View Full Version : What Mac to get?
I'm a PC user who is thinking about making the switch over to Macs but not sure what to get. Here's a little bit about what kind of user I am:
1) After buying a computer, I pretty much use it as my primary until it's either completely dead or not worth trying to save. I'm in the market now for a new comp because my Toshiba laptop's motherboard died recently. For the laptop, I didn't make any upgrades, and for the computer I had before that, the only upgrades I made were a DVD writer, extra RAM, and a new hard drive to replace one that had failed. This computer also died due to motherboard.
2) I prefer laptops but am willing to get a desktop if I can get more for my money, which is probably usually the case.
3) As far as how I use a computer, I tend to use many programs at once. I may have 3 web browser windows up at a time, with something downloading in the background, an mp3 player, a video player, a music creation program such as Fruity Loops or Reason, and a DVD burning all at the same time. I don't play any games on the comp (other than an occasional flash game) and rarely use any programs other than the ones mentioned.
4) I'm willing to spend up to $2,500 and maybe a little more for a quality computer that I can use for at least 5 years.
5) I'm willing to wait until Summer or maybe even Fall if a new Mac is coming and is a lot better than what's currently out.
Right now, I'm leaning towards a Mac Pro with the following specs:
- Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
- 2GB (2 x 1GB) RAM (plan on upgrading to 4 x 2GB RAM later)
- RAID card (do I need this? I plan on having a Windows partition or maybe even a separate dedicated HD, is this what I need to do this?)
- 320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB (not sure if I should upgrade to 2 x ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB for an extra $130 or NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB for $150)
- One 16x SuperDrive
- AirPort Extreme card (Wi-Fi)
- Fibre Channel Card (if I get a RAID card do I need this also?)
- Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
- Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
for a total of about $2,900 (if I don't need the RAID and Fibre Channel card). Is this overkill for what I want to do? Should I just get an iMac for about $1,500 and up the RAM? or a Macbook Pro?
I know this question's been asked a billion +1 times but would appreciate any help and info. Thanks.
You absolutely don't need a Mac Pro. For what you're doing, I'd be inclined to say an iMac or MacBook with plenty of RAM.
As far as RAM goes, buy it and install it yourself. Don't let Apple rob you.
I was thinking he was going to go for a MBP at first, but then reading he wanted a Mac Pro, that's seriously overkill.
I would go with 'griz and agree with either an iMac or or even a MacBook.
torifile
2008-04-22, 21:17
I have no experience with Reason, but for everything else one of the consumer level offerings (a misleading name since they are exceptionally powerful - video cards aside) would suit you.
If you want to outfit yourself nicely and spend your alloted budget money, go for a Macbook Pro (if you can still find the previous gen, you can get them for a steal!) and an external display.
Here's my theory: If you need a Mac Pro, you'll know you need a Mac Pro. For the majority of Mac users, the Mac Pro is overkill. It's not a desktop, it's a workstation. Yes, the distinction is dubious at best, but with eight-core Xeon processors, slide-out drive bays, and a $3,000 pricetag, the Mac Pro is planted firmly in workstation territory. It's one of the rare products with "Pro" naming that isn't just marketing - the Mac Pro really is a professional-grade machine. I.E., unless you're making boatloads of money with it, you really don't need it.
And that leads me to my second suggestion. You say you're willing to spend $2,500 or more on a computer that will last you five years. Technology advances super-quickly (just look at the Power Macs of five years ago! They were still on G4 processors!), and unless you're making enough bank with your computer to always afford the latest and greatest, it doesn't make sense to buy the top of the line. You pay a huge premium for it, and it doesn't last long enough to make up for it. It's normally better to not buy the top of the line and use the money that you save to upgrade that much sooner.
Take the Mac Pro processors. It's $800 to upgrade to the 3.0 GHz model. In a few months, that will probably be standard. So that extra $800 really only extends the life of the unit a few months. And five years down the road, it's not like the difference between 2.8 GHz and 3.0 GHz is even going to matter.
You picked the 2.8 GHz processors, which is wise. But I still don't think you need a Mac Pro. Again, if you did need it, you'd know.
And if you prefer laptops, why are you even looking at the biggest, baddest desktop around? Get a MacBook Pro if you need the graphics chip and larger screen, or a MacBook with plenty of RAM (as fcgriz mentions, not from Apple) if you don't. If you want to get more power for the same price on a desktop, you can get an awesome iMac with a 20" or even 24" screen. You can spend half as much, and then upgrade twice as soon - and the iMac in three years will probably give the Mac Pro of today a run for its money (if you're not going to be using the four drive bays and whatnot). And you'll save even more money on OS and iLife upgrades.
