Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Post Your Windows Setup: Past & Present!
- Thread starter menziep
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, it's nice looking.........for a PC case.
Ah, but it's nice looking and functional - something you'll never get from a Mac!
Oh God... I see a war coming...
Eh, no war coming. Lots of Mac cases are VERY functional, though. The G3 and G4 Power Macs come to mind, with the door on the side to access just about anything in the machine.
Same thing goes for the Mac Pro and MacBook. Just look at how easy it is to swap hard drives.
But yeah, that Antec case is nice. I was just joking around. I hate Windows personally, but if someone else likes it, more power to 'em. It's just preference.
Gateway T-6816 Notebook.
I like it. $775 CAN is a great price, Specs are decent.
14.1", Vista Premium, 1.5GHz C2D
160GB HDD, 2GB RAM
is that a steelers jersey? jerome bettis?
As I said earlier, Power Mac G3, G4, G5, Mac Pro?? You don't consider those functional? What about the G4 Cube or the MacBook? C'mon, seriously.
You're making us laugh, or at least me, by how blind-sighted your sounding.
Open up a G5. Then, take a similarly priced, and or spec'd machine from Dell, and open it's side up. Tell this thread which is more functional and better laid and thought out.
Take a Mac Pro. Open it up. Take a similar machine from - you pick. Which machine would you rather work inside of?
Peace
Exactly my point. Glad to see someone agrees.
I had a Power Mac G4 MDD and upgraded the RAM in it and it was ridiculously easy. Open the side, put the RAM in, done. 2 minute job. Gotta love it. VERY functional, IMO.
That example puts you in an incredibly biased position, as you are comparing the pinnacle of Apple design with one of the worst, most proprietary IBM-compatible machines on the market. The one thing that makes IBM-compatible machines so much more functional than Macs is that they aren't proprietary. I never wanted to imply that proprietary Dells were well laid-out & nice to work on compared to Macs, however I DO want to imply that pretty much any IBM-compatible machine that uses a standard ATX case (i.e. not proprietary layouts of Dell, HP, etc.) will be a hell of a lot more 'functional' than any Mac machine.
First of all let's consider expansion. How many 5.25" bays does a Mac Pro have? 2? Pathetic; if I want on-the-fly burning between 2 drives, that's both of my 5.25" bays gone already! Any ATX tower of the same size would have at least 4, if not 5. How many (external) 3.5" bays does it have? None whatsoever. Again, pathetic. Any ATX tower would have at very least 1 for legacy support of a floppy drive or, more popular these days, a card reader (or combined floppy/card reader). How many internal 3.5" bays (HDD) does it have? 4 - that's not so bad, comparative with the smallest of mid-towers - however, any ATX tower of more similar size to the Mac Pro would probably have 5, 6 or more. How about expansion slots? Mac Pro has 4x PCI-Express slots, only 1 of which is double-width. PCI slots? Oh no. How about an enthusiast ATX board? Well, 2x double-width PCI-Express 16x slots to accomodate SLI/Crossfire cards, a couple of PCI-Express 1x slots & a couple of PCI slots at the bottom for good will.
Second, let's think about upgrading. Alright, so upgrading the RAM on a Mac Pro is almost as easy as an ATX board, the expansion cards are pretty much the same (that's one thing Apple can't really mess up, though I don't know what their card retention device is like), but how about the CPU(s)? Are they even user-upgradable? And of course, as with any Mac upgrade, you have to choose from a tiny range of over-priced hardware supplied by Apple, rather than choosing from the vast ranges of cheaper & superior (for the price) components that the ATX machine has at it's disposal.
