View Full Version : What kind of mac is for me?!
lonegeek
2005-12-27, 22:35
Here is the deal... Im going to the Apple store in Mayfair Mall ( in Wawautosa) ...It'll be the first time i get to use a mac...well besides some old old old apple from the early 90's, or PearPC, or VNC...... Pear PC and VNC have shown me that osx is friggin amazing..
Right now I have a little over 200... my grandpa said he will match what ever i save up as a loan, Mind you im 14. I'm thinking of getting a mac mini... Yes there are probably goign to be new ones soon..Ill get the new one then if its not a media center or more expensive.... I really dont want to spend 1300 on a computer....(iMac) I like running dual monitors but i can live without tht..I'm thinking of getting a KVM swithc for my keyboard and mouse..So i can do with out dual monitors...
But..Would a powermac g4 be better?! More expansion! I want to use iLife to its fullest..I mostly browse the net and IM...Listen to music... I occasionaly play around with photoshop.... I mean Im wanting to keep my windows box ... So really i could use the windows box for like intensive stuff..Converting video....
I'm just fed up with windows.. I mean i dont have any major problems...Its just boring.. IT looks like a 5 year old designed the GUI.. I want something that looks nice..
Please help me out..IM going insane debating on which mac to get!
Sounds like you indeed want a Mac mini. You haven't given any reason of why you would want or expansion capabilities.
lonegeek
2005-12-27, 22:43
Only thing i can think of though is line in..... I play guitar and it would be pretty fun to play with garageband.....I can always get a stackable usb hub/ external hard drive...
I don't think you're going to have much fun recording guitar with line in. You'll want a USB-based adapter instead.
wecallitfall
2005-12-28, 04:50
griffin iMic?
uypeterson
2006-01-02, 05:09
The Mac mini is probably your only choice you have since you don't want to spend a lot of money on a computer. Since you're using your computer for basic tasks, the mini should be great for what you want to do unless you want to play 720p or 1080p high definition Quicktime video content.
It is wise to wait until MWSF. By then, more info will be given regarding the path Apple will take with Intel. Then, you can make a more informed purchase decision.
When comparing the resale value of PowerMac G4s against the price of a new mini, the practical advantages of a PowerMac are few:
* max of 2GB RAM on the G4 vs. 1GB on the mini;
* the ability to easily increase internal hard drive capacity;
* the ability to upgrade the video card vs. no upgrade possible on the mini;
* built-in modem on the G4 vs. no built-in modem on the mid and upper-end minis currently shipping; (the low-end mini has a built-in modem, but a USB modem has to be used on the others; its reliability is questionable)
* PCI expansion slots on the G4 vs. no slots on the mini
I may have missed other things to consider, but those points are the major items to consider. If any of those things are critical to you, look into a PowerMac. Keep in mind you'll probably end up paying more for a system that won't perform any better than a new mini in terms of processor and system bus speeds.
One other thing to consider -- the PowerMac G4 and mini use a 32-bit processor. Consumer-level computers and operating systems are moving to 64-bit performance. If the mini is upgraded, it will receive an Intel chip, most likely with EM64T enabled. That will give you 64-bit capability in a value package. OS X 10.4 is great, but consider this -- OS 11 will be a reality one day. You are 14. Your desire to do more with your computer will grow as you get older. With the Intel processor, you'll get more life out of the computer before you'll have to replace it due to a change in your computing needs.
One other thing to consider -- the PowerMac G4 and mini use a 32-bit processor. Consumer-level computers and operating systems are moving to 64-bit performance. If the mini is upgraded, it will receive an Intel chip, most likely with EM64T enabled. That will give you 64-bit capability in a value package.
Blah blah blah... 64 bitness does not matter to today's consumer. The only value to the consumer today is access to more memory which is irrelevant since the Power Mac G4 is physically capped at 2 GB and the Mac mini at 1 GB. Further, 64-bit processors generally perform 32-bit operations, which will make up about 100% of what you'll be doing, slightly slower than real 32-bit processors.
DON'T FALL FOR THE HYPE. :)
daMACdaddy
2006-01-02, 12:10
I hate to disagree with BRAD, but I think the 64-bit cpu's do make a difference if for no other reason than their dual-core nature...I set my professor up last summer with a 4800 dual core, uh IBM (yeah yeah I know), with 2 gig's mem, dual NVDIA ultra's and raid 0 raptors and that thing runs circles around a G4 with equivalent memory.
To the dude that orignially posted...why not LEASE a mac. I really don't think you have enough to really get something good so why not just rent it...your school may also have discount programs (AKA the eMAC!!!), which is not that expensive and will do what you need. The one thing I do agree with Brad on is the memory issue...why drop $700-800 on a MACmini if it moves like a snail??? If you know how to install more memory, then shop around and definitely boost WHATEVER mac you buy with more mem.
Peace:smokey:
torifile
2006-01-02, 12:17
Mac not MAC.
Brad not BRAD.
