Forums | MacLife

frankly · 2008-01-06 9:56 pm

Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
Pariah wrote:
2) Not so much stupid as being the sort who just picks from whats offered them. They wanted a Mac, Apple pretty much only makes AIOs. That simple.
The VAST majority of computer users couldn't tell a stick of ram from a video card.
If this is true then please tell me why these users would want an upgradeable tower.

vast |vast|
adjective
of very great extent or quantity; immense
It may be a majority but I don't think it's vast. But anyway, mainstream users still prefer towers for the following reasons (listed in order): Hardware value, no monitor tie-in, upgrade potential. I think the majority of users have upgraded/expanded at least one of their machines at some point, while maybe 40% do it routinely. In any case, most people generally at least want the potential to upgrade/expand/replace a faulty part, etc, even if they have no specific plans on using that capability. So to recap: Hardware value, monitor tie-in, expansion; in that order.

Sorry but my real world interaction with a broad spectrum of users does not jibe with that. You seem to be projecting your experience onto the majority. I simply don't think you have an accurate picture over what the majority of computer users consists of. Also, let's take it a step further, and point out that a huge number of computers are not owned by individuals but are instead used in businesses and computer labs, and I'm not talking about those for high-end graphics, etc. The vast majority of these machines are NEVER upgraded. That doesn't mean that a tower isn't the right choice in those situations. I'm just saying that you are making broad generalizations that don't seem to have a basis in reality. I'd say that the value and lack of monitor are good reasons to want a tower but that even in those situations a smaller form factor computer (Mac Mini, SFF PC, etc.) are a much better choice. Upgradeability is simply not needed in most cases and when it is I would estimate that the clear majority of upgrades would be RAM which can be upgraded in all machines that I am aware of.

Frank

frankly · 2008-01-06 10:01 pm

Mr. T wrote:
Right, and Zac and others on your side have said time and again that Apple is trying to change consumer's perception (what Pariah calls manipulation), and get them to buy something less than ideal hardware-wise (by driving them up the price scale, or alternatively hoping they at least settle for an iMac), for the benefit of the Mac OS and software. The theory (or the hope) is that the amount of money Apple makes by driving people up the price scale more than compensates for the lost sales.

Yep.

Here is the problem though. He never said that this is what was happening for everyone. There are a huge number of people that are buying the iMac because it is the perfect machine for them. The point of this discussion, in an attempt to bring you back to it again, is that you said that Pariah has NEVER told people that the iMac doesn't meet their needs when they think that it does. Please please please try to focus on what we are talking about in this particular exchange. You were wrong to say that we wouldn't like it if Pariah did that when he already has, many times.

Frank

Mr. T · 2008-01-06 10:41 pm

If an iMac didn't meet the needs of the people who bought it, they wouldn't have bought it. All Pariah's saying is that this choice is often a reluctant but acceptable one, when the strength of the software outweighs the degree of compromise (which will obviously vary from person-to person). For those who don't buy it, the degree of compromise is too great, and the choice is unacceptable. Yet there are those here are happy that Apple's making money, despite the lack of choice. I guess I'm happy as a shareholder, but it's not like a friggen' sports team or something.

Mr. T · 2008-01-06 10:42 pm

frankly wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:

If this is true then please tell me why these users would want an upgradeable tower.

vast |vast|
adjective
of very great extent or quantity; immense
It may be a majority but I don't think it's vast. But anyway, mainstream users still prefer towers for the following reasons (listed in order): Hardware value, no monitor tie-in, upgrade potential. I think the majority of users have upgraded/expanded at least one of their machines at some point, while maybe 40% do it routinely. In any case, most people generally at least want the potential to upgrade/expand/replace a faulty part, etc, even if they have no specific plans on using that capability. So to recap: Hardware value, monitor tie-in, expansion; in that order.
Sorry

I forgive you.

frankly · 2008-01-06 10:47 pm

Mr. T wrote:
If an iMac didn't meet the needs of the people who bought it, they wouldn't have bought it. All Pariah's saying is that this choice is often a reluctant but acceptable one, when the strength of the software outweighs the degree of compromise (which will obviously vary from person-to person). For those who don't buy it, the degree of compromise is too great, and the choice is unacceptable. Yet there are those here are happy that Apple's making money, despite the lack of choice. I guess I'm happy as a shareholder, but it's not like a friggen' sports team or something.

It is amazing that you can see so easily that for some the compromise is too great and yet you can not see at all that for some there is no compromise at all. Simply amazing.

Oh, and your response where you cut everything out of my reply except for the word sorry was really small of you. I think I feel sorry for you more than it bothered me actually.

Mr. T · 2008-01-06 10:49 pm

Czachorski wrote:
I expect that all few hundred thousand of you to keep the OSX86 stuff going. For the other 300 million of us, we will take a Mac, thank you.

It's more like 20 million total, 7 million for desktops, and maybe 5 million for the iMac, which is what we're really talking about. But anyway, us billion consumer tower owners don't give a damn about your iMacs!! tongue

Mr. T · 2008-01-06 11:16 pm

frankly wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
If an iMac didn't meet the needs of the people who bought it, they wouldn't have bought it. All Pariah's saying is that this choice is often a reluctant but acceptable one, when the strength of the software outweighs the degree of compromise (which will obviously vary from person-to person). For those who don't buy it, the degree of compromise is too great, and the choice is unacceptable. Yet there are those here are happy that Apple's making money, despite the lack of choice. I guess I'm happy as a shareholder, but it's not like a friggen' sports team or something.
It is amazing that you can see so easily that for some the compromise is too great and yet you can not see at all that for some there is no compromise at all. Simply amazing.

That's not what I'm saying. To clarify:

Mr. T wrote:
Czachorski wrote:
This is a hole. But not everyone who buys an iMac is settling for their Mac or taking it up their ass from Apple.
Many of the long-time Mac users are settling; other's needs are far enough away from either extreme, that staying would involve "taking it up the ass" - so they leave. But most of the newcomers aren't settling - Apple is simply targeting a different audience, and that's altered the composition of Apple's user base to one that is fairly forgiving of this hole. While this may or may not be a good thing for Apple, it definitely sucks for consumers. As someone who doesn't need or want a tower, I don't expect you to see it that way, but most PC users sure do!

Oh, and your response where you cut everything out of my reply except for the word sorry was really small of you. I think I feel sorry for you more than it bothered me actually.

I didn't mean it personally. You started going back into an argument that I've officially left. Why did I leave? Because this entire debate boils down to the section I quoted above. The only reason I'm still replying now is because you were beating up on Pariah before, for saying something that some of you guys have previously conceded, and are only now trying to switch gears.

Pariah · 2008-01-07 6:03 am

Czachorski wrote:
Pariah wrote:
Czachorski wrote:
It's easy to claim the iMac has a terrible cost per feature (value) when you completely discount the value of the screen, because you personally don't like AIO and the screen.
The built in screen certainly helps reduce the value. Especially if you already own a great monitor like I do. But it's the extremely expensive laptop internals that really screw the pooch.
Especially when you give it no value credit for form. Take away form, take away the screen, minimize the value of the software or end user experience, and then compute value to make your point. What a joke. What you are left with is value to you. Not value in general.

And if we are going to talk about value, you have to bring into the discussion the fact that the entire value that Apple brings is not hardware. It doesn't matter if their hardware alone is low value to you. It only matters if the total value they bring to their customers in hardware, software and user experience is better than or equal to their asking price for their customers.

It does, and that is the basis behind the statement that the iMac is ideal for most consumers. They are sick and tired of the old way of solving the equation - low price for a high value of hardware, but terrible software and user experiences. Now is a great time for Apple to make this play, and the consumers will be rewarded too because they are getting a better solution.

It sucks for you and people like you. I expect that all few hundred thousand of you to keep the OSX86 stuff going. For the other 300 million of us, we will take a Mac, thank you.

