PDA

View Full Version : new apples!



cresshead
10-20-2009, 11:38 AM
yeah is that time of year when you think about the xmas pressy for...yourself!:D

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

note the imac 27" quad has an option for a quad i7 chip...that'll mean 8 threads in lightwave!...and upto 16 gig of ram too!:thumbsup:

pretty good update on the imac i think:)

biliousfrog
10-20-2009, 12:12 PM
They're still extremely expensive though and only have options for dual channel memory...which is weird because the new Intel chips have triple channel memory controllers built in.

They look nice but I'd still rather buy a faster PC, better display and have a good night out.

Lightwolf
10-20-2009, 12:15 PM
They're still extremely expensive though and only have options for dual channel memory...which is weird because the new Intel chips have triple channel memory controllers built in.
Only the socket 1366 ones, the lower cost socket 1156 as well as the mobile ones are dual channel (but support higher memory clocks, which makes them roughly as fast).

The i7 is either 1366, 1156 or mobile, but has unlocked Hyperthreading.
The i5 is 1156 or mobile only and doesn't support HT.
The 1156 as well as the mobile parts also overclock automatically by a few more steps than the current socker 1366 parts.

Cheers,
Mike

calilifestyle
10-20-2009, 02:31 PM
Yeah but that magic mouse might be what people thought was the tablet apple.

Titus
10-20-2009, 03:36 PM
I like they started to promote more eco-friendly computers.

Wickster
10-20-2009, 03:58 PM
I wouldn't render on those imacs. The last time I did on my G5s it broke the system board and now falls asleep every 2 minutes or so from overheating. :(

biliousfrog
10-20-2009, 04:09 PM
I like they started to promote more eco-friendly computers.

How is an all-in-one computer eco friendly? If any component fails you'll need to replace the whole thing...or (yikes) get Apple to fix it. I guess that the wireless mouse and keyboard also require batteries, which is also not very eco-friendly.

I particularly like this line:

'Unlike a lot of Windows-based PC systems, iMac uses energy-efficient hardware components that work hand in hand with the operating system to conserve power.'

...you mean those PC components that Apple now use?

....or maybe they meant to say, 'unlike a lot of old PC's and previous generation Macs without power saving enabled...'?

Sorry, I'm getting tired and ranting, but Apple's sales blurb has always irritated me. They're very clever at talking bollocks and making it sound important.

Titus
10-20-2009, 05:37 PM
Sorry, I'm getting tired and ranting, but Apple's sales blurb has always irritated me. They're very clever at talking bollocks and making it sound important.

No need to sorry. Remember all the fire Apple got for the polution their manufacture process created? this is a two year late response to that:

http://www.apple.com/environment/

Lightwolf
10-20-2009, 05:52 PM
I particularly like this line:

'Unlike a lot of Windows-based PC systems, iMac uses energy-efficient hardware components that work hand in hand with the operating system to conserve power.'

...you mean those PC components that Apple now use?

They use a lot of components designed for laptop use - which makes sense considering the potential thermal issues in those tiny cases.

It also makes the components pricier. It's also very hard to get a home build computer down to those low levels of power usage because you also need a PSU that fits specs as closely as possible. Even on lower power Atom systems that easily make 10-15W of difference in an otherwise identical system.

Cheers,
Mike

Sarford
10-20-2009, 06:38 PM
That mouse is pretty nifty, especialy if you also can zoom with it (like on an Iphone). Realy good thinking.

JonW
10-20-2009, 06:59 PM
My W5580 V8 is my most eco friendly box. It puts out the highest number of frames per unit of electricity consumed. & its very frugal when idling.

Overnight with everything else switched off, 390 watts, frames are flying out of the thing. Its also running on 100% green electricity.

Desktop computers with built-in screens by nature are not eco friendly, try swapping the components when them are past there use by date & recycling the case etc.

My computers built with the minimum of parts just to do the job required & 2 screens is a much better use of resources & I can keep using parts as I upgrade.

Silkrooster
10-20-2009, 08:47 PM
I wouldn't render on those imacs. The last time I did on my G5s it broke the system board and now falls asleep every 2 minutes or so from overheating. :(

Maybe thats the Eco friendly part. J/K:D

cresshead
10-21-2009, 04:42 AM
the new imacs can have another computer use the imac's monitor for display..which is a new feature i belive.

looks pretty nice to me!

colkai
10-21-2009, 05:04 AM
Ok, I must be getting hungry because I thought of food not computers when I saw the thread title. :p

littlewaves
10-21-2009, 05:55 AM
What I find interesting about these new models is that the top imac being quad core seems to make the bottom of the range mac pro now almost completely redundant.

I know the Mac Pro's benefits aren't just the clock speed (expandability, advantages of xeon and eec ram etc) but the low end model was always a really pricey quad core and if you're really up for spending that kind of money on a super workstation surely you'd scrape the extra together for the 8 core anyway?

Now that you can get a 27 inch screen and quad core + a reasonable upgrade price to get 8GB ram I really can't see why anyone at all would by the quad core mac pro.

rumors have been that a mac pro refresh won't come until Q1 next year which seems a long time to have a presumably barely sellable model in the store??

To massively oversimplify my point, compare these two systems (prices from UK apple store)


Screen: 27"
processor: 2.66 Quad
Graphics 512mb
Ram: 4GB
HDD: 1TB
Price: £1599 GBP

Screen: None
processor: 2.66 Quad
Graphics 512mb
Ram: 3GB
HDD: 640GB
Price: £1899 GBP

So £300 more for no screen, less ram, less hard drive?

Soth
10-21-2009, 06:32 AM
Screen: 27"
processor: 2.66 Quad
Graphics 512mb
Ram: 4GB
HDD: 1TB
Price: £1599 GBP

Screen: None
processor: 2.66 Quad
Graphics 512mb
Ram: 3GB
HDD: 640GB
Price: £1899 GBP

So £300 more for no screen, less ram, less hard drive?

But you are probably only one who will notice it. ;)

biliousfrog
10-21-2009, 07:11 AM
So £300 more for no screen, less ram, less hard drive?

£300 more for a computer that won't overheat and fry everything inside the tightly packed case when pushed hard, can be upgraded cheaply and can use any monitor you want...without replacing everything.

The iMac's are a big screen with a laptop fixed to the back, the Mac Pros are a workstation designed for constant, processor intensive applications.

What they've done is made the iMacs incredibly expensive so that people think that they are a cheap alternative to a Mac Pro...in reality they have taken something designed to look nice in a swanky office and added things to bump up the price.

...it will all end in tears...you know how hot laptops get?...you know how hot 27" IPS screens get?...you know how hot the i7 chips get on full load without decent cooling?....:compbeati

...sorry, I'm really trying to be nice :D

littlewaves
10-21-2009, 09:25 AM
£300 more for a computer that won't overheat and fry everything inside the tightly packed case when pushed hard, can be upgraded cheaply and can use any monitor you want...without replacing everything.

The iMac's are a big screen with a laptop fixed to the back, the Mac Pros are a workstation designed for constant, processor intensive applications.

What they've done is made the iMacs incredibly expensive so that people think that they are a cheap alternative to a Mac Pro...in reality they have taken something designed to look nice in a swanky office and added things to bump up the price.

...it will all end in tears...you know how hot laptops get?...you know how hot 27" IPS screens get?...you know how hot the i7 chips get on full load without decent cooling?....:compbeati

...sorry, I'm really trying to be nice :D

nice to who? nice to me? please don't worry about that ;)

well like I said in my post I know that I'm over simplifying it and that there are clear advantages to the Mac Pro as you say. I guess all I'm really saying is that if you really need what a mac pro has to offer then you'll probably want the 8 core model.

I kind of thought the 4 core pro model was redundant before. I just think it's more so now there's a quad core imac that fills a bit of a gap in the lineup.

you're probably right on the heat issues. I guess they're expecting people won't be using them full throttle all the time.

That said I've got a 3 year old imac (original 24" model) and I sometimes leave that for days rendering and never had a problem yet but obviously that's only core 2 duo.

I totally agree about the pricing thing. When I bought my imac it was genuinely good value next to buying a similarly specced PC and Monitor from Dell or whoever. That's hard to believe now but 24" monitors were still really pricey back then and Core2Duo was really new too.

cresshead
10-21-2009, 10:19 AM
the imac's price went down with this upgrade...added a 27" from a 24" screen and doubled the cores and doubled the memory...

as for overheating..we'll see...let the users play with them and see if there's a lot of dead new imac's in a few weeks or not.

cresshead
10-21-2009, 10:54 AM
£300 more for a computer that won't overheat and fry everything inside the tightly packed case when pushed hard, can be upgraded cheaply and can use any monitor you want...without replacing everything.

The iMac's are a big screen with a laptop fixed to the back, the Mac Pros are a workstation designed for constant, processor intensive applications.

What they've done is made the iMacs incredibly expensive so that people think that they are a cheap alternative to a Mac Pro...in reality they have taken something designed to look nice in a swanky office and added things to bump up the price.

...it will all end in tears...you know how hot laptops get?...you know how hot 27" IPS screens get?...you know how hot the i7 chips get on full load without decent cooling?....:compbeati

...sorry, I'm really trying to be nice :D

well i'm doing most of my current projects on n acer laptop [core2 duo 2ghz] plugged into a 24" screen...no problem over that last couple of years with overheating...i do ususally push out my long renders to my quadcore but have on occasion used ALL of my laptops for rendering that include the samsung atom powered netbook. hp tablet pc, an old turion laptop as well as the quadcore tower..

so just HOW hot does a i5 or i7 quad chip get to in comparison to a core2 duo then?

biliousfrog
10-21-2009, 01:04 PM
so just HOW hot does a i5 or i7 quad chip get to in comparison to a core2 duo then?

well...the average with the stock cooler is around 50 degrees idle and up to 70 degrees stressed but most people use high-end tower coolers. I can report around the same temps in my 1u nodes, obviously less space but jet engine fans blowing over them.

How it will cope in an enclosed space with minimal noise I'm not sure. It looks like they're using slower RAM so maybe they're under clocking them or using a lower power version?

cresshead
10-22-2009, 03:20 PM
inside scoop!

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-27-Inch/1236/1

doimus
10-23-2009, 05:06 AM
Wow, iMac finally became a viable desktop solution. And as others said, this is worth the price for 27" IPS screen alone, never mind the i7.

cresshead
10-23-2009, 05:32 AM
note the 27" default is a i5 chip..there's the option to upgrade to the i7 on purchse..not later though as they are DIFFERENT cpu socket types....

Lightwolf
10-23-2009, 05:37 AM
note the 27" default is a i5 chip..there's the option to upgrade to the i7 on purchse..not later though as they are DIFFERENT cpu socket types....
Nope, it's the same.
There's i7s both for 1156 type sockets as well as the 1366.

Cheers,
Mike

JonW
10-23-2009, 06:53 AM
The iMac 27” has a 2560 x 1440 screen. I’ve got the Dell 24” & 30” screens, & the 30” is sometime harder to read with the higher pixel density.

2560 pixels at 27” will appear extremely sharp, but for us oldies we are going to have to increase our reading glasses by a factor or two.

Lightwolf
10-23-2009, 06:57 AM
2560 pixels at 27” will appear extremely sharp, but for us oldies we are going to have to increase our reading glasses by a factor or two.

I've got 2048 on a 23" and I love it...

Cheers,
Mike

Snosrap
10-23-2009, 07:52 AM
Iíve been looking into upgrading my current P4 rig and have checked out all the major players as well as Apple. Why would anyone buy an Apple at those prices other than the fact that they are beautiful? Is an OS worth a premium? The i7 configuration is probably the new 860 and 870 series and not the 900 series, no? Those are really nice chips from what I understand but donít support triple memory, but have a much lower wattage. Applesí tech seems pretty sound and the monitors are great but I think their business model of 40 -45 percentage points (vs. Dell, HP etc. of 10 Ė 15 points) per sale will keep me from buying. I usually like to support the little guy; I guess in this case Iím the little guy.

wacom
10-23-2009, 01:11 PM
I was really looking forward to using a Mac again until I heard about Snow Leopard. Now I'm just like, OK, maybe in another 2 years.

Besides, I have a friend who is an IT for several mac labs on a large campus, and he says these imacs break down all the time. The first ones were made so cheaply he couldn't believe it (blown capacitors, screens going dead all the time, serious over heating issues). He's said repeatedly that he tries as hard as he can to get his boss to order mac-minis and desktops but they're just go for the candy everytime. Hey, job security for him I guess!

IMHO, all in one computers are NOT to be used as work stations. One thing goes out...and you have to send it in...unlike using a mini or a regular desktop. Sure, more wires...but it's a small price to pay for the piece of mind.

My copy of 7 is on it's way...and I'm enjoying the benefits of using my first self built system, with hand picked parts (no trash in my system). I'm not going anywhere anytime soon esp. with Snow Leopard looking worse than even Vista or the ME releases!

As an aside though- the whole dual channel triple channel memory thing is almost irrelevant to 3D rendering AFAIK. Don't buy the hype. It's still all about the CPU speed and having enough RAM. Bandwidth from memory to chip is almost never an issue anymore.

cresshead
10-23-2009, 02:29 PM
i'd look at a new apple to replace my old mac mini for the purpose of music composition, scoreing to screen ,foley effects and recording speech tracks to video/animations.
plus video editing maybe as well as some video podcasting.

JonW
10-23-2009, 03:52 PM
For all the composition work, If one can somehow get a 30Ē screen into their next purchase, this should be at the top of the list. Although the pixels are packed in a bit tighter, having the extra real estate is really useful.

littlewaves
10-23-2009, 04:15 PM
I was really looking forward to using a Mac again until I heard about Snow Leopard. Now I'm just like, OK, maybe in another 2 years.

Besides, I have a friend who is an IT for several mac labs on a large campus, and he says these imacs break down all the time. The first ones were made so cheaply he couldn't believe it (blown capacitors, screens going dead all the time, serious over heating issues). He's said repeatedly that he tries as hard as he can to get his boss to order mac-minis and desktops but they're just go for the candy everytime. Hey, job security for him I guess!

IMHO, all in one computers are NOT to be used as work stations. One thing goes out...and you have to send it in...unlike using a mini or a regular desktop. Sure, more wires...but it's a small price to pay for the piece of mind.

My copy of 7 is on it's way...and I'm enjoying the benefits of using my first self built system, with hand picked parts (no trash in my system). I'm not going anywhere anytime soon esp. with Snow Leopard looking worse than even Vista or the ME releases!

As an aside though- the whole dual channel triple channel memory thing is almost irrelevant to 3D rendering AFAIK. Don't buy the hype. It's still all about the CPU speed and having enough RAM. Bandwidth from memory to chip is almost never an issue anymore.

what's so wrong with snow leopard? have I missed something? is it broken?

You say you WERE looking to use a mac before snow leopard so I assuming you had no problem with leopard?

Has something gone wrong in the new version? I was just getting ready to upgrade.

Larry_g1s
10-23-2009, 05:45 PM
They're still extremely expensive though and only have options for dual channel memory...which is weird because the new Intel chips have triple channel memory controllers built in.

They look nice but I'd still rather buy a faster PC, better display and have a good night out.My biggest beef with the Apple's too. lol Look great but way to expensive for a comparable PC. Good news for Mac guys/gals though. :thumbsup:

Brian_7
10-23-2009, 07:13 PM
I owned a G5 20" that was Hot as Hell!! I replaced the backplane (Motherboard) 3 times!! By the way, I didn't pay a DIME to replace them! (or a quarter....) I sold that unit and purchased a 24" Core 2 Duo that is very cool! (temp wise) and screen wise! The OS is superior IMO but that didn't preclude me from bootcamping the unit for Win 7.