So spend $1,500 or so on a iMac or MacBook (a bit more if you want a larger screen on either), put the remaining $1,500 in some high-yield savings account or investments (so it doesn't get eaten away by inflation), and ask us again in another two or three years. You might decide that you're fine with the performance of your Mac for even longer, which will mean even more savings. Many of us here are using the same Macs we've had for years, and most of us never spent $3,000 on them upfront.
As far as when to buy, iMac updates are already overdue, so I'd wait if you were planning on buying an iMac. The MacBook and MacBook Pro just saw minor updates, but Intel is introducing the Centrino 2 platform in early June (which happens to coincide with Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference), so you might find it worth your while to wait another six weeks or so if you were looking at a laptop.
But if you need it now, buy it now. Either way, you're getting a great machine.
Welcome to AppleNova, and to the Mac! :D
I agree with others here - get a Macbook or Macbook Pro if you need portability, or an iMac if you don't. The Mac Pro is overkill.
If you still want to go with the Mac Pro, you wouldn't need the following:
- RAID card (do I need this? I plan on having a Windows partition or maybe even a separate dedicated HD, is this what I need to do this?
- Fibre Channel Card (if I get a RAID card do I need this also?)
You wouldn't need to upgrade the video card, it should be more than you need based on what you've said. As well, you can have up to 4 hard drives in a Mac Pro, and you don't need the above to install them. If you want to add an additional drive, buy it yourself - they're easy as heck to install, and it's way cheaper to do it yourself. You just plug them into neat little slots that come with the computer. You can see the slots here (labeled SATA bay):
http://www.no-homers.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/mac_pro_art.jpg
I'm also guessing that you'd be fine with one Quad-Core processor.
Hope that helps :)
hmm.. so it seems I set the bar too high for myself with the Mac Pro. Alright so now I'm leaning towards the Macbook as suggested. Maybe an older MBP if I can find one.
The iMac offers 7200rpm hard drives and 2.8GHz processors. Would a user such as myself notice much of a difference between 5400 and 7200 rpm hard drives and between 2.4 and 2.8 GHz processors? If I wanted to, could I put in a 7200 rpm HD and extra RAM into the Macbook myself without much trouble?
My main gripe with my previous PCs is that they didn't multitask well (after a few hours of use, a Ctrl+Alt+Del was always in order to relieve the Task Manager) and they both deteriorated pretty badly after 5 years or less (slowing fans, fried motherboards). So I'm hoping a Mac will be a lot better in these areas.
Roboman, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I could get a macbook now and another much improved macbook in another 5 years for the same price as a mac pro now. I just hate having to replace computers, no matter how outdated they are. I guess I just get attached to my comps once I get the programs and the files and the settings just how I like em. But either way, I'm gonna take your advice and wait until June.
Swox: Wow. That is the most beautiful interior I've ever seen in a computer. I have a feeling I'm never gonna be able to go back to PCs once I get a Mac.
Schnauzer
2008-04-23, 09:32
Swox: Wow. That is the most beautiful interior I've ever seen in a computer. I have a feeling I'm never gonna be able to go back to PCs once I get a Mac.
Welcome to Mac. (And welcome to AN- Applenova)
I would say that you should go with the Imac. You can get the 24 inch widescreen Imac for $1,799.00
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
320GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
And with the extra cash get some more RAM in that baby, that is one bad ass computer right there, all for way under your $2,500.
I think that if you wanted to go with a desktop this would be the one that could mutitask all your programs and have room to spare.
psmith2.0
2008-04-23, 09:42
I agree with fcgriz, Roboman and others. The Mac Pro just seems like so much for you. Why not spend half that and just get a nice iMac, packed with RAM. It'll handle that stuff wonderfully, and it's a lot prettier to look at all day long.
:)
I just hate having to replace computers, no matter how outdated they are. I guess I just get attached to my comps once I get the programs and the files and the settings just how I like em.
The Apple migration assistant makes switching computers really easy - all your settings and documents are shot over to the new compy, so once you get your applications (our word for "programs") installed, it should be exactly the same as your old one (i.e. files, desktop, preferences, bookmarks, etc.).
Swox: Wow. That is the most beautiful interior I've ever seen in a computer. I have a feeling I'm never gonna be able to go back to PCs once I get a Mac.
I wish it was mine :lol: ! I just found the pic on the interweb.
I've been a Mac user for 8 years, and I've never once been tempted to go back. You're luck you found Applenova so early in your Apple years - it's a very supportive community. I wish I'd found it earlier!
