExtremeTech and Ars Technica. It's rare to see someone arguing that a CPU upgrade is financially sound, and then it is with caveats such as "your current MB will accept the latest/greatest" and "you are adding 25%+ of frequency to your CPU".
Which is why you shouldn't buy such a machine. It's not aimed at the user that "needs" to have the latest/greatest hardware in their box every 3-6 months. You obviously are happy building your own kit PC. That is your market.
Which, of course, begs the question: why are you here?
Hmmm. So I guess Dell is doing something horrendously wrong with its 2% of the PC market?
Apple does not need to dominate the PC industry in order to succeed. It is doing quite well currently, reporting ongoing profits quarter after quarter. While new-PC "marketshare" (not in-use marketshare, just based on how many units come off the shelves each quarter) of Apple is stagnant or shrinking depending on whose numbers you latch onto, I don't beleive in the false notion of natural homogeny of the PC marketplace, nor in the notion that PCs must necessarily become pure commodity component kits. I personally appreciate that my Macs just plain work without the effort I put into my Windows and Linux boxes. I personally appreciate that despite the fact that I paid more per SPEC number on my Macs I get far more value per dollar spent, far more work done in the day per dollar spent, and think far less about the nitty gritty of what my computer is doing and why per dollar spent than I've ever have gotten from a PC from Dell or built by myself from top-of-the-line components. And this value is what is making my next several computer purchases be from Apple, not the Intel camp.
In terms of design, there are few who will refute the assertion that Apple holds a near-absolute hegemony over the PC industry, and it has been using that hegemony to put forth its own vision of the future quite successfully over the past several years. While, yes, Apple has made mistakes in the past which led to its fairly low sales marketshare today, I strongly believe that what it is doing today is good for itself as a company and good for its user base overall.
Correct, they won't be selling to a buyer who, like you, wishes to be able to construct his own frankenputer in his basement lab. That's never been Apple's market. I'm glad you've realized that.
Okay, hold on a minute. Are you talking about upgrading your CPU? I can tell you that in 12 years of owning PCs I've only attempted to upgrade a CPU once (which was a failure), and have never otherwise seen any benefit in doing so. The one time it failed because I was using an NEC computer whose motherboard overrode the BIOS's ability to use faster processors (100MHz was the hard-coded limit for the motherboard, although the chipset and BIOS both supported up to 166MHz Pentium chips ...) Other than that rather short period of time (MMX was big, and my 100MHz Pentium didn't support it and many programs I needed to run were optimized for MMX), I've always found that when I start wanting to upgrade my CPU it is cheaper and easier to just replace the whole box and relegate the old box/CPU to the basement server pasture.
Back to upgrading a CPU. First, "$200" is not the price of your average CPU upgrade. Unless you bought a behind-the-curve CPU to start with, the motherboard you currently own will generally not accept the latest CPU. You have to also replace the motherboard. Which often (in my experience, at least, from DIMMs to FPO to EDO to SDRAM to DDR to RAMBUS to DDR 2 ...) means replacing memory, which of course isn't as expensive as it used to be but it still doesn't come free. Nowadays you'll also likely have to add in a new fan/cooling system.
Take a new CPU at $200 and a new motherboard at $150 and a new gaggle of memory at $200 and you're quite a bit beyond what Mac users pay when they want to upgrade their CPU (with a daughtercard CPU that works on their existing motherboard). Granted, your $550 gave you the latest motherboard features as well, which is a nice side-effect, but in my experience working with PC upgrades, the $200 CPU upgrade is pure, unadulturated myth.
And don't just take my word for it. Look into it at Tom's Hardware and cNet/ExtremeTech and Ars Technica. It's rare to see someone arguing that a CPU upgrade is financially sound, and then it is with caveats such as "your current MB will accept the latest/greatest" and "you are adding 25%+ of frequency to your CPU".