Could I put together a better system that's cheaper? Oh yeah.... but, no matter what anyone says, Apple keeps their customers pretty happy! They must be doing something right! I mean how come Dell, HP, or some other PC manufacture can't generate the money that Apple does? What frickken secret formula does Steve have?

The one thing I would like to see is LW supported better on the Mac. Which I think is coming with CORE.

Brian

doimus
10-24-2009, 12:46 AM
For hard-core professional 3d work I gess any Mac is not that good. Just because Windows always get better support, plugins etc.

Also, having the option to personally control each component of your rig can be invaluable to a professional or dedicated amateur.

But if you're a hobbyist/freelancer, who's got pets and little children who like to chew on cables ;D then this new iMac is godsend.

Another thing: I am not going to buy another Windows laptop again, ever! My current C2D machine had Vista installed and that was THE worst user experience I've ever had with an OS in my life. I had decent results with vista on desktop, but on laptops, that thing is horrible.
Not to mention that PC laptops degraded so much quality wise - I have two Toshiba Satellite Pro laptops: 2004 and 2008 model, should be the same quality level, right? Wrong!
The '08 model is so cheaply made, with soft creaky plastic, appalling screen, horrible driver support etc. Side by side, '04 model is unbelievably more robust machine, which is still going strong after 5 years of almost daily use.

My next laptop is an aluminium Apple, come hell or high water. Microsoft may launch new Win7 party each month, but they won't win me back, I'm getting out!

JonW
10-24-2009, 01:02 AM
Be careful of the high water!

Any electronics, cameras, laptops etc. If you have them outside in the cold, let them acclimatise slowly to the inside temperature in an insulated bag or moisture will condense not only on the outside, but unfortunately on the inside.

wacom
10-24-2009, 06:53 AM
what's so wrong with snow leopard? have I missed something? is it broken?

You say you WERE looking to use a mac before snow leopard so I assuming you had no problem with leopard?

Has something gone wrong in the new version? I was just getting ready to upgrade.

FYI I have used macs in the past (OS7 up to 10.4) for graphics and motion graphics work.

Just because Ron in IT says Snow Leopard is BOSS it must not have any problems? Well I haven't had windows crash on me since XP. Honest. Never. So windows must be perfect on everyone's system too right?

If it wasn't for the consumerfication of everything but their desktops, and the fact that the latest OSX has problems more akin to the horror stories mac zealots love to rant and rave about with windows I would LOVE to own a Mac. I have friends that are professional photographers who are beginning to HATE apple. The latest macbook pro has omitted many things essential to them when working in the field (ah...a time when you'd use a laptop, not just surfing the web on the couch).

Unforgivable that they slowly turn their back on what use to be their core user base (photographers, designers etc.). The glossy screen alone is like peeing in their face (oh you can get it as an expensive option on the highest model- Yah!). Thanks to Steve's great Job at consumerfication of Apple though who needs that .5% of the pie even though they're the only ones practically who bought macs from OS5-OSX1.1?

Personally I think that there will be more of these issues exposed as time goes on because apple is using increasingly inferior hardware quality in the guts of their computers (the same inferior guts in many junk windows machines) coupled with being more lax about quality standards in their OS. The only macs I'd touch right now with a 10' pole are a Mac desktop and maybe if I didn't need the power, a mac mini (because the price is somewhat closer to reflecting the quality of the guts).

There is a reason the latest OSX is 30 bucks and has a three star rating on the official apple site. It sucks as far as apple releases go. The fact that almost any of these issues exist on "locked" hardware is ridiculous. Windows has to run on a menagerie of hardware with an incalculable number of variants. There is horrible legacy support on Macs- they call it "advances" but at times it just looks like they found a cheaper hardware manufacturer and decided it would be easier NOT to write code to support the "obsolete" hardware.

My wife is a mac zealot and uses them at work (she is in publishing), however, she has said all her macs have been far less stable since they went away from the motorola chips to the intel set. Makes sense since many macs are now made in the same cheap-O factories that cheap windows laptops are made! Now you get to share in the same "joys" that people using windows on cheap hardware get all the time! I love how her laptop only shuts down 1/10 times even on a flat surface! THANK YOU APPLE!!! Our G4 Macmini was a trouper- man I miss that thing.

Just a few Snow Leopard issues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8304229.stm

http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/10/12/guest.login.could.delete.data.permanently/

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/08/28/snow-leopard-killed.html

http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/171129/snow_leopard_users_4_biggest_gripes.html

Maybe all these issues are just caused by idiot users with bad RAM? OH wait...that's only supposed to happen on a PC!?!? HA!

Even with all of that stuff that was pre-snow leopard I was thinking of getting a Mac, because Vista, while totally stable on my machines, was like bloatware from hell.

Snow Leopard made me stand back and re-asses things a bit. I looked at windows 7 and read as many REAL user reviews/previews as I could AND learned to build my own system (not hard at all if you can read or watch Youtube how to videos). I still haven't written off macs yet, but I just don't like where they seem to be headed. It's really too bad, because the hardware use to be so solid, and the OS now is starting to show more "windows like" issues.

Now I'm thinking of passing them all up and praying that some day Adobe makes a Creative Suite for Linux. So far most 3D packages are running on it...so that's the weak link...

One last thing- It doesn't mater how "Green" your computer is if you keep throwing it away along with all its parts each time you get a new shinny model. Think about it. Being "Green" would mean buying green parts...and only updating the parts that need to be upgraded the most. (Though one could argue most computers and their use are far from "green".) Only the Mac desktop even comes close to offering that. Again- consumerfication at its finest!

Kuzey
10-24-2009, 07:09 AM
I can't remember the last time I logged into a guest account...if at all.

I'll wait for the upcoming update before getting SL in the next few weeks...just to be safe.

Kuzey

Brian_7
10-24-2009, 07:28 AM
I think some people just have bad luck. I have shiat PC's and GREAT PC's, all built by ME.

You know Microsoft has had almost 20 YEARS to improve on Windows and they may have come up with something with Win 7. (Took them long enough though.)

Not all issues with PC hardware is Microsoft's fault in fact, most of them are not!

As for Apple moving away from Motorola chips, I say DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT! They had a superior chip with the PowerPC but, they never moved it to the next level. Motorola never considered Apple much more than a fringe company. While I hate Intel, that was the probably the best move for Apple. They can have cooler running chips so they can innovate to their hearts desire.

As for Snow Leppy.... I purchased it, but haven't installed yet. This is one of those times that it might be better to wait for a few "Service Packs" to come out before installing.

I have a MacBook Pro 13" and I know what you mean about the display. I deal with it. Is there any other Notebook vendor with a not glare screen? I don't think so...

For 3D, I am afraid to say that for Render Farms and support in general, PC is the way to go.

... but, I'll still keep my macs.

Brian

cresshead
10-24-2009, 12:06 PM
Nope, it's the same.
There's i7s both for 1156 type sockets as well as the 1366.

Cheers,
Mike

in the inside scoop brekdown of the imac they said they were different socket types for the cpu..

Lightwolf
10-24-2009, 01:58 PM
in the inside scoop brekdown of the imac they said they were different socket types for the cpu..
That's socket 775 for all but the highest range model - and 1156 for the highest one which by default is shipped with an i5 but optionally offers an i7.

And there are i7s for socket 1366 ( which supports triple channel RAM), and those are almost identical to the Xeons used in the Pros.

Edit: Have a look at the original question, which was about the i5 vs. the i7, not the lower range iMacs which are based on the previous gen Core 2 architecture.

Cheers,
Mike

wacom
10-25-2009, 11:05 AM
As for Apple moving away from Motorola chips, I say DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT! They had a superior chip with the PowerPC but, they never moved it to the next level. Motorola never considered Apple much more than a fringe company.

Brian

I'm not saying the main Intel chips are bad, just that now they can choose all sorts of other MB chips, RAM, graphic cards etc. just like a PC manufacture, and IMHO the standards for some of those parts have fallen, it seems, inadvertently.

I never believed for a second that the G4 and 5 were as much faster than a PC than they claimed- except for their own internal fake tests.

Lightwolf
10-25-2009, 11:15 AM
I'm not saying the main chips are bad, just that now they can choose all sorts of other MB chips, RAM, graphic cards etc. just like a PC manufacture, and IMHO the standards for some of those parts have fallen, it seems, inadvertently.
Well, they could do so previously as well except for the CPU and the CPU chipset.
Same RAM as well as Firewire, USB, Ethernet, BT controllers etc...
And there is such a massive choice of different parts out there that you can't really the quality of them... as you can get both higher and lower quality ones easily.
And the parts they got from Intel (CPU and chipset for the Pro as well as the current iMacs) aren't too shabby either. Intel has a very solid track record on chipsets for a while now, and with CPUs again since the Core generation.

Cheers
Mike

wacom
10-25-2009, 06:53 PM
Well, for what ever reason, the newer macs just seem less stable. I don't have a huge database of errors to go by, just my own experiences, my wife's, and several friends who are designers etc.

You are right though lightwolf, they could have and did buy from a choice of parts before too. Maybe it's less of a hardware issue and more of a software issue? I have no idea really.

The newer macs seem "cheap" compared to how they use to feel when I think back to the first, mac classic, G3 towers I use to use, our Pismo, and our Motorola based mac mini. Still way above the average off the shelf PC or Linux box, but not the "standard" I remember.

When I mean cheap too, I'm not saying as far as the bullet list of main parts goes or over all screen quality, it's more of how they "feel" when used and their reliability. AFAIK, that's really supposed to be the main difference between a mac and another off the shelf "cheap" computer.

doimus
10-26-2009, 03:33 AM
As I said above, hardware quality in general has degraded horribly in the last few years. Maybe today's Macs are of less quality than 5 years ago, but today's average PC is even worse.

Hardware is becoming more expendable by the minute. Backup your data and love your cheap computers.

cresshead
10-26-2009, 05:47 AM
As I said above, hardware quality in general has degraded horribly in the last few years. Maybe today's Macs are of less quality than 5 years ago, but today's average PC is even worse.

Hardware is becoming more expendable by the minute. Backup your data and love your cheap computers.

by 'cheap' you mean quality not the price :D cos some of those cheap pc's are not cheap

doimus
10-26-2009, 09:59 AM
Exactly. The older I get, the more I'm aware that I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.

Brian_7
10-26-2009, 06:47 PM
The one thing that should be said about the iMac is that they primarily use notebook components. Until just very recently, they could not even touch a Mac Pro. This is probably due to the thin enclosure. I don't know about price... my first computer was:

Atari 800 32k ram - $550.00
5 1/4 inch floppy drive - $550.00
19" RCA TV - $500.00

Atari 1040 1mg ram, 3 1/2 disc drive, 320 x 240 monitor - $950.00

i386 33 mHz, 40 mg HD, 4 mg ram, 3 1/2 & 5 1/4 floppy drives, 14" VGA monitor up to 1024 x 768 256k graphics card, 2400 baud mod. (No math co-processor) .......... $2300.00

I'm not sure that prices are not cheap for what you get... :D

Brian

doimus
10-27-2009, 09:52 AM
My first PC was 25MHz 486SLC, 120MB HDD, 512Kb VGA card. 14" screen. It cost 2600 DEM (1300 euros today, not adjusted for inflation) back in 1992. So, roughly the price of an iMac today.

Funny thing is, that machine still works today. I occasionally start it up when visiting my parents, and pretend to be in eight grade again. :)
I wonder how many i7s/iMacs will still be in working condition in 2025?

wacom
10-27-2009, 01:07 PM
As I said above, hardware quality in general has degraded horribly in the last few years. Maybe today's Macs are of less quality than 5 years ago, but today's average PC is even worse.

Hardware is becoming more expendable by the minute. Backup your data and love your cheap computers.

It's very true, and you'll still pay proportionately more for quality, regardless if you have BOXX or Apple do it for you, or do it on your own.

True, you can get a cheap mac or PC to "run", but that's just the start of the adventure.