Would a user such as myself notice much of a difference between 5400 and 7200 rpm hard drives
Maybe to Probably.
and between 2.4 and 2.8 GHz processors?
Probably not.
If I wanted to, could I put in a 7200 rpm HD and extra RAM into the Macbook myself without much trouble?
Yep. :)
I just hate having to replace computers, no matter how outdated they are. I guess I just get attached to my comps once I get the programs and the files and the settings just how I like em.
OS X does include a migration assistant for moving files from an old Mac to a new one.
http://www.apple.com/pro/tips/migration.html
And that leads me to my second suggestion. You say you're willing to spend $2,500 or more on a computer that will last you five years. Technology advances super-quickly (just look at the Power Macs of five years ago! They were still on G4 processors!), and unless you're making enough bank with your computer to always afford the latest and greatest, it doesn't make sense to buy the top of the line. You pay a huge premium for it, and it doesn't last long enough to make up for it. It's normally better to not buy the top of the line and use the money that you save to upgrade that much sooner.
Agreed. My guess is you could buy the $1799 iMac in a couple months, then sell it in a couple years for half that ($900) and then add the $700 you didn't spend now to buy a new Mac down the line for $1600 or so (which will be faster, have more storage, memory, new OS, etc.)
Windswept
2008-04-23, 14:53
Swox: Wow. That is the most beautiful interior I've ever seen in a computer. I have a feeling I'm never gonna be able to go back to PCs once I get a Mac.
:D
Lots of smug grins from AN members upon reading your comment. :D ;)
psmith2.0
2008-04-23, 15:05
That was always kinda the running joke...that Apple puts as much - if not more - care and attention into the inside of their stuff as most others put into the outside. :D
The inside of that Mac Pro above is nicer-looking than any Dell or Alienware tower or notebook I've ever seen. :p
Well, I guess my final answer is to wait for the new Macbooks to come out (hopefully around summer) and get the base model, then upgrade the RAM and HD myself to 4GB and 7200rpm.
Thanks to all for your help. Now comes the hard part: waiting.
One last question: If I have an NTFS formatted external, will the Mac be able read it?
The inside of that Mac Pro above is nicer-looking than any Dell or Alienware tower or notebook I've ever seen. :p
Really. It's almost like I don't know where the exterior ends and the interior begins. The guts of a PC on the other hand, look like just that: GUTS.
Boomerangmacuser
2008-04-23, 16:43
I agree with Schnauzer . iMac if you really don't need the portability. If you really have the budget like you say, go for the 24". It's a thing of beauty. I have the 20" and wished I'd stretched that little extra. I maxed out the RAM and it runs tons of apps and downloads (like you described you do) and switch between multiple users without a hiccup. When you're in one user account, the apps open in other active user accounts are still working (i.e. my wife is actively working in Photoshop/Dreamweaver on her profile while my profile is quietly downloading torrents in the background).
Apple has tons of nice design touches. When I maxed out my RAM, I put my iMac face down on a towel with the bottom grille (where the RAM slots are located) facing me. I was going to figure my way through the installation when I noticed instruction diagrams staring at me! They were etched in the bottom of the aluminum foot. THAT is what Apple is all about.
Apple has tons of nice design touches. When I maxed out my RAM, I put my iMac face down on a towel with the bottom grille (where the RAM slots are located) facing me. I was going to figure my way through the installation when I noticed instruction diagrams staring at me! They were etched in the bottom of the aluminum foot. THAT is what Apple is all about.
OMG that is awesome. Next time I'm at an Apple Store, I'm going to get into trouble, tipping over iMacs just to look at the diagrams underneath. :lol:
I remember on my old iMac, the IR sensor was hidden in the Apple logo, so there wouldn't have to be a visible sensor. That made so much sense. I wonder if the current iMacs are that way? With that glossy black frame, there's plenty of other places to hide the sensor, I'm sure.
I can't wait for my new iMac. :D
Boomerangmacuser
2008-04-23, 16:59
The IR sensor on the AluMacs are behind the black glass along with the camera, mic, and light.
The IR sensor on the AluMacs are behind the black glass along with the camera, mic, and light.
Thanks. I'm sure that makes more engineering sense...
nikstar101
2008-04-24, 05:54
I generally agree with what everyone has said here, and it looks to me like a iMac with a load of RAM will be perfect for you. That would be my first choice. As for the laptop side of things you need to ask yourself a few questions in this order (or at least i think so).
1) Will you actually me taking the laptop outside the house/office? It seems a stupid question but most of my friends buy laptops and they sit on a desk for the whole of the life constantly on charge.
2) How many hours do you use it a day? The longer the hours the bigger the screen you want. Although this depends (conflicts) on how portable you want it.
3) How portable does it have to be? If you are moving it about a lot then the lighter, thinner the better. Also look at battery life (although both the MacBook and MacBook Pro are pretty similar).
4) Are there any special requirements of the laptop. Such as DVD burning, as the basic MacBook does not have a DVD burner.
If the answer to Q1 is No then get a iMac for definite. If yes go through the rest of the Qs. If you were to go for a laptop i would choose the basic 15" MacBook Pro. As the bigger screen with better resolution will be nicer to use for long periods of time.
Finally just to add a little spice to the mix, the Mac Pro is a fine choice too (although you need to review your options list!). Although it is way over powered for what you need today, it will make up for this in its length of service. For example i bought a top of the range PowerMac G5 when they first came out Sept 03. It is still going now and can run all the latest programmes at a reasonable speed. If i have bought the best iMac at the time i would have got a G4 1.25Ghz computer which would sluggish at completing my everyday tasks compared to the G5. So there is some service in spending a load of money up front. If i bought a Mac Pro now i would expect it to last 5 years, running the latest programmes and OS. I am not so sure that the imac would do the same....
good points nikstar. Now you have me re-evaluating my final answer. Although I moved my previous laptop only a few times a month, if that, it was nice having the option (it was a "desktop replacement" laptop, so a bit heavier than most).
The reason I'm leaning towards the macbook more than the iMac is because the macbook seems to be just as powerful as the iMac once I put in a faster hard drive and more RAM. Is this a wrong assumption to make? The only difference I can see spec-wise is the dedicated GPU, which, since I don't play games, it sounds like I don't need it?
As far as the drawbacks of a laptop such as smaller screen and keyboard, I have some old monitors and keyboards laying around if I feel I need them. Of course, it would definitely create more clutter than the clean iMac.
And sorry, you're right about the DVD burner on the base model. What I meant to say was the basic 2.4GHz model with no Apple upgrades, which has the Superdrive.
Have you seen a major degradation in the performance of your G5? I mean, I know all computers will deteriorate over time but I'm wondering if they hold up better than a lot of the PCs I've seen after ~5 years.
I know all Windows computers will deteriorate over time but I'm wondering if they hold up better than a lot of the PCs I've seen after ~5 years.
There, fixed that for you.
The slower-with-time-for-no-good-reason issue simply isn't there on Macs*. In fact, every OS upgrade since MacOS X was released has resulted in *faster* performance for the same hardware that I've owned... and they tend to last a good long while. Heck, I've got an old 400MHz G4 Cube as the primary server in the house, and hosting our domain for web, ftp, and imap. It gets rebooted only for security updates, and I can't say I've ever had to do anything like manually cleaning out caches and the like. It just runs 24/7, months on end, and has for years now.
*The one exception in my experience is Safari, where the cache can get so extensive that it is slower to search through than to fetch again over a fast connection. The lovely Empty Cache menu option takes care of that when used once every couple of months, however. To be fair, I have heard of folks who have had speed increases in Mail after a cache rebuild following a major upgrade such as 10.4 -> 10.5, but I haven't run across that personally.
apple007
2008-04-24, 17:28
Well, I guess my final answer is to wait for the new Macbooks to come out (hopefully around summer) and get the base model, then upgrade the RAM and HD myself to 4GB and 7200rpm.
Thanks to all for your help. Now comes the hard part: waiting.
New MBs and MBPs are all but guaranteed to be announced, if not shipping, by June, when Intel's new Montevina Centrino 2 debuts.
As far as the drawbacks of a laptop such as smaller screen and keyboard, ...
Have you seen a major degradation in the performance of your G5? I mean, I know all computers will deteriorate over time but I'm wondering if they hold up better than a lot of the PCs I've seen after ~5 years.
If you really like portables, you should at least take a look at a 17" MBP. I've been using a 17" PowerBook G4 since July 2004 as my only computer. I'm on it an average of 6-8 hours per day and the screen is great, it's traveled about 500,000 miles in those 4 years, and while I'm running out of HD space (mine is 80GB), I haven't upgraded it at all and it's still going strong. (My next computer will be a 17" MBP, likely this summer after the Montevina models start shipping.)
apple007
2008-04-24, 17:35
*The one exception in my experience is Safari, where the cache can get so extensive that it is slower to search through than to fetch again over a fast connection. The lovely Empty Cache menu option takes care of that when used once every couple of months, however. To be fair, I have heard of folks who have had speed increases in Mail after a cache rebuild following a major upgrade such as 10.4 -> 10.5, but I haven't run across that personally.
