Re: We have used both

Sandman <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jesus <rustybucket...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If Apple used a different display panel the added size
could help with people who want a bigger picture. Granted, I just got
the lower-resolution panel because the higher-end model didn't fit
into my budget and I would prefer the higher-res panel, but now that I
have it I'm quite happy with it.

And since it's identical to the MacBook, I'm confident you'd be as
pleased with that as well. :)

Unfortunately, I've not been following the 15" Laptop arguement; I
thought I heard (Steve?) claim that the 1" difference made a (I guess
profound?) difference for a vision-impaired individual? If so, I'm a
bit confused, because if they are *that* impaired, shouldn't they be
looking for a 17"?

FWIW, as one with not-great eyesight, I'm able to operate from any
size laptop, but simply trade-off the resolution versus font and icon
sizes to make them large enough to be comfortable. For example, I run
my 15" Thinkpad on 1024 x 768. I can run my 12" laptop sufficiently
well too,for those applications where I don't want to carry as big of
a machine. Overall, I've never really noticed any meaningful
difference in performance for when the screen size changes by *only*
an inch; it needs to be 2"-3" for it to become significant, so IMNSHO,
anyone whining about a 1" difference in size has chosen the wrong
attribute to complain about.


External drives are OK, but having it in the machine reduces clutter
by dropping wires, dropping the power brick, and keeping the drive in
the computer.

Next time you upgrade, just make your old machine into a network file
server and hide it in a closet...all of that "ugliness" just went
away.

Besides, internal drives on SATA are faster than USB/
FireWire drives.

FWIW, does this also include Firewire 800? Just wondering how much of
a real-world difference there is, to see if it is really worth
chasing.


As for PCI slots, maybe this is just because I'm a
PC user, but PCI slots are extremely handy for adding upgrades without
adding more clutter.

Yes, but *what* upgrades? I can't find an upgrade option that only has
a PCI solution that is valid for the bulk of computer users.

For your eSATA drive, of course :-)

Overall, eSATA is faster than FW800 today:

98.304 MB/s FireWire 800
300 MB/s External SATA

(Note: values do not include overhead losses in throughput efficiency)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths>


....although the arguement can be made that its because faster
iterations of IEEE 1394b simply haven't made it into the marketplace
yet:

196.608 MB/s FireWire (IEEE 1394b) 1600
393.216 MB/s FireWire (IEEE 1394b) 3200

What's really IMO more important is to recognize that current Hard
Drive technologies have not yet caused either interface to become the
performance bottleneck from a single drive. As such, the "FW800 -vs-
eSATA" debate only applies when you're running a RAID, which is
generally going to cost $500 or more to set up.


The Mac Mini and iMac don't allow for that. If
I have to have tons of devices coming off a Mac Mini, the whole point
of having a little tiny computer is kind of ruined. :-)

Sure, people that need lots of upgradeability will buy a tower. I'm
just saying that most people aren't that kind of people. :)

And what's interesting about the "one more cable"debate is the
question of how & where does it kick in.

For example, as much as we might say we like all-in-one PCs, the last
PC that I had that included a built-in printer was an HP-150 (20+
years ago)..

A "minimized cables" system with an iMac is going to at least have
cables for power and a printer (total=2), plus the wireless interace
wherever that is located, whereas going to a Tower (or a mini) adds at
least the Monitor's connection (total=3). What's probably as likey is
a wired keyboard, wired mouse, wired network and another peripheral,
such as flatbed scanner or a monitor calibration tool (total=6+).
Plus we can probably add speakers (=7+) and its pretty clear that by
this point, the relative inconvenience from incrementally adding one
more connected item (such as an external HD) is getting pretty slim.

What it really comes down to is that there may be other reasons to
desire the incremental change to be internalized, such as less noice
(fewer fans), fewer power switches, potentially higher I/O
performance, etc. About the most significant desire for
internalization is for easier system portability (ie, a laptop).


-hh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows XP SP2 very slow to boot
    ... I am set up for dual boot of either XP or Win2K, ... computer had worked quite normally following my upgrade to XP. ... download the correct drivers an install them. ... drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: new computer
    ... That really limits your video upgrades. ... than the still larger drives and gives some redundancy). ... buy now should come with an upgrade to Vista. ... Is Dual CPU 1.6 Faster than Single CPU 3.4? ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: CDDVD Drive wont recognize blank media
    ... a blank disk, I know the disks are blank. ... See if they work on other drives. ... worked fine before the upgrade. ... I am convinced the Roxio installation changed some setting. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Windows XP SP2 very slow to boot
    ... this upgrade? ... You currently have a dual boot with XP on one hard ... but I suspect the MBR is ... drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Upgrade ME to XP
    ... will handle XP - run the Upgrade Advisor first. ... Install will keep all your data and programs intact. ... Maybe even easier is to buy one of those external USB drives. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading