yeah jm thats my concern, I want to get the right one, because I only get once chance to do it, and thats it for a few years. I dont know the average trade in time for a computer, but I tend to keep mine awhile this one is over three years old and the reason I dont want it anymore is the windows aspect of it, my last computer was 6 years old before I got a new one. So when I buy the Mac it will be with me for a long time so thats why Im being so cautious about which one to buy.
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.
why is apple so far behind?
- Thread starter thorshammer88
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mr. Green, carrying a top end PB around all day at school wouldnt be fun, especially when I realized that for not much more than the cost of a top end PB I can get an ibook and an imac. The ibook would primarily be used for word docs and spreadsheets and occasional photo editing when traveling, so I wouldnt need much more than the low end basic ibook
MikeLaRiviere said:
what exactly is it that you like to tinker with? i am asking because nearly every possible aspect of the operating system, if not the whole thing entirely is accesible through a terminal in os x. that is the beauty of unix to the power-user. you can make your machine whatever you want it to be, if you know how. and to continue, fixing things is exactly what makes a computer a frustration to most users. that's why the most common phrase in a wintel office is "stupid computers, hurt more than they help". just today i watched my boss get irate with our brand new dell workstation as i silently held back my comments of "i told you we should have gone apple" anyways, what i was getting to is that a computer shouldnt need to be fixed, it should fade away and your task at hand should be there in front of you.
just for what its worth :-D
thorshammer88 said:
That's how I feel about Apples entire Power* line... but you mentioned that you were considering getting a top of the line powerbook, so if a new G5 PB came out, I assumed you would be interested. Personally, I'd go for a 12" iBook and save the $1500 for when the next iMac rev. came out.
The iBook is good for all the things you've mentioned, and is also perfectly capable of doing photo and video editing work as well as playing some faily recent/decent games. It's a nice little package for the money. Don't forget that extra RAM is a must. They ship with 256, adding a 512mb DIMM should give you plenty for just about anything you want to do. Get the RAM from a 3rd party vendor and install it yourself to save a bundle. I'd recommend newegg.com or crucial.com.
Rob
Cyanide, thats pretty close to how I responded to that comment too, I just want my computer to do what I paid a ton of money for it do, to work!
Anyways, I think Ive squeezed about as much information out of this thread as possible. I still cant believe it got almost 80 posts and its not even a day old. Thanks again to everybody for all the help, I think it looks like my best option would be to start off with a low end ibook and go from there. When I get it and try it out awhile I will post again and let you know how it goes. Im really excited now
Anyways, I think Ive squeezed about as much information out of this thread as possible. I still cant believe it got almost 80 posts and its not even a day old. Thanks again to everybody for all the help, I think it looks like my best option would be to start off with a low end ibook and go from there. When I get it and try it out awhile I will post again and let you know how it goes. Im really excited now
mrgreen4242 said:
Thats exactly what I plan to do if the ibook works out for me. The top end powerbook was only an option when I was considering it as a replacement for home and travel, but for its price I can get a more powerful imac and an ibook, I cant really justify the price for my needs, even if they came out PB G5 I assume the portability issue would be the same. Thanks again
How about the monthly payments?
One thing that I think doesn't get pushed enough when selling Apples is the low monthly payment. My iMac DV cost a little over $1200 when I bought it, and since then I have installed $150 worth of committed peripherals (airport card, extra 128mb of RAM) that won't be following me to my next machine.
Total cost $1350. I have used that machine everyday for 5 and a half years now, and I guarantee it will make it to 6 (as my primary, er, only machine). My needs may not be as great, and others may replace sooner, but if your machine lasts you longer without becoming a sinkhole for funds, the investment is wiser.
I compare this to the four "budget" priced machines and "not-budget" priced laptops that my parents have had to go through because they have literally broken. The laptop's case has come apart...I won't go into the rest of the list. They have spent close to $3000 in maintenance and replacement over the last 5 years to spend all of their computing time being supremely frustrated.
