Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Macs To Ruin Apple

generik said:
On average I can keep a PC up to speed every year for about $300-400. Can you do it with a mac? No..
Click to expand...
What about motherboard or significant CPU upgrades? How often would you do this, and how much would it cost? Would you then need new other parts (faster RAM, different GPU etc) at even more cost?

I actually think that Macs can be quite cost-effective. My Pismo has lasted nearly 6 years now, and my iMac three. The iMac (with an external HD) will last me at least 1-3 more years, and even if I get PM tomorrow, I can still use my iMac - what do you do with all the pieces of PC you replace? Sell for significant loss? At least a working older mac has real use to either you or someone else, and thus infinitely more value than a old graphics card lying in a box in the attic.

I think if all factors are considered, PC vs. Mac value for money is probably a very close run thing. Certainly from my point of view, I spend less on computers now than I did when running PCs - but then my XBox also has a lot to do with this!

BTW. Half Life 2 on the Xbox is Niiice! :cool: Obviously not a pretty as on PC and no mouse etc etc, but VERY playable and VERY cool!
 
KREX725 said:
I think after taxes it will only be worth a couple of bucks, which you'll have to declare on your 1040 next year. That's why I try to keep my two cents to myself, where the IRS can't touch it!

:p
Click to expand...

Better yet, hide your 2c in an offshore account!:D
 
Counterfit said:
Congrats, you have added your 2¢ to the pot on what will happen to Apple with the switch to Intel. I think we're up to at least $500 so far.
Click to expand...

The Intel switch has brought out more 1-post trolls than any other topic...we could easily make a grand off of it.
 
James Philp said:
What about motherboard or significant CPU upgrades? How often would you do this, and how much would it cost? Would you then need new other parts (faster RAM, different GPU etc) at even more cost?
Click to expand...

Not really? How much can it be?

Complete overhaul of my workstation, dual processor mainboard $450, 2 x Opterons 240s, $100+ each, 4GB of ECC ram.. that depends, but contrast it with a PM which comes with a princely 512MB of NON-ECC ram (I should add) it is a moot point.

Superior price for inferior parts.

Couple with the fact how Apple always solder CPUs directly onto the mainboard, wow, how draconian can you get?

James Philp said:
I actually think that Macs can be quite cost-effective. My Pismo has lasted nearly 6 years now, and my iMac three. The iMac (with an external HD) will last me at least 1-3 more years, and even if I get PM tomorrow, I can still use my iMac - what do you do with all the pieces of PC you replace? Sell for significant loss? At least a working older mac has real use to either you or someone else, and thus infinitely more value than a old graphics card lying in a box in the attic.
Click to expand...

Does that even make sense?

Your Pismo lasted 6 years... so what? I presume you aren't keeping up in terms of software aren't you. So you are still using 1999 version's of Office.. and Photoshop.. and other bits of software that you have.

Of course the fact remains that your ancient hulks are painfully slow to do even the most basic of tasks.

Don't tell me about how you run Tiger on your Pismo. I am currently running Tiger on my 1.67Ghz PB, face it, it is slow. I don't get the same lightning quick response I get in Windows.

Resale value is very very subjective. Consider Apple is going the way of the Dell in terms of quality nowadays, and with the Intel switchover accelerating release cycles, I strongly urge you to dump every single piece of PPC gear on ebay. They will end up no different from PCs.

James Philp said:
BTW. Half Life 2 on the Xbox is Niiice! :cool: Obviously not a pretty as on PC and no mouse etc etc, but VERY playable and VERY cool!
Click to expand...

Console gaming is definitely the way to go.
 
Lacero said:
I don't care what's really under the hood. My mac could be powered by running hamsters for all I care, as long as I have OSX and my apps to play with, I'm happy.
Click to expand...

The point is that the PPC G4 hamsters are pretty exhausted compared to their Pentium Mobile colleagues..
 
zap2 said:
Not true, it likly but i doubt it will happen to were its as bad as XP is and it will take a long time
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me you think the processing architecture has ANYTHING to do with viruses.
 
generik said:
I am currently running Tiger on my 1.67Ghz PB, face it, it is slow. I don't get the same lightning quick response I get in Windows.
Click to expand...

I call bs. I get better responses on my 1.33 GHz iBook than any new/relatively new PC laptop owner I know as far as complicated processes are concerned (IE basically anything that has to do with Photoshop), and the "simpler" processes are at the very least comparable. If you want to call PB "slow," fine, but you can't call a PC laptop "lightning quick" in comparison by any means. Now, if you compare a PB 1.67 GHz to say, a 3.2 GHz Xeon, or one of AMD's latest desktop offerings, or a desktop G5 for that matter, then of course you can make such a comparison, but as I said it isn't relevant because they aren't competing models. If Apple had switched to Intel with the Pentium-Ms NOW on the market, it wouldn't be a drastic change. Yonah and Merom are the dealmakers.

Resale value is very very subjective. Consider Apple is going the way of the Dell in terms of quality nowadays, and with the Intel switchover accelerating release cycles, I strongly urge you to dump every single piece of PPC gear on ebay. They will end up no different from PCs.
Click to expand...

