are G6 Intels on the way and will they be loud?

[Rob M]

as the topic states...

I'm thinking of getting one, trade my laptop in at some stage -- thinking i might wait for the Intels G6's?!

is that what they will be known as?

I can wait til June. Which is when i'm thinking they might be released...although haven't researched it deeper...

what's the deal-e-o?

Or do you think the G5 PPC's are the way to go. Are they as silent as laptops running?

[fooishbar]

the new laptops when they come out won't be fantastic, realistically. they'll also be ridiculously expensive.

just get a pentium-m now. either an ibm thinkpad (x40 unless you really need the screen real estate -- mine looks ridiculously small next to the first 24" lcd), or a macbook pro, depending on preference. vaios are kinda nice too.

they've refined p-m down to a fine art now. amazing battery life, good processing power, fuck-all energy consumption and heat dissipation (my fan very rarely runs; if it ever does, I have one very small one that's hard to hear when it does run).

[Rob M]

Sorry I should've said moving from Laptop to Desktop.

Was thinking of getting a G5 PowerPC desktop or wait for the G6 Intel Desktops?

[fooishbar]

if you're getting a desktop, don't go intel. in terms of i386/amd64, amd make the best processors by FAR. they kick intel up and down the park in terms of performance, price, and just generally not being crap.

but the g5s are nice as well, and it's really, really hard to go past the powermac g5 in terms of a complete desktop. it's incredibly beautiful, very quiet, and rather performant, although it can't test the amd64 (the new quad-core g5s, on the other hand ...).

so I dunno. just don't go intel.

[system]

there's no such thing as the G6.

the current dual core G5s are noisy when they really kick in.

I'd wait for the Intel based boxes, myself.

my 2 cents for the Mac OS X convert.

[Rob M]

there's no such thing as the G6.

So when the new Intel desktops get released by Apple later this year, they won't be called G6's?

the current dual core G5s are noisy when they really kick in.

That's a shame, I wasn't sure if the dual core G5's were very noisy or not -- i'm currently leaning away from noisy computers in general. After having this lappy for a while it seems really a godsend.

I'd wait for the Intel based boxes, myself.

Any ideas when they will be released?

my 2 cents for the Mac OS X convert.

Yes, big convert here. I just hope if I do make this decision that all my apps will go universal binary at some stage down the track. Rosetta can't really be all that slow if you've got a nice G5 or higher

I only really want to get a desktop now because i'm not really travelling with my laptop and wouldn't mind a good performance increase as I will most likely be doing development work on it.

although it can't test the amd64

I doubt I'll be going back to Windows anytime soon. although good to know for when Vista comes out. I heard that today's graphics cards won't be up to scratch for Vistas Aero framework

[system]

there's no such thing as the G6.

So when the new Intel desktops get released by Apple later this year, they won't be called G6's?

spot on.

the current dual core G5s are noisy when they really kick in.

That's a shame, I wasn't sure if the dual core G5's were very noisy or not -- i'm currently leaning away from noisy computers in general. After having this lappy for a while it seems really a godsend.

yep, they're noisy when all the processers kick in. sad but true.

I'd wait for the Intel based boxes, myself.

Any ideas when they will be released?

could be very, very soon. this year for sure - the developer versions of the hardware have been distributed for about 12 months now or longer.

my 2 cents for the Mac OS X convert.

Yes, big convert here. I just hope if I do make this decision that all my apps will go universal binary at some stage down the track. Rosetta can't really be all that slow if you've got a nice G5 or higher

depends on the app really. with some apps, you definitely won't notice it going through Rosetta at all.

I only really want to get a desktop now because i'm not really travelling with my laptop and wouldn't mind a good performance increase as I will most likely be doing development work on it.

good idea.

although it can't test the amd64

I doubt I'll be going back to Windows anytime soon. although good to know for when Vista comes out. I heard that today's graphics cards won't be up to scratch for Vistas Aero framework

Vista is going to be a huge change for most Windows users, fo'shizzle.