If it's my pick, then I would either pick a machine built myself with a case of my choice, or if that's not allowed in the rules I would pick a machine from one of the many companies such as Scan, who build machines in decent cases (from the likes of Antec, Silverstone, Lian-Li, etc.) rather than choosing one of the huge global manufacturers like Dell/HP who use their own proprietary cases. Every single time I would chose the IBM machine. Every time. I will never buy a desktop Mac, as none of them can yet handle what I want from a desktop - their design is just too constricting & limiting.Tucom said:
What I think the problem we have here is a difference in the definition of the word 'functional'. To me, 'functional' means that I can do what I want with the machine - I can make it function in any way I wish, to achieve any function that I desire. For example, if that function was to provide a 4-disk hot-swappable RAID5, then I could install a PCI RAID controller along with a 4 bay hot-swap hard drive rack in 3x 5.25" bays. Another example, if I want the machine to play the latest game with all the bells & whistles, I install 2x high-end video cards in SLI/Crossfire/Multichrome. Another example is that I've had the machine for a year or two, it's starting to show it's age, but to give it a new lease of life I swap the processor for a faster model. Macs, by their very nature, fail to match this definition of 'functional'. Because Apple controls (& therefore drastically limits) the choice of hardware & expandability options, their machines will never be as 'functional' as an ATX machine in this regard.
Yes, I admit that there are also benefits to Apple's design regime, primarily in that whatever Mac Pro you open up you will find all of the components in the same place, they will all come out in the same manner, you have guaranteed hardware compatability, etc. However it is this very regime that drastically limits the 'functionality' of Macs as far as expansion, choice & upgrading are considered.
I wouldn't call the design of Mac desktops 'functional' as far as I define the word. Functional to the repair guy in the Apple Store, because he knows exactly where & what to do to replace that busted pouwer supply, but not functional to the home user. 'Uniform' would be a better word.
Now this time you have GOT to be kidding me. The G4 Cube is well-reknown as one of the least practical computer designs in history! Apple have long had an ethos of 'form over function' & the G4 cube is the pinnacle creation of this.FadeToBlack said:
The MacBook isn't exactly that functional either - seriously limited expansion, sharp edges on the wristrest, non user-replacable optical drive, matt white interior that picks up dirt like nothing else, a camera right where you put your thumb when you open the lid, awful weight distribution, etc. (Note: I own a MacBook)
You fail to realise that this is exactly the same as upgrading the RAM in pretty much any ATX case on the market. Side off, RAM in, side back on.FadeToBlack said:
But.......the Mac has a nice little handle on it.
Seriously though, you've gotta admit how awesome the Power Mac G3, G4, and G5 were for upgrading. Yeah, they may not have as much room for expansion, but what they do have is easy to work with and your typical Mac user doesn't need all that expansion.
I admit, I'm no expert at all when it comes to the inner workings of a computer, but I definitely know the basics and I would feel MUCH more comfortable opening up a Power Mac/Mac Pro than any PC tower.
Oh and about the Cube, you don't think that fitting all that computing power (at least for that time period) in that small of a space was pretty impressive? And they didn't even have a fan, so they ran in complete silence. Plus, a lot of the components were user-replaceable. I consider the Cube very functional. Hell, people still buy them to upgrade them, even though they could have a Mac mini with like 4x the power. The Cube was just cool, plain and simple. I believe it's only downfall was the price.
I do see your point, though, about certain things not working with Macs and the whole proprietary system of it all, but there's an upside to that - Apple only has to support a limited number of hardware configurations. Me, I like it that way, but a pro user might not. It all just comes down to what the user needs. Me, I'll take my all-in-one iMac. Simple, elegant design. Yeah, I wouldn't even consider taking it apart, but that's why I'm gonna buy AppleCare when the time comes.
The argument wasn't strictly about how easy the machines are to work with/to upgrade; instead the subject at debate was how 'functional' they are. You can quote me as agreeing that your average desktop Mac is easier to upgrade & work with than your average ATX IBM-compatible PC. However the point I was trying to make in regards to 'functionality' is that an ATX PC is more 'functional' because of the sheer number of things that can be upgraded/installed by the user. To take the MacBook as an example, yes it is extremely easy to upgrade the RAM &/or the Hard Drive; however, it is completely impossible for the user to upgrade anything else, whereas other IBM-compatible laptops often sport user-upgradable RAM & hard drives, as well as optical drives, network interfaces, graphics cards, etc.
That much power in such a small space? Yeah, they had laptops back then too. Also, they weren't completely silent, because they still had a hard drive. However, immediate responses aside, to use my definition of 'functionality' again, the G4 Cube was extremely limited as it sports virtually no expansion whatsoever. Though it is important to note, as you mentioned elswhere in your post, that somebody who buys such a thing won't usually have the demanding needs to require such expandability, so it is an acceptable trade-off for the decreased size/increased visual appeal (if that's your thing).
Yeah, I think we're on the same page now. I had just misunderstood what you meant by functionality.
I've seen laptops with upgradeable graphics cards, etc, which is very cool if you're a gamer or doing serious graphics work.
With the Cube, I just meant that it was easy to upgrade the HD, RAM, etc. I wasn't sure if it had any expansion slots or not. Just checked MacTracker and it says that it has 1 2x AGP slot, which obviously isn't much in the way of expandability. So yeah, the thing I like the most about the Cube was just the "cool factor." It was just awesome. I've still never got to see one in person, as I didn't switch to the Mac 'til 2004 and no one that I know of around here uses a Mac.
Alright lost eden, you make your point clear. You originally came off as sound snobbish, but it seems you're quite knowledgeable in this area.
You weren't that specific. Mac cases are very functional, but not nearly as upgradable or open to tinkering and customization than "PC" cases. More specifically ATX and BTX cases.
Now, tell this thread this. What would you rather have: a Mac Pro, or the equivalent from Dell
Peace
You weren't that specific. Mac cases are very functional, but not nearly as upgradable or open to tinkering and customization than "PC" cases. More specifically ATX and BTX cases.
Now, tell this thread this. What would you rather have: a Mac Pro, or the equivalent from Dell
Peace
My setup. Click on the images for a bigger view.
2.4 GHz E6600 Core 2 Duo / 2GB DDR2 RAM / GeForce 7600 / SB Audigy 2 / Segate 7200.10 with 16MB Cache / Win XP Pro x64 and Vista RC1 x64
Desk
nice WoW login screen. Hee hee.
Well, that's a hard question to answer, as I'm the sort of person who would never-in-a-million-years buy a proprietary desktop (be it Apple, Dell, HP, whoever) because they could simply never accomplish enough of the tasks I require from a desktop. I may disappoint you, but if forced to make such a decision I would probably choose to go with the Dell XPS 720 H2C. The reasoning here is that one of the main things that I would do with a new desktop would be gaming, & there is no way that a Mac Pro could match the Dell in terms of gaming performance when specced with dual 8800 Ultras. The XPS also appears to sport 4x Hard Drive bays (same as the Mac Pro) but also 4x 5.25" bays (2 more than the Mac Pro) which would allow me further expansion over the Mac Pro. Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't necessarily be happy with either the XPS or the Pro - I would much rather take the money & build myself a nice new Linux box!Alright lost eden, you make your point clear. You originally came off as sound snobbish, but it seems you're quite knowledgeable in this area.
You weren't that specific. Mac cases are very functional, but not nearly as upgradable or open to tinkering and customization than "PC" cases. More specifically ATX and BTX cases.
Now, tell this thread this. What would you rather have: a Mac Pro, or the equivalent from Dell
Peace
I had a feeling you were going to say a XPS system. I do see what you mean by raw expandability and flexibility.
It all really comes down to what you're looking for. If you're multi-processor intensive tasks such as video editing or music production, a Mac Pro is hard to beat. If you're feeling the desire of 100+ FPS in BioShock on a 30" screen with all graphics cranked, then a XPS H2C is one of the best choices there is.
It all comes down to personal preference.
Peace
I'm afraid I'll have to point you towards Dell's Precision range of workstations. Allow me to effect a short comparison;
CPU
Both machines can be specced with dual 3GHz quad-core Xeons
Conclusion: level-pegging in terms of procesing power.
RAM
Mac Pro is limited to 16GiB of RAM, Dell Precision can accomodate up to 64GiB.
Conclusion: the Dell seriously outclasses the Mac with a full four times the RAM.
