Slashdot Log In
The Ultimate MacDate
Posted by
michael
on Fri Oct 08, 2004 03:02 PM
from the going-dutch dept.
from the going-dutch dept.
Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech - the PC hardware site - took the Apple challenge and tried a Mac out for a month. The result was the most indepth Macdate I have even seen. As quoted by Anand, 'In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I am not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not surprised either. I used a Mac back in 1985, but then ended up on DOS/Windows boxes until about 18 months ago. Having switched and used a Mac for this period of time, I would NEVER switch back to Windows. Heck, I made it a requirement of accepting my last job offer that I have a Mac, not a PC.
Why? Because the Mac gives me the best of both worlds - a Unix box (BSD no less), and a fantastic UI. I've been a Unix guy for a LONG time (1980). Linux is great, but when it comes to Unix-like boxes, I'll take the Mac any day as a user environment.
I've switched my whole family - we now have 4 macs in the house. I got my pastor to switch to the Mac, and when I was a consultant, several comapnies I supported took my advice and switched. EVERYONE is happier than they ever were on the Windows box.
Parent
Seconded... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Pedantic Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found that a lot of people complain about the price they paid for their Apple hardware when confronted with software problems...
Yes, Apple hardware is expensive. However, OS X 10.3 (latest version) is MUCH cheaper per license than Windows XP.
Windows XP Pro (Upgrade): $189.99 [amazon.com]
Windows XP Pro (Full): $279.99 [amazon.com]
Mac OS X 10.3 (Full): $129.00 [apple.com]
For an admittedly "better" operating system, Apple sure gives you a good deal, eh?
Note: I neglected to mention XP Home on purpose; the lack of configurability with regards to disabling default services with known security vulnerabilities (Messenger, UPnP, etc.) make it unadvisable as a real consumer OS.
Parent
Re:Pedantic Retort (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right that the MacOS is pricey. On the other hand, every release of the MacOS to date has included slick, glitzy features like Expose. And every release of the MacOS has worked better with existing hardware than before.
For example, I have a PowerBook G4 400mhz. It was the first of the G4 PowerBooks, introduced in January 2001. This system flies under MacOS X Panther. I remember feeling it was sluggish at times when I first bought it but now it feels reborn. That's an OS upgrade that delivers real value!
In contrast, consider the upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, which confused the heck out of users by changing the options completely around, and managed to slow down even machines that were lightning fast under 2000.
Microsoft hasn't introduced an upgrade since XP, not because they're not greedy enough to want our money, but because they have been slow in improving on the now ancient system. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
By buying MacOS upgrades, you're financing an innovative development team that continuously produces wonderful surprises. Sure, we have to pay for them, but at least they come, and they delight us.
That's not so bad.
D
Parent
Re:I am not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly.
I also have always been a big fan of the dock concept, but WindowMaker really doesn't do it justice - it's not really WM's fault, either. The fact that when you have 10 copies of FireFox open they are joined at the hip by the OS makes the dock concept that much more powerful. Alt-tab to the firefox app, alt-` to cycle firefox windows only.
I could go on, because there are tons of "little things" that make it so nice. After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?
Parent
Re:I am not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the language itself is a travesty, but thena gain, so is bash. And just like with shell scripting, there are all sorts of convenient replacements, like the AppleScript-JavaScript bridge.
w00t.
Parent
Re:I am not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
"AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly."
And you can control your shell [apple.com] from AppleScript [apple.com], or control your AppleScript from shell. And control PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, Webservices [apple.com] and everything else included in MacOS X, using extremely powerful solutions like Folder Actions [apple.com] where you connect a script to run when the content of a folder changes.
Whoa. This is pure gold.
Parent
Re:I am not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Every time. Maybe you just need to lower your expectations for Windows.
Parent
20 IE Windows?!!! (Score:5, Informative)
When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open, Outlook with another 5 - 15 emails, Power Point with NDA presentations,
20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox [mozilla.org] and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.
Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Installing apps (Score:5, Informative)
He doesn't need to feel so disconnected. All the files are exactly where he put them, nowhere else. Mac applications are actually directories packaged up to look like individual files. All the files he saw copying were just part of the application directory. Nothing to worry about.
