standing ovation
Regular
Are there any Windows/Linux users out there who have made the switch (to Mac) now that Apple, for all intents and purposes, makes PCs?
Last edited by a moderator:
MacTel
- Thread starter standing ovation
- Start date
standing ovation
Regular
Never in a million years would I have expected silence on Mac matters to be so ... so deafening. Fearing the wrath of a Windows/Linux mob, Apple purists must be too afraid to come out of the closet.
But I'm not.
For Windows users like me, incompatibility—not familiarity (i.e., Boot Camp)—is what makes the new Macs so compelling, despite premium prices for comparatively less computing power.
With Intel, Apple has started with a clean slate and inaugural Macs will probably become the minimum system requirement for future operating systems and applications.
This sort of leap is unheard-of in the Windows world where, for the sake of backward compatibility, fewer and fewer demands are being made on increasingly potent computer systems.
So while Windows may fit the bill right now, I doubt it will in the future.
But I'm not.
For Windows users like me, incompatibility—not familiarity (i.e., Boot Camp)—is what makes the new Macs so compelling, despite premium prices for comparatively less computing power.
With Intel, Apple has started with a clean slate and inaugural Macs will probably become the minimum system requirement for future operating systems and applications.
This sort of leap is unheard-of in the Windows world where, for the sake of backward compatibility, fewer and fewer demands are being made on increasingly potent computer systems.
So while Windows may fit the bill right now, I doubt it will in the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
standing ovation
Regular
BRiT said:
If you mean build quality, then I'd have to agree.
For all of its endearing qualities, Apple makes Sony look like an angel. Its manufacturing foibles can be horrendous. The same issues (like failed capacitance) have a way of seeping through models, revisions and even generations. And for this reason, the graphic arts/industrial design house should leave electrical engineering alone.
From a consumer standpoint it seems obvious: Mr. Jobs is skimping on quality control, letting Macs run wild from manufacturing to retail without adequate supervision.
If a reputable motherboard maker designed and manufactured PCBs for Macs (Sounds like a non-profit agency, doesn't it? PCBs for Macs.) I am convinced most of its hardware woes would disappear.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sub-par meaning performing significantly below the level of hardware I would use. For example with the Mac Mini, the Intel integrated graphics which performs worse than the ancient ATI 8500/9000/9200 series. Even my 3 year old HTPC has an ATI 9600 in it!
Apple's laptops are a bit better in terms of hardware specs. Still, I 'd really rather have one with an even faster video card in it. Something more on the level of an X1800/1900 or Nvidia 7800/7900+. From what I've read and seen, their new fancy MagSafe power plug is really terrible when you're using the laptop on anything other than a flat surface. That totaly defeats the purpose of it being called "lap"top.
Apple's laptops are a bit better in terms of hardware specs. Still, I 'd really rather have one with an even faster video card in it. Something more on the level of an X1800/1900 or Nvidia 7800/7900+. From what I've read and seen, their new fancy MagSafe power plug is really terrible when you're using the laptop on anything other than a flat surface. That totaly defeats the purpose of it being called "lap"top.
Why? There is no reason for such powerful graphics on a Mac. Let's face it, gaming isn't so great on that platform. The mobility X1600 is good enough for a laptop, if you want something more than you should get a desktop; besides a go 7900 would eat the battery for breakfast which I find defeats the purpose of a laptop. As far as the rest, the Core Duo is a very fast cpu compared to the power it draws; I would hardly call it sub-par and what do you expect with the Mac Mini? I mean it's tiny and relatively cheap.BRiT said:
Now, that's not to say Mac hardware isn't overpriced but sub-par, no.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the argument when considering purchasing a Mac computer....
It comes with other software that add value to it. Or something like that.
The Mac Mini might not have the best graphics card, and it may be expensive compared to competing Windows machines but is still comes with software people may find actual value in.
iLife is a nice suite of applications for casual users. iPhoto is great.
It comes with other software that add value to it. Or something like that.
The Mac Mini might not have the best graphics card, and it may be expensive compared to competing Windows machines but is still comes with software people may find actual value in.
iLife is a nice suite of applications for casual users. iPhoto is great.
standing ovation
Regular
BRiT said:
But that's just it. PC vendors are selling computing potential, whereas Apple seems to be gearing up for kinetics. The deciding factor, of course, is the operating system's minimum requirements.
To remain backwardly compatible Windows has to work with yesterday's humble configurations -- a 300MHz CPU w/ 128MB of RAM or higher according to the fine print on the bottom of my XP box. But harnessing the order of magnitude capability of tomorrow's systems will require a bit of jury-rigging; new service packs and whatnot (if they're even available).
By adopting a completely new architecture, Apple seems to be gearing up for what I'll call kinetic computing for lack of a better term, which utilizes more of a system's resources. Its minimum OS requirements are likely to be in keeping with today's technology -- 512 MB of RAM and an Intel Core Solo/Duo processor humming along at 1.50 GHz.
Whereas Vista must work in a single-core environment (using slight of hand like hyper-threading), OS XI may be crafted for the multi-core universe where multithreading is the rule. In this world those hulking, 64-bit processors will only get themselves steamrolled by lots of cheaper 32-bit ones working together.
The writing is on the wall.
If Apple release a "Core 2 Duo" based Mac mini with a decent graphics chip, I'll probably buy it depending on the price (less than US$1000, I think).
My current Mac mini is too slow to be useful for what I intended for (processing photos). I did use it to try writing some MacOS X programs, though. OpenStep is a nice thing for GUI programming.
My current Mac mini is too slow to be useful for what I intended for (processing photos). I did use it to try writing some MacOS X programs, though. OpenStep is a nice thing for GUI programming.
standing ovation said:But that's just it. PC vendors are selling computing potential, whereas Apple seems to be gearing up for kinetics. The deciding factor, of course, is the operating system's minimum requirements.
To remain backwardly compatible Windows has to work with yesterday's humble configurations -- a 300MHz CPU w/ 128MB of RAM or higher according to the fine print on the bottom of my XP box. But harnessing the order of magnitude capability of tomorrow's systems will require a bit of jury-rigging; new service packs and whatnot (if they're even available).
By adopting a completely new architecture, Apple seems to be gearing up for what I'll call kinetic computing for lack of a better term, which utilizes more of a system's resources. Its minimum OS requirements are likely to be in keeping with today's technology -- 512 MB of RAM and an Intel Core Solo/Duo processor humming along at 1.50 GHz.
Whereas Vista must work in a single-core environment (using slight of hand like hyper-threading), OS XI may be crafted for the multi-core universe where multithreading is the rule. In this world those hulking, 64-bit processors will only get themselves steamrolled by lots of cheaper 32-bit ones working together.
The writing is on the wall.
So macs are going to be better because their OS will use more computing resources and have higher minimum system requirements.
Boy I cannot wait till my OS gobbles up most of my CPU time that would sure make me feel better about life er...
The only advantage you are really showing is that apple programmers could be lazier than microsofts b/c they have an easier target system to work for, but that has nothing to do with the hardware manufacturers, or the quality of the system once it is built.
standing ovation
Regular
Sxotty said:
My point is that the operating system is the weakest link in the computing chain. Because of this, increasing (hardware) capacity is not being reciprocated by similar leaps in (software) productivity.
Windows spends most of its time spoon-feeding a single data stream to a single processor. So widening the stream (from 32- to 64-bits) or increasing the number of mouths to feed (with multiple processing cores) will not make that big of a difference. As long as the operating system remains tethered to the past, we are unlikely to see the real performance benefit of present and future technologies.
But with a clean break, Apple can begin to craft an operating system that is built for future trends -- a kind of forward compatibility. This way new technologies are more likely to affect OS function meaningfully, in ways users will be able to see rather than trust articles to interpret dizzying shades of grey.
When changes in productivity begin to mirror changes in capacity, consumers will have a compelling reason to upgrade/overhaul their PCs ... regularly. And this prospect is sure to have Apple and its suppliers salivating.
Last edited by a moderator:
standing ovation
Regular
Sonic said:
Exactly.
Mac Mini is not quite a PC (you can't run everything on it); nor is it a console. It's a companion, a widget you carry around the house to fill electronic gaps.
A Trojan horse of sorts, Mini threatens the console industry by not being a console. Whereas most gaming systems incidentally offer other amenities, Mac Mini is the amenity that incidentally plays videogames.
Add a PC rate of evolution and we are looking at one of the most plausible ways of winning the home entertainment battle.
standing ovation
Regular
pcchen said:
There is a Mini Core Duo, actually. Apple's online store sells them for $699 (US). But after AppleCare, taxes, and shipping, you'll be hard pressed to keep prices below a $1,000.
standing ovation said:There is a Mini Core Duo, actually. Apple's online store sells them for $699 (US). But after AppleCare, taxes, and shipping, you'll be hard pressed to keep prices below a $1,000.
But it's not "Core 2 Duo." The Core Duo Mini is not fast enough, and it has no decent display chip (I want it to be able to play WoW at least).
Unfortunately it looks like Apple did look for highest margine of profit in the current Mac Mini and not necessarily how many units it could potentially sell with a decent GPU. However, this is likely to change as soon as Conroe becomes available and will be able to have a decnt GPU. I just hope it isn't the next iteration of what Intel has in store because so far they have all been great dissapointments compared to a dedicated GPU that doesn't take up too much more energy.
Similar threads