You've got caps lock problems. ;)
I hate to disagree with BRAD, but I think the 64-bit cpu's do make a difference if for no other reason than their dual-core nature...
The Yonahs will be 32-bit yet available in dual-core variations.
32+32=64
See, Yonah is 64 bit ;)
:D
I hate to disagree with BRAD, but I think the 64-bit cpu's do make a difference if for no other reason than their dual-core nature
Guess what? 64 bitness has nothing to do with multiple cores. Check your "facts" before you try to make an argument next time.
I hate to disagree with BRAD, but I think the 64-bit cpu's do make a difference if for no other reason than their dual-core nature
Except your statement makes no sense. Just because it's a 64-bit cpu does not imply it's dual-core by any means. The G5 was out for over 2 years before we even saw a dual-core version of it in a shipping model.
Anandtech's initial tests have shown a dual-core Yonah (which is 32-bit) to be effectively as fast as the Athlon X2 at equivalent clock speed on the vast majority of tests. And the 64-bit X2 and has an on-die memory controller - something that the Yonah does not have.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
The things affecting general everyday CPU performance are just about everything else dealing with the CPU architecture. Pipeline length, # of integer and FP units, vector optimizations, OOE, branch prediction, etc. Take your pick.
I set my professor up last summer with a 4800 dual core, uh IBM (yeah yeah I know), with 2 gig's mem, dual NVDIA ultra's and raid 0 raptors and that thing runs circles around a G4 with equivalent memory.
WTF kind of comparison is that. Of course it's going to be better, you're comparing computers that are years apart in terms of retail availability.
Blah blah blah... 64 bitness does not matter to today's consumer.
Repeated for emphasis.
Edit: I blame watching the UF/Iowa game for my late reply... Go Gators! :)
Edit 2: Oh crap! Sorry for the off-topic post.
To the OP: Mac mini sounds like a good choice. You have your PC for heavy-duty chores if need be, so go with the mini which should do everything you've listed. Doesn't sound like you need the expansion capability of a PM.
Just while were at the 64 bit thing:
Would it have any advantages with future software? I can't imagine Word ever benefiting from it, but how about some of the "under the hood" parts of OS X or more CPU intensive apps?
uypeterson
2006-01-04, 04:21
The Yonahs will be 32-bit yet available in dual-core variations.
Thank you for the correction. Next time, I will be more careful, because this Intel transition is a touchy subject. Facts need to be correct before posting.
Just while were at the 64 bit thing:
Would it have any advantages with future software? I can't imagine Word ever benefiting from it, but how about some of the "under the hood" parts of OS X or more CPU intensive apps?
In theory yes... In theory even the original G5s have not been used to their full potential. It was only the latest version of OS X that was supposed to use it properly, and I am not sure if that is true or not, or if it's a bit like the 'exclusive' .Mac widgets that Apple promised, for example...
But what you have to remember is that double the bits does not mean *double the speed*, it just means double the bits. So certain individual *large data* operations will be more effecient.
In the most basic sense adding two huge integer numbers together can now be done twice as fast, and adding two *massive* floating point numbers together can be done faster... Also data can in theory be moved around faster.. But that does rely on the architecture supporting it...
I am trying to remember which machine I worked on many moons ago that had 16 bit capabilities on chip, but only 8 in and out of the chip.. Making a farse of the whole thing as every other byte (in effect) had to queue up to get in and out of the processor!
(EDIT: It's also worth bearing in mind that double-the-cores does not mean double the speed, for some similar reasons.. They may have to share certain parts of the on-chip architecture, as well as the data / address highways in and out of the processor unit - and that may or may not be done very effeciently depending on cost and manufacturing constraints....)
uypeterson
2006-01-04, 05:43
Blah blah blah... 64 bitness does not matter to today's consumer. The only value to the consumer today is access to more memory which is irrelevant...
DON'T FALL FOR THE HYPE. :)
:\ I'll respond after Intel makes its case at CES, and the lust for more information is satisfied after the MWSF Keynote.
:\ I'll respond after Intel makes its case at CES, and the lust for more information is satisfied after the MWSF Keynote.
It's not like there's secret information about how 32-bit and 64-bit processors work that will be revealed at MWSF. Apple's been using 64-bit processors for two and a half years now. What more is there to know that we don't already know? 32-bit and 64-bit are only referring to the maximum word length—how can that possibly increase performance, outside of simply allowing more RAM to be used?
I think you simply aren't quite sure of what you're talking about and you need to realize that. Brad is scarily knowledgeable about these things and it's not easy to win an argument with him.
64-bit might matter more to consumers as RAM prices continue to fall and larger modules become available. Right now, getting over 4 GB of RAM is rather expensive and it's also difficult or impossible to do with most systems (since there are few consumer-oriented motherboards that have more than 4 RAM slots). 2 GB modules are emerging, but they cost a lot more than a pair of 1 GB modules so they will take a little while to catch on.