That all depends on how well the switchover goes. PPCs could hold their value for a long time if it isn't smooth, not to mention all the PPC software that isn't quick to convert, and the fact that OSes like Yellow Dog will continue development for a long time to come.

Also, on a sidenote, the overhaul you cited cost somewhere around at least 1200 dollars, assuming you don't get a high-end GPU (I might like a piece of that 100 dollar Opteron action if they're that cheap, by the way). Say I have an PowerMac G4 now. Dual 1 GHz. I want to upgrade. The current going price of one of those is around 850 on eBay, and that's fairly low-balling it (I see a dual 867 MHz going for 705 and it's got 2 days left). So I get 850 out of my PM. I'm going to be smart about my upgrade, too, and not buy my Macs from the more expensive sources (such as Apple), and go to eBay again. The latest bid on a PowerMac G5 2.0 dual processor system with 4 GB RAM is $1,627. Let's add 400 dollars for the 8 hours or so left on the auction, and bam. $2,027. Subtract from that 850, and where are we? Just a shade under 1200. Of course, you do still have the ECC up on me, and I suppose we could debate the Opteron versus the G5 until we're blue in the face, but regardless the cost of upgrade is pretty comparable.
 
I think that the transition will open up 2 possibilities regarding upgrades.

1) Apple will continue to release "Apple Spec-ed" products every 5-6 months consistent with what we have now. Those who can wait, will wait.

2) Processors (NOT INCLUDING MOTHERBOARDS - There will probably be a locking mechanism that ties the OS to the Motherboard, not the processor) will be a user upgradable part (like they are now). That would mean that if Apple released a 3.8GHz PowerMac and Intel released a 4.2GHz chip 3 months later, those who absolutely could not wait could go to thier local computer store and buy the new processor. Or if AMD released a chip that was pin-compatible, you could use the AMD chip.
 
I didn't buy my Mac mini because I felt the 1.42 g4 chip was faster then my 1.6 Pentium 4 chip, I bought it for Mac OSX.
 
RobHague said:
Well if it does not matter what CPU is in their macs, why are they chasing more CPU power?
Click to expand...

What Apple wants is reasonable power that's not at the expense of heat. In order to lead the pack in industrial design, Apple wants to be able to make their machines as small/tight as possible so that they have as many design options as possible. G5s were way too hot..
 
generik said:
Not really? How much can it be?

Complete overhaul of my workstation, dual processor mainboard $450, 2 x Opterons 240s, $100+ each, 4GB of ECC ram.. that depends, but contrast it with a PM which comes with a princely 512MB of NON-ECC ram (I should add) it is a moot point.

Superior price for inferior parts.

Couple with the fact how Apple always solder CPUs directly onto the mainboard, wow, how draconian can you get?



Does that even make sense?

Your Pismo lasted 6 years... so what? I presume you aren't keeping up in terms of software aren't you. So you are still using 1999 version's of Office.. and Photoshop.. and other bits of software that you have.

Of course the fact remains that your ancient hulks are painfully slow to do even the most basic of tasks.

Don't tell me about how you run Tiger on your Pismo. I am currently running Tiger on my 1.67Ghz PB, face it, it is slow. I don't get the same lightning quick response I get in Windows.

Resale value is very very subjective. Consider Apple is going the way of the Dell in terms of quality nowadays, and with the Intel switchover accelerating release cycles, I strongly urge you to dump every single piece of PPC gear on ebay. They will end up no different from PCs.



Console gaming is definitely the way to go.
Click to expand...

I disagree with almost your entire post, but I think there are a few especially problematic statements:

First, Windows is not lightning quick on even the best of machines in my experience, scrolling, clicking, and opening applications takes just as long on equivalent Macs—comparing a Mac Mini to a 2x AMD with 256MB of VRAM is probably not fair. But, this is subjective and I would remind you that the design of the OS and the workspace is more important that the .2 nanosecond it takes for the OS to react to your impertinent clicking. Windows is a painfully slow ancient hulk, but a Pismo Powerbook is still a very useful machine. For Aperture? No. For email and Office. Definitely.

Second, Tiger runs very well on older machines including my 550mhz TiBook. I've had this machine for four years with few problems and while I'd love more speed, it is very servicable. However, its reliability is paramount to my needs, I'd rather have an older machine that is constantly working than bleeding edge technology that falters.

Which seques very nicely into my third problem with your post which is your urgent warning about PPC-based Macs. First, not everyone will immediately switch, this is due to both the inherent costs associated with buying new machines as well as the moves necessary by companies like Adobe to the x86 platform. Specialized applications built for OSX without the additional code will also slow switching. It took time for OS9 to completely fade and while the switch to x86 may be easier it will still take a number of years. Therefore, PPC-based Macs will still be necessary and wanted keeping their prices higher. I expect to see a drop in prices for equivalent models as the x86 version arrives, but the PPC-based Macs will retain value much longer than a Dell or Gateway.

Running on the cutting edge is fun, but many people have other things to do with their time and money than buy the latest and greatest. People keep forgetting that computers are very neat tools, but tools nonetheless. If you spend too much time getting new stuff you're not producing.
 
generik said:
On average I can keep a PC up to speed every year for about $300-400.
Click to expand...