Which is why you shouldn't buy such a machine. It's not aimed at the user that "needs" to have the latest/greatest hardware in their box every 3-6 months. You obviously are happy building your own kit PC. That is your market.
Which, of course, begs the question: why are you here?
Hmmm. So I guess Dell is doing something horrendously wrong with its 2% of the PC market?
Apple does not need to dominate the PC industry in order to succeed. It is doing quite well currently, reporting ongoing profits quarter after quarter. While new-PC "marketshare" (not in-use marketshare, just based on how many units come off the shelves each quarter) of Apple is stagnant or shrinking depending on whose numbers you latch onto, I don't beleive in the false notion of natural homogeny of the PC marketplace, nor in the notion that PCs must necessarily become pure commodity component kits. I personally appreciate that my Macs just plain work without the effort I put into my Windows and Linux boxes. I personally appreciate that despite the fact that I paid more per SPEC number on my Macs I get far more value per dollar spent, far more work done in the day per dollar spent, and think far less about the nitty gritty of what my computer is doing and why per dollar spent than I've ever have gotten from a PC from Dell or built by myself from top-of-the-line components. And this value is what is making my next several computer purchases be from Apple, not the Intel camp.
In terms of design, there are few who will refute the assertion that Apple holds a near-absolute hegemony over the PC industry, and it has been using that hegemony to put forth its own vision of the future quite successfully over the past several years. While, yes, Apple has made mistakes in the past which led to its fairly low sales marketshare today, I strongly believe that what it is doing today is good for itself as a company and good for its user base overall.
Correct, they won't be selling to a buyer who, like you, wishes to be able to construct his own frankenputer in his basement lab. That's never been Apple's market. I'm glad you've realized that.
Even though I bought a Dual Gig MDD in December, I'm still happy with it. I praise Apple for what they've done today. Lower Prices, new LCD's and new PowerMacs. Congratulations goes to Apple
Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
Again, I can appreciate your difference in opinion.. but I really don't think you understand the Macintosh market.
Workstation UI's are not any different than the desktop UI for Macs. On top of that it sends chills down my spine to think you don't find Windows repulsive in every way. Granted, it's not the steaming pile of c*** that it used to be... but why on earth applaud that?
Again, I can appreciate your difference in opinion.. but I really don't think you understand the Macintosh market.
Workstation UI's are not any different than the desktop UI for Macs. On top of that it sends chills down my spine to think you don't find Windows repulsive in every way. Granted, it's not the steaming pile of c*** that it used to be... but why on earth applaud that?
...but the imacs.....
just a thought-
if the current motochip is stuck at 1ghz, and current 1.42 is a factory overclock job (which could lead to possible reliability issues), maybe the 7457 will make it's debut in XServe and iMac revisions, where ultra-reliability is more important...
also, someone mentioned SCSI earlier--i think FW800 (gigawire) will eventually lead to external RAIDs with seektimes and sustained data transfers equal to internal ATAs and even SCSI. the decision to leave out SCSI support is a deal with external FW800 HD developers (lacie, maxtor, etc) to encourage adoption of external FW based HD arrays, the first of which should be comming soon. (personally, i can't wait )
just a thought-
if the current motochip is stuck at 1ghz, and current 1.42 is a factory overclock job (which could lead to possible reliability issues), maybe the 7457 will make it's debut in XServe and iMac revisions, where ultra-reliability is more important...
also, someone mentioned SCSI earlier--i think FW800 (gigawire) will eventually lead to external RAIDs with seektimes and sustained data transfers equal to internal ATAs and even SCSI. the decision to leave out SCSI support is a deal with external FW800 HD developers (lacie, maxtor, etc) to encourage adoption of external FW based HD arrays, the first of which should be comming soon. (personally, i can't wait
)
Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
I think it all boils down to percetion. If someone coughs up the extra dough for a PM they want an completely superior computer, not just a more expandable<sp?> one. I think Apple thinks people will percieve the PMs to be less if they have the same speed proc as an iMac.
In this case I don't think it's Apple's fault. They are just responding to what their PM buyers dictate. For example, DV gets shafted by many "pros" for being "cheap" even though a quality DV camera and lens system can perform on par w/the industry standard BetaSP format. But because you can buy MiniDV camcorders at Best Buy the whole format gets stimgatized<sp?> Many editors were pissed when FCE was released because they felt it cheapend FCP. Apple's just trying to keep the egos' of their PM buyers happy.
Lethal
I think it all boils down to percetion. If someone coughs up the extra dough for a PM they want an completely superior computer, not just a more expandable<sp?> one. I think Apple thinks people will percieve the PMs to be less if they have the same speed proc as an iMac.
In this case I don't think it's Apple's fault. They are just responding to what their PM buyers dictate. For example, DV gets shafted by many "pros" for being "cheap" even though a quality DV camera and lens system can perform on par w/the industry standard BetaSP format. But because you can buy MiniDV camcorders at Best Buy the whole format gets stimgatized<sp?> Many editors were pissed when FCE was released because they felt it cheapend FCP.
Apple's just trying to keep the egos' of their PM buyers happy.Lethal
Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
Okay. First, what you read here is not gospel, and it is certainly at least 75% of the time completely devoid of even the most remote resemblance to fact.
Apple would have many legitimate reasons to not offer 1.25GHz iMacs, including:
1) Not enough 1.25GHz PPC chips in production to feed both the PowerMac and iMac lines (the most likely reason). Apple historically charges higher margins for their "Pro" line but rewards their adherents with first-cut at the latest/greatest chips.
2) Unable to overcome heat/other design issues with 1.25GHz G4 in iMac case (unlikely in the long term, but that would at least explain a delay in introduction relative to the PowerMac line)
3) Does not see the market there for an "ultra-high-end" iMac, given the price differential that they pay on the higher-clocked PPCs would be added to the sale price of the machine and the overall movement of their competition towards the low end of price (and quality).
4) A Machiavellian/Pavlovian conspiracy to condition people to believe that if they want "Power" they must buy the line with "Power" in its name, not the line with "i" in it's name ... Note of course that both "Windows" and "Intel" include "i" quite prominently ...
Personally, I can see why people believe (4) over the others, just like people enjoyed watching the X-Files and Twilight Zone for years and years,, but I don't in any way see it as the most likely actual reason behind the Apple lineup.
Okay. First, what you read here is not gospel, and it is certainly at least 75% of the time completely devoid of even the most remote resemblance to fact.
Apple would have many legitimate reasons to not offer 1.25GHz iMacs, including:
1) Not enough 1.25GHz PPC chips in production to feed both the PowerMac and iMac lines (the most likely reason). Apple historically charges higher margins for their "Pro" line but rewards their adherents with first-cut at the latest/greatest chips.
2) Unable to overcome heat/other design issues with 1.25GHz G4 in iMac case (unlikely in the long term, but that would at least explain a delay in introduction relative to the PowerMac line)
3) Does not see the market there for an "ultra-high-end" iMac, given the price differential that they pay on the higher-clocked PPCs would be added to the sale price of the machine and the overall movement of their competition towards the low end of price (and quality).
4) A Machiavellian/Pavlovian conspiracy to condition people to believe that if they want "Power" they must buy the line with "Power" in its name, not the line with "i" in it's name ... Note of course that both "Windows" and "Intel" include "i" quite prominently ...
Personally, I can see why people believe (4) over the others, just like people enjoyed watching the X-Files and Twilight Zone for years and years,, but I don't in any way see it as the most likely actual reason behind the Apple lineup.
Re: LCD Compatibility Question
I'm not sure if somebody has answered this one yet. The number of posts in here is overwhelming...
You need to check and see if you've got an ADC output on your video card. If it doesn't you need to either 1) upgrade your video card to the one with ADC or 2) get the ADC-to-DVI converter Apple sells.
