Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:54:39 GMT
In article <t5mbr1pj7praj3ovl5vddmu3dvt4u85p2v@xxxxxxx>,
howdy <no@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the most effective, compact machine/software combination for getting
> real, consistent work done is a high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
> or laptop running Windows XP Pro - which will not blue screen if you
> keep it updated and have good anti-virus and malware sw installed.
....on alternate Tuesdays with your left foot in the air and your right
index finger making clockwise circles in the air. But seriously, you do
realize that the phrase "high-quality Intel-based PC desktop
or laptop running Windows XP Pro..." is an oxymoron, do you not?
> My intel laptop running xp pro with 2 gig of memory has not yet blue
> screened and has not locked up. Regardless of what all the Mac
> fanatics say, this is a very stable OS.
Mac fanatics, as you call them, like to yank you Windroids' collective
chains, methinks. I don't believe that any Mac user who has ANY
experience at all with Windows would SERIOUSLY say that all XP based PCs
BSD all that often, if at all. The stability of Windows is not really in
question at this juncture. Yet, it seems that by building upon legacy
code, code which has its root origins firmly planted in DOS, Microsoft
has imbued XP (and, seemingly Vista) with certain vulnerabilities that
OSX doesn't share. Certainly, Microsoft's insistence that each new
edition of Windows maintain a general compatibility with pre-existing
software must compromise what they are able to do with new versions of
the OS, and most assuredly handcuff the development team and limit new
features. This is likely why each new version of Windows ends up being
just a mild facelift with no real improvement in operability or
usability.
> The only thing Mac has to
> offer that comes close is a PowerMac running Tiger.
Since, at the moment, PowerMacs are all that Apple is purveying, I'd say
that was more than enough.
>
> As the Mac pro machine, it has the best power and speed that Mac can offer. But, it
> still costs far more to get than a comparable PC system.
That's not an issue to people who value what the OS has to offer. If you
are content with Windows, then machines which are damned cheap are
certainly available. Most of us who use Macs value our time far too much
to be beguiled by a low-cost piece of hardware that in the long run will
cost us much more in terms of frustration and wasted time.
>
> When Intel based Macs arrive that will allow you to install all software and
> hardware across all available machines without installer/driver
> problems or other incompatibilities, then Apple will have finally
> arrived.
Frankly, that's very unlikely. There will be third-party products which
will allow those who wish to run Windows on their Macs natively to do
so, and perhaps even run Windows concurrently with OSX so that one can
switch back and forth seamlessly and even directly share clipboards. But
I doubt seriously if one will ever be able to install Windows software
on a Mac and have it run natively under OSX.
> Until then, people keep going back to their PCs to get their
> work done on fast machines that cost less and don't have regular
> software/hardware compatibility problems.
You make the mistake of most Windroids. You assume that because Macs
have lower CPU clock speeds that the machines themselves are somehow
slower, or that if they are, that the speed difference is enough to make
any difference in productivity. These are all strawman arguments. There
is no real evidence that Macs are slower accross the board than are PCs,
and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
platforms.
> I'm ready for it. I'd love
> to have an intel Mac that I can count on to be fast and stable and
> full compatible. The sooner the better. Because I prefer using OS X
> to using XP pro.
That's not surprising, but what is surprising is that you feel the need
to "go back to Windows" to get your work done. I do all my work on the
Mac. I produce documents with strong graphic content on my Mac on a
daily basis, yet my entire corporate clientele is Windows based. They
never know the difference. The idea that "business" MUST be carried out
on PCs is largely a myth.
> The G4 is fast enough with 1 gig of memory for many offline
> applications but too slow on the net,
Since the speed of the connection is always going to be the limiting
factor on the internet, the need for speed on the intenet is a moot
point. Any modern computer is more than fast enough for that. And if
you're stuck with dial-up, the CPU speed becomes even more irrelevant.
> particularly if you are on
> dialup internet lines. Forget about quick page loading. I'd like to
> think that the G5 is faster at it, but why invest the money when the
> intel Macs are going to be out soon?
I think that you'll find that Intel Macs won't be significantly faster
than PPC Macs.
> Just how much faster is the G5
> anyway, but why invest when soon it will start to become an obsolete
> chip that software will not be written for anymore?
The G5 isn't particularly faster than a Intel chip, but it's not slower
either. The thing is that most modern computers are more than fast
enough for 99% of the market. If you are doing 3D rendering, video
compositing, or CAD design, then speed might be of the essence, as would
be true of gamers. If you are a gamer, then by all means you should be
buying or building the fastest Windows machines that there is, but for
anything else other than these aforementioned tasks, speed simply isn't
that important. It's sort of like a new Bugatti Vyron. Sure it'll do
more than 240 mph, but where? I can count on the fingers of one finger
the number of countries that will allow one to drive that fast on the
public roads. Otherwise, its simply bragging rights. The same with PCs.
a 3.6 GHz P-IV Windows PC is very fast, yes. But people won't notice
that speed reading and composing E-mail, surfing the web or reconciling
their checkbooks with Quicken. Most people never use the performance
they have now - and neither will most Bugatti Vyron owners.
> The reality about
> computer systems is that they continually evolving and in a state of
> flux. Maybe an iMac G5 running Tiger is a good investment for someone
> who wants to run all the great software available for that system even
> after new machines are released. But a PowerMac G5 is just too
> expensive for a conservative budget when the chip switch is just
> ahead. Comments welcome.
Again, you are making assumptions based on no evidence. For instance,
where did you get the idea that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper
than PPC based Macs? Just because there exist ultra cheap Windows boxes
made in China with virtual slave labor that are often sold by big PC
manufacturers like Dell as loss-leaders for practically nothing doesn't
mean that Apple will go the same route. LOOK at a G5 Tower. Take the
sides off of it and peer inside. Now, do the same for $299 Dell special
and you'll see the difference. I'm not saying that everyone values the
difference between the build quality of a $300 Dell and a $2000 Mac
tower, but, you see, APPLE DOES. And as long as that's the market that
they feel comfortable participating in, that won't change. And there is
nothing to indicate that Macs won't always be more expensive, often much
more expensive, than at least SOME similar Windows PCs, processor costs
notwithstanding.
As for the PPC becoming obsolete; if it happens at all, it will be after
the end of this decade and by then we'll all be ready for a new
computer. But ponder this. It will also, likely be the end of the decade
before Mac applications support and device driver support has migrated
away from the PPC processor to the Intel processor, so the PPC Macs will
remain the most viable products in the line until at least that time.
Remember, we Mac users have been down this road before (68K to PPC) and
we know how it unfolds. We know from experience that being an early
adopter is not the smartest move in such cases. If you simply must have
the earliest Intel Macs, be prepared to run PPC applications in
emulation and to have virtually NO driver support for many printers,
scanners, and other hardware for a couple of years at least.
My next Mac will not be an Intel Mac for the reasons stated above, but
likely the one AFTER the next one will be Intel based. I'm not planning
on going Intel until the next decade.
--
George Graves
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: LawsonE
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: foo
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: ed
- Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- References:
- I really do like OS X but . . .
- From: howdy
- I really do like OS X but . . .
- Prev by Date: Re: What's the battery lifetime for a Mac laptop?
- Next by Date: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Previous by thread: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Next by thread: Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