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.
On the other hand, more and more OSX apps have actually gone to using an install program, including Apple's apps, which I find unfortunate. I like the whole drag-and-drop method of installation.
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he's talking about the progress bar for long copies. That actually shows you the name of the files being copied. If one doesn't know any better, it might look like the files are being installed.
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch. The Anandtech guy apparently thought that they were installed when he dragged the app file over; that would creep me out, too, if dragging one one file actually dragged a bunch into seemingly random locations. But the file system isn't that magical; the application just created those files/folders as needed. No mystery here, no need to feel disconnected.
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Informative)
A fun Mac experiment:
- Drag an application onto the taskbar. This will create a shortcut. Now move the location of the application. The shortcut will still work!!!
- Open a text file in TextEdit. Move the file. Make a change to it in TextEdit. Notice that TextEdit doesn't care you moved (or renamed) the file, it writes to the correct place! No more accidentally duplicated files!
Gotta love the Mac file system!
Parent
Re:Installing apps (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. It's very simple. You're supposed to dump all your DLLs in c:\Windows\System32, then all apps can access them. Amazingly simple and beautiful (*gufaw*) isn't it?
That's actually where the term "DLL hell" comes from. And now you know, the rest of the story.
Parent
McDate (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the club... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice little blurb about Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.
Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?
Cheaper Macs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cheaper Macs (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in the same position you are not too long ago(http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0
I ended up purchasing a PowerBook 1.25GHz 15" machine for around $2,600... My experience is basically that the PowerBook FEELS as fast as most notebooks you'd buy in doing every day things (word processing, browsing, email, etc)... the interface is extremely snappy that way, and I rare ever need to run around closing apps to speed your system back up.
That said, if you plan on doing any extremely intensive processing... program compiling, etc... (that's about it), the raw power behind the cheap is disappointingly slow.
That said, I haven't touched a Windows machine for a significant length of time since I picked up my PowerBook 9 months ago, and after experiencing the awesomeness that is Apple, I'd rather complain that my Apple is a little slow than be proud that my Windows/Linux laptop is a little fast.
Parent
Re:Cheaper Macs (Score:5, Informative)
I have a two year old PowerBook. It's beginning to feel a little sluggish to me here and there. Apps take a couple more seconds to open than I like, but I'm spoiled by having a dual 2Ghz G5 at work. EVERYTHING feels slow by comparison.
That said, the feature mix on my PowerBook is awesome in a very portable package. A few years ago I bought a dining room table for my computer at the time (a Wintel box) and it's peripherals. Now we have the PowerBook in "office nook" in the kitchen. The size and portability are huge plusses to me.
Now, if you really need a little more power, consider one of the new G5 iMacs. The housing is VESA-compliant, so you can wallmount it. Add an Airport card, wireless keyboard, and a wireless mouse if you want nothing but a power cord.
Given the trade-offs, I'd definitely make the same decision to purchase a PowerBook.
Now, as for comparing Wintel laptops to Powerbooks. I find that much of what makes a computer seem fast or slow is the smoothness with which the OS runs. The G4 chip is not going to perform as well as the newer P4 laptops. However, the OS runs VERY smoothly, so it FEELS more powerful than many Wintel laptops. Animations are silky. Expose provides incredibly slick window management when you have 20 things open in 12 different windows. Multimedia is smooth even when you are busy doing other things.
Like I said -- go try it! The Apple web site will point you to the store nearest you.
Parent
Re:Cheaper Macs (Score:5, Informative)
This Powerbook flies. The 1.33 GHz G4 is damn fast for a mobile chip, i.e. something that won't suck down batteries like an Irishman sucking down Guinness. Maybe more importantly, the FX Go5200 in here allows OS X to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. Let's face it, with a laptop people are generally going to be more concerned with responsiveness than absolute number crunching power. By offloading system graphics to the GPU via Quartz Extreme, OS X is incredibly responsive.
Through work, I've used some nice (for Dell at least) mid-range laptops. My Mac feels faster in comparison. although I've been a Mac user my whole life so part of it may just be that I'm more comfortable with the system. Either way, I could say for sure that the Mac will not be noticeably slower.