My guess is that your's has DVI. And getting the new video card is better I think, so that you can take advantage of Quartz screen rendering on X.
I'm not sure if somebody has answered this one yet. The number of posts in here is overwhelming...
You need to check and see if you've got an ADC output on your video card. If it doesn't you need to either 1) upgrade your video card to the one with ADC or 2) get the ADC-to-DVI converter Apple sells.
My guess is that your's has DVI. And getting the new video card is better I think, so that you can take advantage of Quartz screen rendering on X.
Originally posted by ddtlm
I need speed tests!
I need noise tests!
Twitch twitch twitch. Convulse.
Well, I just strapped a Jet Assisted Take Off rocket to the back of one of the new dual 1.42s... and...
It's loud and fast when it breaks the sound barrier. Shattered my neighbor's windows, boy are they pissed.
The system, however, did not survive the crash once the rocket ran out of fuel... what's up with that? I thought OS X was supposed to be "stable"?
*grin*
Dharvabinky
Anyone else notice that the fllowing text from Apple's tech specs has been constant for some time:
I'm guessing this means that they are not increasing the speed of the L3 as they clock up the G4's. The 7455 does support a huge number of different core/L3 clock divider ratios. I'll have to look around and find out if this is the case.
Re: ...but the imacs.....
Why do people keep saying this? Wasn't the 7455 that was originally in the QS DP 1 GHz maxed out? Ithought there was a ceiling on these. I've heard rumors, but have seen no proof that these are overclocked.
In all seriousness, do you honestly think that if Moto can't make a chip faster than 1.0 Ghz that their previous generation chip could be overclocked by 42%?? I don't buy that at all.
Why do people keep saying this? Wasn't the 7455 that was originally in the QS DP 1 GHz maxed out? Ithought there was a ceiling on these. I've heard rumors, but have seen no proof that these are overclocked.
In all seriousness, do you honestly think that if Moto can't make a chip faster than 1.0 Ghz that their previous generation chip could be overclocked by 42%?? I don't buy that at all.
Originally posted by iShater
Neither can I! I can see how a dual machine as an entry level (like the preious 867s) would be a fierce competitor in usability performance, but this machine is WORSE not better than the last entry level!
FALSE.
Just because OS X is MP aware does not mean that the applications it runs are also.
Photoshop is probably the only widely used app that is hugely (maybe) helped with MP support.
If this is true (most benchmarks say it is) then the upgrade to 1GHz outweighs the change from MP to single, for most apps.
This is the "low end" machine. It is not supposed to be good enough to do "real" work with. Much like the iMac.
This is a classic costs vs benefits situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
You are incorrect. You will only need to upgrade your motherboard if you are changing processor families. The 845 chipset will preserve your PC100 or PC133 investment and you will still see significant benefits from upgrading from a PIII or PII.
Do I need a reason to be here? Are you the Macrumors hall monitor? If you don't wish to engage in whatever I'm talking about, move past the post. Judging by the lenghty reply, you seem to enjoy putting forth your opinions. So maybe that's why we're both here, to share opinions though you have a problem respecting those of others and simply want them to leave if they disagree with you or pose questions you cannot answer.
The last figures I saw showed Dell with 16% marketshare, I don't know where you get 2% but if you like present your source. However I don't need you to tell me anything about the PC market, my questions were about Apple.
Did I say that I wanted to construct my own iMac? Are you replying to me or the fantasies in your head? My questions were very specifice. If you have other issues please keep them to yourself. I'm not interested in helping you work them out.
You are incorrect. You will only need to upgrade your motherboard if you are changing processor families. The 845 chipset will preserve your PC100 or PC133 investment and you will still see significant benefits from upgrading from a PIII or PII.
Do I need a reason to be here? Are you the Macrumors hall monitor? If you don't wish to engage in whatever I'm talking about, move past the post. Judging by the lenghty reply, you seem to enjoy putting forth your opinions. So maybe that's why we're both here, to share opinions though you have a problem respecting those of others and simply want them to leave if they disagree with you or pose questions you cannot answer.