The software argument does not pertain because you get the Apple software advantage no matter what the form factor. So the factor in discussion is the hardware because the software would be the same no matter what.
The software is certainly a advantage but does not much mitigate the hardware disadvantage.
I think the thing is here you are a recent convert who is all enthused about this great new thing you stumbled upon. I have been using Apple's since the IIc so I see the superior software as being a given and perceive the severe reduction in hardware choice as being a loss over what we had been getting from Apple.
As I have said before Apple has always had pretty slick little AIOs so the iMac in one form or another has been around for 25 years. The difference now is that that's all they make for the desktop.
That's the real problem, people believing the iMac represents some sort of new concept when all it is is a new wrapper on a very old idea.
Riddle me this: Back when you switched Apple's AIOs were approximately in the same performance relationship to the towers they are now, yet you chose a tower. What was wrong with the AIO then that is not wrong with them now?

Last edited by Pariah (2008-01-07 6:25 am)

frankly · 2008-01-07 8:59 am

Pariah wrote:
Riddle me this: Back when you switched Apple's AIOs were approximately in the same performance relationship to the towers they are now, yet you chose a tower. What was wrong with the AIO then that is not wrong with them now?

This is part of the problem with your argument. You make up things that simply aren't true. Before the G5 and the switch to Intel the iMac and other AIO computers didn't have the level of specs (comparatively for the time) that the AIO computers have now. This does not mean that people like you aren't being left out. I feel bad that they don't have a machine that fits your needs. However, please stop trying to act like Apple has always had an AIO that was at the same level as the current models. It just isn't true. This goes for the current low end laptop, the MacBook, as well. Never in Apple's history has their bottom of the line laptop been as close to their top of the line model as it is now. The comparisons you are making just aren't true.

I'm not saying that the current iMac is equal to the tower in specs but I am saying that it is waaayyyy closer in performance than the AIO models have been over the years. This is true all the way back to the 68000 days. Until the G5 and Intel switch the AIO computer was a much lower performing machine.

This is just another example of revisionist history from you.

Frank

Pariah · 2008-01-07 4:36 pm

frankly wrote:
Pariah wrote:
Riddle me this: Back when you switched Apple's AIOs were approximately in the same performance relationship to the towers they are now, yet you chose a tower. What was wrong with the AIO then that is not wrong with them now?
This is part of the problem with your argument. You make up things that simply aren't true. Before the G5 and the switch to Intel the iMac and other AIO computers didn't have the level of specs (comparatively for the time) that the AIO computers have now. This does not mean that people like you aren't being left out. I feel bad that they don't have a machine that fits your needs. However, please stop trying to act like Apple has always had an AIO that was at the same level as the current models. It just isn't true. This goes for the current low end laptop, the MacBook, as well. Never in Apple's history has their bottom of the line laptop been as close to their top of the line model as it is now. The comparisons you are making just aren't true.

I'm not saying that the current iMac is equal to the tower in specs but I am saying that it is waaayyyy closer in performance than the AIO models have been over the years. This is true all the way back to the 68000 days. Until the G5 and Intel switch the AIO computer was a much lower performing machine.

This is just another example of revisionist history from you.

Frank

Franky you are just flat wrong.
For an example would be the way the 5xxx series AIOs scaled right along side the towers right up to at least 275mhz when they stopped making them.
The Original iMac was released at 233mhz and at the time the base G3 tower was a 266 and Apple had only dropped the 233 tower the month before the iMac was introduced.
Not to mention that the big G3 AIO paced the towers exactly.
In 2002 the iMac G4 could be had at 800mhz while concurrently Apple was selling the Quicksilver 867.
I could cite more examples but you get my drift.
Pretty much all along the AIOs shadowed the towers.
Heck, if anything the relationship has grown worse with the intel switch since Apple went to all quads in the pros.

volk · 2008-01-07 4:41 pm

Pariah, while your idea of "settling" has some merit at the onset, it doesn't hold up with real world use. Since most of your comments on Apple hardware and the lack of a consumer tower are purely annecdotal, allow me to add my annecdotal evidence to the mix.

A year ago, I was faced with the need for a new Mac. I was also faced with a dilemma of choices on which to buy. I ended up "settling" as you would say, for a 24" iMac. The problem is, it really wasn't "settling" at all. Are there compromises? Sure, but there are compromises with EVERY purchase, computer or otherwise.

Here's why I went with the iMac over a tower:

I am a power user. I do video work, hardcore audio work (I work in radio), and my wife is a graphic designer. I also enjoy some gaming. My previous computer was a fully loaded beige G3 266 Powermac. I spent a FORTUNE for it. Performance was impressive, expandibility was there, etc. I also sprang for the biggest, baddest monitor I could afford at the time, a 21" Viewsonic Graphics Series CRT. This was a great machine...in fact, it was useful far past what it should have been, and that's when the real world of "upgradeability" kind of let me down. I maxed out RAM, added an extra hard drive, and a CD burner during that time. I was left with a blazing fast OS 9 machine that was dog slow in OS X. The world of peripherals shifted to USB and Firewire...neither of which were available on this machine. I started thinking, why don't I upgrade this box. I could upgrade video, but the cards were rare and poorly supported. I could add USB and Firewire, but the cards were somewhat pricey, and you couldn't guarantee 100% compatibility. You could even throw in a poorly supported proc upgrade for big bucks. At the end of the day, the upgrades were more than the machine's worth, and I would have been left with a nicely outfitted, dog slow machine. I couldn't sell the machine for more than a few bucks, either.

Summary: IT WASN'T WORTH UPGRADING!

So, why the iMac? When I finally was able to put aside my geek lust and get honest about real world needs, the tower didn't make any sense at all. The iMac allowed all the hardware upgrading I really needed. Drives weren't an issue. RAM is fully upgradable. I can add external drives. Additionally, the 21" monitor had seen a decline over the years. I checked the tower, and with a new monitor, it couldn't touch the iMac in cost. Furthermore, the performance benchmarks for 90% of normal computer use showed a rather insignificant speed boost for the cost difference.

So I went with an iMac. High performance, beautiful display, compact, and easily expandible. I saved money, and have a machine that will hold me off until the next big feature that forces an upgrade, at which time, I can still get decent resale value out of this box. IMO, buying the iMac was a solid win.

Summary: What might appear to be "settling" has actually made alot of sense. I couldn't be happier with my iMac.

sturner · 2008-01-07 5:03 pm

I've lost track of what this thread is talking about.

So is Leopard the New Vista? Or are they just blowing smoke up my ass?

I think it's a peachy keen OS. Works for me.

Pariah · 2008-01-07 5:07 pm

volk wrote:
Pariah, while your idea of "settling" has some merit at the onset, it doesn't hold up with real world use. Since most of your comments on Apple hardware and the lack of a consumer tower are purely annecdotal, allow me to add my annecdotal evidence to the mix.

A year ago, I was faced with the need for a new Mac. I was also faced with a dilemma of choices on which to buy. I ended up "settling" as you would say, for a 24" iMac. The problem is, it really wasn't "settling" at all. Are there compromises? Sure, but there are compromises with EVERY purchase, computer or otherwise.

Here's why I went with the iMac over a tower:

I am a power user. I do video work, hardcore audio work (I work in radio), and my wife is a graphic designer. I also enjoy some gaming. My previous computer was a fully loaded beige G3 266 Powermac. I spent a FORTUNE for it. Performance was impressive, expandibility was there, etc. I also sprang for the biggest, baddest monitor I could afford at the time, a 21" Viewsonic Graphics Series CRT. This was a great machine...in fact, it was useful far past what it should have been, and that's when the real world of "upgradeability" kind of let me down. I maxed out RAM, added an extra hard drive, and a CD burner during that time. I was left with a blazing fast OS 9 machine that was dog slow in OS X. The world of peripherals shifted to USB and Firewire...neither of which were available on this machine. I started thinking, why don't I upgrade this box. I could upgrade video, but the cards were rare and poorly supported. I could add USB and Firewire, but the cards were somewhat pricey, and you couldn't guarantee 100% compatibility. You could even throw in a poorly supported proc upgrade for big bucks. At the end of the day, the upgrades were more than the machine's worth, and I would have been left with a nicely outfitted, dog slow machine. I couldn't sell the machine for more than a few bucks, either.

Summary: IT WASN'T WORTH UPGRADING!

So, why the iMac? When I finally was able to put aside my geek lust and get honest about real world needs, the tower didn't make any sense at all. The iMac allowed all the hardware upgrading I really needed. Drives weren't an issue. RAM is fully upgradable. I can add external drives. Additionally, the 21" monitor had seen a decline over the years. I checked the tower, and with a new monitor, it couldn't touch the iMac in cost. Furthermore, the performance benchmarks for 90% of normal computer use showed a rather insignificant speed boost for the cost difference.

So I went with an iMac. High performance, beautiful display, compact, and easily expandible. I saved money, and have a machine that will hold me off until the next big feature that forces an upgrade, at which time, I can still get decent resale value out of this box. IMO, buying the iMac was a solid win.

Summary: What might appear to be "settling" has actually made alot of sense. I couldn't be happier with my iMac.

Funny, my experience with my G4 is exactly the opposite.
I added a combo FW/USB card for $30 which didn't need drivers, Added a ati 8500/64 video card which dramatically speeded things up and was supported natively and more than doubled the CPU with a 900mhz upgrade that also did not require any drivers for $125.
Added HDDs as I needed them, internally, I have 3 inside. Upgraded to a gig and a half of ram when the prices tanked and in the next week or two I am going to spend $40 to put a nice DVD burner in it because my CD drive seems to be kicking the bucket.
Every single upgrade I have put in this thing has been well worth the outlay.
Now I didn't buy this thing new but lets act like I did. This computer sold brand new in 2000 for $1600, all told over time I would estimate there has been about $400 in upgrades installed. $2000 bucks for 7 years of good, productive life and after this thing gets replaced latter this spring it is going to go into service as my iTunes server.
I have never had one single problem with ANY of the third party add-ons, not one, zero, nada.
Additionally, while your 21 inch Veiwsonic may have been dieing my 23inch Mitsubishi Diamondtron is still in the prime of it's life and is a fantastic monitor I will only replace when it does finally wear out and that could be several more years.
Given my budget the iMac I would have to settle for would be the 20 incher. Just what I want to do, spend a boatload of money, get no expandability in a form factor I don't like, made of parts that aren't worth the money and end up with a smaller smurfing screen to boot.
No smurfing way.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-01-07 5:09 pm)

volk · 2008-01-07 6:09 pm

Pariah wrote:
get no expandability in a form factor I don't like

Dislike the form factor all you want...I'm fine with that, but saying no expandibility is a flat out lie, and you know it. It is hard to take you seriously when you are so careless with the facts.

I'm happy for you and your G4...I don't doubt your experience has been wonderful. Still, at the end of the day, you are pouring more money into a machine on a completely dead platform with a 2 generation processor difference. When it comes to the G4, those generations might as well be eons compared to the Intel offerings. How about your network card? Bluetooth? 802.11G? PCI Express? How much is the G4 worth today? How fast is Leopard on the G4 box? What about color clarity and eyestrain with that old CRT? There is an aweful lot more to the equation than just spending a couple of bucks on an old box.

Czachorski · 2008-01-07 6:17 pm

Pariah wrote:
I think the thing is here you are a recent convert who is all enthused about this great new thing you stumbled upon........
......Riddle me this: Back when you switched Apple's AIOs were approximately in the same performance relationship to the towers they are now, yet you chose a tower. What was wrong with the AIO then that is not wrong with them now?

Well, I switched in 2002 before this big upswing in Apple popularity. I originally started my computing experiences on an Apple II circa 1982, when I taught myself how to program basic using those wonderful Apple basic manuals.

In 2002 the iMacs of choice were single core 1.0 Ghz 17". The PowerMacs were dual processor, and I wanted a screen bigger than 17". The dual 867 G4 PowerMac was only $1799 in 2002. The 17" iMac was the same price. The iMac made no sense in 2002 - screen was too small, processor was slower, it couldn't multi-task like a dual machine, for $199 I could get a "huge" 19-inch CRT. The PowerMac made the most sense in 2002.

Today, the speed differences are meaningless for me - both will render HD in real time during editing. You can't go any faster than that. Most encoding takes hours, and I am walking away and letting it run with both machines. No difference there. The 24" screen is huge and beautiful, not limiting, and the dual core processors are quite fast, and can multi-task wonderfully for my needs. Today, the iMac was the best choice.

A lot has changed since 2002 between the Desktop and iMac lines.

In the next 5 years I had the PowerMac, I proceeded to upgrade RAM, HDDs and did not upgrade the video card, processor or use any of the PCI slots. The upgrade limitations of the iMac just does not hold water for me.

I am submitting to you that my situation is the norm out there. That is not to discount your situation. It sucks. I know. I was there a year ago, and I waited an extra year to start editing my HD footage because of it. I chose to wait until I could financially justify the 24" screen. I would have loved a stop-gap Mac a year ago that was a consumer tower for under $1000. I could have used it for a year or two and then sold it or given it to my kids (they needed a machine anyways - we ended up grabbing a used 17" iMac made in 2002 - ironic, isn't it). But the low-end tower would have been settling. After that year or two, the real choice would have been back to iMac or Mac Pro.

Pariah · 2008-01-07 6:41 pm

volk wrote:
Pariah wrote:
get no expandability in a form factor I don't like
Dislike the form factor all you want...I'm fine with that, but saying no expandibility is a flat out lie, and you know it. It is hard to take you seriously when you are so careless with the facts.

I'm happy for you and your G4...I don't doubt your experience has been wonderful. Still, at the end of the day, you are pouring more money into a machine on a completely dead platform with a 2 generation processor difference. When it comes to the G4, those generations might as well be eons compared to the Intel offerings. How about your network card? Bluetooth? 802.11G? PCI Express? How much is the G4 worth today? How fast is Leopard on the G4 box? What about color clarity and eyestrain with that old CRT? There is an aweful lot more to the equation than just spending a couple of bucks on an old box.

Ya, I am pouring a great big $40 bucks into an old computer roll
You just dont get it do you? Yes, it's and old out of date computer now but has serves a long a productive life because of it's versatility and quite inexpensively when you look at the cost amortized over the years.
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.
You made me snicker with the CRT comment.
What the smurf are you getting on about? My Diamondtron is a top and I mean TOP quality graphics class monitor and eye strain, how does a 100hrz refresh rate work for you? Works good for me, anyone who says they can detect flicker at anything over 85hrz is a liar. Color fidelity...puhleeze!!
Eye strain is the big reason I don't use LCDs, being far-sighted I simply cannot work on a screen that reduces everything on it by around 70%. I need 12pt type to...well..be 12pt type. My eyes arent so bad I need any magnification but I cannot deal with a screen that is like looking thru the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.
Ya, so you can indeed surround your nice tidy, AIO iMac with the clutter of external expansion boxes and enjoy the tangle of the associated cords and power blocks what fun, such and elegant solution. Ever so much better than having all that crap tucked neatly away inside one single case.

Czachorski · 2008-01-07 6:52 pm

Pariah wrote:
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.

I agree with the iMac of that era not lasting as long. I think iMacs from this era will last longer than iMacs of that era. Much longer. Still less than the Mac Pro, but not nearly as hobbled as they were 5-6 years ago.

mo' ron · 2008-01-07 7:08 pm

Czachorski wrote:
Pariah wrote:
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.
I agree with the iMac of that era not lasting as long. I think iMacs from this era will last longer than iMacs of that era. Much longer. Still less than the Mac Pro, but not nearly as hobbled as they were 5-6 years ago.

I agree.

My Powerbook from about 5 years ago is still extremely useful to me today, and FAR, FAR more useful than my Powermac 6500 after the same time frame. And worse, there's nothing I could do to make it useful. Primarily because it can't run OS X or linux (not well, at least).

Computers in general are starting to become "fast enough" for most consumers, which means until new killer apps that really push processors to their limits come out, the life cycle of computers is going to get longer.

I can imagine if I bought an iMac today, i'd be happily using it for the next 6 to 7 years.

Really, the only problem with my Powerbook is in playing games and reencoding videos. For web browsing, movie-watching, music listening, iPod stuffing, phone syncing, etc., it works extremely well.

Czachorski · 2008-01-07 7:37 pm

mo' ron wrote:
I agree.

My Powerbook from about 5 years ago is still extremely useful to me today, and FAR, FAR more useful than my Powermac 6500 after the same time frame. And worse, there's nothing I could do to make it useful. Primarily because it can't run OS X or linux (not well, at least).

Computers in general are starting to become "fast enough" for most consumers, which means until new killer apps that really push processors to their limits come out, the life cycle of computers is going to get longer.

I can imagine if I bought an iMac today, i'd be happily using it for the next 6 to 7 years.

Really, the only problem with my Powerbook is in playing games and reencoding videos. For web browsing, movie-watching, music listening, iPod stuffing, phone syncing, etc., it works extremely well.

I've been saying the same thing for years around here and that gets shot down too. "you're limiting what I can image for my future needs", or "your naive - computer speed always increases". Like - duh - I didn't know that. They simply don't want to hear it. The don't want to acknowledge that they way the computer business changes is changing.

Last edited by Czachorski (2008-01-07 7:38 pm)

frankly · 2008-01-07 7:48 pm

Pariah wrote:
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.

Ya, so you can indeed surround your nice tidy, AIO iMac with the clutter of external expansion boxes and enjoy the tangle of the associated cords and power blocks what fun, such and elegant solution. Ever so much better than having all that crap tucked neatly away inside one single case.

I submit that the iMac will actually be more useful in 7 years than your G4 is today. I had a dual 450MHz machine from the same year as yours. I used it until the end of last year but if I had been able to save the money sooner I would have replaced it well before that. For you to sit there and say that it is still useful is very subjective. Those things are dogs with certain websites at this point. And the thing that really kills me is that if you really think your G4 900MHz is still useful today then how in the heck can you possible think the iMac is underpowered??? Wow.

You make too many assumptions about how people will set up their desk environment. Do you keep your tower on top of your desk? Personally I think the G4 tower runs too loudly for that. Why do you assume that if someone wants to expand their iMac they are going to leave the expansion items on top of the desk? Heck, the current AirPort Base Station will let you connect a hard drive wirelessly so it can be in a different frickin' room, hidden. You try to shoehorn everyone's use of an AIO into some pre-conceived notion of how they will use it.

avkills · 2008-01-07 7:52 pm

My 400Mhz B&W upgraded to a G4 is useful..... for me to poop on! No seriously, I am using it as a FTP server and a webserver database thingie at work.

-mark

ScifiterX · 2008-01-07 7:54 pm

frankly wrote:
Pariah wrote:
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.

Ya, so you can indeed surround your nice tidy, AIO iMac with the clutter of external expansion boxes and enjoy the tangle of the associated cords and power blocks what fun, such and elegant solution. Ever so much better than having all that crap tucked neatly away inside one single case.
I submit that the iMac will actually be more useful in 7 years than your G4 is today. I had a dual 450MHz machine from the same year as yours. I used it until the end of last year but if I had been able to save the money sooner I would have replaced it well before that. For you to sit there and say that it is still useful is very subjective. Those things are dogs with certain websites at this point. And the thing that really kills me is that if you really think your G4 900MHz is still useful today then how in the heck can you possible think the iMac is underpowered??? Wow.

You make too many assumptions about how people will set up their desk environment. Do you keep your tower on top of your desk? Personally I think the G4 tower runs too loudly for that. Why do you assume that if someone wants to expand their iMac they are going to leave the expansion items on top of the desk? Heck, the current AirPort Base Station will let you connect a hard drive wirelessly so it can be in a different frickin' room, hidden. You try to shoehorn everyone's use of an AIO into some pre-conceived notion of how they will use it.

Indeed

Pariah · 2008-01-07 7:55 pm

Czachorski wrote:
Pariah wrote:
An iMac from that era wouldnt have lasted that long and an iMac from today will not be usefull in 7 years like this G4 lasted.
I agree with the iMac of that era not lasting as long. I think iMacs from this era will last longer than iMacs of that era. Much longer. Still less than the Mac Pro, but not nearly as hobbled as they were 5-6 years ago.

It's all speculation of course but my crystal ball tells me that we will be going into another round of CPU demand rising greatly over the next 5 years. The high definition revolution which is going to effect both Video and still images is going to be a biggie.
New, extremely processor and GPU intensive codecs will be implemented to enable the practical downloading of HiDef content. Even with good broad band (USAmerican good, not Japan good) uncompressed HiDef is far, far, far to big for online distribution.
Everyone who has a video camera will have a HiDef unit because in a short time those are going to be $186.87 at Wal-Mart, or less.
In for years every consumer level cheap assed digital camera will be outputting files the size that only top of the line professional cameras are.
Doubt that? 7 Years ago my Olympus @3 megapixels was considered a pretty good semi-pro level camera. Now cell phones take higher res pictures.
Man...what else...
AI is just going to keep increasing in games, physics simulations more complex.
I would be surprised if there weren't image editing and organizing software that employed feature recognition logic so you can tell your computer "This is cousin Malph" and then ask "Find all pictures with Malph in them".

See I get a sense that many here thing Computers have matured to a great extent. If computers were cars I would say the Model "T"s were what we are all driving.
The big jump to multi-core truely seems to have caught most software houses unprepared. It was like It's coming soon then BAM it was all over the place. That has provided a bit of respite from the typical way software developers have always found a way to consume what ever CPU horsepower is available. I think that is why we have this temporary situation where pretty much any current computer is plenty fast for most people.
All speculation, but thats what I think.

avkills · 2008-01-07 7:58 pm

I think big software houses were just shortsighted when it came to multi-core. That is old hat in academia and research.

-mark

ScifiterX · 2008-01-07 8:31 pm

Pariah wrote:
If computers were cars I would say the Model "T"s were what we are all driving.

Actually I'd rate mine at about a Mini Cooper D with the convenience package automatic transmission a little extra trim.

Forums | MacLife

#451 2008-01-06 9:56 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#452 2008-01-06 10:01 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Mr. T wrote:

#453 2008-01-06 10:41 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

#454 2008-01-06 10:42 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

#455 2008-01-06 10:47 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Mr. T wrote:

#456 2008-01-06 10:49 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Czachorski wrote:

#457 2008-01-06 11:16 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

#458 2008-01-07 6:03 am

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

#459 2008-01-07 8:59 am

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Pariah wrote:

#460 2008-01-07 4:36 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#461 2008-01-07 4:41 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

#462 2008-01-07 5:03 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

#463 2008-01-07 5:07 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

volk wrote:

#464 2008-01-07 6:09 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Pariah wrote:

#465 2008-01-07 6:17 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Pariah wrote:

#466 2008-01-07 6:41 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

volk wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#467 2008-01-07 6:52 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Pariah wrote:

#468 2008-01-07 7:08 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#469 2008-01-07 7:37 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

mo' ron wrote:

#470 2008-01-07 7:48 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Pariah wrote:

#471 2008-01-07 7:52 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

#472 2008-01-07 7:54 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

#473 2008-01-07 7:55 pm

Re: Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote: