quote:

---

And please try to be as unbiased as possible

---

You're the one who set things up as adversarial when you used "versus" in the title.

[ July 10, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You will not be able to assemble a mac for a price anything as low as you could assemble a comparable PC. In fact, assembling a mac often results in a higher price than a comparable Apple mac.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The simple answer is this: if you want to assemble things on a budget, you should not get a Mac. If you have a given budget -- like, say, $1500 or so -- then you should look at Macs in that price range and compare them to PCs you can purchase or build in that range, then pick your favorite. But you shouldn't even waste time considering whether to build a Mac, because the answer is no.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Justa's got some excellent points.

Apparently you're not a computer person, otherwise you would have formed an opinion on this debate already.

The drawback(s) to a hodge-podge system:

1. You hope the guy who's doing the assembling knows what he's doing

2. You have no access to any conventional tech support because of the unconventional nature of the PC

2a. If you go the custom PC route, make a list of all the parts and keep it nearby - should you need to repair or replace a part, it's easier if you have a list handy

3. You have to provide the software yourself - both the operating system and the application software and believe me buying them individually is expensive.
3a. If your buddy is assembling the PC, odds are he has copies of an OS and Application software (MS Word, Excel, etc.) and will be happy to install them for you.

*WARNING* That is in violation of copyright and Microsoft frowns on piracy. Naughty, naughty.

Some other points to keep in mind:
1. Is your school "wired?" By that I mean is there a campus network you can link your machine up to? If so, you'll need to get their requirements and make sure your buddy is aware of those requirements.

2. What kind of work do you do? Or are you planning on doing? That will determine how much "power" your computer needs.

3. Printers. I'd recommend buying a cheap laser printer. It'll cost more initially than an inkjet, but replacing those ink cartridges will add up quickly. The "Brother" laser printer starts about $179, give or take. You can get an inkjet for $79, give or take. But look at the number of pages printed per cartridge and price those cartridges. And those last minute papers are a lot easier if you don't have to stand in line to use the school facilities.

4. Virus software. Yes. Get it.

Personal opinions:
I don't like Mac's. They're so simple that I often can't figure out what's going on. Having grown up using PCs, I'm used to the wealth of options possible to make something happen.

Of course, most artists I know swear by them while I mostly swear at them (Mac's, not the artists).

Hope this helps.

-Trevor

Edit: Mac hardware is, for the most part, proprietary? Yes? Which is part of the reason for the amazing lack of third-party hardware.

Third party PC hardware, on the other hand can be had almost anywhere.

Also, you'll find a lot more applications available for the PC - primarily because programming for a Mac (I am told) is very complicated. And for a programmer to say that terrifies me.

If your class requires you to install software to your machine, a PC will be much easier to deal with.

[ July 10, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
If you want to build a desktop, I'd recommend getting a barebones dell system on the cheap and build up from there. Starting the middle of next month everybody and their grandmother will be having Dell back-to-school/off-to-college sales, so keep an eye out for them, usually you can get a good video card and a rather nice LCD out of the deal, too.
Satyagraha

Edit: mac parts aren't really proprietary anymore, you have the same AGP/PCI stuff, IDE harddrive/optical drives, etc.

[ July 10, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
TMedina, you're a bit behind the times. Programming for the mac is the fastest growing development community out there. Take a look at the blogs on OReilly, for instance, A large number, and I think even most, use macs.

A number of the major java project members use macs. I believe most of the JBoss developers do, and I know personally of their use in several other java projects.

Just generally, open source developers are big fans of what apple's been doing with embracing open source technology.

And having developed for Macs, I can say that its really, really easy. XCode is a wonder to use, and objective C/cocoa is a really nice language/set of libraries. Plus, apple's tools are excellently positioned to make good MVC design straightforward.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Just generally, open source developers are big fans of what apple's been doing with embracing open source technology."

fugu's right. Most open source developers buy their tech as a form of political protest.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
(oh, and Bernie has it right. The only remaining proprietary parts are the mobo and the processor. Hard drives, memory, PCI cards (some require new firmware, but are otherwise fine), et cetera are cross platform. Oh, and wireless cards are sort of proprietary, except they're really just a bonus because macs can take airport cards (leaving a PCI slot free, or just saving space in the compact models) or PCI wireless cards.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Open source developers don't have any problems with intel, Tom, and Linux uses even more open source tech than OS X.

Of course, Apple's OS has been the only non MS OS at least as polished as windows, but the huge growth in the development community didn't occur until OS X.

Plus, many of them (such as the JBoss developers and many (though not by any means all) of the O'Reilly contributors) aren't particularly platform biased. JBoss is a very commercial crowd, for instance.

[ July 10, 2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"JBoss is a very commercial crowd, for instance."

Yes, but they're also trend-followers. OSX is the equivalent of Blahnik shoes at the moment, among a certain group of geeks.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
OS X is also a very nice development environment, which certainly doesn't hurt. Pretty much all the major open source IDEs run on it, plus XCode, which is really good, plus open source software pretty much recompiles for it across the board (excluding certain linux specific API usage and a few other things), plus it "just works", plus its got a number of really nice development technologies (Rendezvous, the Quicktime libraries, the Applescript API, some incredible introspection and runtime modification capabilities for a system design language due to the use of Objective C, built in python, built in ruby, built in perl, good packages with JBoss/Tomcat, built in apache, and good APIs allowing excellent integration with several apple provided programs such as Safari, iChat, Mail, and others).

People like Tim O'Reilly aren't into OS X because they hate windows, they're into it because OS X is really nice and very useful for their uses.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What appeals to you about Rendezvous and Applescript? I've actually tried to get excited about them, but I haven't seen anything too impressive in actual practice.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What appeals about Rendezvous? Lets see, autodiscovery of intranet web servers has already been put to use by several corporations, autodiscovery of ichatters on the intranet has been hugely popular at open source conferences, use of rendezvous to allow for zero configuration distributed compiling with XCode has helped several, including myself, speed up compilation time significantly with no effort, its been used in several games to facilitate finding other players, itunes music sharing is quite fun in, for instance, dorms, easy monitoring of computer status across an intranet is made possible by an app called aquamon, and several collaborative editing apps (collaborative writing, collaborative drawing) have sprung up and seen wide use. Plus all the same ways uPnP has been used (printer sharing and such).

Its relatively soon after the inception of Rendezvous and its already one of apple's biggest technologies because its the very first easy to use autodiscovery protocol. uPnP requires both shoehorning your app into an existing uPnP usage specification and writing fairly extensive handling for all the options. Rendezvous is lightweight and a breeze to program with.

Applescript is particularly useful for inter-app interaction, because it can compile into native code. Instead of having to deal with inter process communication, deal with all the different bookkeeping details of interacting with an application (is it started?), et cetera, just use applescript, which lets you just tell the application what to do in a line or two of code and handles all the rest of the details intuitively.

Plus it can be used in shell scripts, and is very network aware (makes networking a lot easier in shell scripting, I'll tell ya).

Plus it allows for quickly building Automator actions in Tiger, which is going to make (for instance) my workflow exceptionally easy (I have several relatively repetitive tasks I do regularly, yet which change periodically making it a pain to maintain more complicated scripts).
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
My 80 year old grandma will be pleased to hear all that.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Leaving aside the FUD, here's what I can tell you.

Unless you have certain specific needs, you will be able to do what you want with your computer whether you get a Mac or Windows box. Don't worry about getting used to a new operating system when you're just starting college -- first, it's not hard to learn how to use an OS; second, knowing how to use different systems is useful and college is a fine time for learning stuff.

As has already been said, you will not be able to build a mac from its parts practically. But I wouldn't particularly recommend building a Windows PC from scratch either. On the price issue, Macs will tend to be a little more expensive. But on the other side of the same coin, Macs retain their value very well -- just check the prices of used Macs on ebay and you'll see what I mean.

If you are not going to use your computer for programming, that's about all you need to know. If you are, though, here are some things to think about:

• Programming for Windows is better on a Windows box. Generally.
• If you are doing cross-platform development (this includes web pages!), both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
• If you want to do anything with unix or open source software, a Mac is probably the better option (for reasons mentioned above), but you may instead (or in addition) want to dual boot Linux.

That is all. Now go do your own research.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Your 80 year old grandmother isn't discussing development technologies available with OS X, methinks.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Oh, and:

quote:

---

4. Virus software. Yes. Get it.

---

quote:

---

But I wouldn't particularly recommend building a Windows PC from scratch either.

---

quote:

---

Plus, I saved several hundred dollars. My best estimate is that a computer with the specs I had bought from Dell would have been around 350 dollars more expensive.

---

quote:

---

Depending on where you look, you can buy a Dell system for $350.

---

quote:

---

But you shouldn't even waste time considering whether to build a Mac, because the answer is no.

---

Hmmm, I guess I wasted my time on my G5 Dual Processor that runs at 9.3 Gigahertz and has 960 meg of ram. But then again, I did build it myself for the pure purpose of video editing (ok, and hatracking). And oh wait I put the whole thing together for about 1,500. And oh ya, since I bought all the parts, they all have a warranty on them, how convenient, if a part breaks, I send it back and get a knew one. Oh ya and I don't have to worry about those pesky spy ware programs and other virus, Because they are almost nonexistent on OSX. I sure hate wasting my time.

Edit: I got the parts dirt cheap through IU

[ July 11, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 

quote:

---

9.3 Gigehertz

---

But seriously, I didn't know this was really an option. I guess I've been out of the loop. Unless you're pulling my leg here.

-----
(edit)

quote:

---

Games and software are easier to find for the PC (except for software to edit movies and graphics).

---

Yes. But don't forget open source software either.