Up to speed to do what? For 90% of tasks out there, speed is largely irrelevant. Having the latest hardware won't make anybody a better designer, but it sure allows untalented people to crank out 130 pixel gaussian blurs with a lens flare at a saturating rate. (Or render the weakest animation with the most heavily textured surfaces). If you're concerned with speed, you're probably neglecting content...
 
Back in the day

I couldnt afford ***** and had nothing but free software and old hardware... I wrote one good song every other day...

Today

I have four computers, Logic Pro 7 and tons of stuff...
havent figured out much and trust me you dont want to hear what I am cranking out after spending 10g on my bedroom studio...

Better off on a budget with some ingenuity!
Any day of the ***** week!

$
 
The notion that having a nicer computer adversely affects the quality of your product in and of itself is silly. I guess you could argue that the time you spend upgrading and the time you spend fooling around with and learning your new system will take away from time doing your actual job, but that's a matter of time management. If you're not capable of time management, you probably have bigger issues to worry about than a shiny new PowerMac.
 
reberto said:
Here are bad things [about the move to MacIntel]
1. We lose ALL classic support
Click to expand...

This is very true and it is a huge stealth problem. A lot of people, many who are too young to appreciate this, do no realize that there is still a tremendous number of applications in use that will _NEVER_ be upgraded from Classic. The vendors who made the software no longer exist. There are no upgrade options. Many companies have gigabytes of data in legacy programs and when Apple moves to Intel they are going to lose these customers. Bad move, Apple.
 
poolin1243 said:
i can agree with that...thing is...why cant in apple in all their wisdom create an emulation for the classic environment...can anybody enlighten me?
Click to expand...
Doubling their work load. Instead of porting one OS, that is designed to be platform independent, and has had a version running on Intel previously (NeXTSTEP 3.2 and higher), they have to port another, which is not designed to be platform independent, which means it'll be far more work than OS X, and they have offically killed it off.
 
link92 said:
Doubling their work load. Instead of porting one OS, that is designed to be platform independent, and has had a version running on Intel previously (NeXTSTEP 3.2 and higher), they have to port another, which is not designed to be platform independent, which means it'll be far more work than OS X, and they have offically killed it off.
Click to expand...

Eeehhh... Wrong answer. The work is already done. Continuing support for Classic will not double their work load. Besides, go see:

http://maconmac.bastix.net/
 
Meyvn said:
The notion that having a nicer computer adversely affects the quality of your product in and of itself is silly. I guess you could argue that the time you spend upgrading and the time you spend fooling around with and learning your new system will take away from time doing your actual job, but that's a matter of time management. If you're not capable of time management, you probably have bigger issues to worry about than a shiny new PowerMac.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't adversely affect the quality of your product, but you certainly don't need a cutting edge machine to do great creative. Those that convince themselves that they do are more infatuated with the tech than the desire to create in the first place.

Sure, a quad processor G5 would be great. It would probably feel "zippier" in some esoteric way. The Mac Mini I'm on right now gives me plenty of speed when max'd out with RAM. The G4 450 it replaced was plenty fast in OS9, but OSX's resource hogging had it feeling noticeably "unzippy". My beige G3 even carried 10.2 just fine. The quality and quantity of creative produced on these machines was not tied to their processor speed.

If anyone would like to send me a new G5 to subjectively test against my Mini, I'd gladly accept it for a lengthly period of review. :D
 
pubwvj said:
This is very true and it is a huge stealth problem. A lot of people, many who are too young to appreciate this, do no realize that there is still a tremendous number of applications in use that will _NEVER_ be upgraded from Classic. The vendors who made the software no longer exist. There are no upgrade options. Many companies have gigabytes of data in legacy programs and when Apple moves to Intel they are going to lose these customers. Bad move, Apple.
Click to expand...

I ran into a similar problem when my dad wanted to access and use all his old MacCalc spreadsheets from his Mac Classic some years back. No luck. There was nothing contemporary to view them with. Even worse, he wanted to bring the info into his PC. We could open them up in MacCalc, but the program didn't have an export feature for any other format, nor would his PC read a Mac floppy anyway.

Heck, I have some great programs I wrote on my Apple II which I would like to play again on an emulator, but I have no ability to get them off (nor do I remember how to access or run them in the first place).

OSX came out in early 2001. Time for Classic to be let to die. I don't think that the people who rely on Classic need the latest machines. They can just keep their old ones to run the Classic programs.
 
why hasn't anyone considered the fact that Apple's computers will now truly be "build-to-order?" All you people complaining about the fact that Intel upgrades its proccessor speeds more quickly only means that whenever you are ready to buy a computer, you will be able to buy the fastest on the market if that is what you are wanting to buy. If you aren't aiming for the fastest, then you can down-grade the clock speed some.

I just don't understand some of you. You are never happy with the decisions that Apple makes, yet you come in here and claim to love the company? It'd be foolish to say that we all don't have concerns about what will happen with the switch to Intel, but it's happening. So, we have to accept it and just wait and see what happens...bottom line. No one knows how this will all play out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back