Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

With computer forums largely populated by techies, tho, it's natural a goodly proportion don't cotton to the 'good enuff' solution.

Except that I'm a "techie" and my MacBook Pro is plenty fast for everything I do. Most of the things "techies" do don't require a quad-core processor. It is the creative people that require the top of the line technology.

Seriously, text editors, IDEs, compilers, SFTP, SlingPlayer, iTunes, iChat, Pages, Keynote, Email, my web browser, and even VMWare don't need that much horsepower.

This idea that Apple's products (like the iMac) should have a quad-core processor just because one is available don't really fly.

I agree that there are some people that want more but good enough should not be used in a derogatory manner. Good enough means that it does what you need it to do. Should it be more than enough? Should we have processors that suck down more power just because we want to know that our computers could do more if we wanted them to?

"Good Enough" should be derogatory when you are referring to an ultra premium priced computer. At $2300 an iMac should be much more than simply good enough.
On the other hand "good enough" can be a good thing. My wife's $300 eMachine is good enough for what she needs. "Good Enough" is what you settle for when you can't afford excellent.
If I spend $2000+ for a computer I expect excellence. Apple fails to deliver that.

And again, back to Czach's point, you are getting more than simply the sum of the processor, memory, and video card when you buy a Mac. The fact that you can't see that is what prevents you from seeing any value in a $2300 iMac. That machine has specs that are waaayyyy beyond my MacBook Pro and I paid even more for my MacBook Pro and it is waaayyy more than "good enough."

And again, back to Czach's point, you are getting more than simply the sum of the processor, memory, and video card when you buy a Mac.

So... what exactly *IS* this mystical thing that we are supposedly getting that is more than the sum of it's parts?

I'll answer that for you. It's called your imagination. It's the shiny Apple logo and that slick advertising campaign that's got you seeing things. Really. I know it because I'm in advertising.

The real user experience of a Mac is the software, not the hardware. It's OS X and all the other programs that we've come to love.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they release this EFiX thing and it works perfectly without a hitch, including the OS update process... ie; it works just like it does on a Mac. If I built a PC inside of a Mac Pro case, threw OS X on it... in the course of your daily usage, you would never even notice that it wasn't a real Mac. I guess there may be a few minor differences like the keyboard opens the CD drive door. But big deal.

The only thing that makes Macs better than PCs is the software (OS X, etc). The hardware is largely irrelevant, except to the most demanding of users.

And except for the cost, of course

I did exactly that (with a G5 case) and the keyboard still opens the CD drive door (I also have an Apple Keyboard).  I don't have a startup chime, though.

Well I stand corrected then

thumbprint wrote:

And again, back to Czach's point, you are getting more than simply the sum of the processor, memory, and video card when you buy a Mac.

So... what exactly *IS* this mystical thing that we are supposedly getting that is more than the sum of it's parts?

I'll answer that for you. It's called your imagination. It's the shiny Apple logo and that slick advertising campaign that's got you seeing things. Really. I know it because I'm in advertising.

The real user experience of a Mac is the software, not the hardware. It's OS X and all the other programs that we've come to love.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they release this EFiX thing and it works perfectly without a hitch, including the OS update process... ie; it works just like it does on a Mac. If I built a PC inside of a Mac Pro case, threw OS X on it... in the course of your daily usage, you would never even notice that it wasn't a real Mac. I guess there may be a few minor differences like the keyboard opens the CD drive door. But big deal.

The only thing that makes Macs better than PCs is the software (OS X, etc). The hardware is largely irrelevant, except to the most demanding of users.

And except for the cost, of course

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are flat out wrong here. First of all, let's look at the iMac or better yet the MacBook Pro, since that is what I have. This machine is way more than simply a random case with PC parts and an Apple logo. This thing is very well engineered. I just had it open this weekend installing a larger capacity hard drive and it is very well made. Forget about the software for a minute. Show me the PC laptop that is built this well and costs way less. This machine is beautiful, inside and out. While we're at it, show me the AIO PC that is as nice as an iMac. How about the MacBook Air? The AirPort Extreme base station? Time Capsule? Bluetooth keyboard? iPhone?

These products aren't just thrown together. There is a lot of thought and hard work that goes into making exceptional products. So please drop the condescending bullsmurf about you being able to sell me anything. What are some of the products that you've developed these so-called magical advertising campaigns for? Please illuminate me on how you could sell me something that wasn't worth the price I was paying.

ScifiterX wrote:

And to expand on what he's saying slightly. There something to be said about a computer designed in such a way that in the process of putting in a new part you don't have to search amongst a nest of wires inside and fear leaving one loose or disconnected during reassembly.

After opening and closing my MacBook Pro to install the new drive this weekend I am even more amazed at the fit and finish of this computer.

Bat wrote:

You find the iMac and its ilk more than sufficient to your needs. That ignores one of the more plebeian, yet common activities home comps are used for: gaming. The young, the student, do a great deal of this, and even overall it is the next most common activity after the related ones of browsing and e-commerce. You likely don't game, but the iMac's core demographic does... however, the dearth of current OSX games and lack of iMac graphics prowess keep many away from gaming on the Mac.



Now... I believe you were addressing the needs of enthusiasts and the superiority of Apple. For a significant family of apps, Macs seem at least 'waaayyy less' than the best, or even perhaps not good enough.

Macs are not gaming machines, sorry. And I do game, I just do it on a Ninteno Wii and DS. Anyone that is serious about gaming on a home computer should not buy a Mac and I would tell them that straight up. And the hardware really wouldn't be the primary reason. It would be for lack of software titles. The Mac simply still has not caught up in this arena so to make this very long argument about how the Mac hardware is not the best for gaming misses the larger picture.

As far as your last line I think you are pushing the limits of your argument a bit too far with the claim of a "significant family of apps" unless you mean that games make up that significant family. I concede that point but even if Macs came with the best gaming hardware options there still wouldn't be a lot of games to play.

Also, I never claim that the iMac will suit everyone's needs. But no machine can or should. There are some people that there is not a Mac in the current lineup that will suit there needs. However, this number is nowhere near as large as some make it seem. If it were then there really isn't any way that Apple would be selling so many damn machines over the past couple of years. The lineup of machines hasn't changed recently and yet their market share increases every quarter.

Frank

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

You find the iMac and its ilk more than sufficient to your needs. That ignores one of the more plebeian, yet common activities home comps are used for: gaming. The young, the student, do a great deal of this, and even overall it is the next most common activity after the related ones of browsing and e-commerce. You likely don't game, but the iMac's core demographic does... however, the dearth of current OSX games and lack of iMac graphics prowess keep many away from gaming on the Mac.



Now... I believe you were addressing the needs of enthusiasts and the superiority of Apple. For a significant family of apps, Macs seem at least 'waaayyy less' than the best, or even perhaps not good enough.

Macs are not gaming machines, sorry.

You need not apologize, but Apple should. I must reiterate, gaming is the #1 activity on the PC (of whatever make) after browsing/e-commerce. Many do game on the Mac, diehards who struggle needlessly to make their choice of brand work. It should be supported, not left to languish.

And I do game, I just do it on a Ninteno Wii and DS. Anyone that is serious about gaming on a home computer should not buy a Mac and I would tell them that straight up. And the hardware really wouldn't be the primary reason. It would be for lack of software titles. The Mac simply still has not caught up in this arena so to make this very long argument about how the Mac hardware is not the best for gaming misses the larger picture.

The larger picture- and those who know me know this is a specialty of mine- is that the issue is circular. Apple's lack of support in multiple ways, from hardware to dev support and more, is a large part of why the Mac is not a good gaming platform, recent improvements (Intel, Boot Camp) notwithstanding. And it's downright sad Apple's left the best gaming option to be the OS its loyalists have grown, even been encouraged, to hate. Boot Camp seems a tacit admission by Apple that gaming is not, will never be, well supported on the Mac. Component, esp. videocard, upgrades are a significant part of that. And if you can't upgrade, for heaven's sake at least offer some better, current BTO options- settling for last gen chips because the manus are dumping them at clearance prices is a poor excuse with Apple doing well and $18B in the bank. Before his blog page went away, Brad Oliver wrote that Apple's gaming dev support had shrunk to perhaps himself and 1-2 other engineers. Boot Camp shot Mac game devs thru the vitals, and those that still survive have had to diversify to survive.

As far as your last line I think you are pushing the limits of your argument a bit too far with the claim of a "significant family of apps" unless you mean that games make up that significant family. I concede that point but even if Macs came with the best gaming hardware options there still wouldn't be a lot of games to play.

Stream computing is in its early stages, but coming on strong. Both ATi/NV and Intel are doing it, tho with different approaches that suit them (GP-GPU from the grfx makers, Intel's Larrabee with its many parallel x86 cores to handle both the usual tasks, and graphics).

The first hint of graphics cards doing something "more than 3D" was with the introduction of video acceleration. It started out simple, with partial decoding of MPEG video, moving gradually into full acceleration of the MPEG2 used in DVDs, and today is quite robust. Modern graphics cards accelerate much of the decoding steps required for sophisticated codecs like VC-1 and H.264 (both used in Blu-ray movies), along with de-interlacing, noise reduction, dynamic contrast control, and more. Much of this work is done in dedicated video hardware on the GPU.

The release of DirectX 10, with unified vertex/pixel/geometry shaders and stream-out functions brought with it a class of hardware that is more flexible, and more easily able to handle other computing tasks. Research into using the powerful parallel processing of GPUs has been going on for years. They call it "GP-GPU," for general-purpose computing on a GPU, and it's about ready for the mainstream. Here's some of what you can look forward to.
...
The Current Market: CUDA and Stream SDK
Today, there are two major competing standards for GP-GPU development, essentially. CUDA is Nvidia's "Compute Unified Device Architecture," a programming model based on C that uses a CUDA driver (distributed with Nvidia's graphics drivers) to process and execute the code on Nvidia's GPUs. CUDA is supported on all GeForce 8-, 9-, and GTX200-series cards, and is tied fairly closely to Nvidia's GPU architecture. It should be possible to make CUDA drivers for other hardware, but it would probably be sub-optimal, and there may be a legal minefield to navigate.

A day later

So what is AMD/ATI's take on all this? I spoke with Senior PR manager Rob Keosheyan at AMD, and he had plenty to say about the situation. Open industry standards are extremely important to AMD as a company, and they feel that GP-GPU work should be no different. It's working hard only on its own StreamSDK and Brook+, but with the Kronos group on OpenCL, where it sees the real future.

Btw, GPUs have extreme FP prf. A $200 HD4850 can do a TFLOP.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 … 316,00.asp

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2 … 555,00.asp

In addition, good graphics perf affects much more than games.

A collective howl went up in the Mac Pro User community when the optional GeForce 8800 GT performed Core Image intensive tasks slower than the stock Radeon HD 2600 XT. "I paid $300 to go slower?" The release of Mac OS X 10.5.3 did improve the GeForce 8800's performance but only to bring it up even to the Core Image performance of the Radeon 2600.

But on June 12th, ATI announced their Core Image "savior": The Radeon HD 3870 Mac & PC Edition. It is compatible with ALL models of Mac Pro and costs only $219. In this initial report, we demonstrate the Core Image performance compared to the alternatives on both the "Harpertown" and "Clovertown" versions of the Mac Pro.

http://www.barefeats.com/harper16.html

The 3870 is being phased out on the PC side. It has 320 stream processors (formerly called shaders). It significantly beats the 8800 on Core Image; imagine what the 800 SPs of the 4850/70 could do for CI. And a dual-chip 4870X2 is in the offing. The 4870 is also the first to use the new quad-rate GDDR5 VRAM... support just the 4870 and watch Core image scream.

Also, I never claim that the iMac will suit everyone's needs. But no machine can or should. There are some people that there is not a Mac in the current lineup that will suit there needs. However, this number is nowhere near as large as some make it seem. [..]

Frank

On the contrary, if Apple got behind gaming, genuinely supported it with just one mid-priced model and some dev support beyond iPhone games done in-house, I'd bet on a significant market expansion. Make gaming on the Mac 'cool' like in the mid-90's Marathon days and watch the happiness and sales grow. Sadly this doesn't fit the appliance and multimedia focus increasingly evident.

Every Mac gamer remembers how Halo debuted at MWNY '99, and how MS, wanting a launch title like that for Xbox, bought Bungie less than a year later. They still smart, regarding the game as somehow 'stolen' from them... and there is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Steve offered to buy Bungie, but was a few days too late. His Jobsness was livid, the story goes, but too late, threats aside. Fait accompli.

thumbprint wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are flat out wrong here. First of all, let's look at the iMac or better yet the MacBook Pro, since that is what I have. This machine is way more than simply a random case with PC parts and an Apple logo. This thing is very well engineered. I just had it open this weekend installing a larger capacity hard drive and it is very well made. Forget about the software for a minute. Show me the PC laptop that is built this well and costs way less. This machine is beautiful, inside and out. While we're at it, show me the AIO PC that is as nice as an iMac. How about the MacBook Air? The AirPort Extreme base station? Time Capsule? Bluetooth keyboard? iPhone?

These products aren't just thrown together. There is a lot of thought and hard work that goes into making exceptional products. So please drop the condescending bullsmurf about you being able to sell me anything. What are some of the products that you've developed these so-called magical advertising campaigns for? Please illuminate me on how you could sell me something that wasn't worth the price I was paying.

So the "more than the sum of it's parts" you were talking about is that the machine is "very well engineered". Ok, I'll give you that. They are very easy to upgrade and  work with when you crack them open. Which is what... one hour of time per year maybe? The extra 25+% price tag isn't worth the 5 minutes it saves us in under-the-hood time each year.

So when you go to install that Apple-branded RAM chip (which, by the way, costs literally twice as much as a comparable RAM chip from another vendor such as OWC), it'll take 30 seconds less time to do so.

I'm not trying to say that Macs suck... they don't... I've loved them for the 15 years I've been using them. I'm trying to say that they cost "waaaayyyyy" more than they're actually worth.

I'm sorry if I came across harshly and condescendingly when talking about advertising. But the fact remains... every single one of us is affected by advertising much more than we are aware. I'm not trying to flaunt my advertising skills... the people who work for Apple are much better than I'll ever be. And I don't need to enlighten you on anything... all you need to do is think about whether the aesthetics and good engineering of Macs is really worth the extra $500+ you pay for them.

I guess the bottom line is... it's your money, waste it however you like 500 bucks is a lot of money to some of us.

A few observations and comments:

1) Thanks for pointing out that you weren't trying to come across harshly. Often times it is easy to read tone into something. I appreciate the clarification.

2) When I said it is more than the sum of its parts I was responding to the comments that seem to say that all we should be looking at is the processor, memory, graphics, etc. and not taking into consideration the total package of how those components are assembled, work together, the case itself, and other components. This isn't just about the OS. It is about the hardware itself. It is nicer and better built than the cheapo PCs that are sold. There are some nice PCs but they aren't sold for significantly less than a Mac with similar specs.

3) When I talked about the engineering I was not talking about how easy it was to open and close back up. If that were all then you would be right, saving 5 minutes wouldn't be worth it. I was mentioning it in the context of how well built, how solid the Macs are compared to other computers. It is a well engineered machine and this will have a direct correlation to longevity and other things that are important to me.

4) I buy my RAM from OWC and Apple doesn't make their own RAM. Your comment is a red herring since you ignored the 10 Apple made items that I did mention and pulled RAM out of the air.

5) I don't think they cost waaayyyy more than they are worth. Again, spec out a PC comparably and let's see how much it costs and what the case, components, etc. look like.

6) Sure, $500 is a lot of money. However, I don't agree that Macs in general cost $500 more than a PC with comparable specs. Having said that, for me personally, I would pay $500 more for a Mac even if the PC had the same specs. It isn't worth the potential headache and waste of time to get the PC working with OS X. With the amount of money I make my time is worth much more than that. For example, I just bought a $400 Fujitsu scanner because it is going to save me a ton of time vs. scanning with my current flatbed scanner. That $400 is money well spent if I can save that much time.

Frank

Farmerkev wrote:

frankly wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

And to expand on what he's saying slightly. There something to be said about a computer designed in such a way that in the process of putting in a new part you don't have to search amongst a nest of wires inside and fear leaving one loose or disconnected during reassembly.

After opening and closing my MacBook Pro to install the new drive this weekend I am even more amazed at the fit and finish of this computer.

The slide in drives in my octo are even more impressive.
Hell, the whole box blows you away.

Link?

Farmerkev wrote:

frankly wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The slide in drives in my octo are even more impressive.
Hell, the whole box blows you away.

Link?

Um, Apple.com

Sorry, hadn't heard the nickname octo for the Mac Pro. You got me, LOL

You're right, those are quite nice. However, I wasn't really referring to the ease with which the case opened or the drive installed. Instead, I was referring to how well made the entire computer is. When you open the case you really get a good idea of how nice it is.

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Except that I'm a "techie" and my MacBook Pro is plenty fast for everything I do. Most of the things "techies" do don't require a quad-core processor. It is the creative people that require the top of the line technology.

Seriously, text editors, IDEs, compilers, SFTP, SlingPlayer, iTunes, iChat, Pages, Keynote, Email, my web browser, and even VMWare don't need that much horsepower.

This idea that Apple's products (like the iMac) should have a quad-core processor just because one is available don't really fly.

I agree that there are some people that want more but good enough should not be used in a derogatory manner. Good enough means that it does what you need it to do. Should it be more than enough? Should we have processors that suck down more power just because we want to know that our computers could do more if we wanted them to?

"Good Enough" should be derogatory when you are referring to an ultra premium priced computer. At $2300 an iMac should be much more than simply good enough.
On the other hand "good enough" can be a good thing. My wife's $300 eMachine is good enough for what she needs. "Good Enough" is what you settle for when you can't afford excellent.
If I spend $2000+ for a computer I expect excellence. Apple fails to deliver that.

And again, back to Czach's point, you are getting more than simply the sum of the processor, memory, and video card when you buy a Mac. The fact that you can't see that is what prevents you from seeing any value in a $2300 iMac. That machine has specs that are waaayyyy beyond my MacBook Pro and I paid even more for my MacBook Pro and it is waaayyy more than "good enough."

Pardon me for not being particularly susceptible to marking bull smurf, which is exactly what the "sum is greater than it's parts" line is.
In an AIO design the sum is less than the sum of it's parts.
I have had two Mac AIOs. A 5215/75 and a G3 AIO (the molar Mac). In each case the value of the package was less than the potential of it's parts. The problem is the packaging of two systems which has often vastly different lifespans. My 5215's MoBo went bad while the screen was still in perfect working order and still relatively current technology and the G3's screen went bad while the computer itself was still working perfectly and still had useful life in it.
Forget about upgrading or expandability or any of the other things that make AIOs smurfy. Simply cobbling together the computer with a screen in and of itself reduces the value of the total package.

I would like you to explain, specifically, what wonderful mojo someone using an iMac gets to enjoy that someone using a Mac Pro would miss out on. I keep seeing the assertion that somehow an iMac delivers a very special "experience" yet what that is is never really explained. What is this magic that the new iMac dilivers that somehow obviates the smurfy experience that prior AIOs delivered?
Or all other Macs for that matter.
Because one thing is for sure, relative to currently shipping desktop CPUs, laptop CPUs are still every bit as far behind at any given price point as they always have been, if not more with the advent of mainstream, consumer oriented quads.

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

"Good Enough" should be derogatory when you are referring to an ultra premium priced computer. At $2300 an iMac should be much more than simply good enough.
On the other hand "good enough" can be a good thing. My wife's $300 eMachine is good enough for what she needs. "Good Enough" is what you settle for when you can't afford excellent.
If I spend $2000+ for a computer I expect excellence. Apple fails to deliver that.

And again, back to Czach's point, you are getting more than simply the sum of the processor, memory, and video card when you buy a Mac. The fact that you can't see that is what prevents you from seeing any value in a $2300 iMac. That machine has specs that are waaayyyy beyond my MacBook Pro and I paid even more for my MacBook Pro and it is waaayyy more than "good enough."

Pardon me for not being particularly susceptible to marking bull smurf, which is exactly what the "sum is greater than it's parts" line is.
In an AIO design the sum is less than the sum of it's parts.
I have had two Mac AIOs. A 5215/75 and a G3 AIO (the molar Mac). In each case the value of the package was less than the potential of it's parts. The problem is the packaging of two systems which has often vastly different lifespans. My 5215's MoBo went bad while the screen was still in perfect working order and still relatively current technology and the G3's screen went bad while the computer itself was still working perfectly and still had useful life in it.
Forget about upgrading or expandability or any of the other things that make AIOs smurfy. Simply cobbling together the computer with a screen in and of itself reduces the value of the total package.

I would like you to explain, specifically, what wonderful mojo someone using an iMac gets to enjoy that someone using a Mac Pro would miss out on. I keep seeing the assertion that somehow an iMac delivers a very special "experience" yet what that is is never really explained. What is this magic that the new iMac dilivers that somehow obviates the smurfy experience that prior AIOs delivered?
Or all other Macs for that matter.
Because one thing is for sure, relative to currently shipping desktop CPUs, laptop CPUs are still every bit as far behind at any given price point as they always have been, if not more with the advent of mainstream, consumer oriented quads.

For answer see the post directly above yours. You are completely incapable of understanding that everyone else in the world does NOT use their computer in the exact same way or environment that you do. Until you can see outside of your own little world you will never get it, no matter how much I explain it to you so I won't waste my time.

It makes me tired just to think about participatin in your debate which is obviously going nowhere, but I'm with Pariah & co, and am not satisfied with Apple's hardware offering as I do 3D graphics.