This is off-topic for the thread, but Safari's cache situation seems to be getting worse by the version. My Safari cache routinely hits the 750MB to 1GB range after only a few days without quitting the app. It baffles me why Apple refuses users to specify a limit for Safari's cache, like back in the good old days of Netscape, etc., when the browser cache was actually useful. Now, with high-speed internet access the norm rather than the exception, I can see no good reason the cache should ever be more than 50MB or so, if that. [/end rant]
This is off-topic for the thread, but Safari's cache situation seems to be getting worse by the version. My Safari cache routinely hits the 750MB to 1GB range after only a few days without quitting the app. It baffles me why Apple refuses users to specify a limit for Safari's cache, like back in the good old days of Netscape, etc., when the browser cache was actually useful. Now, with high-speed internet access the norm rather than the exception, I can see no good reason the cache should ever be more than 50MB or so, if that. [/end rant]
Sure you're not confusing cache with virtual memory? The cache lives in ~/Library/Caches/Safari and ~/Library/Caches/WebKit, and persists across launches. Quitting Safari doesn't affect it. Mine are currently 12.5MB, and 23.4MB, respectively and I don't think I've ever purged it on this machine.
apple007
2008-04-24, 17:51
Sure you're not confusing cache with virtual memory? The cache lives in ~/Library/Caches/Safari and ~/Library/Caches/WebKit, and persists across launches. Quitting Safari doesn't affect it. Mine are currently 12.5MB, and 23.4MB, respectively and I don't think I've ever purged it on this machine.
No, on my PB (using 10.4.11), quitting and relaunching Safari results in a purge of the cache, down to what appears to be Safari's "default" cache size of 22MB. It happens every time. (In fact, upon relaunch, Safari won't even access web pages until the cache-purge is complete, which can take 10-15 minutes when the cache is in the 750MB to 1GB range. This might be a bug/quirk of using the latest Safari with 10.4.11 and/or on a 4-year-old machine, but it happens every single time.)
No, on my PB (using 10.4.11), quitting and relaunching Safari results in a purge of the cache, down to what appears to be Safari's "default" cache size of 22MB. It happens every time. (In fact, upon relaunch, Safari won't even access web pages until the cache-purge is complete, which can take 10-15 minutes when the cache is in the 750MB to 1GB range. This might be a bug/quirk of using the latest Safari with 10.4.11 and/or on a 4-year-old machine, but it happens every single time.)
:err:
I have *never* seen that... on either my 10.4 or 10.5 units. How... bizarre. I'll keep an eye on it, and see if it happens on my machines.
apple007
2008-04-24, 18:18
:err:
I have *never* seen that... on either my 10.4 or 10.5 units. How... bizarre. I'll keep an eye on it, and see if it happens on my machines.
It seems like a relatively new occurrence either in one of the newer Safari versions and/or with the 10.4.11 update, but as I said, it happens every single time on my machine. If you're running a newer/faster machine, it might be happening without you even knowing about it. (If you Get Info on your ~/Caches/Safari folder and then relaunch Safari, the cache-purge typically starts about 2 minutes after relaunch and the cache is purged about 20MB at a time. I can watch the folder size diminish accordingly until it stops at 22MB.)
(Sorry, 'bobo', for the off-topic dialogue; this little issue has been baffling me for months. Just to be clear, I've never owned a non-Apple CPU dating back to the early '90s and I wouldn't even consider a Windows machine. I also love Safari, except for this minor issue being discussed. Good luck with the switch. You won't regret it.)
The slower-with-time-for-no-good-reason issue simply isn't there on Macs*.
As someone who's been trapped in the PC world for so long, it's hard for me to even fathom this. I feel like Neo discovering the Matrix (I hate Matrix references myself, but it just fits). I think I need to moderate my expectations of Macs. Pretty soon I'll be expecting them to cure world hunger.
(Sorry, 'bobo', for the off-topic dialogue; this little issue has been baffling me for months. Just to be clear, I've never owned a non-Apple CPU dating back to the early '90s and I wouldn't even consider a Windows machine. I also love Safari, except for this minor issue being discussed. Good luck with the switch. You won't regret it.)
Not a problem. The more I can learn about these machines the better. 2 more months and I'll be officially crossed over.
agent302
2008-04-24, 22:08
I'll just point out that swapping the hard drive and RAM is ridiculously easy. To see, here are the Apple do-it-yourself guides so you can see for yourself:
Hard Drive (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBook_13inch_HardDrive_DIY.pdf)
RAM (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303721)
nikstar101
2008-04-25, 06:40
good points nikstar. Now you have me re-evaluating my final answer. Although I moved my previous laptop only a few times a month, if that, it was nice having the option (it was a "desktop replacement" laptop, so a bit heavier than most).
The reason I'm leaning towards the macbook more than the iMac is because the macbook seems to be just as powerful as the iMac once I put in a faster hard drive and more RAM. Is this a wrong assumption to make? The only difference I can see spec-wise is the dedicated GPU, which, since I don't play games, it sounds like I don't need it?
Have you seen a major degradation in the performance of your G5? I mean, I know all computers will deteriorate over time but I'm wondering if they hold up better than a lot of the PCs I've seen after ~5 years.
Right i it will be used out on the road, then a Laptop is for you, but just to put it in perspective (and to hit the message home) the MacBook you would like, the middle of the range one, is more expensive than the base model iMac which has a lot more feastures (20" screen, bigger HD etc..). Yes it has a slow processor but that difference will hardly be noticeable.
Moving on... Looking at some old benchmarks it seems that on CPU tests alone the MacBook is just as fast as the MacBook Pro (on graphics the MacBook Pro kills the MacBook). And they are comparable to the iMac, just a bit slower in every test, which is to be expected. No major issues there. And i would get Apple to upgrade the Hard Drive, as the cost isn't that huge, it saves a lot of fuss (installation, OS installation etc) and by the time you buy a new drive have it shipped it will probably cost the same. But buy your own RAM
As for my PowerMac G5, it has got faster with every MacOS update and i reckon it will complete everyday tasks with no noticeable drop in performance compared to a new iMac. Now i will explain before i get killed by everyone lese here, by noticeable i don't mean can a human tell the difference (such as an iMac starting Word in 4 sec and my Mac doing it in 8 not that i believe this is the case!!). I mean that if i use Word for 5 hours will i get the same productivity as using an iMac, and in that case 4 sec isn't going to change that. I hope you get what i mean. If i was using Photoshop all the time then yes that might change, but in my case i don't think an iMac would speed up anything. And that will be the benefit of a Mac Pro it will last longer because it is so over-specced for today's tasks.
Basically i want to buy a new Mac but honestly i cannot justify it while my Power-Mac still fulfils all my needs. Maybe when Macs can play Blu-Ray i might think about it....
All computer start to show their age, its not an issue of PCs vs. Macs in that area. As parts age they do not perform as well due to heat and use, although Apple tends to pick moderate build qualities, so their machines hold up better than your $300-600 PC on average. As an example my G4 Power Mac worked for 7 years, till the power supply died. New Power Supply and it was back in action, though. One area where wear shows up most in the area of the fans, which get louder with age, due to dust and the bearings wearing out.
Windows machines tend to seem a lot slow with age because people never purge unneeded processes at boot, leading to dozens of old apps running for no reason at all. Thankfully, few Mac programs force the user to start them at boot, which keeps this to a minimum, and a faster overall feel.
All computer start to show their age, its not an issue of PCs vs. Macs in that area. As parts age they do not perform as well due to heat and use, although Apple tends to pick moderate build qualities, so their machines hold up better than your $300-600 PC on average. As an example my G4 Power Mac worked for 7 years, till the power supply died. New Power Supply and it was back in action, though. One area where wear shows up most in the area of the fans, which get louder with age, due to dust and the bearings wearing out.
Windows machines tend to seem a lot slow with age because people never purge unneeded processes at boot, leading to dozens of old apps running for no reason at all. Thankfully, few Mac programs force the user to start them at boot, which keeps this to a minimum, and a faster overall feel.
I think the point, and it's a valid one, is that the average user's Windows PC gets progressively slower due to the buildup of silent crap-ware running in the background that the user doesn't even know about. There are tools that make it easy enough to deal with this, but it takes a little bit of knowledge: what the problem is, where to get the software, etc.. Most home users that I know don't have a clue about this. They just start complaining after 6-12 months that their computer is getting slow. Eventually, it gets bad enough that they wipe the entire thing out and re-install. They often even pay someone to do this for them. After a cycle or two of this, they just decide it needs to be replaced, and they start the process over.
That kind of thing does not happen on a Mac. Generally, if a Mac is getting slow because there is too much running on it, it's only because the user has intentionally installed and is running too much. That's a problem that can be solved by simply closing a few apps.
There are a few other things that can cause problems/slowdowns: hard drive near capacity or full of bad sectors, caches that are out of control, newer software that simply requires too many resources, etc.. These can occur on either Windows or OS X.
