posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's probably best. We're all concerned about safety here at Hatrack, and mob violence is never pretty. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1934 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apple still sells their PowerMac G4s, and don't forget to look at their student pricing, it is much lower. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Except I would swear that digitavlideoediting.com did similar comparisons and, lo and behold, they were quite different than those.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
edit to add: Dag, while that is true, the most important part is that Windows inherantly as a worse security model than any other operating system. Even if people did try to hack them (which many have), it's much harder when the operating system has security inherent. Satyagraha
posted
I don't have the link in my favorites, and I saw it late last year. you can try searching www.digitalvideoediting.com for the shootout, but I don't have it on disk.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be a law, like Godwin's Law with the Nazis, about using Barefeats tests in a discussion for the purposes of comparing PCs to Macs. Not posting complete PC system specs == immediate disqualification.
Besides which, not a single one of those tests has the slightest bit of relevance to the use Noah intends to make of his computer. Here are some Xlr8 tests that are more relevant (for example, the iMovie benchmark). As you can see, the dual G4 does occasionally edge out the single 1.6GHz G5, but the conclusions are telling:
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.
The G4s were a bad deal two years ago as far as bang : buck is concerned. You should only buy one if you absolutely must have a Mac and aren't planning to use it for anything too intensive.
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.
This argument simply doesn't wash with me. Dag is absolutely right: the only reason there aren't more virsuses for OS X is that hardly anyone uses OS X. "Viruses and spyware" aren't even close to being a good enough reason to buy a Mac in that price range when you could build or buy a vastly more powerful PC for considerably less money.
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.
As much as I hate to say it... dude, get a Dell.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
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!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 125 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