Also, speed aside, you would be hard pressed to find a Windows laptop that will compare with a Mac on the features to price ratio. I've yet to see a $1600 Windows laptop that comes with a comparable CPU, comparable battery life, dedicated GPU, built-in 802.11g, and built-in Bluetooth while still weighing in at 5 lbs.
Parent
There is a lot of open source software for MacOSX (Score:5, Informative)
To install fink, you need to give a root account on Mac OS X even though there is an administrator account. Mac OS X does not have a root account as default for security.
Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO (Score:5, Informative)
As for linux envy... OS X is a BSD derivative! http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ [opendarwin.org] and http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_MacOS [gentoo-wiki.com] are some more ports friendly systems, as opposed to Fink's apt-style system. Maybe "Linux curious" would be a better term ;)
Parent
Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server (Score:5, Funny)
thorough and fair (Score:5, Interesting)
The PC Weenies: [pcweenies.org]Tech toons with a byte!
Well now (Score:5, Insightful)
That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers. With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...all you need to do is download (or buy). Gamers and "specialists", who require either very today-trendy or very specific function software, are turned off by the belief (or disbelief, possibly) that Linux and Mac simply can't support their needs.
Then, of course, there is the whole hardware debate. Once again, for Windows...it's out there somewhere; go find it. For Linux, well, it's out there, but have fun finding drivers and getting Linux to be a happy landlord. For Mac, it's out there if Apple or an approved sales associate has decided you need to have it.
In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days. It's the flexibility that they want. That may sound like quite a trite argument to have in favor of Microsoft...but in the context of the applications and hardware discussed above, I think it's pretty appropriate.
Re:Well now (Score:5, Informative)
You're right on this point. However most people could give a damn about flexibility. They want a machine that isn't going to get eaten alive by viruses every other week. Windows does not provide this. Period.
As for the other points you raise, aside from gaming I have never had a problem finding either hardware or software for my Mac.
I am also not a Mac zealot, as I use Linux, Windows, and OS X on a regular basis. I have to say for servers Linux wins every time. For games Windows wins every time. For actually getting work done, OS X wins hands down every time.
Parent
Re:Well now (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that it will work very well.
I'm not talking just about dinky little shareware apps, mind you. I fired up Microsoft Word the other day after not using it very often for quite a while. Word must be the most intrusive program I've ever used! It kept moving text around on me, reformatting it, and telling me that I'd misspelled things. A long look at the preferences failed to reveal a way to turn off many of the features which were getting in my way.
Unfortunately, Word does the same sh*t on the Mac. But fortunately, most other programs don't. Using both platforms, my feeling is that Mac programs present a much more consistant interface. And there's more than enough Mac software out there that outside a few very narrow, very specialized fields, anyone will be able to do their work on a Mac.
Parent
Games games games games (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, from my perspective, it's becoming too late. Whereas Windows 98 was pure hell in terms of usability, hardware compatibility, inconsistency, and stability, Windows XP massively shrunk the gap between itself and the overall Mac platform. By the time Apple would catch up, if ever, in the gaming market, the gap might be too small to bother a migration.
Re:Games games games games (Score:5, Insightful)
Better graphics :
$3500 : Huh? Try less then a 1/3rd of that for a very high-end machine. You can go 1/5th of that for a capable machine. More expensive sure, but it's going to be more powerful then any console, and it's going to be
Better selection of games : Pure opinion. Entire genres aren't even represented on console systems (and visa versa). Consoles don't have anything even remotely resembling the (legal) gaming mod community. I don't argue that consoles are way more carefree, and I also don't argue that Apples are more carefree then PCs. That's my whole point, the PC has a lot of extremely good games you simply won't ever get represented properly on any current console system or the Mac. If it weren't for the PC exclusive games, I most definitely would -not- be running windows.
There's the possibility that say, 5 years from now, everybody will have these awesome HDTVs, and all consoles will have hard drives ( unlikely, it seems that every console manufacturer is backing off the HD idea ) and with all games running at 720p or higher, the main advantages of PC gaming could potentially evaporate. I honestly don't think it's going to happen. As far as I can tell, the PC's upgradability and modability are going to leave it perpetually on the cutting edge and there's always going to be development houses that are going to knock on that door and consistantly unleash the most technologically advanced games on PC first. More likely then anything, we'll have our awesome high end PCs attached to those awesome HDTVs and PC gaming may hit a new stride must-have-it-ness.
