Apple really are taking the p*ss out of PCs now

[itszamora]

Just feast your eyes upon the new iMac G5

http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Never mind all that. Does it come with ringtones for GOSBTS?

 

[Max's Dad]

I don't get the affection some people have for Macs. I've worked with them for the past 10 years and my system crashes at least twice a day. Ihe latest model I use is a brand new Imac and its interface is about as friendly as a Bosnian war criminal.

However I've worked with the evil, snarling Windows PC for about the same length of time and, viruses aside, have never had any sort of problem with the hardware. XP makes my Mac look about as sophisticated as a Simon game.

 

[Cian]

How can they be "taking the piss out of PC's" - they don't make a PC and haven't since 1996 when the 7200PC was discontinued.

They make overpriced, underpowered machines locked into the one OS. An OS thats has a violently over sweetened interface.

The 7200PC was "PC-Compatible"; it had a 133Mhz Cyrix 6x86 CPU and could run DOS and Windows (at the least, I think Linux and BeOS worked as well).

The recent machines are jokes, pure and simple.

 

[Wozza]

Impressive that they've squeezed everything in... but I don't think it looks that good.

 

[Dyson]

How can they be "taking the piss out of PC's" - they don't make a PC and haven't since 1996 when the 7200PC was discontinued.

a PC is a Personal computer, thats what apple make.

They make overpriced, underpowered machines locked into the one OS. An OS thats has a violently over sweetened interface.

you pay for what you get, and what are they underpowered for? the G5 is for the most part a far better performer than the P4, the interface is great and smooth as hell (being acelerated by the graphics card), the windowing system sits atop the a rock solid unix that has tools and flexability that just don't come with windows. MYOB but you haven't got a scooby what your talking about.

 

[Cian]

a PC is a Personal computer, thats what apple make.

A PC is a trademark of IBM to refer to a computer that can execute the 8088 instruction set. The 4400/7200PC and some earlier Mac's could. No new ones can

you pay for what you get, and what are they underpowered for? the G5 is for the most part a far better performer than the P4, the interface is great and smooth as hell (being acelerated by the graphics card), the windowing system sits atop the a rock solid unix that has tools and flexability that just don't come with windows. MYOB but you haven't got a scooby what your talking about.

I use a "rock solid UNIX" here on an x86. That doesn't use an X based windowing system. I own a number of Macintosh machines. I've used more CPU architechtures than everyone here added together, and the same would apply for operating systems.

I also work on an operating system and the kernel level,

I think I do know what I'm talking about when I say the OSX interface is repulsive and the machines are overpriced and underpowerd.

And I definately know what I'm saying when I say that the "Power Architechture is faster than Intel at the same speed" is completely untrue. My 180Mhz PPC cannot play an MPEG video, at all. My 166Mhz Intel can play them with ease. Under an apparently worse OS (Windows 98) than the Mac (System 9)

 

[Dyson]

quote:
Originally posted by Dyson
a PC is a Personal computer, thats what apple make.



A PC is a trademark of IBM to refer to a computer that can execute the 8088 instruction set. The 4400/7200PC and some earlier Mac's could. No new ones can


quote:
Originally posted by Dyson
you pay for what you get, and what are they underpowered for? the G5 is for the most part a far better performer than the P4, the interface is great and smooth as hell (being acelerated by the graphics card), the windowing system sits atop the a rock solid unix that has tools and flexability that just don't come with windows. MYOB but you haven't got a scooby what your talking about.


I use a "rock solid UNIX" here on an x86. That doesn't use an X based windowing system. I own a number of Macintosh machines. I've used more CPU architechtures than everyone here added together, and the same would apply for operating systems.

I also work on an operating system and the kernel level,

I think I do know what I'm talking about when I say the OSX interface is repulsive and the machines are overpriced and underpowerd.

And I definately know what I'm saying when I say that the "Power Architechture is faster than Intel at the same speed" is completely untrue. My 180Mhz PPC cannot play an MPEG video, at all. My 166Mhz Intel can play them with ease. Under an apparently worse OS (Windows 98) than the Mac (System 9)

I'm glad you think you know what you are talking about, although you do seem to have a lack of objectivity on the subject which promted me to reply in the first place.

 

[itszamora]

Whether or not you are pro or anti-Mac (and most people seem to be vehemently one or the other), the fact that this time last year a Power Mac G5 needed NINE fans to cool it makes it a pretty impressive achievement that they have now managed to fit the same processor into something so small (it's less than two inches thick FFS!).

And yes I do love Macs

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

this time last year a Power Mac G5 needed NINE fans to cool it makes it a pretty impressive achievement that they have now managed to fit the same processor into something so small (it's less than two inches thick FFS!).

Does that mean it's far more likely to burst into flames?

 

[itszamora]

Does that mean it's far more likely to burst into flames?

Hopefully not, though the laptops they make do have a tendency to get rather warm after a while, in fact actually using one on your lap for an extended period of time can become rather painful!

 

[London Calling]

i have a mac laptop the missus wanted one, despite mainly using microsoft office on it.

i find it annoying for my work, which is getting funds from the govt etc,

since their application forms are rarely mac compatiable.


Basically i still know **** all about mac systems

 

[Lush]

A PC is a trademark of IBM to refer to a computer that can execute the 8088 instruction set. The 4400/7200PC and some earlier Mac's could. No new ones can



I use a "rock solid UNIX" here on an x86. That doesn't use an X based windowing system. I own a number of Macintosh machines. I've used more CPU architechtures than everyone here added together, and the same would apply for operating systems.

I also work on an operating system and the kernel level,

I think I do know what I'm talking about when I say the OSX interface is repulsive and the machines are overpriced and underpowerd.

And I definately know what I'm saying when I say that the "Power Architechture is faster than Intel at the same speed" is completely untrue. My 180Mhz PPC cannot play an MPEG video, at all. My 166Mhz Intel can play them with ease. Under an apparently worse OS (Windows 98) than the Mac (System 9)

I have no idea what ANY of this means.

I love my iMac. It's one of those screen on a pole ones.

 

[Kryten]

A PC is a trademark of IBM to refer to a computer that can execute the 8088 instruction set. The 4400/7200PC and some earlier Mac's could. No new ones can



I use a "rock solid UNIX" here on an x86. That doesn't use an X based windowing system. I own a number of Macintosh machines. I've used more CPU architechtures than everyone here added together, and the same would apply for operating systems.

I also work on an operating system and the kernel level,

I think I do know what I'm talking about when I say the OSX interface is repulsive and the machines are overpriced and underpowerd.

And I definately know what I'm saying when I say that the "Power Architechture is faster than Intel at the same speed" is completely untrue. My 180Mhz PPC cannot play an MPEG video, at all. My 166Mhz Intel can play them with ease. Under an apparently worse OS (Windows 98) than the Mac (System 9)

yes, i fully understood all that, and i totally agree.

 

[US Seagull]

Really the Mac is wonderful, so long as you don't want to do anything other than admire it as a piece of modern art. Because it's f***ing useless for anything else.
Hardware doesn't mean a thing without software support.

BTW, what do you do with that nifty Mac in the original link when the monitor packs up? Or when you decide you need an extra hard drive? Or if you decide you want two CD drives (one writer, one reader) so you can copy disc without farting around?

Now this is a cool computer:
http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/DHD/dhd_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-DHD303&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
And a steal at just under $7,000 but you can hang it on your wall FFS

 

[itszamora]

Really the Mac is wonderful, so long as you don't want to do anything other than admire it as a piece of modern art. Because it's f***ing useless for anything else.
Hardware doesn't mean a thing without software support.

BTW, what do you do with that nifty Mac in the original link when the monitor packs up? Or when you decide you need an extra hard drive? Or if you decide you want two CD drives (one writer, one reader) so you can copy disc without farting around?

Now this is a cool computer:
http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/DHD/dhd_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-DHD303&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
And a steal at just under $7,000 but you can hang it on your wall FFS

Your post is actually total bollocks. Macs "f***ing useless for anything else"? Aside from bog-standard tasks such as wordprocessing for which Microsoft Office is available, you can use Macs to do all manner of other far cooler things (like make films, mix music, design 3D graphics etc) and do them generally better than windows-based systems; judging by the fact that most professionals in the aforementioned fields use Macs.

As for the answers to your other questions:

when the monitor packs up: get it repaired or plug a new one in. Or both, just because you can.
wanting 2 CD drives: plug another one in. No f***ing about with drivers, just plug it in and use it. Ditto for an extra hard drive.

 

[Cian]

I'm glad you think you know what you are talking about, although you do seem to have a lack of objectivity on the subject which promted me to reply in the first place.

I don't think I know what I'm talking about - I know I know what I'm talking about.

Apple make bad machines. Apple make an ugly OS, which is very very hard to programme for. I own Apple machines and I have programmed for them.

IBM made a relatively good architechture in Power, and didn't compromise it much in PowerPC. But Apple implement it badly, very very badly. Ever seen the errata list for Apple's OpenFirmware? Or the mess of code needed to even *boot* on a G1, 2 or 3 machine (Generation 1 and 2 weren't sold with those tm's, they were 601 and 603/4 respectively)

 

[itszamora]

I don't think I know what I'm talking about - I know I know what I'm talking about.

Apple make bad machines.

I don't pretend to understand the rest of your post after the quote (one of the advantages of owning a Mac - you don't need to know how it works, it just works) but I think many people disagree with that particular statement. As Dyson said you do seem rather biased. It is hardly taken as fact that 'Apple make bad machines' yet you contend that it is

Edit: I also happen to think that OS X is very pretty

 

[Cian]

It can be taken as a fact when you understand hardware. Their machines *suck*.

Compare the hardware of a G4 iMac to a G4 Amiga.

The Amiga has a good, bugfree OpenFirmware implementation written in C. Its easy to boot from

The iMac has a buggy-as-hell OpenFirmware implementation written in FORTH. Its close to impossible to boot from, hence the use of BootX to boot other OS's than OS-X.

The Amiga has a fast bus (300 I think)

The iMac has a slow bus (133 or so)

The Amiga has industry standard controllers - USB, PCI, AGP, DDR RAM

The iMac has USB and SDR RAM (outdated)

 

[US Seagull]

Your post is actually total bollocks. Macs "f***ing useless for anything else"? Aside from bog-standard tasks such as wordprocessing for which Microsoft Office is available

As it is on Windows PC, and it's always ahead of the Mac version. Plus there are the multitude of other options on the PC.

you can use Macs to do all manner of other far cooler things (like make films, mix music, design 3D graphics etc) and do them generally better than windows-based systems; judging by the fact that most professionals in the aforementioned fields use Macs.

All doable on a suitably equip PC with a far larger selection of software to chose from. What's more you can have your PC be as powerful / not powerful as you want / can afford. Certainly not true of Macs. If I don't want to make movies or mix music so why should I pay for power I won't use? And where are the latest games?

As for the answers to your other questions:

when the monitor packs up: get it repaired or plug a new one in.

Plug in a new one? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having the computer and monitor in one box in the first place?

wanting 2 CD drives: plug another one in. No f***ing about with drivers, just plug it in and use it. Ditto for an extra hard drive.

You don't need drivers for USB hard drives in windows either. I know I just converted one of my old internal drive into an external USB drive. Plug it in and away you go. In fact, according to the manual with the enclosure kit you need to download drivers for the Mac. Still doesn't change the fact that maybe I don't want to pay extra for external drives and I don't want the clutter of a bunch of external drives?

Why are you so excited about a computer that is basically a non-folding laptop?