[motske]

I would not go mac for the simple reason that they are too expensive for the task they perform. before getting a mac, please realise that you actually get a lot more grunt and power per dollar with dual dualcore AMD opterons. i dont care what you get, but the simple fact of the matter is that apple is selling an experience as well as computers. in the PC market there are more bargains to be had due to the absence of 'value adding'
my 2 c

[motske]

if you're getting a desktop, don't go intel. in terms of i386/amd64, amd make the best processors by FAR. they kick intel up and down the park in terms of performance, price, and just generally not being crap.

but the g5s are nice as well, and it's really, really hard to go past the powermac g5 in terms of a complete desktop. it's incredibly beautiful, very quiet, and rather performant, although it can't test the amd64 (the new quad-core g5s, on the other hand ...).

so I dunno. just don't go intel.

sorry but that is bs AMD X2 processors do actually have problems with UAD cards when installed in NF4 motherboards. no problems on NF3 boards though. intels dualcore offering 'pentium D' has NO problems running multiple UAD cards. apparently there is a fix for the NF4 but it is still reccommended by several large DAW assemblers not to use NF4 ! in terms of vst's and power, according to many many benchmarks (five towers test, thonex test etc) on nuendo.com, there is not much of a difference between intel and AMD on single chip dual core front. the differences become apparent when comparing dual processor systems, such as the dual dual xeon versus the dual dualcore opterons.
so saying that intels sucks period is an uneducated statement sry

[system]

I would not go mac for the simple reason that they are too expensive for the task they perform.

agree to disagree!

before getting a mac, please realise that you actually get a lot more grunt and power per dollar with dual dualcore AMD opterons.

depends on what you're doing. the most increase you'll see is with games - and most of that is based on the graphics card.

i dont care what you get, but the simple fact of the matter is that apple is selling an experience as well as computers.

so are Microsoft, as well as pretty much all of the 'PC' manufacturers. Apple just do a better job of integrating it all.

Mac OS X is a very good operating system, for all levels of users, and is just getting better and better.

IMO, of course.

in the PC market there are more bargains to be had due to the absence of 'value adding'

definitely disagree. Dell and co are the masters of the 'value add'. Apple actually give you a good deal these days, increasingly so on price.

my 2 c

[aspekt]

there's no such thing as the G6.

the current dual core G5s are noisy when they really kick in.

I'd wait for the Intel based boxes, myself.

my 2 cents for the Mac OS X convert.

exactly what i was going to say. i reckon even with running PPC apps through rosetta, it will be at least as fast as a G5 (which are fucking hot and fucking loud. they've got nine fans in them i think). I imagine desktop intels will be announced around june/july although it may take them a couple of months to start shipping.

depending on what you do, it may be worth getting an an intel iMac. they're fucking sexy and they have more than enough grunt for most things and even tasks like video editing should be quite doable. I too am a massive fan of silent computing. it's amazing how used to the hum of pc you get. whenever i turn my pc on these days i feel like someone's doing the vacuuming and can't wait to turn it off.

motske: without wanting to sound like a complete fanboy, i seriously recommend using a mac that is setup for your needs. forget all the stigma about macs. they seriously kick arse. as far as bang for buck goes, you'd be hard pressed to beat a pc. they're not gaming machines either although that may change with the intel macs. i've been using PCs for the past 17 or 18 years. I got a powerbook 9 months ago and i haven't looked back. i'm still running the same install of OSX with no issues at all. I administer windows systems for a living and i'm glad they run like shit because it means i get paid well. i'm also glad that macs run like a dream because i'm so over fighting with my home computer to keep it running smoothly. if you're into to overclocking and "extreme" computing, stick with PCs. If you're sick of the focus being about the technology and actually want to get some work done, fork out the extra money for a mac. you get what you pay for. I don't think there's any way i'll ever go back to PCs.
</fanboyism>

[motske]

For everyday usage, i agree the apple looks really good. so I guess it comes down to what you want to use it for...


in terms of stability, you will find it extremely difficult to find concrete evidence that PC's are more unstable than their Apple counterparts. this is a subjective claim swayed by personal bias that many people have said before, yet no-one has actually been able to prove. of course PC's get more viruses etc.

for DAW use, it has been proven that AMD dual dualcore optis is the weapon of choice atm for the amount of plugs you can open at low latencies.
many science labs are dropping their G5's for Dual Dual optis because they are simply faster, at the moment. time will change though.

There is actually an architectual problem inherent in macs that impedes their ability to operate at really low latencies for DAW work. it's all on nuendo.com, and it's a bit worrying for those wanting to use macs primarily for recording purposes.

[Ag3nT[]0raNg3]

1) The Question: Upgrade to Intel now, or go G5
and skip the first generation?


The Answer in a Nutshell

Our recommendations for Mac upgrades are:-

For Professional and Commercial Graphic Designers: -
Upgrade now, to one of the latest generation of G5 Macintoshes, they are at the pinnacle of their development. You’ll remain safe and stable for the next three years at least. You’ll bypass the first generation of Intel Macs with their Rosetta issues, and be well placed to take advantage of second generation hardware and software when next ready to upgrade. By then you can rest assured that all the major software vendors will be fully Intel native and there will be an even faster range of Intel processors on offer.

For Home, Office or Education Users: -
Providing you don’t have to use certain software such as Adobe CS all day, every day, we recommend upgrading to a new Intel based Macintosh. They are significantly faster at running Apple’s range of iLife software, as well as any other software running universal binary. Browsing the internet is faster, and Rosetta does a good job of running non native software, even if is a bit slower than a current G5. Microsoft Office is quite usable under Rosetta and you’ll get a big speed bump once all the major applications go universal binary in about a year’s time. Plus, as long as it’s not mission critical, being at the leading edge of change is just part of the fun and excitement of being an Apple owner!




The Answer in More Depth

As a major Apple supplier, Designwyse doesn’t have the luxury of skipping all the challenges that come with first generational change. Our charter will be to actively assist and support early adopters of the Macintosh Intel platform. This will grow to include all new Mac owners once the G5 processor models are no longer available.

Current mainstream software such as Adobe Photoshop that has been written and optimised for the PowerMac G5 processor currently runs 45 to 80% faster on the latest model iMac G5s than it does on an iMac Intel Core Duo. This will remain the case until the software is upgraded to universal binary format, which in Adobe’s case won’t be until sometime in 2007. Until then Intel based Macintoshes have to run such software under Apple’s Rosetta technology which results in a significant speed disadvantage compared to a current model G5.

If your main software applications are basically Apple’s iLife suite of applications such as iMovie, iPhoto or Garage Band, then these programs have already been released as Universal Binary (UB) format, meaning that their code is native to both Power PC and Intel processors. In this case the new Intel iMacs provide a significant speed advantage of up to 150% compared to a similarly specified iMac G5.

The professional Powermac G5 dual core tower models are as expected, faster again when running Power PC software. They perform especially well when the workload is heavy, drawing on the extra power that the dual and quad core processors have the capacity to deliver under load.

Adobe, Microsoft and others have publicly announced that they will not be releasing universal binary versions of their current software until their next major version is ready for release. Adobe has stated this to be around March to May in 2007.

When purchasing a new iMac or portable for predominantly home, office or educational use with occasional Photoshop and web programming requirements, then the new Intel iMac Core Duo is the best choice. (Although first consider the current run-out offer on 20” iMac G5s discussed in point 2 below)

You will of course be one of the first generation of Mac Intel users and may have to cope with a range of possible problems, usually arising from the need to use Rosetta technology to run existing Power PC software on an Intel processor. There may also be some problems when trying to use certain printer or peripheral drivers, so it is important to let us know which existing peripherals you wish to retain. You will NOT be able to use any older OS9 software that requires the Classic operating environment to run.

If you are purchasing a new Mac for professional or commercial graphics use, then we advise purchasing one of the latest generation of G5 Macintoshes which are now at the peak of their evolutionary cycle. This will ensure the maximum speed of operation and guaranteed compatibility with all the current range of key graphics software for the next three or more years at least. You’ll skip the whole first generation of Intel issues and be perfectly placed to move right into the second generation of Intel Macs with much faster processors rolling out at around that time. All the first generation of Intel bugs in major vendors software will have been ironed out by then.

[bobinabottle]

no, they won't be called G6's. The most likely outcome is that the equivalent to Power Mac G5 will called the Mac Pro when the intels are put in.

in fact i wouldnt be surprised if they intro a new design when they release it.

The powermac g5's arent noisy - the fans can kick in and be loud if you are running the processor 100% - but thats the same with any mac, you should hear my (usually silent) powerbook when the fans are full its loud as!

as for whether to wait or not for the intel mac pro, theres a very good chance it wont be out for a while - apple seem to be updating the consumer level computer before the pro line because:
A. hardly any pro apps are universal yet
B. contrary to what everyone reckons, dual core G5's are pretty equivalent to the intel offerings at the moment performance wise,it wouldnt be much of a speed bump

you can wait and wait until the next best thing comes out, but considering how often computers are outdated, you'll never buy one if you keep waiting.

if you need a computer now, just buy it.

hmm everyone here seems to be switchers, i've never actually owned a computer that wasnt made by apple

[system]

The powermac g5's arent noisy - the fans can kick in and be loud if you are running the processor 100% - but thats the same with any mac, you should hear my (usually silent) powerbook when the fans are full its loud as!

they kick in at about 75-80%, but good point made.

as for whether to wait or not for the intel mac pro, theres a very good chance it wont be out for a while - apple seem to be updating the consumer level computer before the pro line because:
A. hardly any pro apps are universal yet
B. contrary to what everyone reckons, dual core G5's are pretty equivalent to the intel offerings at the moment performance wise,it wouldnt be much of a speed bump

disagree, really. the first line of Intel based machine will most likely be dual core and faster. the current line of Power Macs use DDR2 RAM though, but you'll see better power usage in the Intel based machines.

I'm typing this now on an Intel based Mac desktop machine.

you can wait and wait until the next best thing comes out, but considering how often computers are outdated, you'll never buy one if you keep waiting.

if you need a computer now, just buy it.

spot on, straight up. needs dictate.

hmm everyone here seems to be switchers, i've never actually owned a computer that wasnt made by apple

first Mac was in 1984.

[motske]

erm, i disagree that if you need a computer now just buy it. Thats silly. would you flesh out full price for a product nearing the end of its' life cycle given that a new and improved replacement is on the horizon??

[system]

erm, i disagree that if you need a computer now just buy it. Thats silly. would you flesh out full price for a product nearing the end of its' life cycle given that a new and improved replacement is on the horizon??

agree to disagree. if you need a tool now, buy the most appropriate one.

[system]

1) The Question: Upgrade to Intel now, or go G5
and skip the first generation?


The Answer in a Nutshell

(DesignWyse's sales pitch, yada yada yada...)

not that they're holding a lot of stock or anything!

[system]

in terms of stability, you will find it extremely difficult to find concrete evidence that PC's are more unstable than their Apple counterparts. this is a subjective claim swayed by personal bias that many people have said before, yet no-one has actually been able to prove. of course PC's get more viruses etc.

it's proveable.

for DAW use, it has been proven that AMD dual dualcore optis is the weapon of choice atm for the amount of plugs you can open at low latencies.
many science labs are dropping their G5's for Dual Dual optis because they are simply faster, at the moment. time will change though.

how does Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) relate to science labs? Apple's biggest growth in terms of markets has been in the science and scientific research area. serious cluster users and the Xserve G5 is perfect for it.

There is actually an architectual problem inherent in macs that impedes their ability to operate at really low latencies for DAW work. it's all on nuendo.com, and it's a bit worrying for those wanting to use macs primarily for recording purposes.

so, don't use Nuendo! use an app that's been recompiled and optimed for the OS and the APIs, like Logic.

it's an OS built on RISC CPUs FFS.

[Ag3nT[]0raNg3]

1) The Question: Upgrade to Intel now, or go G5
and skip the first generation?


The Answer in a Nutshell

(DesignWyse's sales pitch, yada yada yada...)

not that they're holding a lot of stock or anything!

[bobinabottle]

disagree, really. the first line of Intel based machine will most likely be dual core and faster. the current line of Power Macs use DDR2 RAM though, but you'll see better power usage in the Intel based machines.

The current Powermac G5's are already dual core, and you get two of them so its already a quad core g5.

of course the new models are going to be faster, why would they want to release a slower computer? I only made this point to illustrate that a power mac g5 really is an awesome computer, and holding out x months (6-12 maybe) for the mac pro may not be worth it if you need the computer now

you should get 4-5 years out of it at least. apps will be released universally for quite some time -- i cant imagine intel only apps will be start being released for another 3-4 years or so, as for Mac OS X i imagine at some point they will stop making it for PPC, but not for a while

edit: hmm only the high end model has two dual core processors, the other configs have only one dual core processor

[Rob M]

Cool. I think it's settled... I will crossgrade to a G5, and bypass the initial problems of 1st gen Intel Mac's. I use Adobe on occassion as a lot of my folio work is still in the format.

I only figured i'd post the thread starter if it was worth waiting maybe the 6 months if/when Apple release their new lineup of intel desktops...but I guess everyone is correct in saying that the G5's will last a good 4-5years, which is my turnover of computers anyhow. So i'm happy.

And so far, productivity-speaking - I have been working smarter not harder on an Apple as compared to my old Windows machine.

I don't have to worry about Spyware, updating, application crashes...because to me Mac has been flawless thus far and even at the pricepoint i'm happy to sell my current lappy and move up to a desktop. Shouldn't hit my hip pocket too much.

Thanks guys, you just made my decisions clearer

...G5 onward and upward!

[motske]

yes macs are good, BUT!!!, for a lot of processor hungry tasks they are not the best, although they do the job well.
I am simply trying to suggest other platforms that I believe are more efficient, flexible and cost-effective. especially considering the huge recent price reduction in Dual 2xx series AMD Opterons.

[motske]

although this seems for graphix mostly so i guess MAC is the only choice

[system]

disagree, really. the first line of Intel based machine will most likely be dual core and faster. the current line of Power Macs use DDR2 RAM though, but you'll see better power usage in the Intel based machines.

The current Powermac G5's are already dual core, and you get two of them so its already a quad core g5.

of course the new models are going to be faster, why would they want to release a slower computer?

sorry, expressed it wrong. the developer Intel based machines are slower, currently, and aren't dual core. however, there are others on the horizon.

you should get 4-5 years out of it at least. apps will be released universally for quite some time -- i cant imagine intel only apps will be start being released for another 3-4 years or so, as for Mac OS X i imagine at some point they will stop making it for PPC, but not for a while

very true. same situation as per Classic, but most likely to be a shorter cycle. (i.e., not 5-6 years!)

all good. good commentaries from all.

[motske]

you would think the market would decide which platform is more suited (to everything really)... oh wait, apples cpu sales increased 6% in 2004/5 thats not very snazzy... oh, is it because apple are in the business of selling ipods now?... hmm (ipod sales increased 500% in the same period). interesting indeed.
I'm not bagging Mac here, as I had an Apple 2E way back which was the shit
apple knows that they aren't as viable as PC machines in the server and desktop markets, this is why their marketing push now focuses predominantly on their major revenue stream... ipods.
this is not to say that Apple is bad, but just to point out what apple is actually all about.

My windows machine has not crashed once. This is the myth... people who can't use windose properly buy a Mac, that mac allows for less user error, which some people call stability...

[saintberry]

do NOT by an intel based mac until or if apple rewrite OSX and all apps you need in C++

full stop.

fat binaries regardless...there is no and will be no intel objective c compiler for the core duo CPU. apple could put money into one if they choose but there is NO way it could ever be as efficient as something the cpu manufacture could produce.

also if they do build a compiler objective c is just poo for multithreading. in short, you will get no benefit from having a dual core cpu.

the g5 will be around until or if apple can address these issues.

[fooishbar]

sure apple is all about ipods, but if they continue to produce desktops with thumping performance (or, rather, ibm continues to produce desktops with thumping performance that apple makes look very pretty), what does it matter?
as for sales -- eat shit today! three trillion flies can't be wrong.
though maybe I'm just trying to self-justify my decision of an OS that has like 5% marketshare.

as for stability, that's not a myth dude, sorry to break it to you. i could say that I'm perfectly warm in a t-shirt and shorts in my house, so saying helsinki is cold is a myth, but the reality is that it's about -7 outside. the fact my house has a heater might influence this.

similarly, the main cause of windows crashes is shit drivers. and not to mention that it's particularly prone to spyware, via a unique combination of a crappy security architecture (or lack thereof), encouraging users to circumvent said lack of architecture anyway, and phenomenal marketshare making it a fantastic target. so you end with viruses and spyware slamming the crap out of your computer while drivers crash it.

does this mean windows as an os is horrendously flawed? no. does this mean that people are right when they say 'windows is horrendously unstable for me, it crashes all the time'? yes. could this have been avoided? in large part, yes.

does os x fix all these problems? no (but it does fix the phenomenal marketshare problem nicely). does linux? no (ditto marketshare). do they come a long way? yes. are they in almost all respects technically superior? yes. do they have a better selection of apps? no. are they just as easy to install? yes.

os wars are as pointless as breaks vs dnb. i use mine, you use yours, everyone has our preferences, let's all get over it, eh?

-d, who started on a microbee/apple 2c

[fooishbar]

do NOT by an intel based mac until or if apple rewrite OSX and all apps you need in C++

full stop.

fat binaries regardless...there is no and will be no intel objective c compiler for the core duo CPU. apple could put money into one if they choose but there is NO way it could ever be as efficient as something the cpu manufacture could produce.

also if they do build a compiler objective c is just poo for multithreading. in short, you will get no benefit from having a dual core cpu.

the g5 will be around until or if apple can address these issues.

what the hell, man? intel uses gcc. they didn't even need to produce a compiler for the g4 or g5, they just needed to tweak the existing power stuff that's been in gcc for yonks until it was performant.

they could target objc to mips, arm or s390 for all they care.

(edit: upon re-reading, turns out you were talking about icc. which is reasonably spiff, but my point still stands: the objc targets are already there, and since it's all tree-ssa this week, you get a huge win out of just optimising the hell out of the non-objc-specific parts. it's certainly cheaper than rewriting everything in c, c++, or something that's actually sensible, unlike objc.

sorry for the misunderstanding. bedtime, I think.)

(edit two: i just realised I'm being kind of a cock. sorry. hopefully you see my point in all of that.)

[system]

you would think the market would decide which platform is more suited (to everything really)... oh wait, apples cpu sales increased 6% in 2004/5 thats not very snazzy... oh, is it because apple are in the business of selling ipods now?... hmm (ipod sales increased 500% in the same period). interesting indeed.
I'm not bagging Mac here, as I had an Apple 2E way back which was the shit
apple knows that they aren't as viable as PC machines in the server and desktop markets, this is why their marketing push now focuses predominantly on their major revenue stream... ipods.
this is not to say that Apple is bad, but just to point out what apple is actually all about.

My windows machine has not crashed once. This is the myth... people who can't use windose properly buy a Mac, that mac allows for less user error, which some people call stability...

that would have to be one of the most stupid posts I've ever read on the internet in the whole 'Mac OS versus Windows' argument.

kudos, you've beaten quite a lot of people!

apple knows that they aren't as viable as PC machines in the server and desktop markets, this is why their marketing push now focuses predominantly on their major revenue stream... ipods.
this is not to say that Apple is bad, but just to point out what apple is actually all about.

mate, iPods are selling. Apple is focusing on selling the damn things. it's an easy push.

XSAN, Xserves and Mac OS X Server is actually making a huge push into the corporate server market. it's Apple first native server OS since the old ANS (which used A/UX), so give it a break. Microsoft have tied IT departments up with BackOffice and other related bits for so long, it actually becomes hard to leverage a move away from that platform.

anyway, I use Mac OS X, Windows (2000 and 2003) and UNIX (FreeBSD and OpenBSD) everyday. I've got the daily usage experience.

[fooishbar]

anyway, I use Mac OS X, Windows (2000 and 2003) and UNIX (FreeBSD and OpenBSD) everyday. I've got the daily usage experience.

sorry, I know I just called for an end to the OS wars, but big ups to personally constituting 25% of the userbase of a single OS.

[system]

do NOT by an intel based mac until or if apple rewrite OSX and all apps you need in C++

that will never happen. Apple has been using Objective-C for over 20 years. this is not going to change. that's certainly not an a good reason to switch a code base over to C++.

fat binaries regardless...there is no and will be no intel objective c compiler for the core duo CPU. apple could put money into one if they choose but there is NO way it could ever be as efficient as something the cpu manufacture could produce.

why the hell not? Apple already has an Objective-C compiler for the Intel chips. the core of Mac OS X came from the NeXT OS, which had a native Objective-C compiler for the Intel based chips.

also if they do build a compiler objective c is just poo for multithreading. in short, you will get no benefit from having a dual core cpu.

wrong. it worked on the NeXt machines didn't it (FFS)?

the g5 will be around until or if apple can address these issues.

wrong. back to slashdot with you.

[system]

anyway, I use Mac OS X, Windows (2000 and 2003) and UNIX (FreeBSD and OpenBSD) everyday. I've got the daily usage experience.

sorry, I know I just called for an end to the OS wars, but big ups to personally constituting 25% of the userbase of a single OS.

sad, but true.

(it's an application server, with over 600 days uptime! )

[fooishbar]

anyway, I use Mac OS X, Windows (2000 and 2003) and UNIX (FreeBSD and OpenBSD) everyday. I've got the daily usage experience.

sorry, I know I just called for an end to the OS wars, but big ups to personally constituting 25% of the userbase of a single OS.

sad, but true.

(it's an application server, with over 600 days uptime! )

to steal your emoticon:

though there's nothing funnier than linux uptime wars. my machine has more local root exploits than yours!

[system]

my machine has more local root exploits than yours!

OMGHI2U!!!one11!!!~

[motske]

im simply pointing out a shift in apples business plan... you are saying how stupid i am.... okay...
i asked you to prove yourself on the stability facit of this conversation, and you said "it's provable".
so do it!! you can't... its a bias statement!.
I pointed out factual sales data, to which you called me stupid. okay...

some people have to learn how to communicate on subjects that are close to their heart... which involves concessions to the other party.
to sum up...
I know how Mac is the only real choice for graphics...
I know that apple is very smart company
I also know that Mac heads are the hardest to talk to about computing.


Again stop treating me like i hate mac.... i dont....

i'm not saying dont buy a mac because they mainly push ipods, i was simply pointing that out. i was also simply pointing out ACTUAL sales data.
System...
you obviously cant keep yourself emotionally detached from conversations about computing...

i bring in facts / figures / benchmarks etc to back up my own opinion and this is how you respond!!!
stop attacking me, and start attacking the issue plz - petty statements like "that's the most stupid thing" is not very helpful to anyone, especially my self confidence!!

[fooishbar]

im simply pointing out a shift in apples business plan... you are saying how stupid i am.... okay...

it's not a shift in their business plan, it's a shift in a) their marketing, and b) how many people are willing to buy ipods. they're still throwing a ton at computers.

'well, we could either sell a hojillion ipods, or we could not.'
'how about let's not. it would render our computer business useless. or something.'

some people have to learn how to communicate on subjects that are close to their heart... which involves concessions to the other party.
to sum up...
I know how Mac is the only real choice for graphics...

actually, this isn't true.

I know that apple is very smart company

sometimes, they make very canny decisions. sometimes, they make stupid, stupid decisions (hello clones).

I also know that Mac heads are the hardest to talk to about computing.

evidently you've never talked to richard m. stallman. or people who are equally attached to windows/linux/os2/<insert platform of choice here>. some mac heads are incredibly obnoxious and stupid, but they tend to stand out more because a) they're in a small minority, and b) their community has a reputation for same. so when you see a stupid mac fanboy, it reinforces your view of the mac community as being stupid mac fanboys. when you see a stupid windows fanboy, you just wish they'd go away.

i bring in facts / figures / benchmarks etc to back up my own opinion and this is how you respond!!!

you brought in benchmarks? ('windows doesn't crash evar' is not a benchmark.)

i think system's main point is that saying that apple are mainly about ipods is bullshit, to be frank. apple are a computer company. they have been since their inception, they were when the first mac came out, they were when jobs left, they were when jobs returned and brought next with him, they are today.

they developed the ipod on the side and pushed that and it sold like nobody's business. it was truly incredible. however if you look at apple's focus -- look at where they're spending money, look at the relative floorspace in apple stores, look at the screen real estate in apple online, look at their website -- it's not about ipods. they don't need to invest much in ipods. they have the concept down pat, they have a thoroughly brilliant ui, anything else is just refining the concept.

that they're selling is incredible, and they've adjusted their marketing to suit. but they're not ramming ipods down anyone's throats, it's just that everyone is lapping them up regardless.

put it this way: it's an enormous boon to them. but if ipods go away tomorrow, it's not going to kill apple. it's a bonus to them at the moment. it's not their core business today, and it won't be tomorrow. they're a computing platform (read: hardware + software) company. that's what they do. that's what they'll be doing in the future.

so saying 'apple are all about ipods' based on the fact that everyone except karl has an ipod and few people own apple computers is just flat-out wrong.

daniel, who does not own any apple hardware, has no plans to acquire any, and did not run os x on the last apple kit he used for any length of time

[motske]

I do agree with you alot fooishbar, thank fr your controlled and pleasant response
the problem here is that i asked for concrete evidence regarding stability issues... i got none... to say that i said that "windows doens't crash evar" and that i found benchmarks for it?? wtf?? okay.. i was gonna post some benchies regarding performance, but i didn't, maybe i should....

I asked system to prove to me how Apple computers are more stable, the burden of proof is not on me here, it is on system... i asked for concrete evidence regarding this issue. I did not say that windows "doesn't crash evar".

[system]

I know how Mac is the only real choice for colour...

better.

[system]

I asked system to prove to me how Apple computers are more stable, the burden of proof is not on me here, it is on system... i asked for concrete evidence regarding this issue. I did not say that windows "doesn't crash evar".

what do you want - evidence about the hardware or the OS?

Code: Select all

uptime
11:21  up 313 days, 17:54, 1 user, load averages: 0.40 0.38 0.39

[motske]

lol, okay you win

[motske]

evidence on both OS and hardware, not yours though... impartial, wholistic (i.e, blanket, not just your computer) evidence plz
my pentium 4 2.8c has been running for longer than 313 days without crash running at full load, and so have a lot of other computers, mac and otherwise.

computers are a tool... i need beer money so i don't get Mac. It is true that when I'm drunk i cant use a PC as well as a mac, so it's a vicious cycle

[system]

evidence on both OS and hardware, not yours though... impartial, wholistic (i.e, blanket, not just your computer) evidence plz
my pentium 4 2.8c has been running for longer than 313 days without crash running at full load, and so have a lot of other computers, mac and otherwise.

whatever, dude. if you want to have a rational argument about this, take it off-forum. otherwise, keep the statements logical and based in fact.

(FYI: you wouldn't have been able to keep your Windows box up for 313 days, anyway due to the patches you'd have to have applied during those days.)

[Rob M]

meow. I never wanted this thread to be an OS or user bashing thread. Everyone can agree to disagree on many valid points. Conclusively, nobody can really dictate to a user or person willing to buy a system to go for one or the other based on price points, ease-of-use, popularity etc...

I am of the opinion that you purchase a tool to suit your needs+budget, not what you think is the fad of the moment; or something you mold your needs around by sacrificing something your not willing to.

I can honestly say, I've been a windows user for ages, but i never really knew that it was never filling my actual productivity needs until one day I was shown the possibilities that were discernable between Windows and MacOSX platforms. Ignorance may be bliss, but if you don't know what best suits your working needs, you will stagnate and pidgeon hole your workflow needs to one particular toolset and whole-heartedly believe that it is the be-all-and-end-all of solutions.

I knew instantly that the premium set by Apple was there for a reason because they know who their target market is. They don't need to pollute peoples assumptions about their needs. They understand the market very cunningly, and tailor their solutions according to fulfilling needs. iPods were and are massive because they essentially made uniform the principles of good Human Interaction Design -- and streamlining their toolset (i.e. iTunes) to match a more coherent stance on quality that 'prosumers' have come to expect in the market particularly on the iPod aspect.

Surely you can see how evident this is considering how Sony has dealt with it's products and R&D into 'walkmans' of the future etc...

The way I see things now is that the market is becomming very user-centric. People are demanding ease-of-use and hassle-free environments. You can understand why there are plenty of switchers as a result of the iPod. People who didn't know, got to see the viability in choice of a different toolset to use.

And System is right, because in lots of organisations you never really cross-grade to a totally new architectural solution overnight. You'd try and match the business needs first. You don't stuff around with the 'status quo' so to speak.

In summation, nobody really needs to slam peoples opinion. Discussion is a good discourse to understanding choice and the relevant issues that you need to know when making an informed decision about your own needs. Whether they be personal or business needs.

[aspekt]

I can honestly say, I've been a windows user for ages, but i never really knew that it was never filling my actual productivity needs until one day I was shown the possibilities that were discernable between Windows and MacOSX platforms. Ignorance may be bliss, but if you don't know what best suits your working needs, you will stagnate and pidgeon hole your workflow needs to one particular toolset and whole-heartedly believe that it is the be-all-and-end-all of solutions.

that's exactly what happened to me.


these days i try and ignore diehard windows users ripping on macs for the multitude of reasons including price, speed etc. I used to be one of them.
my powerbook is noticably slower in comparison to the PC that sits under my desk gathering dust. it doesn't bother me in the slightest because the whole experience is so much more enjoyable, less frustrating and ultimately more productive than my pc ever was.

windows is less stable than mac os x. this is based on my personal and professional experience. years and years of windows crashing, all the issues and bugs and faults.

you can use windows if you want. ultimately it's your loss.

[motske]

I am sorry this turned into a OS bashing discussion as well...

i wasn't trying to rip on Mac. neither am i die hard windows fan (it doesn't matter to me)... i enjoy discussing the merits and downfalls of ALL platforms... without being bashed
this production and technology forum seems not to be the best place to discuss this, unfortunately...