The last figures I saw showed Dell with 16% marketshare, I don't know where you get 2% but if you like present your source. However I don't need you to tell me anything about the PC market, my questions were about Apple.
Did I say that I wanted to construct my own iMac? Are you replying to me or the fantasies in your head? My questions were very specifice. If you have other issues please keep them to yourself. I'm not interested in helping you work them out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
Thank you. I appreciate your reply.
Originally posted by jettredmont
Okay. First, what you read here is not gospel, and it is certainly at least 75% of the time completely devoid of even the most remote resemblance to fact.
Apple would have many legitimate reasons to not offer 1.25GHz iMacs, including:
1) Not enough 1.25GHz PPC chips in production to feed both the PowerMac and iMac lines (the most likely reason). Apple historically charges higher margins for their "Pro" line but rewards their adherents with first-cut at the latest/greatest chips.
2) Unable to overcome heat/other design issues with 1.25GHz G4 in iMac case (unlikely in the long term, but that would at least explain a delay in introduction relative to the PowerMac line)
3) Does not see the market there for an "ultra-high-end" iMac, given the price differential that they pay on the higher-clocked PPCs would be added to the sale price of the machine and the overall movement of their competition towards the low end of price (and quality).
4) A Machiavellian/Pavlovian conspiracy to condition people to believe that if they want "Power" they must buy the line with "Power" in its name, not the line with "i" in it's name ... Note of course that both "Windows" and "Intel" include "i" quite prominently ...
Personally, I can see why people believe (4) over the others, just like people enjoyed watching the X-Files and Twilight Zone for years and years,, but I don't in any way see it as the most likely actual reason behind the Apple lineup.
Thank you. I appreciate your reply.
Worse and worse
The low-end represents a serious downgrade - the only reasons Apple did not retain th 867 at the lower price point is because they want to increase their margin on it while giving the illusion of better without cannibalising the iMac. The 1ghz SP is a price/performance DISGRACE. Nothing Apple can do about the FSB bottleneck, Motorola's poor fabbing or any of the G4s shortcomings (at least at this stage), so two processors, built-in Bluetooth, FW800, USB2, ATA/133 (if not Serial ATA) and 8x AGP are REQUIRED to give the ILLUSION at least of value.
When Ars Technica called the current 'Pro' lineup an 'overpriced embarrassment'
some months ago it was an accurate assessment. It is even more accurate now. The LCD and good looks of the iMac can compensate somewhat for PC-trailing performance. But for towers Apple needs to have dual CPUs across the entire line just to PRETEND to compete on performance - of course, at this stage informed pros who don't need a new machine NOW will wait until the 970 comes to close a bit of the gaping gap with WinTel. Maybe Apple knows this and is barely bothering? Why bother to add more than a speed bump when you know that this lead turkey architecture (the 'G4') is on its last legs?
Also, no-one seems to know yet if these are the 7457s or if there is full DDR support (somehow I doubt it). Are these the overclocked 7455s again? (before anyone gets upset about that word - Apple's chips are rated by Moto at that speed, just like I am sure there were 604e chips at the fab that could hit 400mhz with heavy chilling - but the 7455 DESIGN is NOT advertised by Moto as capable of more than 1ghz, thus Apple's are for all intents and purposes overclocked - thus the heavy heat sink and big noise).
And like others, I do get jealous of some of the advantages of commodity computing - just going onto Dabs.com every so often and get a CPU that will SMOKE any G4 for $70 is sickening sometimes
..An Apple lover since the daze of the ][+
The low-end represents a serious downgrade - the only reasons Apple did not retain th 867 at the lower price point is because they want to increase their margin on it while giving the illusion of better without cannibalising the iMac. The 1ghz SP is a price/performance DISGRACE. Nothing Apple can do about the FSB bottleneck, Motorola's poor fabbing or any of the G4s shortcomings (at least at this stage), so two processors, built-in Bluetooth, FW800, USB2, ATA/133 (if not Serial ATA) and 8x AGP are REQUIRED to give the ILLUSION at least of value.
