Originally posted by illumin8
I decided to go for it... The offer expired tonight so I took the plunge.
Hell, for $669 I can get one now and still afford the 970 when it is released...
Total system price: $1049 shipped, plus about a half hour of my time to put in the new hard drive and upgrade the memory.
Like I said earlier, if you buy it you pretty much plan on upgrading it first thing. Those of you that bought an iBook with only 128MB of RAM probably popped a bigger stick in right away too. I still think I got a good deal for top of the line technology at an entry-level price...Originally posted by pseudobrit
You realise that, shipped and loaded, you paid nearly double what you thought you paid?
Very well said.Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.
Cool, thanks for the tip. I guess 1 GB of memory should be enough. I want to make sure I'm running dual channel mode after all or the memory won't be keeping up with the processor.Originally posted by Funkatation
hey illumina8... when you get your new dell and those 2 512mb sticks of ram... take out the 256 chip (or 2x128) whatever it is... the dual channel stuff is really finickey, and has to have all slots populated with the same ram (nforce2 isnt as bad, but the new intel stuff is) or it will run in single channel mode (cutting memory bandwith in half)
Most of the programs I spend a lot of time in have both the PC and Mac versions included on the same disk (Reason is a good example). So an added benefit of switching is that I don't have to rebuy all of my software, just MS office, although OpenOffice is pretty good now and will probably do just fine on Mac OS X.Originally posted by mactastic
I need to use both PC's and Macs. I sure could use a cheap pc box, but I'm still paying off my pbook. I end up having to use Autocad, and VPC doesn't cut it for that for so many reasons. So I still have a reason to need both platforms. However, as a previous poster said, if I had to buy all my software over just to switch, it would run another thousand or so, even with educational discounts. Not terribly appealing. Unless of course, you aren't paying for software...
Some of you... some of you like pcs exculsively, while myself I say there is not, nor ought there be anything so exaulted on the face of God's great earth as that prince of computers, the macintosh.
Originally posted by illumin8
Like I said earlier, if you buy it you pretty much plan on upgrading it first thing. Those of you that bought an iBook with only 128MB of RAM probably popped a bigger stick in right away too. I still think I got a good deal for top of the line technology at an entry-level price...
Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Yeah but then three weeks after you buy it the thing is slow as bricks because you've installed programs, you'll wonder why people buy macs. Both my parent's HP laptops are dog slow, they lag opening IE and just about everything else. Sure XP brings up the desktop a minute before OS X but it takes an extra 5 minutes to load all the background programs that you can't turn off.
I don't even want to hear hardware spec comparisons to this new POS you bought and a new mac. I know my ibook 500 is smoking every PC in my house. Shoot, my dad's Fujitsu 233 P2 isn't much slower than his new Athalon 1800+ mobile.
All those specs are a marketing ploy to attract people who immediately assume that bigger is better. And you bought it. Paid twice what they said you'd pay too.
Bottom line is, though the hardware numbers are pretty sweet, they aren't implimented in an efficient way. Because Windows has to support a billion different chipsets, it's not optimized well to any hardware and is sluggish whether you have a 800 celeron or a 2.4 P4.
You can throw out hardware specs and benchmarks out the window. What it comes down to is sitting right in front of each machine and see which one cooperates. Sure you can get a dell for $700. But compare the percent of people who HATE computers and use pc's to the percent of people who love macs and own macs.
So enjoy your loud dead weight and we'll see you back in the mac camp in a few years... I'm sure of it.
Why on earth would you want to waste your money on 32bit machine when 64bit machine is just around the corner?
Kind of amazing how some people can blow $3000 on a top of the line PowerMac with 1998 era technology yet $1000 on a PC with 2003 era technology is too much.
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.Originally posted by pseudobrit
At three years old a PC can't run the latest basic software. At three years, a Mac is just getting broken in.
Originally posted by illumin8
Cool, thanks for the tip. I guess 1 GB of memory should be enough. I want to make sure I'm running dual channel mode after all or the memory won't be keeping up with the processor.
If i rercollect the Pwer macs were at 350 to 500Mhz in 1999 and the cube was in 2000 which is three years ago and they all had a 16mb video card in them. I'm using a dual 450 from 2000 and it still runs wonderfully including most games (i upgraded the video card and the ram) and rus os X (10.2.6) without any slow downs.Originally posted by yzedf
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.
And for the record, my office is full of 3-5 year old computers (some P2 333MHz boxes) that run Office 2000 perfectly well, as well as the lastest Norton and other various office necessities.
Obviously any 3 yr old computer would be useless for gaming or hard core rendering type work...
Originally posted by yzedf
Funny how the specs for OS X state that you need 16MB vram to run Quartz Extreme. I can think of no Apple product from 3 years ago, except for a PowerMac, that can meet that requirement.
And for the record, my office is full of 3-5 year old computers (some P2 333MHz boxes) that run Office 2000 perfectly well, as well as the lastest Norton and other various office necessities.
Obviously any 3 yr old computer would be useless for gaming or hard core rendering type work...
I agree with you that the hardware for the power mac is behind the times and lets face it windows is getting better at alot of things and if apple gets it together we could be looking at another revolution. If I was ever to buy a wintel box it would not be from a manufacturer. It is easy enough to buy your own components and throw them together. You dont get customer support on the whole box, but lets face it there ain't much support out there normallyOriginally posted by yzedf
Dual channel is designed with something in mind, and that is bad? If it was a PowerMac you all would be praising its intelligent forward thinking design!![]()
Hardware wise, Macs are in the stone age. If we are lucky, IBM will be nice enough to let Apple use the 970... but there are no certainties until they actually ship.
TOO trueOriginally posted by NavyIntel007
X86 has some good features but if you're going to be running windows, you're wasting your time.