[ July 11, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
Nope, it runs both processor at once. In theory I should be able to get 9.5, but we all know how that works.
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
And as far as video games go, have you guys ever heard of abandon ware, I recently have discovered it, and it keeps me and my Mac more than entertained (or distracted, which ever you prefer).

Free mac entertainment that you won't find in any stores.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory." Is that it?

But to clarify, when I said

quote:

---

But seriously, I didn't know this was really an option. I guess I've been out of the loop.

---

I was referring to the fact that you could build a Mac from scratch at reasonable cost (or at all!), not the dubious 9.3 gigahertz figure.
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
[OT]
Awwww, yeah.

Fool's Errand
3 in Three
[/OT]
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
Oops. well it is an option, you need to find a way to order parts (it is next to impossible to order just a G5 processor, let alone 2 of the bloody things), but once you have a way to order all the parts, it's easier than building a PC. I've done both, and honestly, the differences are rather suddle, but they make so much more sense.
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
The difference between the clockspeed of processors that actually exist and 9.3GHz is more than "suddle."

Computer for college? Buy a $350 Dell, the nicest TFT you can afford, and whatever input devices feel most natural to you. If you want to spend more money, buy an on-site service plan and a better (or 2nd) display.

You should be able to get most software free or cheap from a campus site license. Set the Windows Update applet to auto-install, don't run any unknown executables,* and don't install ActiveX components from random websites. You'll be fine.

(This is not to say you wouldn't be well served by Firefox. The only reason I don't switch is because I have nearly 5 years of passwords locked somewhere in IE's hashfiles. I just don't consider IE as insecure as most people.)

Printers: find out what your college's network policy is. Sometimes you can only print from the cluster computers themselves, other times from anywhere in their subnet. Sometimes you can print as much as you want, sometimes they charge. If either of these factors weighs against you, I'd buy an old workhorse business laser off eBay, something like a LaserJet 4MP. Not too big that you can't find a corner for it, fast, reliable, and doesn't consume ink when you need to print 200-page PDFs off eReserves. Personally I'd stick it in the hallway, post the IP on the dorm bulletin board, and take up a collection for paper every now & then. People will love you.

*Newbie tip: on Windows this is exe, com, bat, pif, js, vbs, wsh, or cmd.
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
Yeah, you've definitely got alot more faith in IE than me. Personally, I almost never saved any passwords in IE. I can't imagine that IE has a more secure method of storing my passwords than Windows itself (a report last year said it could crack most passwords within a few minutes - if not seconds).

As far as the dual proc's go - are the apps that you use written to utilize the dual processors? If not, you've basically wasted your money at this point. Also, just because you've got 2 processors running at whatever speed, it doesn't double your overall clock speed (it just doubles your potential processing power).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Edit: I got the parts dirt cheap through IU"

Well, that would make a bit of a difference, wouldn't it?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I completely forgot about the school discounts on software. A friend of mine at Indiana U got Microsoft XP office and OS for $30.

And yes - I have been out of touch on the current trends in all things Mac. Mostly because I hate the things.

Calvin - confused yet?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I maintain my support for OS X, not in virtue of itself, but in virtue of the known occurence of getting infected with spyware on windows.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Oh, definite plus - I'll grant you that.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 

quote:

---

are the apps that you use written to utilize the dual processors?

---

The Editing software I use utilizes Dual processors (Final Cut Pro).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And I'm referring to in this specific case, not in general . . .
 

---

Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
 
Am I confused? Very.

As for what I plan to be doing with my computer, I just want a computer that can run fast (I absolutely hate the speed of my computer.), won't get infected with tons of viruses (I seem to be bad at keeping viruses out of my computer), and yes graphics and video editing would be nice since I plan on being either a graphics or video editor to support myself until my writing or music takes off. I'm not a big computer gamer, so I won't be playing many computer games. Oh, and lots of memory is a big plus too.

As for past experiance with macs, I used to have a mac way back in the days of Macintosh LC, and I knew how to work tha mac fairly well. Also, I've used Macs a lot at school. So while I wouldn't be as up to date with using a mac as I am with using a PC, I also would somewhat know what I was doing.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And TMedina -- you're missing out. OS X is significantly different than OS 9, and is vastly improved. Particularly once the next version comes out (next year), windows will have fallen far behind in user-friendliness (of course, IMO as long as windows can't keep even the mouse system controls easy to figure it doesn't deserve the label user-friendly at all. Just disabling the "double-tap is double-click" functionality on a touchpad was quite an adventure, and that should be the sort of thing that's really obvious as its very problematic to some).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
What does the Mac use for context menus without a right mouse button?

We had an iMac for testing web sites on, and it was one of those horrible no-button mice. The ones where the whole upper housing is used as the button.

Horrible!

That's the extent of my experience with Macs since 1992, when I was editing a magazine in college.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
control-click
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Plus, you could always have just plugged in one of your USB mice. The two buttons and the scroll wheel would all have worked out of box (including the button on the scroll wheel, usually).

Apple's done extensive usability studies: for new users, one button mice are far superior. Having worked tech support, I'm going to say that yeah, one of the very biggest sources of confusion was which click to use. I had to innumerable times tell someone "take your finger and move it so its over the front left side of the mouse. Now press down quickly, twice".

Frankly, anyone who needs context menus (I hardly ever use them on a mac, its just laid out so they're hardly ever useful, particularly if one uses keyboard copy/paste) can either learn to control-click or get a multi-button mouse, which most people who want fine grained control are doing anyways to get more buttons.
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
(you can get better mice for macs now....)

I use both systems. I really love the mac OS, but from what I've seen of XP, I like that too.

When I get my next computer, I will have to choose the type that gives me the most bang for my limited buck.

And I think we all know what that means. If I somehow fall into disposable cash someday, I may buy fancy cars and new Apples.

But then again, I may not.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't know, I'm a noun-verb conceptualizer so context-menus are almost all I ever use.

And I know you can use another mouse. I just hate the crappy one they created that cares more about form than function.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
Hehe. I just had a funny mental pic about using my MS Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 on a Mac. Maybe I'm just geeky, but I thought it was pretty funny.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Noah... it sounds that the ultimate decision will be how much you can spend.

>$1000: You might as well get a decent quality PC. Unless you have a friend who has experience putting together PCs from scratch (and has a stable computer currently that he put together), I'd buy a new one. I'm sure people here can tell you exactly what to get. A few friends had very unstable machines which was likely the fault of the hardware, not the software (heating up poorly, things breaking). If you still want a Mac in this price range, I'd get the eMac even though it's a CRT. They're quite good quality CRTs (I never notice flicker) and their low-end new one is $750 at education price (with CD-r and DVD-rom).

$1000-$1500: I'd get an iMac if you get a Mac. Comes with an LCD which is great on the eyes. You might not want LCD if you're anal about color quality. The quality of LCD on an iMac is not ideal, you can see a bit of smear when things get dragged quickly across. But you don't have to worry about getting a monitor. 15" iMac is $1200 but you actually can't buy one until late August (supply issues. long story).

$1500-$2000: Get a low-end Pro tower from apple for $1800 and pick up a 3rd party monitor for ~$100. Getting more ram might put you at more like $2200 total after taxes, but you need more ram for any standard computer you buy.

>$2000: Get whatever the hell you want =). I'm not personally a fan of having a laptop as a primary computer, but if you don't mind that then consider a powerbook. I wouldn't suggest video/graphic editing on a laptop because the screen real estate is so small. My iBook has like 30% of the resolution my desktop monitor provides.

Timing: If you decide on an Apple computer, you can choose to maximize your purchase on new computers. Check out the Buyer's Guide on my brother's site. Fugu and I can help you figure out when to purchase your computer between now and September. Feel free to get some advice on the specifics from us if you decide on Mac.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'd echo that sentiment, Noah. If your budget is around $1400, get a Mac. (I'd recommend a laptop for college, since you'll learn to appreciate both the mobility and the desk space.) If it's any less, get a PC.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Note on laptops: It's pretty much impossible to use a laptop outside in full sunlight.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
My Dell Lattitude does fine. There are some positions it doesn't work in (mainly with sun hitting the screen square on), but I've never been unable to correct it by minor changes to the screen angles, although usually it's best to just turn around. I don't know if this is laptop dependent or not. As far as I know, all laptops are TFT now, so it might be something to do with screen coatings.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
If you're getting a Laptop, I suggest reading a previous post that I made. However, in your specific situation, I agree with Tome and Fugu, if you have the ability, get an Apple.
Satyagraha

[ July 11, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It's pretty much impossible to use a laptop outside in full sunlight."

Even if this were always true -- which it isn't, in many cases, depending on the screen quality -- it's worth noting that it's even MORE impossible to use a desktop outside in full sunlight.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Judging by his posted requirements, he probably should be looking at a Mac. (shudder)

I have limited experience with Mac laptops versus desktop machines, so I'll toss this question to the forum at large:

Does Apple make laptops capable of handling his video editing requirements? Or should he still stick to a desktop and just make space?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
A $1400 G4?
Dear goodness yes. If you watch the EE DVDs for LotR, you'll notice they had at least 5 that the main production staff used.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The thing is, even a crappy machine can meet his video editing requirements. It'll just take longer and take up a larger percentage of his hard drive space.

If video editing is more important to him than anything else, he should be looking at a desktop. I strongly suspect, however, that this laptop will be used primarily for word processing, surfing, and E-mail -- with video editing as a distant fourth.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Yeah well - I won't go into what I think about the LotR being used as a reference.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That's probably best. We're all concerned about safety here at Hatrack, and mob violence is never pretty.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Yeah, yeah.

Just because you can run rings around me in an intelligent discussion doesn't mean I can't outdo you in sheer a$$-hattery.

Wait...that doesn't right. You're going to be a lawyer which means you win both counts. Damn.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
 
I'm definetely getting a desktop, since I already have a laptop that, while it doesn't work that great, will work good enough for me to take it outside/on trips with me when I need to.

As for price range, while I'd love to get a G5, my dad says he's not spending $2G on a computer. So I imagine the most I might be able to convince him to spend would be $1500-1600, extra stuff included in that price.
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
Apple still sells their PowerMac G4s, and don't forget to look at their student pricing, it is much lower.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Well, it's really unfortunate that Apple is having a supply problem with the new iMacs. This is the first time I've ever seen them have an almost two-month gap in their production line.

If it's okay to not have a computer until, worst-case-scenario, late September, then get the iMac. If you'll be anywhere near an Apple Store, then buy the computer at the Apple Store when the new iMacs are released (any time from Sept 1st to the end of Sept). You're pretty much guaranteed to walk out of the store with the new computer, and you can still get the Education Price discount (~$100 less than ticket price).
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
In that price range, either build a PC or buy a Dell. The price : performance ratio of every Mac aside from the dual G5s is simply abysmal.

Simply put, if you can't afford a G5 and don't want a laptop, don't buy a Mac at the moment. Their consumer desktops are woefully underpowered and overcosted. Later this year that may change a bit, since Apple has end-of-lined the LCD iMac and will probably (if they can manage it) introduce a G5-based successor... but that's Real Soon Now, not anything concrete. So. Go PC. With Windows, not Linux.

(And keep in mind that I say this as a lifelong Mac user. I have never owned a PC and currently own a G5.)

Edit:

P.S. DO NOT BUY A G4 DESKTOP.

[ July 11, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
*drools at the thought of the PC that could be built for $1500*
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
An older dual g4 (like, dual 1.25 or so) beats a single g5 on most tasks.

In fact, all the dual g4s are very snappy.

[ July 11, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yeah, you can grab a dual 1.25 from the apple education store for $1,469. You could probably knock off another $100 or so with your once per lifetime "student developer" discount, but that's already a good price. You'd want to add a bit of RAM, but its got a good video card (Radeon 9000), a good sized hard drive (80GB), 256 MB of RAM, and a Combo drive (CD writer/DVD reader).
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
Or, you could spend $350 on a faster computer and put the rest toward components that you actually interact with. If you're paranoid about spyware, use Mozilla or hell, Linux. Don't quadruple your hardware budget for bouncing icons.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Twinky speaks with wisdom. The G5 is nice, but it's been laying stagnant in terms of upgrades too long, and you can get equal performance on a better budget, and still have room to purchase peripherals (heck, get an iPod) and stuff (like software).
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
I'd still hold to the thought that a system running OS X would be more advantagious than a system running Windows in his particular situation.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

An older dual g4 (like, dual 1.25 or so) beats a single g5 on most tasks.

---

Certainly not on anything that has to push a lot of data down that anemic 166MHz FSB -- that is shared between both processors on G4 systems. He wants some video editing capability. Even a single G5 would demolish a dual G4.

IP, what exactly is it about "his particular situation" that merits a Mac purchase over a PC purchase given the staggering bang : buck gap?

OS X is great and all -- and I absolutely prefer it over Windows -- but given that he's a typical run-of-the-mill user aside from the small amount of video editing he's thinking about, I see absolutely no reason to reccomend anything in Apple's consumer desktop lineup. Even the G5 is iffy until it gets PCIe.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Because barefeats is so objective, right?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I sincerely doubt any motivation to deceive on the difference between single g5's and high end dual g4's, yet which doesn't extend to the difference between dual g5's and dual g4's.

Plus, in many benchmarks the dual g4 does take a knee to even a single g5 (opengl anyone?), this is just an example of an exception.
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
In my mind, because he has the funds to purchase a system that would natively give the security and peace of mind that a Windows computer never could he should do so. There is a whole lot to be said about having a safe, useable, and clean computer you can trust to stay clean and be secure. Maybe I'm just gilded and have played tech guy to other people too often, but I honestly see the extra uptime a clean computer keeps worth a few hundred dollars more. I just think that a computer using more sick days than people is completely unacceptable.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
This thread bears some resemblance to the vaccination thread. The more people that use Mac OS X (or Linux, for that matter), the more likely hackers and virus-writers will be attracted to the platform. More targets plus less reason to target Microsoft.

It's just a matter of time. Bwahahahahahaha.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

I sincerely doubt any motivation to deceive on the difference between single g5's and high end dual g4's, yet which doesn't extend to the difference between dual g5's and dual g4's.

---

quote:

---

With the price of a comparably equipped G5 1.6 now equal to a G4 Dual 1.25, even the base G5 systems are getting more attractive. In the majority of testing, both G5 systems were faster, and looking to the future they will only improve further. This is because more and more applications are being optimized to run faster on the G5 CPU. Most of Apple's Pro Apps have already been updated with G5 optimized versions that make the most of the advances in the G5 systems. If you use Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro, the answer is the G5 without question, ideally one of the G5 Dual models. A look at the next generation of Apple Pro Apps show some very high requirements for a "Recommended System", for example Motion lists a G5 Dual 2.0 with 2GB of RAM or more.

The tests also show that for the more consumer-oriented tasks like the iLife Apps, the benefit of the G5 systems are still there although not as large as one might expect. Low level benchmark tests show that there is indeed great potential in the G5 systems, once software is further optimized to exploit the new hardware. The initial intro of the G4 systems was similar, new faster systems with few applications that were optimized for the G4. Almost a year into the G5, things are looking up at least in professional applications.

---

quote:

---

In my mind, because he has the funds to purchase a system that would natively give the security and peace of mind that a Windows computer never could he should do so.

---

quote:

---

Besides which, OS X's UNIXness is utterly irrelevant to a fairly typical consumer like Noah who basically wants to surf the 'net, check his email, play the occasional game... and, sometimes, edit video.

---

Not completely true, because of OSX's FreeBSD base, it is more secure than Windows, there's a reason BSD is used for the most secure servers on the interweb, it's the most secure operating system.
Satyagraha

[ July 11, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Wow, that was just like it's said in the advertisements!

No offense, but a server is only as safe as the person securing it. Blaming the software is like blaming the tool for poor workmanship.
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
Inherantly secure. No operating system comes with more ports and backdoors open in it's basic install than Microsoft Windows, be it win2k, winxp, or win2k3.
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
But I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame the tool for poor craftsmanship.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Still sounds like typical hype. Care to quantify that statement?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*plants feet shoulder's width apart*

yeah, what Just'a's name said ^^^^

tool?
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
A clean Windows install has six open ports, of which NetBIOS is open exploited over and over. A recent security scan of all servers on campus --i work in our IT department-- showed: our AIX machines (running AIX, which is UNIX) had 3 possible warnings,our BSD machines had none, our Fedora (redhat) and Debian servers had two, and the OSX servers in the biology department had 6, and of the single win2k3 server in the chemistry departments, there were 12 major security holes that needed to be patched. Of these servers, the OSX, Windows, and Linux servers had all default settings, THAT is what I mean by inherently insecure.
Satyagraha

[ July 11, 2004, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Can one secure windows down as much as an OS X system can be secured? Pretty much. Is it as easy out of the box? Not a chance in heck.

Of course, this is assume you don't need, say, Internet Explorer, which routinely gets critical security holes that go unpatched for days/weeks/ an occasionally months.

Or IIS, which while it has nice performance particularly in certain high end setups is a major pain to keep secured due to problematic updates. Similarly for SQL server, which is famous for the update that unupdated an earlier update, letting slammer in.

Of course we're talking about applications that can be considered "in addition" to the OS, but many of the problematic aspects of these apps are symptomatic in windows apps. One has to wonder why that happens.

We could also talk about the OS's kernel structure, that certainly keeps it snappy but allows a lot of things to run in ring zero that really just shouldn't (such as, oh, the GUI).

I mean, just the high rate of exposure of RPC vulnerabilities should convince you the security designed into the system is low. RPC code should always, always, always be reviewed to an extreme degree for bounds checking and such to prevent buffer overflows. There've been several times where an RPC vulnerability a month was being unearthed!
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
btw, is http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=25633-1]this the benchmark you were talking about?
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I hear all this talk of security, but does it really matter? I've been running Windows 98 since, well, 98, and a virus has yet to get past Norton. And I surf as much as the next person.

Sure, some spyware, but it's not malicious. I run AdAware and Spybot once every couple months to stay clean.

Most computer downtime, I'd guess, is because the user is a moron--not what OS he/she uses. If you need the security for some reason, then worry about it. But your average, intelligent user isn't in all that much danger.
 

---

Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
 
I rarely chime into these little forays into idocy, but here I go anyway...

I've been running OS X since it came out and have been a Mac user since 1996. Until that time I was working as a Windows specialist for music software integration. After working with a Mac for a few months at a new location I switched and convinced the company to do so too.

Now after years of working for a web/3d/design/video college that has almost nothin but Mac boxes I've purchased an XP box for home to sit along side my G4.

I didn't bother with anti-virus or firewall software in the first couple of weeks, figuring I'd get to it eventually. Turns out I managed to contract two viruses and a trojan within 72 hours of turning my shiny new XP box on.

Compare that to "never" with OS X and that's a fairly compelling argument all by itself.

I'm a strong believer in purchasing a machine for it's purpose - and a Mac doesn't always suit that purpose. But considering the difficulties Noah's had in the past, the ease of use, the video editing angle and the security issues, I'd have to recommend an OS X box.

Most of the arguments against Macs in this latest thread are just tired old dogma that hasn't been true for many years. Try thinking for yourself for a change.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Well, you can tell that Noah wants to get a Mac, and is trying to get us to justify it.

As for security, antivirus programs are cheap, sometimes free. I've never gotten a virus, either, and I run a 98 box. I've countered your compelling argument.