When Ars Technica called the current 'Pro' lineup an 'overpriced embarrassment'
some months ago it was an accurate assessment. It is even more accurate now. The LCD and good looks of the iMac can compensate somewhat for PC-trailing performance. But for towers Apple needs to have dual CPUs across the entire line just to PRETEND to compete on performance - of course, at this stage informed pros who don't need a new machine NOW will wait until the 970 comes to close a bit of the gaping gap with WinTel. Maybe Apple knows this and is barely bothering? Why bother to add more than a speed bump when you know that this lead turkey architecture (the 'G4') is on its last legs?
Also, no-one seems to know yet if these are the 7457s or if there is full DDR support (somehow I doubt it). Are these the overclocked 7455s again? (before anyone gets upset about that word - Apple's chips are rated by Moto at that speed, just like I am sure there were 604e chips at the fab that could hit 400mhz with heavy chilling - but the 7455 DESIGN is NOT advertised by Moto as capable of more than 1ghz, thus Apple's are for all intents and purposes overclocked - thus the heavy heat sink and big noise).
And like others, I do get jealous of some of the advantages of commodity computing - just going onto Dabs.com every so often and get a CPU that will SMOKE any G4 for $70 is sickening sometimes
..An Apple lover since the daze of the ][+
Re: Re: ...but the imacs.....
Intel does the same thing, just more often. A P4 running at 2.8GHz is the same thing as a 2.2GHz. Same core etc etc.
This is just marketing... buy what works well for you. Just because something is new and shiny does not make it better for you or me.
Intel does the same thing, just more often. A P4 running at 2.8GHz is the same thing as a 2.2GHz. Same core etc etc.
This is just marketing... buy what works well for you. Just because something is new and shiny does not make it better for you or me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
What I'm saying is that, if you buy a workstation to be a pure productivity machine, then you'll be working in say, PhotoShop, all day long. The OS UI becomes irrelevant for the most part and the Photoshop UI, which is virtually the same becomes the only meaningful UI on the workstation. So though OS X may be a nicer user experience, for workstation purposes, I believe it is negated by the purpose of the machine.
I'm not buying an iMac because Windows doesn't work well for me. I find it very effecient and stable (2000/XP). I'm switching because of iMac, iLife, Aqua, and because with all the iPod clones coming out, I haven't seen one that I would trade my iPod for and I beleive my iPod will work better as a DLD if I had an iMac. Now's a chance for everyone who desires so, to call me dumb. I'm going to buy a $2000 PC to improve the functionality of my $300 MP3 player.
Only humans, only on earth.....
Originally posted by Frobozz
Again, I can appreciate your difference in opinion.. but I really don't think you understand the Macintosh market.
Workstation UI's are not any different than the desktop UI for Macs. On top of that it sends chills down my spine to think you don't find Windows repulsive in every way. Granted, it's not the steaming pile of c*** that it used to be... but why on earth applaud that?
What I'm saying is that, if you buy a workstation to be a pure productivity machine, then you'll be working in say, PhotoShop, all day long. The OS UI becomes irrelevant for the most part and the Photoshop UI, which is virtually the same becomes the only meaningful UI on the workstation. So though OS X may be a nicer user experience, for workstation purposes, I believe it is negated by the purpose of the machine.
I'm not buying an iMac because Windows doesn't work well for me. I find it very effecient and stable (2000/XP). I'm switching because of iMac, iLife, Aqua, and because with all the iPod clones coming out, I haven't seen one that I would trade my iPod for and I beleive my iPod will work better as a DLD if I had an iMac. Now's a chance for everyone who desires so, to call me dumb. I'm going to buy a $2000 PC to improve the functionality of my $300 MP3 player.
Only humans, only on earth.....