Yeah, that is basically what I meant, but hey, you were more articulate about it so, good on you.
I think the point, and it's a valid one, is that the average user's Windows PC gets progressively slower due to the buildup of silent crap-ware running in the background that the user doesn't even know about. There are tools that make it easy enough to deal with this, but it takes a little bit of knowledge: what the problem is, where to get the software, etc.. Most home users that I know don't have a clue about this. They just start complaining after 6-12 months that their computer is getting slow. Eventually, it gets bad enough that they wipe the entire thing out and re-install. They often even pay someone to do this for them. After a cycle or two of this, they just decide it needs to be replaced, and they start the process over.
That kind of thing does not happen on a Mac. Generally, if a Mac is getting slow because there is too much running on it, it's only because the user has intentionally installed and is running too much. That's a problem that can be solved by simply closing a few apps.
There are a few other things that can cause problems/slowdowns: hard drive near capacity or full of bad sectors, caches that are out of control, newer software that simply requires too many resources, etc.. These can occur on either Windows or OS X.
I've been an Apple user for the last 3 years so I've really been out of the PC loop except for work. I was wondering what some of the freeware apps to clean up your PC are so I can run them on my work computer. I remember I use to have some back in the day, but I can't remember for the life of me what they are. Any help?
Two of the more common free apps are AdAware Personal and Spy Bot Search and Destroy. When I was still using my PC at home, I would actually run them both on occasion in case one of them would find something that the other missed.
If you go to Download.com, they typically have a list of the top 10 downloaded programs (rated by volume) in any category, so if nothing else, you can take the lemming route.;)
You can also run MSCONFIG from the Start/run menu and see what programs are loading at startup - they'll be under the 'startup' tab. There are always 'legitimate' things being loaded that aren't really necessary IMO, and spyware scanners won't find these.
Ah, yeah, AdAware. That's one of the ones I use to run. Pretty solid program if i remember correctly.
curiousuburb
2008-04-28, 17:24
If you're getting a laptop as primary machine, getting the 7200 vs a 5400 (or 4200) rpm drive is noticeable. Barefeats and others have tests, but there's also some basic logic involved. Once memory is full, swapping to drive is a bigger hit as HDD speed gets slower. Laptop drives don't usually have as much cache as desktop 3.5" drives, but video folks who don't want to drop frames stay away from slow drives. YMMV
If you're serious about producing music and eventually need higher performance, you can always connect a 10000 rpm external via FW if needed.
If you're going laptop, check out the primary Reason interface on various laptop models. Do you have enough UI space on a 13" screen? a 15? 17? 17HiRes?
Is it good enough for portable use, but you can always jack into a 2nd display at home/work?
Multi windows (or Spaces in Leopard, but you'll still want a bonus monitor) and eye-strain planning are good thinking points... perhaps justifying a 24" iMac with more pixels over a 20 (as well as the 24 having a TN panel).
Spend your cash as follows (in descending order to max out):
For max performance = RAM(not from Apple)/HDD speed, CPU/(GPU for rare apps)
For comfort = Screen, Res, GPU, keyboard (chiclet vs...)
Future proofing a machine is futile... find your sweetspot or bang-for-buck in terms of factory bits you can't upgrade - CPU/GPU/VRAM/Optical/HDD (if MBP) and spend the savings versus spec whore impulse on RAM and externals... 2nd screen, external drives, accessories, etc...
Don't be afraid to ask lots of questions.
We try to help. Mostly. Some of us stoop to mocking at times, but we're mostly helpful. ;)
Some of us stoop to mocking at times, but we're mostly helpful. ;)
amen to that!:\
I just hate having to replace computers, no matter how outdated they are. I guess I just get attached to my comps once I get the programs and the files and the settings just how I like em. Like someone else said, Migration Assistant.
Coming from a Windows past, I was highly skeptical, and didn't use it. Until this february.
During christmas break I made myself a Hackintosh. It worked pretty well, but in the end I ordered a Mac Pro.
I took out the harddrive from the Hackintosh, put it in the Mac Pro, used Migration Assistant to import my stuff, and what happened...?
It was like I was still using the same computer.
All my software was copied, my user profile was copied, background picture was the same, all the crud on my desktop was still there. Everything Just Worked (tm). I was floored.
AFAICT, some people have used Migration Assistant many times, not having problems.
It takes the pain out of upgrading. Or sidegrading, like swapping the desktop for a laptop.
Well, since the new iMacs came out, I've been weighing and re-weighing my options. At first, I thought I would still wait it out 'til June for the new Macbooks to come out and then decide between the iMac and Macbook, but I think I'm going to go ahead and get the 24" 2.8GHz iMac. Besides the fact that I'm tired of using my crappy work laptop as my temporary, the main reason I picked the iMac is the screen space, as many of you mentioned. I decided I'd rather have the clean iMac with 24" screen, than a laptop hooked up to an old, bulky, 20" monitor. And if I still feel like I really need the portability, I can just buy a cheap laptop later to cover my portability needs.
So now, I'm looking at the different deals on the iMacs. MacMall has a ridiculous deal on the new iMacs right now. $1794 - $100 rebate = $1694 for the 24" 2.8GHz iMac. And if you also buy Parallels and/or a printer, you can get 'em free after mail in rebates. UPS ground shipping is also free after rebate. Unfortunately, tax for me is about $150 (plus an $8 CA recycling fee) bumpin it up to about $1850 (I think it's tax free for residents outside of CA). But even with the free Parallels and printer, I'd rather buy from Amazon for $1794 with $100 rebate, no tax and free shipping = $1694 total. Then I can use that 150 I would've paid on tax at MacMall, and upgrade the RAM.
But anyway, I wanna thank everyone for their great advice and hopefully, in a few weeks, I'll be bugging you guys on how to set up my iMac (just kidding, I hope it'll be self-explanatory).
Well, since the new iMacs came out, I've been weighing and re-weighing my options. At first, I thought I would still wait it out 'til June for the new Macbooks to come out and then decide between the iMac and Macbook, but I think I'm going to go ahead and get the 24" 2.8GHz iMac. Besides the fact that I'm tired of using my crappy work laptop as my temporary, the main reason I picked the iMac is the screen space, as many of you mentioned. I decided I'd rather have the clean iMac with 24" screen, than a laptop hooked up to an old, bulky, 20" monitor. And if I still feel like I really need the portability, I can just buy a cheap laptop later to cover my portability needs.
Yup. In fact, there's a whole category of really small notebooks that are starting to pop up, called companion machines. Unlike bulkier notebooks, or really expensive subnotebooks, these companion machines aren't trying to be one's primary computer. They take out things like optical drives (and sometimes hard drives!) that people don't usually need on the go, using lighter, more durable flash memory instead. They also have much smaller screens - 7-9" is the norm - which means they're both supersmall (about two pounds) and supercheap ($299 and up). They usually run Linux, which keeps the costs down, or Windows XP, which keeps the hardware requirements down. They're perfect for typing, web browsing, and doing other low-power tasks, which is all that most people do on the go anyway.
The 2-pound, 7-inch "Eee" starts at $299. If you'd like a bit more of a "real" notebook, the 3-pound, 9-inch "HP Mini" starts at $499, and is available with a more RAM, a faster processor and a real hard drive from $549. Yes, for that price you could get a clunky Dell Inspiron that weighs twice as much and gets horrible battery life, but you'd be carrying around a bunch of stuff that - since you have a full computer at home - you probably won't need on the go. Companion machines are a great and cheap way to do low-power tasks on the go without the hassle of keeping two full systems in sync. (And the HP Mini matches the iMac nicely. :p)
So now, I'm looking at the different deals on the iMacs. MacMall has a ridiculous deal on the new iMacs right now. $1794 - $100 rebate = $1694 for the 24" 2.8GHz iMac. And if you also buy Parallels and/or a printer, you can get 'em free after mail in rebates. UPS ground shipping is also free after rebate. Unfortunately, tax for me is about $150 (plus an $8 CA recycling fee) bumpin it up to about $1850 (I think it's tax free for residents outside of CA). But even with the free Parallels and printer, I'd rather buy from Amazon for $1794 with $100 rebate, no tax and free shipping = $1694 total. Then I can use that 150 I would've paid on tax at MacMall, and upgrade the RAM.Just so you know, MacMall and Amazon pretty much always do those deals, so don't feel pressured into buying one sooner just because they have deals "right now." :)
But anyway, I wanna thank everyone for their great advice and hopefully, in a few weeks, I'll be bugging you guys on how to set up my iMac (just kidding, I hope it'll be self-explanatory).Don't worry, it is. And if you have any questions, you know where to find us. :p We actually have a special forum, Genius Bar, just for tech support, and there's plenty of knowledgeable people here who are happy to help. (Just be sure to read the Genius Bar FAQs first!) Apple.com also has literally hundreds of video walkthroughs to show you how to get started using OS X and iLife.
Enjoy your new Mac! :)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.