Easy to use? I don't think that's a problem anymore, Troubs. These kids heading to college have been using computers since they've been in school. Pretty long compared to fogeys like you and me.

The video editing angle is the key one, though. But unless he's going to be doing a whole lot of time-sensitive stuff, why spend the extra money? Editing on a G5 is fun, but my Celeron processor isn't terribly far behind in speed, and I built my computer for under $350. If he were building a box dedicated to video editing, I might agree on the Mac. But this is a college computer.

My advice to Noah: Build your own. Your dollar will go a lot further that way. Get an awesome mobo/processor with onboard everything, a speedy hard drive, lots of RAM, and a USB 2.0 card. You'll be set. And it'll be more educational than opening a cardboard box and talking to some tech guy from backwoods Georgia who's asking you if you know where the power button is.
 

---

Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
 
YEAH lots of RAM. >_<

D
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Looks like somebody misses Jaime.
 

---

Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
 
I was just commenting, since anyone who knows me knows I only have about 4K free RAM. I don't know what you are talking about.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Oh, I thought you were Anti-Chris. My bad.
 

---

Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
 
*tsk* and one of the posts I actually signed, as well.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*cough*it's spelled Jamie*cough*



I also have to say that I've yet to get a virus.

ONCE, I got a bugger of a spyware program. That's in eight years of using PCs.

I use my Gateway laptop (I've had it since '02 and I don't want any crap about Gateways. I've had two of them and they haven't failed me yet. So there.) with 1G of RAM for my photo editing. The RAM has made all the difference in the world instead of the actual processor. That's what I've noticed, anyway.



I think folks are right though. Noah probably already has in mind what he wants and is trying to get us to convince him.
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 
No operating system that you can purchase off the shelf is secure. None. Go to bugtraq and search for how many advisories have been posted for each OS since its last commercial release. The relative "ranking" changes weekly, but none is close to 0. Obviously this stat is utterly useless to all but the most clueless fanboys, but if you really want to keep score, I pretty much guarantee that at the time you buy your machine (school starts in 7 weeks?) XP SP2 will be lowest

NetBSD is the most secure OS not because of its kernel (which shares a ton of code with other OS's and in the final analysis is not objectively better than any other modern kernel) but because of its default settings. OS X, being a consumer OS, bears no resemblance at all in terms of configuration. Even at the architectural level, it doesn't even use the semi-exotic features that set some other BSDs apart like obfuscating buffer allocation in the standard C library.

There is a time and place to be a Macfag, but let's get real. $1.5k gets you either:

$350 Dell (P4-2.6 or thereabouts) + big capture drive + bump to 1GB + TWO FP1800's with enough left over for a swank natural keyboard + comfy 5-button mouse. Downside: you must patch it before plugging into the WAN.

$1400 G4 + replacement mouse + whatever display you can scrounge cheap. Upside: you probably don't have to worry about getting compromised so fast that connecting directly to apple.com is unsafe.

Ok so you have a much faster machine with insanely better ergonomics. Then consider the number of choices for affordable video editing software on each platform...I could go on but this is so obvious...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course, if we instead have a list of the exploits exploited by viruses, Windows XP SP2 will be at best tied with the others for 0. And quite possibly ahead with 1 or 2.

Which is pretty much what matters for the everyday user -- the random hacker coming along and writing a custom exploit rate of occurence is quite low.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Hey Frisco - all the help desk jobs are in India now.

You can let Georgians off the hook.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
I know Internet Explorer is rather unsafe, which web browser would you recomend instead?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I started using IE because the then current version of Netscape was a royal pain.

Recently I downloaded Mozilla and I'm actually enjoying it.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Insanity Plea (Member # 2053) on :
 
This is an article on the insecurities of Internet Explorer that I originally wrote for faculty and staff at my college (with much help from the wonderful Fugu). It gives a really quick summary of why IE is bad, and a quick overview of alternative browsers. I personally use Mozilla, however for normal users I suggest using Firefox.

Once again, along with my normal speel on mozilla, I'm giving a link to my Smart Bookmarks, and don't forget awesome awesome Extensions (here for firfox). One that I find more useful than spreadable butter is Mouse Gestures (here for firefox)!
Satyagraha
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Heh, I love it. Listen, I'm not going to go into a full-on discussion of security issues over situations that Noah isn't ever going to see, and just like Frisco, I believe the guy is just looking for a reason to justify getting a Mac to begin with. We can go for pages talking about the good and bad parts of any operating system around.

I just wanted to point out that even though OS X was compared to BSD in this thread, OSX != BSD in any way. In fact, the kernel MacOS X is based from is most definitely not the BSD kernel, but the Mach kernel that predates modern BSD kernels. In other words, claiming heritage with current BSD builds is completely inaccurate. So, every comparison to BSD builds are inherently flawed by using an improper comparison to begin with. The OSX kernel does not equal the recent (10+ years) of BSD kernels. They share a common heritage, that's all.