Parent
A recent switcher (Score:5, Interesting)
Moving the Linux stuff to the iMac was a breeze. I was mainly using the linux box for running Squid, for acting as a shell server for IRC, and for a general purpose file server. The iMac does all that and now does easy print sharing for me as well. With BSD under the hood and the power of (a href="http://fink.sourceforge.net">Fink, anyone used to Linux can probably easily move their stuff over to OSX painlessly.
Moving the Windows files was painless using the built-in SAMBA on OSX. I installed OpenOffice (under X11) for times when I need compatibility, but I'm intentionally staying away from MS Office on OSX for now, just to see if OpenOffice is good enough. I'm giving up gaming on the PC, which I'll miss a little, but I've got a GameCube and PS2 which can get more use now.
The real strength of OSX is in iLife. My wife really had a lot of trouble with Windows and the complexity of all the different apps we had to use to manage media (ThumbsPlus, Premiere, etc.) With iLife, she can publish or email or get prints of photos out of iPhoto very easily. iChat and iTunes are nice too. I've had quite a few MP3 players, but the iPod plus iTunes is the first one I didn't have to manage for my wife.
As an aside, the iMac G5 is a beautiful machine too and it's totally silent. Spookily silent. When I walked into the home office after shutting down the windows and linux box, I thought we had a power outage.
I think Anand's review is accurate and very fair. The only thing I would add is just a comment that for anyone non-technical or anyone with a lot of digital media, I think an apple machine makes a lot of sense, especially with the low cost of the new iMacs.
(disclaimer: apple employee
Re:A recent switcher (Score:5, Insightful)
However there is one area that my Mac's a letdown: You cannot watch mpeg2 video in Quicktime without buying an addon. And then you still cannot edit an mpeg in any Quicktimes-based app (idvd, imovie, and so on).
It's just ridiculous that this "Media Machine" cannot perform even simple edits on one of the most common video formats around! Don't think that a Mac doesn't understand the mpeg format at all: Even those aforementioned iapps can output mpeg2. They have the ability to output mpeg2 for burning DVD's. But if you want to re-encode those videos, or simply chop off a commercial or something, you have to re-encode it as an avi or quicktime file. Or use some stopgap shareware solution (A seperate app that keeps numerical track of where I'm editing, and then I paste those numbers into Quicktime. What a pain in the ass!)
Again, I love my Mac, but I think it's so stupid that to chop up an mpeg file that I recorded, I have to switch over to my Pentium box to do so.
Stupid, stupid, stupid....
Since you work at Apple, maybe you can let them know why this particular switcher, and probably countless more amateur video editors, are unable to completely switch over from the PC platform.
Parent
Re:A recent switcher (Score:5, Interesting)
BUZZ! Wrong Answer. That answer doesn't make any sense to me!
Whether Windows does or not is irrelevent(sp?) to the arguement! You're saying that this platform, which is known to be on the pricier side of the computer experience, is unwilling to pay for mpeg licensing? Doubtful, and if it's true, then it raises the issue of the Macs price/value even further. Pay more, and get less? I don't like the idea of that (although I'm sure the "Macs are overpriced crowd would love to add it to their collection").
Then, let us also consider that many of the included applications can output mpeg video. How could they avoid licensing fees for editing the but not be forced to pay for creating and outputting the format?
It also raises the question of why no 3rd party's stepped forward to offer the codec as an addon for OS X. If the issue were simply licensing, it's a given that someone would be filling this gap and selling an addon to allow this.
Finally, all of OS X's competition offers mpeg2 output for nothing. Windows, Linux, BeOS even did, if I recall. To me this could be considered "low hanging fruit" to Apple, yet there's no way to do this currently.
So, not to disagree, but I'm disagreeing with your take on the issue
Parent
A bit underwhelmed by the review... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was a bit underwhelmed by the review. While there were some fair cops (video card underpowered, not enough RAM, game releases lagging behind, etc.), I was bugged by some of his comments.