Hard Drives
Mac Pro wins in terms of overall space with 3TB compared to 2.5TB of the Dell Precision, however the Precision gives you the option of 10,000RPM SATA drives with NetBurst cache as well as 15,000RPM SAS drives, both of which are substantially faster than the standard 7200RPM desktop drives that ship in the Mac Pro. The Dell Precision also ships with both SATA & SAS RAID controllers as standard; the Mac Pro offers only an SATA controller as an optional extra.
Conclusion: Mac Pro wins in terms of sheer capacity, but Dell Presision would leave it in the dust in terms of performance (which is higher on the list than capacity in workstation applications anyway), as well as completely outclassing it in terms of data integrity & drive flexibility.
Graphics
The Mac Pro offers a single Quadro FX 4500 card, allowing a dual-monitor setup. The Dell Precision offers dual Qaudro FX4600 cards in SLI, allowing a dual-monitor setup with substantially more power, or alternatively, a dual Quadro FX3500 setup allowing a quad monitor setup with substantially more screen real estate.
Conclusion: Dell Precision wins both in terms of power & real estate.
So I'm afraid I will have to oppose your claim that the Mac Pro is hard to beat for workstation tasks such as video-editing. I agree that the Mac Pro is maybe more 'accessible' to a member of the general public than the Dell Precision, seeming as any old John Smith can walk into an Apple store & purchase a Mac Pro, however that doesn't mean that it is the best in it's field. I only used Dell as an example; if you were to take a look at the catalogues of companies such as Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics Incorporated, Supermicro, etc., you would find that they all offer workstation-class machines of superior specifications to the Mac Pro (or at comparative specifications but at lower prices). In fact, it is companies such as Supermicro who focus their entire product range on high-end workstations/servers that truly dominate this portion of the market.
Oh yes, plus the Precision range has the option of shipping with Linux
I'm afraid I'll have to point you towards Dell's Precision range of workstations. Allow me to effect a short comparison;
CPU
Both machines can be specced with dual 3GHz quad-core Xeons
Conclusion: level-pegging in terms of procesing power.
RAM
Mac Pro is limited to 16GiB of RAM, Dell Precision can accomodate up to 64GiB.
Conclusion: the Dell seriously outclasses the Mac with a full four times the RAM.
Hard Drives
Mac Pro wins in terms of overall space with 3TB compared to 2.5TB of the Dell Precision, however the Precision gives you the option of 10,000RPM SATA drives with NetBurst cache as well as 15,000RPM SAS drives, both of which are substantially faster than the standard 7200RPM desktop drives that ship in the Mac Pro. The Dell Precision also ships with both SATA & SAS RAID controllers as standard; the Mac Pro offers only an SATA controller as an optional extra.
Conclusion: Mac Pro wins in terms of sheer capacity, but Dell Presision would leave it in the dust in terms of performance (which is higher on the list than capacity in workstation applications anyway), as well as completely outclassing it in terms of data integrity & drive flexibility.
Graphics
The Mac Pro offers a single Quadro FX 4500 card, allowing a dual-monitor setup. The Dell Precision offers dual Qaudro FX4600 cards in SLI, allowing a dual-monitor setup with substantially more power, or alternatively, a dual Quadro FX3500 setup allowing a quad monitor setup with substantially more screen real estate.
Conclusion: Dell Precision wins both in terms of power & real estate.
So I'm afraid I will have to oppose your claim that the Mac Pro is hard to beat for workstation tasks such as video-editing. I agree that the Mac Pro is maybe more 'accessible' to a member of the general public than the Dell Precision, seeming as any old John Smith can walk into an Apple store & purchase a Mac Pro, however that doesn't mean that it is the best in it's field. I only used Dell as an example; if you were to take a look at the catalogues of companies such as Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics Incorporated, Supermicro, etc., you would find that they all offer workstation-class machines of superior specifications to the Mac Pro (or at comparative specifications but at lower prices). In fact, it is companies such as Supermicro who focus their entire product range on high-end workstations/servers that truly dominate this portion of the market.
Oh yes, plus the Precision range has the option of shipping with Linux
one argument to rule them all: the Dell Precision does not run Mac OSX.
You just had to go & ruin the nice intellectual discussion we had going on, didn't you?