I recommend Apple computers for all of the reasons previously posted, but also because I trust Apple to make machines that will last a long time and offset the initial high price-point.
One thing that I think doesn't get pushed enough when selling Apples is the low monthly payment. My iMac DV cost a little over $1200 when I bought it, and since then I have installed $150 worth of committed peripherals (airport card, extra 128mb of RAM) that won't be following me to my next machine.
Total cost $1350. I have used that machine everyday for 5 and a half years now, and I guarantee it will make it to 6 (as my primary, er, only machine). My needs may not be as great, and others may replace sooner, but if your machine lasts you longer without becoming a sinkhole for funds, the investment is wiser.
I compare this to the four "budget" priced machines and "not-budget" priced laptops that my parents have had to go through because they have literally broken. The laptop's case has come apart...I won't go into the rest of the list. They have spent close to $3000 in maintenance and replacement over the last 5 years to spend all of their computing time being supremely frustrated.
I recommend Apple computers for all of the reasons previously posted, but also because I trust Apple to make machines that will last a long time and offset the initial high price-point.
a good comparison Mac vs PC in Mhz and all the rest
I owned at the same time a B&W G3 300 (786 MB ram could go upto 1GB), TiPb G4 400 (256 MB ram later 1GB), and Dell PII 450 (maxed out ram: 384 MB)
I have to tell you offcourse that my main use is Photoshop... a Ram-Hog
but for comparison lets take the 2 wich are closest in Mhz & ram
PII 450, didn't handle XP quite well... (even when not running anything else)
TiPb G4 400, ran OSX Panther without a glitch... with even 128MB less memory at first...
Photoshop6 was the highest usable version on the pc, Photoshop7 took ages to load...
Photoshop CS ran as a dream on the Powerbook...
maybe in general Mac's are more expensive, but they last longer.
a pc: general 4Years...
a Mac: my 6Y old B&W was still quite up to date in OS abilities... & could handle 1GB ram to the 384MB in the PC...
and the best of all as written allready here & what Steve should use as new slogan: Mac: It just works!!
PS: about FireWire, the B&W G3 had it allready so the G4 was not the first mac to have FireWire, the B&W G3 was around in 1998 if I'm not mistaken I don't have a good idea when they were first build, but my ex-B&W is now 6y+ and still up and running at a friends house ;-)
I owned at the same time a B&W G3 300 (786 MB ram could go upto 1GB), TiPb G4 400 (256 MB ram later 1GB), and Dell PII 450 (maxed out ram: 384 MB)
I have to tell you offcourse that my main use is Photoshop... a Ram-Hog
but for comparison lets take the 2 wich are closest in Mhz & ram
PII 450, didn't handle XP quite well... (even when not running anything else)
TiPb G4 400, ran OSX Panther without a glitch... with even 128MB less memory at first...
Photoshop6 was the highest usable version on the pc, Photoshop7 took ages to load...
Photoshop CS ran as a dream on the Powerbook...
maybe in general Mac's are more expensive, but they last longer.
a pc: general 4Years...
a Mac: my 6Y old B&W was still quite up to date in OS abilities... & could handle 1GB ram to the 384MB in the PC...
and the best of all as written allready here & what Steve should use as new slogan: Mac: It just works!!
PS: about FireWire, the B&W G3 had it allready so the G4 was not the first mac to have FireWire, the B&W G3 was around in 1998 if I'm not mistaken I don't have a good idea when they were first build, but my ex-B&W is now 6y+ and still up and running at a friends house ;-)
Jo-Kun said:
um what the heck are you smoking saying the PC is 4 years old. the 800mhz pIII are over 7 years old now. And at home my parents are running a 1ghz AMD computer running XP that is in it 5th year and it has about another year or 2 left before needing to be replaced. The life span of PC has extented a good amont since the number s they use came out
I think you PII 450mhz pII is back before windows 98SE came out.
Timelessblur said:
I didn't say the PC was 4y old (I bought my PII in march '99, wich is not yet 6y... and yes the PIII was for sale a few months later, but then I had this one allready...) I mean a PC ages faster (since you can still use the newest OSX on a 6Y old Mac & XP makes life hard on a PC that age...) and you'll replace it more likely in 4y and a mac in 6y... if you are a poweruser... when my TiPb was stolen I had to use an old P 166MMX wich was laying in the basement (since my B&W was sold to get an iPod & the PII I gave to a friend who needed a computer for internet/e-mail/word... wich it still is quite good for)
the PII and the B&W had the same age... I wanted to give a comparison about the Mhz/ram myth... and I guess if you would use Linux you can install the latest kernel and run it on the PC, so I guess ageing has a lot -if not everything- to do with the OS...
io_burn said:
There's a fine line between being an Apple fanboy and being a total retard, and I think you've crossed it.
My ThinkPad kicks the crap out of my PowerBook, in just about every sense of the word. If you think your ancient TiBook is faster than a 2.0Ghz Pentium M based laptop... You're either stupid, or not operating on the same space time continuum as the rest of the galaxy.
I don't understand all you people posting "LOL WELL DELL DOESN'T INNOVATE, WHERE'S THEIR R&D?!?!" ...The extent of Dell's R&D is manufacturing computer cases. They're a computer reseller. They... resell... computer parts they combine together to make a working machine. Intel, AMD, ATi, Nvidia, they do the R&D, not Dell.
What a stupid argument to make.
Thanks... for the most annoying post ever.
I WAS having fun reading this thread.
Jo-Kun said:
then all I can say is you got a bottom of th barrel PC in 99 conisdering that the PII233 was main stream back in 96-97 and speed was still doubling in under a year at the time. So you basicly got a PC that already was over a year into it life span.
why is apple so far behind
More like why is Apple so far ahead!
Here is an analogy: think of a computer like a wrench. Windows people tend to describe it terms like : its real shiny chrome, the six inch model and I got for $$ cheap. No mention of turning a nut or bolt, what its real job is!
Apple people tend to describe it in what it can do, like : its 5/8" wrench good for 200 ft-lbs.
I have both PCs and an Apple. The prices are comparable. PCs with integrated graphics (Intel) are cheap and are junk. Like a REALLY cheap wrench.
Really, who cares what it is. What can it do!
More like why is Apple so far ahead!
Here is an analogy: think of a computer like a wrench. Windows people tend to describe it terms like : its real shiny chrome, the six inch model and I got for $$ cheap. No mention of turning a nut or bolt, what its real job is!
Apple people tend to describe it in what it can do, like : its 5/8" wrench good for 200 ft-lbs.
I have both PCs and an Apple. The prices are comparable. PCs with integrated graphics (Intel) are cheap and are junk. Like a REALLY cheap wrench.
Really, who cares what it is. What can it do!
Timelessblur said:
well special thnx to mr Dell for selling that at the time
... it was at that time the fastest they sold apparently (I bought it trough the company my brother was working at that time, reccomended by the IT departement, I have to say I never had problems with adding hardware, very stable system at the time compared to the PC's some friend bought...)flynnstone, how are you comparing Mac's and PC's to say that the prices are comparable? In terms of simple price comparison (not including any other factors) Macs on average are more expensive
thorshammer88 said:
First, yup, the numbers are not indicitive. Further, it isn't even so simple as being able to say, this in pentium=this in amd=this in ...
Because, both as a matter of chip architecture and the software on it, different things will be faster one one chip and OS combination than another. 2d graphics will be better with a mac, 3d with a PC (hence gamers always saying PC's are better, while people who do 2d graphics always like macs).
So, there is no simple faster and slower. the 1.33 vs 3.6 sounds to me like in most respects 3.6 would definatley be faster, just because it's a huge jump. But the thing is, mac caching is awesome. So, with a single application open at a time, the PC would be faster in this situation. But if you're ADHD like me and have 10 apps going at any time, the mac is far better-I've piled up 20 apps at once on my powerbook and the only thing to get bogged down was my internet connection.
Anyway, personally, I think that in this day and age unless you have a very specific purpose that you need a particular type of power for, most differences in speed are too small to matter. The number of steps involved in navigating your system has a far greater effect on how much time it takes to do things.
And to that end, Exposé, Butler, the intuitive sturcture of OS X, and of course the incredible lack of spyware, save far more time than the gigahertz difference.
Of course, compatibility with my external hard drive, etc. are items that rest on the other side, but still, networking works so great with macs, and those above things are SO huge... it far outweighs the few compatiblitiy issues that do exist. Of course, the time i spend writting on macrumors...;-)
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
thorshammer88 said:
On the average, people tend to forget to upgrade the PC system with Firewire, XP Pro, non-integrated graphics card, Combo-drive, modem, and all the software necessary to bring it up to par with the Macs, which software-wise, can't really be done anyhow...
For several years, I have been having these arguments. Be it between classmates, friends, or my brethren, I will say the Intel, AMD, and VIA have worked at increasing the MHz. Numbers on their chips, but the throughput of their systems have only recently begun to improve over the levels 6 years ago, thanks to PCI-Express, SATA and other things. Apple on the other hand has 2 Processor Manufacturers (IBM and Motorola/Freescale) but they push the envelop by making their own standards (ADC, FireWire, AirPort) and tweak the system at the chip level, and software, whereas Most PC OEMs can only tweak hardware to a limited degree, and software even less.
Comparison:
HP Laptop; P-IVm 3.2 GHz; 256MB RAM, 40GB 5400 RPM HD
PowerBook G4; G4- 500 MHz; 256MB RAM (at that time), 20GB 4800 RPM HD
The PowerBook would boot in 47 seconds, whereas the HP took 278 seconds.
Copying a 5.5MB file from a CD-ROM look 15 second on the PB, 86 on the HP.
Connecting to a Wireless Network (from a Linksys router, never before encountered) 10 seconds PB, 368 seconds HP.
Loading Yahoo.com via Firefox over said Wi-Fi, 18 seconds PB, 55 seconds HP.
Time to Load Unreal Tournement (Mac OS9 for PB) from clean boot; 33 seconds PB, 94 seconds HP. Framerate on UT - 40 fps PB, 32 fps HP. And the HP has 64MB VRAM, the PB 8MB.
Max Battery Time on a new newly charged battery; 6:35 PB, 2:20 HP.
After this test, performed by myself and my apartment at University, they are all thinking about Macs, then I took my Powerbook to the living room, hooked it up to the TV, and starting watching Red Dwarf, with in 1 minutes, they were definitely going Mac.
Your Mileage may vary, but My 3.5 year old PowerBook Runs circles around newer Notebooks/Laptops, and I will replace it only for a few games, when it has 5 years of use left, while the HP will be obsolete in 1.5 years.
Also, MacOS X is really like Blackcomb to XP (Whistler) not Longhorn (a pub between the ski areas. It is THAT far ahead.
TEG
Comparison:
HP Laptop; P-IVm 3.2 GHz; 256MB RAM, 40GB 5400 RPM HD
PowerBook G4; G4- 500 MHz; 256MB RAM (at that time), 20GB 4800 RPM HD
The PowerBook would boot in 47 seconds, whereas the HP took 278 seconds.
Copying a 5.5MB file from a CD-ROM look 15 second on the PB, 86 on the HP.
Connecting to a Wireless Network (from a Linksys router, never before encountered) 10 seconds PB, 368 seconds HP.
Loading Yahoo.com via Firefox over said Wi-Fi, 18 seconds PB, 55 seconds HP.
Time to Load Unreal Tournement (Mac OS9 for PB) from clean boot; 33 seconds PB, 94 seconds HP. Framerate on UT - 40 fps PB, 32 fps HP. And the HP has 64MB VRAM, the PB 8MB.
Max Battery Time on a new newly charged battery; 6:35 PB, 2:20 HP.
After this test, performed by myself and my apartment at University, they are all thinking about Macs, then I took my Powerbook to the living room, hooked it up to the TV, and starting watching Red Dwarf, with in 1 minutes, they were definitely going Mac.
Your Mileage may vary, but My 3.5 year old PowerBook Runs circles around newer Notebooks/Laptops, and I will replace it only for a few games, when it has 5 years of use left, while the HP will be obsolete in 1.5 years.
Also, MacOS X is really like Blackcomb to XP (Whistler) not Longhorn (a pub between the ski areas. It is THAT far ahead.
TEG
thorshammer88 said:
On this forum and other Mac sites there are threads on every topic, and price comparisons galore that try to equalize Apple and Dell products. Believe them or not, it's up to you. There are many people (like me last June, after 17 years with Windows) that made the decision to switch from PCs to Macs. I have heard of very few (if any) that found it difficult or regrettable.
Indeed. You should take anything people here say with a large pinch of salt, so to speak.thorshammer88 said:
Basicaly, have a look in an apple store. Buy a cheap iMac, or iBook, see how you like it. My first mac was a cheap 466MHz iBook, clamshell, I found myself wanting to do everything on it. Mac OS X was just so... great, I decided to use it instead of my (then) 1.6GHz Athlon XP.
Now I have a 2.8GHz XP in an nForce board sitting, folding. It gets used when I want to play Total War. Use OS X, see how you feel - get back to us. You'll porbably find with whatever system, even though the MHz is slower, eve though the video card is 2 gens behind, it's more productive.
Consider it as your "Work" machine, and your PC for play and Sado-Masochism
Thanks everybody, youve helped a ton me with my concerns about making the switch. I'm going to be putting an order for a 1.2 ghz ibook. I'm still somewhat concerned about Apple's secrecy about upcoming products, but nothing is gonna change that so I guess I'll have to live with it. I can see that down the road if I 'm happy with Mac's and stay with them I'll have a hard time gauging when to purchase products, I can already feel the misery of buying a $2000 computer only for apple to come out with something better soon after or it to get a price drop.
thorshammer88 said:
Just remember that Apple does offer price protection if they do drop the price within 10 days of your purchase, as outlined on their Post Purchase page. Not a large window of oppurtunity, but it's better than nothing.
thorshammer88 said:
I give this from a business/IT perspective. This the best exmaple of the costs, not by me but some one else. This company has 200 computers, 100 Macs and 100 PCs. The IT department consists of 4 people, 3 for the PCs and 1 for the Macs.
Lets for simplicity say a PC cost $2000 and a Mac $4000 and each lasts 3 years. The PC cost per year is $2000/3 or $666. The Mac cost per year is $4000/3 or $1333. Now lets factor in support costs. Lets assume a fully loaded cost of $80,000 per person. So the yearly support costs for the PC are 3 * $80k or $240,000 and $80,000 for the Mac. So for each PC the support cost is $240k /100 or $2400 per machine. The Mac support cost is $80k/100 or $800.
The Total cost of the PC per year is $2400 + $666 = $3066.
The Total cost of the Mac per year is $800 + $1333 = $2133.
The Mac is almost $1000 less! We haven't even include support software like Norton Anti-virus.
This is from a business point of view, need different perspective for home use.
Let this be the Final Time soneone needs to know this
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's
G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)
G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)
No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.
I will give all you newbie's and so called Guru's a fair performance comparison on all cpu's
G4 1.2ghz(7447)= 1.3ghz Athlon XP 1500+(Thoroughbred) = 1.5 ghz P4(Palomino) = 1.4ghz Pentium M (Banias)
G5 2ghz(970FX)= 2ghz Athlon 64 3200+(Winchester) =/ 3.2ghz P4(Prescott) / (All Dual Channel Configurations) /=2ghz Pentium M (Dothan)
No more Bitching, no more crying from any of you this is a tried and true comparison , systemshootouts.org has done the best reasearch on this and i have to agree with thier results.