As for open exploitable ports, it all depends on what you are using to exploit them with. With Windows, there are hundreds of (half-usable) scripts out there to take advantage of the equal number of listening ports to Windows versus OS X. Why? Because as has already been said more than once, Windows makes up over 95% of the users out there, making it an easier target to aim at. Otherwise, someone would have to take into account different command structures, file systems, and file locations. Only those who are seriously interested in exploiting listening ports, and who can understand how to manipulate packets, are going to even bother with that difference. Instead, people aim for the lowest common interface, which is (no surprise) the Windows systems.

So, can we please stop equating OS X with any BSD variants and actually talk about the actual subject, not using tangents to try to make a separate point and equate it to something it is not? Why even bother bringing Linux into it? According to Linux servers are attacked more often than Windows servers to begin with. Why? Once again, it has to do with the higher number of available targets out there for those types of exploits, much like the client exploits for Windows.

This is, ultimately, why such arguments are doomed to become repeating loops of the same rhetoric and asssumptive statements. You are fulfilling the prophecy I already made at the beginning of the thread.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

btw, is this the benchmark you were talking about?

---

No, but if you look at the numbers, they clearly don't mesh with the barefeats AfterEffects numbers. However, the one I saw used Xeon as well as Opteron in the comparison (and P4 and G4).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And if you'll look at a reanalysis of the data that was done, which instead of counting every single defacement on hundreds/thousands of different sites run from a single apache server that resulted from a single attack as individual occurences, counted only attacks against unique IPs, linux still edges out windows in attacks, but only just. And considering there are more linux servers out there, that means per server linux is attacked less.

http://www.zone-h.org/winvslinux

sorry, reanalysis of part of the data (the english isn't so clear). But they're a big host, and the numbers are a good chunk of the study's numbers, so its likely pretty good data.

[ July 12, 2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
It's been a couple of years since you, the ones who know, have hashed this issue out.

What's your thoughts on this now? Which do you prefer now?

Apple or Dell?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I've been using a Mac at work for the last 16 months, and I fail to see what the big deal is.
 

---

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
 
I'm curious about the Apple.

We have a Dell desktop and laptop. Joe's worried about having to learn a new operating system. Is it really that different?

I've heard that it doesn't crash as much as windows. That appeals to me. The whole coolness factor is calling out to me as well.
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
I like Apple better. I put in about a quarter of the effort I put into my old PC to maintain it. That alone makes it worth the extra money.
 

---

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
I am currently typing this message on my macbook in Windows.

What does this mean? I like the choice.

I really don't think there should be that much competition between the two in regards to hardware, and when it comes to software I think Apple has its benefits with some pretty nifty development software and a lack of a virus-making market. With Windows you have more software available to you, and it's still decent. So my answer to this question is, can't I do both?

And I do.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Things have changed substantially. The hardware is now directly comparable -- both Dell and Apple PCs use Intel processors. That makes it much easier than it has ever been before to figure out how much more or less a Mac costs than a comparable Dell.

I haven't done any price comparisons myself lately, though. I'm still using the same dual G5 tower that I owned back when this thread was new, although I've upgraded it fairly significantly.
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tammy:
It's been a couple of years since you, the ones who know, have hashed this issue out.

What's your thoughts on this now? Which do you prefer now?

Apple or Dell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:
I've been finding that I have less and less tolerance for Windows' tendency to crash at a moment's notice.

---

See, that's a major issue for me!

If someone could seriously assure me that the Mac is so much cleaner in the way that it operates, I'd be an easy convert.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The only thing I can add to the discussion is to point out that in two years, I have had a few minor issues with my Mac, but it has been 10 times more positive than my previous 3 years with a PC, in which time I came to hate that device with a bloody passion, and curse the name of Microsoft.

I also notice that there is a substantially different response on this board from the former "Mac SUXORS!" crowd, in the last few years. I remember inflamed debates about Macs that seem to have died down as Apple has made consistently solid products over the last 5 years. Microsoft has also been helping the apple cause by producing awful software, and generally playing the fool for the past little while.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Neither OS X nor Windows XP/Vista is particularly prone to crashing.

Windows is more prone to things being installed on it that cause crashing, and tends to be installed on lower quality hardware (which can lead to crashes).

If you see a lot of crashing on your windows box, you would almost certainly see fewer crashes on a Mac running OS X.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
How I feel about Microsoft

Honestly, I remember being calling Apples "Crapples" when I was younger, because I remembered learning on something called a GS II? I don't remember, but it was before the first CRT iMac came out(the fluorescent/translucent shelled one). I HATED them, they crashed all the time.

In recent years, I've found the same problem with Windows. I've switched to an iMac back in February, and I wonder what I was waiting for. I LOVE my iMac. The software, the "out of the box readiness" was astonishing.

Best of all, if you have a Window's only program, you can have two separate partitions, which I do, and it works seamlessly, though it's a bit odd to see Window's XP on my iMac screen.

From a former Mac hater, I highly recommend them now.
 

---