A few examples:
It's iCal, not iCalendar. He seemed to have gotten it wrong more often than right. (If you use a program you can see its name in the menu bar.)
He didn't bother to check on how the drag-n-drop installs work. (Not good for a supposed hard core tech site.)
No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. They are price competitive. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)
Of course Windows is going to be more stable if you buy specific hardware for Windows servers as (is implied) using any old hardware for Linux.
He's used Unix at university and he still doesn't feel comfortable about the concept of home directories? Or the Unix hierarchy? (The names can be cryptic, but the hierarchy is pretty simple compared to Windows splatter approach.)
Unfortunately it is little glitches in reviews that leave you wondering just how technical the reviewer is in their other reviews. This one could have stood a little more fact-checking. I know I would hesitate before recommending this article to a knowledgeable Windows-using friend. I'd probably point them towards Ars Technica instead.
Funny note: I think he meant he's used Windows since 3.0, not 2.0. Using Win 2.0 would have been the act of a masochist.
I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we are at a point where many people at my institute are switching to macs. The top reasons are: 1) Hate to/don't have time to RTFM. Need a situation where hardware you buy just works. 2) High-end mac prices are now comparable to high-end intel prices 3) Any document can quickly be made into a PDF (a standard in our community)
As a fan of free software, I feel guilty about this. However, I do think many of Apple's products are aesthetically pleasing, and things like iChat works with amazing simplicity. Clearly they put a lot of thought into design, and I agree with a lot of choices they've made, so I feel OK about supporting them.
I wish Linux would eliminate the RTFM. Some of us just don't have time for that. But I still have an Intel laptop, and I intend to see how far things have come since RedHat 9 by installing sarge when it is out.
Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to mess about with linux on a laptop and it gave me so many headaches and caused so much indigestion that I don't think I will ever do it again. It took me several days to _fail_ at getting a wireless card to work on linux, but it took me exactly 30 seconds to get 2 macs to talk to each other over an adhoc network. Never again. Linux is a fine server architecture, great for heavy crunching, wonderful for propellerheads who love computers for their own sake, but not a happy solution for a friendly desktop/laptop. And windoze, of course, is simply out of the question as a science platform.
Time is money. Every hour I waste is worth $30. Macs are very, very economical in this respect. Most of the apps I need (like IRAF, compilers, graphics libraries) are supported very easily through fink or plain old 'configure --prefix'. I don't have to bother the Sun admin people when I have a problem, I don't have to bother trying to translate Hungarian linux howtos, things just work.
Go to any hard science meeting, and you will be immersed in a sea of mac laptops. These people are smart, and they know what they are doing, and their time is precious - much more valuable than an extra few hundred spent on hardware.
Parent
Yet another recent switcher (Score:5, Funny)
Until about half a year ago, I had never even thought about buying a Mac. Then I broke a bezel [slashdot.org] on my laptop. Ultimately, that forced me to evaluate every laptop I could get my hands on for durability. A couple months and about $3K later I was a happy 17'' Powerbook owner. The only downside to that was that another couple months later my lady decided she can't live without a Powerbook either...
And then it occurred to me:
Ballsy (and wordy) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty interesting to read the impressions of someone trying out MacOS X for the first time, particularly if that someone hasn't travelled outside the world of Windows. Anand writes:
The uniformity really extends far beyond keyboard shortcuts...a menubar always exists at the top of your screen in MacOS X, regardless of what application you're in.
Talk about getting down to basics, eh? I think that's a very interesting comment. It would never have occurred to me to explain that to a new Mac user, particularly one with extensive computing experience on another platform. Kudos to Anand for capturing the newness of it all.
That said, there are a number of things that bug be about the article. For one, it seems pretty ballsy to switch to an entirely different platform and think that you've learned enough in 30 days to write an article of this length (printed, it comes to 24 pages). He clearly is laboring under a number of misconceptions that probably would have been cleared up if he'd spent some more time with his system.
Another thing is that he seems to want his Mac to work the way Windows does. That's a pretty common thing with switchers, and it's totally understandable. But if you're going to review an OS you should really try to come to it with an open mind. To his credit, he's pretty up front about his bias being due to using Windows for so long, but his "the directory structure seems very foreign because it's different from Windows" comments make me want to choke him.
A good editor (human editor, not text editor) would really help this article. Anand tends to use 50 words where 7 are called for, and he even manages to contradict himself occasionally. Though it clearly was not, it should have been reviewed by a knowledgeable Mac user or two to clear up some of the obvious misconceptions.
Anand criticizes the price of the system he bought several times. He spent about $2700 on a top of the line, dual processor G5 because:
I knew that if I was going to give the platform a good chance, I needed to get the fastest system that Apple had to offer.
It's great that he knew what he wanted and all, but as a newcomer he wasn't really in a position to know whether he really needed that much power or whether he could have gotten along just fine with a G4 iMac. He never considered that something less than the fastest thing available could meet his needs, and he doesn't bother to try to find out. So it's a little unfair to whine about the price when something costing half as much very well might have performed acceptably.
Overall, I'm glad he wrote it and I'm glad he's happy with the Mac. Keep at it.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
Cause I"m sitting here on a AMD 2500+ Barton with 1 gig of RAM, 120 Gig HD, Geforce Video, DVD/CDROM burner all for around $600.
Built it myself. Sure, it's not a dual processor with DVD burner...but it's fast and stable.
But I will say that Apple has been consistant with their prices...their top of the line machines have always been around the 3000 mark. But at the moment they only have one machine that's below 1000, and that's with very little RAM.
Do NOT get me wrong, I LOVE Macs...but you do have to pay a premium to use them and yeah, I think it's worth it. I just can't afford it...yes, I'm poor.
Parent
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
More significantly, that AMD box (albeit lacking in details) seems to have specs roughly equivalent to a G5 iMac, maybe a little faster, but not much. Add a name-brand 17" DVI flat panel to it (you don't mention a monitor for that price), and you're awfully close to the price of the new iMac, without the sleek design, the small form factor, the hardware qualification, or the pre-installed OS. So much for your big savings.
Parent
Re:Cheaper than Dell (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let's correct the Mac. Giving it an ATi 9600XT, and subtracting the modem (because you forgot), makes the price $1920.
Now for the PC:
MSI K8T Master2-FAR Dual Opteron motherboard [newegg.com] $220
2 x AMD Opteron Model 144 - 1.8 GHz [newegg.com] $422
Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 256MB(128MBx2) DDR PC-3200 [newegg.com] $59
80 GB Serial ATA hard disk [newegg.com] $64
SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9600XT Video Card, 128MB DDR [newegg.com] $162
Logitech Deluxe Desktop (Deluxe Keyboard & Mouse) [newegg.com] $11
Sony Beige 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive [newegg.com] $38
Lian-Li Silver ATX Full Tower Case, Model "PC-V2000A" (much more comparable to the G5 case) [newegg.com] $261
Fortron 530W Power Supply [newegg.com] $76
Microsoft Windows XP Professional With Service Pack 2 -OEM [newegg.com] $145
I'll assume that this will be a Windows machine, but this cost is optional, since there are a number of free operating systems.
In total, the equivalent PC (as equivalent as it can be purchased) comes out to $1,458 (including the cost of Windows).
However, this cost is for a bunch of boxes with parts in them, not a computer that's ready to go once you plug it in. How long will it take to get it ready? Assuming you're fairly speedy, it's at least a couple hours removing stuff from boxes and getting it all into the case in a tidy manner. Then add another hour for installing Windows, then another couple for installing drivers / configuring Windows. How much is your time worth?
Parent
Re:Office 2004 for PC? (Score:5, Informative)
Office 2004 is the Applized version of Office XP. More info here [microsoft.com]. Outlook is renamed Entourage btw...
And... it's probably more correct to say that Office XP is a Windowized version of Office 2004, since much development/innovation at Microsoft is implemented first at their Apple department in California (not in Redmomd like the rest of the stuff). As an example, they tried out a sidebar in IE for Mac. Dont think it ever made it to Windows...
I wouldnt say you are insane, just that you misread the PC/Mac stuff. Some apple software ends up on win32 though, like iTunes.
Parent
Re:Office 2004 for PC? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:mac = suckage (Score:5, Funny)
Parent