Once you can get 4 GB modules for a reasonable price and 8 GB modules at a premium (basically 4x today's situation), that'll pave the way for greatly increased performance. If you have that much RAM you can put a lot more things in cache, so maybe programmers (especially OS programmers) will be able to greatly increase performance for people who have tons of RAM. For that sort of thing, a 64-bit processor is necessary, but at the moment they're only useful for a few select applications that can actually use more than 4 GB of RAM.
Here's a handy link (from a Windoze site no less!!)...
In the future, the battle between 64 bit vs 32 bit processors will inevitably yield the 64 bit processor as the victor, but this transition is going to take some time.
First, I’ll talk about the pure mathematics and structure of the processors that are involved here. I’ll keep this part short and sweet.
A bit is short for “binary digit.” It is basically how a computer stores and makes references to data, memory, etc. A bit can have a value of 1 or 0, that’s it. So binary code is streams of 1’s and 0’s, such as this random sequence 100100100111. These bits are also how your processor does calculations. By using 32 bits your processor can represent numbers from 0 to 4,294,967,295 while a 64-bit machine can represent numbers from 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. Obviously this means your computer can do math with larger numbers, and be more efficient with smaller numbers.
Now see, that description wasn’t too bad, but the question is how does this affect you, the average PC owner? The largest benefit will go to academic institutions and private companies, where large calculations are being performed, huge databases are being accessed, and complex problems are being solved.
Everyone that doesn’t fall into that category will see some benefit of using 64 bit processors over 32 bit processors, but not much in today’s marketplace. The AMD Athlon 64-bit processor is completely backward compatible, meaning you can currently use it with 32-bit operating systems and software programs. You will see some benefits by using this setup, but because the programs weren’t written to take advantage of the extra power, they won’t use much of it.
The true benefits of this set up don’t come from the amount of bits, but by the improved structure of the 64 bit vs 32 bit processor's older structure. A 64-bit processor is made with more advanced silicon processes, have more transistors, and faster speeds. This is currently where the true benefit of switching to a 64-bit processor lays.
As for 64-bit operating systems and software, many are in the works, but nothing is in final version. Microsoft has released a beta version of Windows XP that takes advantage of the 64 bit technology, but there are still issues. The problem is when you run 32-bit software programs in the environment of a 64-bit operating system. Many programs won’t work properly, such as Adobe Acrobat and Windows Media Player, for example. Another issue is RAM. You really need about 4 GB of RAM to take full advantage of the capabilities offered by a 64-bit processor, while most PC owners have less than 1 GB under their computer’s hood.
So, the question now is should you buy a 64 bit processor now, or wait?
Disadvantages:
You’re currently not able to take full advantage of the technology because the software vendors haven’t made the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit processors.
Most AMD Athlon 64 bit processors are expensive, with prices sure to go down in the future.
Advantages:
Better performance out of a 32-bit operating system.
Probably the last processor you’ll have to buy for many years to come.
You’ll be the talk of all your friends!
As you can see, a sound argument can be made for both cases. You’ll have to determine if the differences will benefit your situation and computing future. I’ll leave the ultimate decision up to you.
The-difference-between-64-and-32-bit-processors (http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/windowsxp/articles/581/1/The-difference-between-64-and-32-bit-processors)
Probably the last processor you’ll have to buy for many years to come.
However, the above statement I do not agree with.. By the time all the things Luca has talked about have come to fruition, and OSs have been brought up to speed to take advantage of 64 bit processors I think that some of us with our original G5s may find that our hardware, and main processors are actually a little too old to take advantage of all the new stuff coming out...
There is just too much developement, at too faster pace, and now too many possible chip sets to support.. The Intel switch is going to complicate that for a start..
So 64 bit Intel may be worth doing, but I am not sure how long the PPC G5s will be supported fully.
So we'll still end up having to upgrade either machine, or by buying some of the G4 style speed-up-your-mac bolt on goodies...
That article is very incomplete. It doesn't explain at all that the true performance benefit of running applications in 64-bit mode on an x64 (AMD64/EM64T) CPU has nothing to do with being 64-bit, but with more registers being available.
That article is very incomplete. It doesn't explain at all that the true performance benefit of running applications in 64-bit mode on an x64 (AMD64/EM64T) CPU has nothing to do with being 64-bit, but with more registers being available.
Yeah. It's a quite simple explanation that gets the basics accross.... Any of us could pick out more complex articles.. I thought that gave certain people enough to be going on with...
Back on topic...
Go for the Mac mini, kid. It's crazy small and you'll love it.
I wish Apple made the Mac mini when I was your age, when I first wanted a Mac. I actually just got my first Mac (an iMac) in November. After falling in love with every iMac iteration thus far, it had to be my first Mac...even though I'm sure I'll regret not waiting if an Intel iBook shows up next week.
LudwigVan
2006-01-04, 23:51
...Once you can get 4 GB modules for a reasonable price and 8 GB modules at a premium (basically 4x today's situation), that'll pave the way for greatly increased performance....
And software bloat too? (And by "bloat" I mean not only added "features," but also junk code that increases the size of the application files.) Perhaps we won't care since harddrive space will have increased substantially by that time too.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.