This is what I'm saving for...
 

*Purrrrrr*:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:
It's so pretty. I looooove it. I want it now... but alas, I am still saving. $2800 WITH an education discount!! The only thing I'm waivering on is what hard drive to get. What do you think?

MacBook Pro 15.4"

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/2041/...ero_060424.jpg
:love:

Pretty... i think $2800 is way way way too much for any computer. Only reason i could think of spending that much on a laptop is if you plan to be gaming with it... but as a mac i doubt thats gonna be happening. What exactly do you plan on using it for?

They are very nice... a colleague has one. I am slowly being converted to the world of Mac.

Well, mostly for school stuff. I'm applying to a PA program that wants you to come in with a Mac laptop, plus we already have so many Macs in the family, it means I have easy access to software etc.

So mostly, it's schoolwork, DVDs (programs and entertainment), some music stuff, etc... I'm going for the upper end of things because I want it to last me a loooooong time. I won't be able to buy any kind of new computer for at least 5 years after this. So I figure the faster the processor and the bigger/better RAM will last me longer.

No?

And Charlatan - yeah, they really are Very Pretty. Plus, if you're really using them for their full range of graphics and editing type stuff in the entertainment world, it's the only way to go. :thumbsup:

Here's what I want

http://images.apple.com/imac/images/...op20060906.jpg

Those are very very hot, but ! No expandability! For a desktop system, don't you want to be able to add stuff? I do love the fact that the screen is all there is, however...

I originally wanted the Pro, but I opted for the Macbook instead - I still have a functional PC at home that has over 40g of space on it - and it's much easier to get a USB hard drive than pay $$$$$ for an internal.

Well, you can get an upgraded processor (from a 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo to a 2.33 GHz), you can add more ram(anywhere from 1 to 3GB), you can upgrade from the ATI Radeon X1200/128 MB to 256 MB for the graphics, and you can get a larger hard drive (from 250 to 500 BG). But yeah, there's no room for like 6 hard drives or a 2 slot graphics card. If you want that, you'll have to get a tower, be it Mac or PC.

Jess:

Personally I'd get the faster drive (and sacrifice the space). Get an external later when you run out of storage. I highly doubt you'd fill that drive up with things you NEED.

I'd also get the 17 incher. More money, but more real estate for the life of the product.

P.S. I have your sweatshirt.

They're beautiful laptops but the specs just don't seem to justify the cost.

What is it that I don't see?

The laptops are a little more expensive, but you get Mac OS, which is surprisngly more stable than anything Windows has ever, or will ever, develope. You're paying for, in Mac OS, features and abilities that might get to PCs in 5-10 years. You're also paying for an OS that is litterally germ free: there are no known viruses for Mac OS X. My computer, in the 3+ years that I've had it, has never frozen once. I've not had programs quit. I've not had to restart. I'm not saying that Windows does this on all of the PC x86 machines, but you do have to spend a lot and probably customize (break the thing open and tinker with) a PC to make it anywhere near as stable as a Mac. Also, Mac doesn't give you free trials of their software like Windows. If it's on your computer when you buy it, you have it for life. That's gotta be worth a few hundred bucks.

Also, they're pretty cool.

I restarted once, back in 2005. For now I've only been up for 19 days. I think I installed a software update.

As willravel has pointed out, there's some expandability. There are other ways to "expand" your mac, like external harddrives and such. Mostly, you're not supposed to expand your mac. It's all the computer you need... and if it's not, what you need is not a mac...

I'm interested to know if you make a distinction between MacOS and MacOS X.

I also can't help but notice some of your claims have dubious relevance. For instance, your claim that you've never "had programs quit." What does this have to do with the OS? ...or the computer, for that matter?

I'm told that they are excellent laptops.

Personally, I'm holding out until they replace their current processors with the Core 2 Duo, although I can understand if you can't wait that long...

Writing too fast.
Yes. The more stable the operating system, the less likely the program, whether stable on it's own or not, is to fail. I've had AOL crash on my comp at work, but never at home. I've had Firefox, Explorer, etc. all crash or freeze at work, on a technically faster machine, but not at home. The comp at work is basically a Gateway, 2 point something GHz processor, 2 GB RAM, 200 GB memory. It has all the basic programs, and I only run a few at a time, nothing that takes up a lot of popwer like games and such. My comp at home is a second gen eMac with a 1GHz G4 processor, 1024MB (1GB) of RAM, and a slight modification (I built in a video card). The computer at work should be faster, but it's not. Not by a long shot.

God i want one :P

I need a new lappy, and i need an apple, so i thought "hey, why not an Apple laptop?".

Problem is, i'm poor.

Got my eye on some second hand liquidator auction ibooks - don't need much speed - they're around $400-$600 (NZD), which is a bit of money but still....so...so purdy. And stable - based on BSD baby.

Good work jess _b

Also, the apple cinemas...jesus christ, i think i almost came when i saw a couple of them hooked up!

Okay, so you're not making a distinction. That's good, because MacOS 9 was less stable than anything Microsoft has ever and, it looks like, will ever put out...

You're still drawing false conclusions.

You're not running the same programs on your Mac that you are on your PC, especially when you talk about running "Explorer" and stuff. Because these are not the same application, your comparisons of application stability being attributed to the OS is deeply flawed...

Indeed, and this is not an attack of any kind, you don't appear to be too familiar with how computers work. For instance, when describing your computers, you refered to the processors as being 1 or 2 GB. This clearly makes no sense. You obviously meant GHz and I would normally just take this as a typo (although that, too, is unlikely) but you did so rather consistently, leaving me to believe that you don't really understand what these things are measuring. Furthermore, I get the impression that you think your work computer is "technically" faster than your home machine because it has a higher clock frequency. Is this correct?

I would be more than happy to weigh the honest merits of Windows vs MacOS or even Macs vs PCs (although this would be a shorter debate). I am intimately familiar with Windows and I have a passing familiarity with MacOS X (and MacOS 9) having developed software on all these platforms...

The thread will be called Mac vs. PC KnifeMissle.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Great choice JustJess. I'd be inclined to purchase the same thing.

Or....Explorer, whether it be for Windows or MacOSX is made by Microsoft, yes? The it would follow logic that if it were to perform better on a computer running Mac OSX or Windows XP, it'd run better - despite obviously not being the same program, as linux and DOS are completly different - on the Windows OS. If two computers, one a Mac and one a PC, with comparable clock speeds were to run the same system of tests on Explorer, which do you think would run faster?
Is there a name for the computer version of a grammar nazi? I am well aware that the processor is measured in hertz, or in this case GHz, where as the RAM or HD would be measured in bytes, or in this case GB. It was a very, very simple mistake, a mistake even computer geniuses could make. Yeesh. While my mistakes lead you to belive that I don't know the first thing about computers, that simply isn't true. I know at least the first 3 things about computers, maybe 4. I belive that, based on estimate and not actual clock tests, the computer at work should be a lot faster than my computer at home.

Home - eMac, second generation, 3+ years old (or 76 in computer years), 1GHz PowerPC G4 processor, 1GB of RAM, 80GB HD, with a 250GB external HD through firewire, and a graphics card (I'll have to go home and check to see which) that was put in aftermarket.

Work - Gateway GT4022, like 2 weeks old, 2.4 GHz AMD Athelon 64 processor, 2 GB RAM, 200GB HD, nVIDIA GeForce 6100 graphics card.

Which do you think should be faster? Without running tests, my comp at home should be a lot slower with comparable tasks than the Gateway at work.


//end threadjack....sorry JustJess

I was well aware of the dangers of a threadjack but I was hoping that we can miss this mark and simply go for a more reasoned look at the Macintosh computer, if they're still even called that...


I had to read this paragarph serveral times over before I understood what you are saying and I think I may still be misunderstanding you. Can you rephrase this, please?

Explorer is an MS Windows program. It is the desktop, task bar, and all the GUI file browsers. Is there a version of Explorer for Mac OS X that you are using? ...or, are you talking about Mac OS X's file browser, whatever it's called... Finder, maybe? It is written by Apple for OS X...

Either way, you are running two different programs on the two different platforms. Any difference in behaviour is much more likely to be attributable to the program, itself, rather than the underlying operating system...

It sounds like you might be saying that if a company were to write the same program (defined by intended behaviour, here) for two different platorms, it should run better on the "favoured" platform (that would be Windows for Microsoft and Mac OS X for Apple) and, if it doesn't, that's a failing of the platform and not the program. Is this right?

Again, I had a really hard time understanding this paragarph...

Lastly, if I were to judge by your use of the term, clock speeds don't mean as much as you think they mean. Either that, or you're using the term in an extremely colloquial manner. I'll have more to say about that, later...

I don't know. My anal retentive demeaner has worked so well for me in my career but it appears to be hampering me in this thread...

Like I said, it wasn't an attack. I was simply expressing a (harmless) opinion based on what I had read.

Clock speeds, in and of themselves, are no indicators of processing power. A 1 MHz machine can be more powerful than a 4 MHz machine. This was a huge problem for AMD (and, to a lesser extent, Apple), whose chips were more powerful than Intel's but ran at slower clock speeds...

I agree that your work computer should be the more powerful machine.

So, if you run a program on your work machine and run the "same" program on your home machine and find the program to run faster on your home machine, you'd blame the OS?

Well, to be fair, if anyone threadjacked, it was me. Sorry JustJess, I didn't think the discussion would go this far.

I'm looking forward to a rational conversation in the Mac vs. PC thread, if only Ch'i would say somethng meaningful...

I'm sorry, but it appears that I know more about Windows than you know about Mac. Apple makes Safari, their own web browser. Finder is a way of finding files and such on a computer, similar to the search function on Windoes (but for real fun, try Searchlight...you'll see a version of it in Vista later). Microsoft writes and distributes Explorer for Mac OSX. It has nothing do do with Apple, except for permissions and all that jazz.

Well let's put this back in the context of my original response to the question of MackKnife's question as to the benifit of Mac, justifying the cost. My answer was that programs shared between Windows and Mac OSX, in my experience, run better on Macs. Then you pretended like I was saying that the software is perfectly comparable, and therefore I'm insane.
That's the idea.
Actually, I first blame Microsoft. It's a kneejerk reaction for those of us who have had Macs for more than 10-15 years. I also have to blame a combination of mixed and matched parts in the Gateway machine, and the lack of stability in Windows, be it 2000, Me, XP, et all. It's a combination of faults that lead to the disfunction, but those faults are not to be found in a Mac. That was the bottom line. I was supporting that by explaining that my computer, that should be an inferrior machine, is somehyow able to perform better in comparable tasks (not perfectly comparable, as DOS is drastically different than lunix, but close enough for the comparison to be apt).

I also mention that the freeware that Apple bundles with the Mac comps is superior to Windows on PCs, as they are not 60 day trials. I get to keep everything from Grage Band to Safari to the aforementioned Spotlight to Dashboard. No need to go download them or to purchase them or even to put in CD keys. The plug and play aspect of Mac comps is attractive to people who don't build their own comps.

I love the conversation, but it's a serious threadjack. Let's find another home for it.

Not to take any sides in this argument, but a work machine may also be running applications in the background that are large and will help bog down a machine on any platform.

And the Explorer argument is a misunderstanding. will: you're talking about Internet Explorer, which is the web browser available for both platforms. Microsoft also has Explorer which is their equivalent to the Mac's file browser.

Let's try to keep this civil gentlemen.

And Jess: that is freakin' sweet! :)

I think I know what's going on here...

*When you say "Explorer," do you mean "Internet Explorer," the web browser?

Do you mean Manic_Skafe? I don't see a "MackKnife" in this thread...

This is a fair enough statement to make. I was merely saying that this is a property of the programs being run and not the platforms they are running on...

Why do you think I'm accusing you of insanity? Is it all the question marks?

I can understand this attitude if you were using Macs for the past five years but ten to fifteen? I have a lot I can say about this but I will simply say that unprotected memory and cooperative time sharing made Mac OS 9 (and under) less stable than WindowsNT ever was. I will save further comment for a more appropriate thread...

I have said nothing about this, nor any of the (many) other claims you've made about the Mac...




*I wrote this before seeing spectre's post...

If you do go with a Mac laptop, PLEASE get the extended warranty.

Macs may be great but when something goes wrong you're going to be looking at 3-4 times the cost to fix it as you would be with something else.

I agree 100%. It's like getting a BMW, repairs can be quite costly.

Wow. So uh, anyone have any opinions on Macs vs. Microsofties? :D

Yeah, I am definitely getting the AppleCare package. I'd be a fool not to, especially since the CoreDuo chip is brandy-new. Plus AppleCare techs make house calls. Sweet!
Hm, you make a good point. Frankly, I was going between the 100G at 5400rpm vs the 100G at 7200rpm. Because I don't have 10,000 songs or pictures, nor am I likely to compile that much. I've been told that the 7200rpm is really for people doing heavy duty editing and accessing the HD constantly, but my goal is to have it last as long as possible, so I was still considering that. Thoughts?

Oops, forgot about the 17" part: Frankly, I would LOVE to get the 17". But I will honestly be lugging this thing all over hell and back with a lot of other books... on my BACK. The extra 1.5lbs or so will make a difference. And in playing with the 15.4", it feels big enough. I'd never do the 13.3" MacBook, it's just too little (although soooo light).
I know, I know! We need a BBQ date!

Don't worry about the threadjacks, I don't care that much! :)

Oh, and by the by... "PC" is a misnomer - they're ALL PCs. If we're getting all anal retentive and stuff. :D

Will, I appreciate that you understand the Mac, but berating others with your arguments of "Explorer" is pretty weak, considering that Explorer and Internet Explorer are entirely different pieces of software. I realize that this was probably just a "typo" too, but I agree with Knife that it shows your misunderstanding of computers on a fundamental level (or at least, your Windows knowledge).

And understandly so - most people also don't know that GHz isn't the only measuring stick, and in fact it can be the worst if you're concerned about processing power.

Furthermore, your colloquial experience offers little in the claim that Mac OS is more stable. For every one of your examples, I could cite my own. We've got a server farm in our QA department, with machines running Win NT, XP, and 2003. They've got hundreds of days of uptime, some are measured in years. On the other hand, the one Mac machine we have to test compliance across OS/Browser combinations, has stalled three times on me.

What you'd be interested, perhaps, in reading -- is real benchmarks. Not synthetic, not "toy" benchmarks - real, based-on-real code benchmarks. You'll see that despite your claim of "stability," the x86 ISA, and subsequently Windows, outperforms the heralded Mac in scientific and mathematical computations.

In order to really convince anyone that an OS is superior, you'd have to demonstrate an understanding of what an Operating System is and why it behaves the way it does. There are entire MS programs devoted to OS/instruction set understanding and optimization. There is much more involved than "this program runs better on this OS." The most important is optimization.

In theory, one could write an Application that took ten times longer to execute on a Macintosh than it did on a PC. And of course, one could write an application that took ten times longer to execute on a PC than it did on Macintosh. This does NOT reflect on the quality of the OS, only the ability of the Application Designers.

As you can see, I'll deign that Macintosh might be better at writing Applications, and they're probably better at optimizing that software. So they're a better Application Developer. Those statements, however, are completely unrelated to the Operating System itself.

Late punches on an expired threadjack. Come on now...

Jess: your baby looks substantially better today. Check out the upgrades - updated processor, more ram available, Firewire 800, hd up to 200GB (but slow)... I'd do it today if I was in the market.

The new MacBookPros look awesome. I'm going to go for the 15". I notice that they now offer a 200GB hard drive, with the sacrifice being that it's at 4200 RPM. Can anybody advise if I'm better off going for a smaller drive - 160 - at 5400?

It's our thread too, damnit! :-D

Ch'i tried to get a seperate thread for the discussion, and it was locked. :mad:

/me hugs his MacBookPro

seriously, anyone who thinks you can get a pc cheaper.. if you compare systems ..I mean really compare and make sure the two are as close as possible on the specs.. you'll find that the mac's are around $400-$900 cheaper.

So say what you will about the price and games.. there's this new thing called parallel... works wonders ;)

I love my MBP so much..I'm thinking about getting a MacPro desktop.. those are so fucking sexy.

So jess, trust me.. it's well worth saving for :)

Ch'i's thread got locked because he never really said anything. Please note that he still hasn't done anything to recitfy this matter. Perhaps we should just create another thread and, this time, start it off with a more substantive opinion...

Hot damn! Did you guys see the new laptops yet?? I'm getting the 15.4" one, with 3G RAM and the 120G harddrive at 5400rpm, and the AppleCare Protection Plan. And since I'm a student, I'll be paying about $700 less than you see it listed. :D I'm trying to wait until I have the actual money saved, but it's soooooo hard. What do y'all think, a decent buy for $2714?

Oh, and here's the thing about computer people: it's like politics. You'll never convince a Mac person that Microsuck is better, and vice versa. But you can't deny the Macs are WAY prettier and slicker. Sorry, dudes!

actually earlier this year (about 2 months ago) I was in the market for a new computer and I did compare spec for spec. I was willing to pay a small premium for a Mac and convert all to Mac knowing that Parallel and Bootcamp were offered.

I was able to get a 2.14 Ghz Core 2 Duo 2Gb RAM 512MB video card 250Gb HD, 1 week after the Core 2 Duo launch for $1200. At the time, Mac didn't offer it, but comparing again, similar performing procs via tomshardware.com I couldn't get anything in the Mac flavor for anything less than $2,000. The extra money I saved, I bought dual 19" monitors and a nice ergo stand for them. I bought 2 systems one for me and one for the wife. The Macs I looked at would have been $5,000 for both systems and that was without any monitor.

If you can find a deal like that now, please show it to me.

as far as the savings is concerned saving now only means that the specs you buy will be even better.

Yeah, I hate to agree, but the desktop systems - while gorgeous, are friggin' expensive. They're a lot more than any iMac or MacBook specs. I'm not really sure why, honestly.

give me till tomorrow and I'll show you those specs and prices :)

and just so that people don't think that I'm a mac hater, I just got a silver G4 with a 23" Cinema display.

I told the VP let me borrow it from another group that I don't think he'll get it back, and he said, "Maybe you should keep it then."

Now I just have to clean off my desk to put it someplace...

as promised here are specs and prices

First up.. the Mac Pro

Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon (4mb L2 Cache 1.3GHz bus)
2GB 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
250 GB 7,200 RPM SATA with 8mb Cache
Four SATA drive bays
32x16xDvd+-RW/CDRW
Two Ultra ATA/100 Slots
Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT (256MB, Dual and single link)
One, 16x graphics slot three configurable slots (8x, 4x, 1x)
No PCI
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two FireWire 800, Two FireWire400
Six USB 2.0
Optical digital, analog audio IN
Opitcal digital, analog audio OUT
Built In Speaker
Apple Pro Keyboard
Mighty Mouse (optical)
Internal AirPort Slot
Dell 19in Display
Three Year Apple Care
Mac 0S X 10.4

Price-- $3,298

Dell Precision 690
Dual 2.66GHz Xeon (4mb L2 cache, 1.3GHz Bus)
2GB 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
250 GB 7,200 RPM SATA with 8mb cache
Four SATA Bays
48x/16x DVD+-RW/CDRW
ATI FireGL V3400 (128MB, Dual link)
One 16x graphics slot, 2 configurable slots (4x,1x)
Three 32 bit 33 Mhz PCI slots
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two FireWire400
8 USB 2.0
Two analog audio IN
Two analog audio OUT
Built in speakers
Dell quietkey keyboard
Dell 2button Mouse (optical)
Two PS/2, one parallel, two serial ports
Dell 19in Display
3 year on site econonmy plan (care package)
Windows XP

Price-- $3,945

So there ya have it. Better specs and better price from Apple :)

thanks.. that's also why I didn't buy a Dell, I spec'd and built the machine, which is something you currently cannot do with the Mac. Dell, HP, Compaq, all the machines were 1/3 - 1/2 more in cost from the name brands.

Again, was willing to pay the Mac Club entry price, but it was almost double what I was able to build. I just am a cheap bastard when it comes to electronics.

I understand and love to build my own machines, however most people just take the easy route and go pre-assembled.. this proves that macs aren't overpriced like so many people try to say.

The thing I like the most about Apple besides their support is their ProCare program. I can pay $99 a year for 52 hours of training on any program(s) of my choice. That's hard to beat. It's all done on my time and flexibility.

Let's talk NLE's since you're familiar with them cyn. If I take a 3 day course on Avid or Discreet, it will cost over $1,000 not including hotel etc. I can get ProCare for $99 and get more training on FCP and photoshop or anything. That is one reason that makes me pro apple :thumbsup:

I apologize, I didn't build my machines, I spec'd them and had someone assemble it to a DOS screen. I configured everything else after that.

At the low end, I do believe there is a premium to the Mac club. It's one of the reasons that Apple created the Mini since that edge of the market was clearly missed by Apple. Apple prices jump from $599 to $999, and my machine was $799 base (2.14 Core2Duo, 250HD, 1Gb RAM, 7300GS. I only added better case/PSU, 2Gb RAM and Nvidia 7900GT card to get to $1,200.) But they clearly miss a whole market segment that does make them appear to be pricier for those that just want to surf, email, and Office type applications.

As a corporate support person I was very much into branded boxes especially when the company was buying them for me to use at home.

For the prosumer that's a great deal. in the broadcast production houses I deal with, FCP is only used for rough cuts and decision making, not final edit.

There was a show in Fine Living the other day that pit Final Cut and Movie Maker between husband and wife to see who could put together something quick and easily and FCP was by far the more impressive.

I have spent around 6 years working with Windows, so I would have no actual objective answer for getting or working with a mac.

What I think I am going to do instead of arguing about the differences between the pc and mac and why the pc or the mac is the elite, I am going to purchase a macbook pro and get more experience working with a mac and the os.

Thanks JustJess for convincing me to buy a Mac.

that's great! a shame more techinical people in the corporate world don't do the same thing. Most are completely afraid to work on macs.... speaking of which I have to fire up that silver G4 with the 23" Cinema display today :) w00t!

Hot diggity! Ooooh, post when you've bought it, I want to know if you like it, and what specs you went with, and stuff.
Wheeee!

Okay, so I'm on this G4 silver with the 23" display, people have walked past and asked if my screen was big enough. It's actually too big since the text is TINY. It's nice for the moment... I do wonder what World of Warcraft would look on this display!!!! (not on this 9000 ATI card, but just the display)

but here's the specs of this machine:

Dual 1.42 Ghz Power PC G4
2MB L3 cach per proc
2Gb DDR SDRAM
Firewire 800
USB 2.0
64MB AIT Radeon 9000
23" Cinema Display 1920x1200
300Gb HD
500Gb Firewire external
Mighty mouse (it feels weird to roll around a little mouse ball on my fingertip)

That's actually quite surprising. I always though Macs were $400-$900 more expensive. I think they might still be, for my "niche."

I'm not sure you did an equal comparison, though. For example, the Mac has a 7300 GT (256 MB) - a $79.99 card. The Dell, however, has a ATI FireGL V3400 (128 MB) - a $259.99 card.

You've also done a comparison of 'workstation' / 'server' computers with Xeon processors. I'd like to see a comparison of a "home" computer / "gaming" computers. I'd absolutely never use a Xeon or a FireGL at home. A Core Duo and Radeon / Geforce would be far better for my purposes. Does Apple even offer these?

I can't seem to figure out Apple's site, so can you find a similar machine to this? I'd like to see the prices.


Intel® Core™2 Duo processor E6600 (2.4GHz)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
640GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 320GB SATA 3Gb/s 7200 RPM HDDs)
Dual Drives: 16x DVD-ROM Drive + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007FPW Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
512MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX
Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeMusic (D) Sound Card
Dell 5650 5.1 100 Watt Surround Sound Speaker System with Subwoofer
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse

2Yr Ltd Warranty and At-Home Service

$3,133

To me, that's a FAR superior machine - $900 cheaper than your Dell, and almost $200 below the Apple.

Maybe a difference of what we think is important in a computer? Something like Firewire 800 is absolutely useless to me; all the peripherals that I do have (camera, joystick, midi controller, printer, n52 speedpad, mouse, keyboard) are all way faster than I need, and they're on USB 2.0. I need responsive windows, the ability to multitask (Core Duo), low heat (Core Duo), high volume, high quality, and high fidelity surround sound (sound card, speakers), and the most important is fast and efficient real-time graphics rendering (high end video card).

In those areas, I find that Apple has far less selection than Dell. I build my own, but I still find Dell to be the quoted "$400-$900 cheaper" in my market than Apple is.

Jinn.. ok so it's $200 less than the Apple right? What about support issues? You have to weigh this factor in as well. When it comes to gaming all you have to do is hit a keystroke and parallel over to Windoze and play your games. I'm not a gamer at all so I'm not familiar with what goes on with those machines. The reason the dell had a smaller MB video is because I didn't see an option to include a 256.. which means even if there was.. let's be honest, the Dell price would still go up. I'll look around and come up with more comparison's if I get the time. Also, sure you can always build a custom machine to out perform any manufacted machine.. but with the Mac Pro you now have PnP HDD bays to give you up to 3TB of storage for under $1000. That's pretty nice. This really comes down to "whatever blows your skirt". The mac just happens to blow mine. :)

Cyn: I'm not a fan of FCP for finishing either. That's what I use Nitris for. I do however know about working with the mac and windows versions of Avid and have also worked on some Discreet systems. In my experience and a colleque who is now a team production leader for discovery channel, will take the apple based systems over the windows based systems any day. They just work better.

? I'm confused? It has a two year warranty and in-home service included in the price. I could've bumped it up, but two years is as long as I'd probably had that PC anyway.

It's not just $200 cheaper, it's MUCH better. I'm not sure you read my post entirely. Your "price comparison" showed two (in my opinion) low quality machines being sold for (in my opinion) way too much money. The system I offered is much more performant, and cheaper to boot. I was just curious if Apple could even assemble a similar system.

I'm not sure how your ability to host multiple OS' effects the quality or price of the hardware. Sure, that's neat, but -- if you're going to switch over to Windows to do stuff, why not just .. I dunno.. use Windows?

This, I think, is your reason for misunderstanding my post. From a gamer's perspective, those machines were shit. While the Apple might be cheaper, it's cheaper shit.

Plug and Play Hard drives? I'm not really sure I understand how that's a benefit of the Mac Pro? You can do that with any modern system.

See Jinn, this is where we part ways. I know shit about gaming computers because.. I dunno.. gaming is dumb. The reason you have 2 OS is because if you have an application that is windows only but prefer to use OSX then you still only one once computer and you have the security that apple owners have long since fed on. I do admit I skimmed through your post because I am a bit rushed.. even as I'm writing this, I'm rushed. If you're pro PC then so be it, I just feel that in my experiences, Apple has been better to me than any PC.. custom or preassembled. The plug and play.. is.. you don't have to take a case off.. you just stick it in a slot no power cables to put on.. no data cables.. just stick it in the hole :) Sure that's not really that big of a deal.. it's just cool.

Apple isn't worried about gaming.. they are worried about those of us who actually use the computer to make money :)

Well, I sure hope they don't think like you do. Video games certainly don't make money, and they must surely be a waste of time.

• Video game sales exceeded the movie industry's annual box office draw last year by $1 billion.
  
• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, sold more than 1.4 million copies at an average $48 apiece in its first three days. That $70 million windfall easily puts it in the ranks of a blockbuster movie.
  
• Designers can make $50,000 a year right out of college and twice as much if they are part of a team that produces a hit video game.
  
• Total video game sales were $777 million for THIS MONTH ALONE, up from $563 million in September of last year.

I'm sure glad they're not focusing on "dumb" things that don't make any money.

Jinn: you're too easy man. I wasn't really baiting you but I knew what your answer would be :)

Apple is a closed market. They cater to a select market.. if they wanted to expand they would have done so by now. I just happen to fit into the maket they cater to. Like I said, whatever blows your skirt. If you build a PC for gaming cheaper.. then I doubt Apple is going to cry because they lost that money.

A question I do have though, is how much of those video game designing was done on an apple?? Sure video game sales are high.. and sure it's easy to play them on a PC but do designers use Apple to design the movies and or graphics at all? Like I said, I know shit about PC gaming.. so they may not.

gucci: interestingly enough (as I type this out on the Silver mac), alot of the post production houses here are moving to PC based Avids because the cost of hardware is so much cheaper. They can almost do a 2 for 1 and double their rental income because they use the less expensive hardware.

So far none of the editors I know have griped about them not being Apple. Irony is that we have a full edit facility in house which is almost always booked and does use Apple based hardware. The post production facilities we are allowed to use for shows are also fully booked.

Truly more than anything it speaks to the need for NLE systems Mac or PC, there is a huge demand.

Where I do my production work, we don't rent the machines.. so we get the good stuff and it has to last. We have several PC based Avid systems and some editors prefer them just because they are used to windows. I'm hoping to get another discreet system up soon.. and another symphony system. I want them to be mac though.. it's just what I prefer. Sure I can use either just the same.. I just like the mac better. I'm stubborn on that.. maybe that's my problem.. maybe I'm blind for the tree.. heh I don't know.

So you guys don't do your finishing edits in house? That seems like it would be alot more cost effective to have a finishing team. I mean.. really.. I'd rather do finishing work than cut room any day.

As far as game creation goes, non-Apple PCs dominate simply because that non-Apple PCs are the intended audience. The biggest libraries, engines, and development studios (DirectX, .Net, Visual Studio) are locked by Microsoft to Windows PCs. Some render-farms for non-dynamic video is done on Linux and Apple machines, but I've never seen a developer use Apple for their actual game logic design. Many of the assets, like textures, models and sound can be done on Mac, but the software usually exists on both. Maya, 3DS Max, Photoshop, Cubase, FM7 and Max/MSP are all univeral binaries, so I can do the same work on both. I've seen a ton of sound creation on Macintosh, but it still ends up migrated to the PCs for the true development of the engine and the game itself.

So in developing the game, I'd have to admit that it's fairly evenly divided along the lines of good software, not the hardware or OS.

For playing them, it's pretty much a requisite - all the engines and libraries above are optimized and even limited to PCs; it's hard to use a Windows Form event to control your rendering if the OS (OSX) doesn't cause a Windows Form event to occur.

but now you can play your games on the awesome Apple Cinema displays :)

thanks for the info. I pretty much figured most of it was done in some form of Windows based format since like you said that's what gamers use. I was just curious if there was an apple stuff in that area.

In my areas I just notice most people use the Apple and die by it. :shrug:

So I guess this argument boils down to picking the system which is best for what you use it for.

sure some groups have finishing edit teams but not every group. We have so many productions, sometimes as many as 100 different productions per day going on at the same time. Also if they had only one team then the style would inadvertently be the same and get boring quickly... another way they stay edgy and fresh.

oh wow. I forgot who you worked for heh. I can see why you outsource things. You're right about the styles. It's funny, where I'm at (I only do it part time) you can see something (commercial, show, whatever) and I can instantly tell you who produced and finished it. Everyone has their own style. Luckily, I change mine up every few projects in order to stay fresh.

Gaming, graphics, production, etc. aren't the only markets that can justify high-end systems. Think science & engineering. They can ALWAYS use more processing power. I built and administer high-end clusters (of 250+ $5000 systems, with 10-30Gb/s, <10 microsecond interconnects) for researchers at my alma mater. I had coworkers who built and administered $1M+ a pop supercomputers at the same place. Yet another niche, but no less important than others in my not so humble opinion. I tend to buy higher-end systems personally because, the faster my code compiles, the sooner I can break it.

For me, a laptop that is reliable, has great connectivity (so I can use other systems to do grunt work from it), is light i.e. easy to carry around, and has good battery life, is the way to go. For everything else, a workstation, server, desktop, or gaming console does the job perfectly fine. Don't overload your laptop. It's not worth it.

I had a $2300 IBM T42p laptop purchased in Jan 2005 that failed recently and IBM wanted $750 to fix it (under warranty) because there was "corrosion" on the mainboard. They blamed it on a "spill" although I can't remember spilling anything on it, other than sweat from my palms generated by how hot it got. The laptop sits on my floor unused now because I can't do anything about the problem without spending MORE money.

I've thought about getting a new MBP but I am afraid Apple will screw me over like that too. So I think I will buy an older used model for cheap and dispense with spending the money on a warranty that may not be honored. I seem to be awfully good at beating computers up anyway. Something about how laptops & some desktops/workstations were not designed to be used 8-16 hours a day.

Most people really don't need to spec/build computers. They just need something relatively basic that will handle simpler, deterministic tasks with ease. Macs excel at that. My dad just bought a MacBook for himself too, and he has been a DOS/Windows slave for 20 years. He does not need anything special or niche. I think it will work out very well for him.

While I'm ranting, Windows gaming is a huge pain in the ass and I don't understand why anybody thinks it's such a great platform. Give me a gaming console any day over wasting hours trying to figure out why the high-end graphics card doesn't put out like it ought to. I should just buy a dedicated gaming computer, but at that point, why bother? Might as well buy a Wii or Xbox 360. Now if only I can play CS: Source on that.

Ok, ok, I'm done now.

Well, in JinnKai's defense, willravel totally deserved it. He took a simple and harmless statement rather badly and then started making poorly informed posts. After his ignorance was revealed, he simply ignored that he had ever said anything and has made no acknowldgement of his mistakes. So, someone has called him up on that. No big deal, really...




Oh, any why do I bring all this up, now? No reason, really. It's the holidays and I had some free time...

I have plenty to say on the pc/mac windows/osx debate, but for some reason, this thread just feels too old and uninteresting, and hell, even off topic.


hrm. darn!

Well, back ON topic... I just bought my new laptop this past Wednesday!! It's soooo purty. If I'm not carrying a whole bunch of stuff, it's not even so heavy to carry in my backpack. Wheeeee!!!! I decided to go with only the 1G RAM chip, because there are two slots, and the 2G chips are super expensive right now, so if I want to upgrade later (say, when the chips are cheaper), I'll just get a 2G later and not have to throw out a 1G chip that would be in there if I bought the 2G RAM version now.

... Does that make sense?

Hm.
Anyway, I have been loving having my own space and materials. I even got a free printer (HP3180, prints, scans, copies, and will print from photo cards). Not that we needed it, nor do I think this thing is top quality, but it was free, thus all I needed. :D

As for your debate on which is better... frankly, I just don't care. I like the Apple OS better based on the lack of viruses, the super customer support, and the very pretty, very simple user interface. I can manage a Windows system with the best of them (user only, no technogeek stuff here), but I enjoy using the Mac a whole lot more for completely illogical and unnecessary reasons. So there. :D

Congratulations, JJ! I picked up my MBP Christmas present recently as well.

Doesn't sound like you're taking crap from anyone on your selection. Good. These religious debates have been around since day one. If the point is to get something done, well, choosing a comfortable system is a big part of making that happen. The prices for similarly equipped systems are so close that the most important factor becomes usability, and that's up to each user. Use what works.

I'm enjoying mine!