Apple Mac vs PC

Apple products and Mac operating systems. Including discussions on Virtual PC for Mac, Parallels Desktop for Mac, all Apple hardware and everything relating to Apple and Mac!
(MacCentre701)

Postby Al » Mon 27 Dec, 2004 7:44 pm

I disaggree. Apple should do this, each verison is like a new verison. I think Apple need the money, keep up the good work!
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0
User of Firefox :ff: 3.0 on Windows XP
User avatar
Al
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri 20 Dec, 2002 1:08 pm

Postby Andrew T. » Tue 28 Dec, 2004 12:23 am

While the upgrades from Mac OS X 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 aren't cheap and did come in surprisingly close succession, I do think that the upgrades are more than justified by the number of changes and improvements to the operating system. For example, Mac OS X 10.2 and 10.3 added better network support, improved searching, Apple Rendezvous networking, Quartz Extreme technology, Fast User Switching, Exposé, file labels, and support for new programs and accessories such as Safari and iChat, and other improvements. By contrast, aside from better USB support and longer "support" timeframes, I do not consider there to be any compelling improvements in Windows 98 and ME over Windows 95 OSR2.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
User avatar
Andrew T.
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Fri 14 Mar, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea

Postby izanbardprince » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 7:13 am

OK, aside from just "looking cool" and costing at LEAST $1000 more than my PC, what does an Apple system do that mine can't?

I think Apple would do better as a software company, just porting Mac OS to PC platform.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
izanbardprince
Apple basher
Apple basher
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 2:34 pm

Postby Antony » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 7:14 am

Just read the first few pages of this thread, and you will get plenty of idea.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15168
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Wow! It's a Mac!

Postby izanbardprince » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 7:46 am

Antony wrote:Let me show you some pictures...
Image Image

And now, presenting the iMac.
Image Image
People don't just say "Wow! It's a Mac!" because of small market share, but for some damn good reasons.


Does the Imac there allow you to expand it with devices not embedded?

And wouldn't it be just as much of a mess as the PC pictured, if I wanted to hook up a real stereo to it, or a decent webcam, and what happens if the monitor component fails? can you still use the computer and just replace the monitor for $100? no?

Likewise, what happens when you go to get a new one and don't want to pay for a monitor?

From that ad campaign it looks like they're priding themselves on being non-expandable and failure prone.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
izanbardprince
Apple basher
Apple basher
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 2:34 pm

Re: Wow! It's a Mac!

Postby Mandrake » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 8:00 am

Antony wrote:Let me show you some pictures...
Image Image

And now, presenting the iMac.
Image Image
People don't just say "Wow! It's a Mac!" because of small market share, but for some damn good reasons.


That PC has all kinds of peripherals attached to it while the Mac has only a keyboard and mouse.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby izanbardprince » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 8:04 am

So like I said, if you wanted to do the same things with it, it would be almost just as cluttered with wires as the PC?
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
izanbardprince
Apple basher
Apple basher
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 2:34 pm

Re: Wow! It's a Mac!

Postby Antony » Thu 30 Dec, 2004 8:27 am

izanbardprince wrote:Does the Imac there allow you to expand it with devices not embedded?
It allows you to upgrade, but not expand.

Or adding any USB (or later Firewire) devices that's a lot easier than PC counterpart.

To expand, get PowerMac.

izanbardprince wrote:and what happens if the monitor component fails? can you still use the computer and just replace the monitor for $100? no?
You can replace the monitor if it fails. As for pricing, I have no idea.

izanbardprince wrote:Likewise, what happens when you go to get a new one and don't want to pay for a monitor?
Than ask for a third party to do so.

izanbardprince wrote:From that ad campaign it looks like they're priding themselves on being non-expandable and failure prone.
It was not a failure, it was a huge success.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15168
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Mandrake » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 7:57 am

Just out of interest, I took a look at the latest prices at the Apple Store (Australia), and found the cheapest PowerMac for $2,699 AUD.

The specifications included:

• 1.8Ghz PPC G5 Processor w/ 900mhz FSB
• 256MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x128
• 80GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• 8x SuperDrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
• NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/64MB DDR SDRAM
• 56K V.92 internal modem
• Apple Keyboard + Apple Mouse
• Mac OS X [default]

Since it's a well known fact that Mac OS X uses a lot of ram (just like Windows XP), I'd say that at least another 256mb of ram is needed to make this system usable. You'd also need a purchase a monitor to use with the system.

Meanwhile, I also took a look at Dell's website. I looked for a Dell Dimension PC that cost roughly $2,700 AUD. I found a PC that met this budget, and it has some impressive specifications:

• Pentium(R) 4 530 w/HT Desktop (3.0GHz, 1 MB L2 cache, 800MHz FSB, Intel(R) 925XE Chipset)
• Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional (English)
• 1GB(2x512) NECC Dual Channel DDR2 533Mhz SDRAM Memory [4x more than the PowerMac, and the memory is 533mhz DDR2, as opposed to the older DDR 400mhz ram used in the Mac]
• Dell(TM) Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• 160GB SATA (7200RPM) Hard Drive [Double the size of the HD in the Mac]
• 16X DVD +/- RW with Dual Layer Write Capabilities
• 256MB PCIe(TM) x16 nVidia(R) GeForce(TM) 6800 [Much faster video card than the entry level GeForce FX card the PowerMac comes with]
• 17" (16.0"v.i.s) CRT Monitor [There is no monitor included with the Mac]

Grand total is: $2,696 AUD

For $3 cheaper than the PowerMac you end up with a system that has four times the memory, double the storage capabilities, and it has a much faster video card. There is also a monitor included with the Dell, whereas there is none include with the Mac.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20050101 Firefox/1.0+
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 8:24 am

Mandrake,
As I've mentioned before, compare them in the same category...
That's you should not compare professional series of computers from Apple to a computer designed for average use from Dell.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15168
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby izanbardprince » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 9:04 am

Antony wrote:Mandrake,
As I've mentioned before, compare them in the same category...
That's you should not compare professional series of computers from Apple to a computer designed for average use from Dell.


Average users PC right now would have a Celeron D in it, very nice processor for no more than it costs :)

I have mine running at 3.6 Ghz and it's still under 50 degrees Celsius, I do have a nice fan/heatsink on it though.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
izanbardprince
Apple basher
Apple basher
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 08 Feb, 2003 2:34 pm

Postby Mandrake » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 7:27 pm

Antony wrote:Mandrake,
As I've mentioned before, compare them in the same category...
That's you should not compare professional series of computers from Apple to a computer designed for average use from Dell.


Apple has an interesting policy with their line of professional workstations, it seems.

Why do their "professional" line of computers come with GeForce or Radeon video cards in favour of FireGL and Quadro cards that are intend for use in professional workstations?

Why don't Apple's professional workstations have room for more than two hard disks or one optical drive? I'd expect far more expandability in a workstation.

Why can't you order a SCSI controller and SCSI hard disks with a machine from Apple?

Why are there no options for having your hard disks configured in some kind of RAID array when purchased from Apple?

I'd expect all of these features in a "professional" workstation, but Apple's PowerMac has none of them.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20050101 Firefox/1.0+
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 7:59 pm

Mandrake wrote:Why do their "professional" line of computers come with GeForce or Radeon video cards in favour of FireGL and Quadro cards that are intend for use in professional workstations?
What's wrong with those video cards? "Professional" line of products are not necessary for graphic artists.

Mandrake wrote:Why don't Apple's professional workstations have room for more than two hard disks or one optical drive? I'd expect far more expandability in a workstation.
All Apple's PowerMacs G4 have room for more than two HDDs and up to two internal optical drive.

Mandrake wrote:Why can't you order a SCSI controller and SCSI hard disks with a machine from Apple?
Why do you need such old and hard-to-configure technology? Serial-ATA is the way to go.

Mandrake wrote:Why are there no options for having your hard disks configured in some kind of RAID array when purchased from Apple?
You want RAID? then buy the Xserve RAID

Mandrake wrote:I'd expect all of these features in a "professional" workstation, but Apple's PowerMac has none of them.
I guess you read the competitors' interpretation of Apple's offering...
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15168
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby DJGM » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 8:39 pm

Antony wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Why don't Apple's professional workstations have room for more than two hard
disks or one optical drive? I'd expect far more expandability in a workstation.


All Apple's PowerMacs G4 have room for more than two HDDs and up to two internal optical drive.


That's Apple old line of PowerMac computers. What about the newer G5 based PowerMac systems?

Antony wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Why are there no options for having your hard disks configured
in some kind of RAID array when purchased from Apple?


You want RAID? then buy the Xserve RAID . . .


But that's a server, not a workstation. It's not suitable for someone wanting a top end personal computer.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Don_HH2K » Mon 03 Jan, 2005 8:53 pm

Antony wrote:
Mandrake wrote:Why are there no options for having your hard disks configured in some kind of RAID array when purchased from Apple?
You want RAID? then buy the Xserve RAID


I think the following speaks for itself:
Image
XServe RAID is $6000, PC RAID controller, put in a decent x86 server, is sub-$1000. Even if you want a 64-bit server like the XServe, you're still talking less than $2000, or maybe even $1500.

Now you might say that the Apple model is 5.6TB at only $6000, but notice it says "Starts at $6000". That means there are probably specifications much lower than 5.6TB.

And yeah, that's 14 hot-swap drives, but when you calculate the total on a standard x86 server with seven of those RAID controllers, that comes out to be only a bit over $3000 dollars.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (Donzilla/0.3)
Laptop: HP Compaq nx6325 - Turion 64 X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2, 100GB HD, ATI Radeon X300, 15" LCD, Seven Pro
Handheld: Palm Treo 650 - Intel PXA270 @ 312MHz, 10MB RAM, 32MB flash, 2.7" LCD, Palm OS 5.4
User avatar
Don_HH2K
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5112
Joined: Sun 09 May, 2004 3:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Steeler [Crawler]
cron