# Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...



## The Sonic God (Aug 17, 2006)

Okay, when it comes to power hungry computer users, Apple's the one to go to for multimedia needs as well as home computing.

Blah all you want. Macs run Windows now natively, too, so please don't bash. 

Anyway, I'm just looking at these stats...

2 x Dual Core 3.0GHz 64-bit Intel Xeon Processors
4 x 512GB (2TB) Hard Disk Drives
16GB 667MHz RAM DDR2 FB-DIMM (Wholey freaking cow...)
2 x Firewire 400 Ports (1 front, 1 back)
2 x Firewire 800 Ports (1 front, one back)
2 x 16x SuperDrive (Both drives can write to both DVDs and CDs)
5 x USB 2.0 Ports (2 front, 3 back)
Line In/Out
Optical In/Out
Airport 802.11b/g Wireless Network Connectivity
Bluetooth
Double-Wide PCI Express Expansion
High-end NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (upgradable to a Quadro FX 4500)
Support for Windows XP Professional*
Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.7 Pre-installed

* You must purchase Windows XP and use Apple's Boot Camp software drivers to install Windows. Windows runs natively, it is not emulated. You may also use Parallels to run Windows in the Mac environment; it, too, is not emulated.

The price of the core system is $2499. Now considering that the Quad-core G5 Power Mac before this was $3299, this high-end Mac is really starting to make me drool. And to be able to run Windows and Mac OS X natively, well, s***, I'm sold. ^^

What's your opinion?


----------



## yak (Aug 17, 2006)

> 2 x Dual Core 3.0GHz 64-bit Intel Xeon Processors
> 4 x 512GB (2TB) Hard Disk Drives
> 16GB 667MHz RAM DDR2 FB-DIMM (Wholey freaking cow...)


i really want to comment on this, but i'm too busy wiping a puddle of drool from the floor.


----------



## Aikon (Aug 17, 2006)

Ehhh, I'm not Apple bashing but their stuff is way too expensive.  If they sold OS X to run on PC hardware I might consider giving them (another) try.


----------



## Visimar (Aug 17, 2006)

yak said:
			
		

> > 2 x Dual Core 3.0GHz 64-bit Intel Xeon Processors
> > 4 x 512GB (2TB) Hard Disk Drives
> > 16GB 667MHz RAM DDR2 FB-DIMM (Wholey freaking cow...)
> 
> ...



I'm as speechless as you, seeing that I used a mac for a long time before I switched over... *Droooooool*


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 17, 2006)

you could probably run a ton of programs at once with that kind of setup.  It's too bad it took apple some 20 years to come up with a way to manage tasks intuitively, and even though it looks cool, I wonder how awesome it really works with a bajillion windows open compared to the good old-fashioned taskbar.


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 17, 2006)

*RE:  Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...*



			
				Aikon said:
			
		

> Ehhh, I'm not Apple bashing but their stuff is way too expensive.  If they sold OS X to run on PC hardware I might consider giving them (another) try.



Well, Apple's Phil Schiller said that they're trying to bash that myth down as much as they can. A Dell Opteron with a similar configuration is about $3200. Check out the WWDC on Quicktime for more information at http://www.apple.com.

And it is possible to run Mac OS X on any general PC hardware, but you will have limited performance. Check out http://www.hackintosh.org/.

Apple designs the hardware and the software together, so you'd get optimum performance by using Apple hardware. Running Mac OS X on any other system besides a Mac would result in problems. Some video card drivers aren't available on other computer systems under OS X (though with a bit of hacking, you could get just about any NVIDIA or ATI graphics card to work), and certain 64-bit applications will not run on other systems.

However, Apple does have the Mac mini, which runs at about $600, and can use any USB-based Keyboard and Mouse, and any monitor type (even a television set). It uses the Intel Core Duo processor and is 4 times faster than their previous G4 Mac mini.

I'm not so much worried about cost. I'm sure some of you would have the knowhow to go and purchase a self-built system for a mere $500. I know I could, but this is more of a headache than it's worth for your average consumer, of whom has no expertise in the field of computers. Apple assists with this by making everything easy to use and fully automated (though at any time you can gain full control of the system.)

Indeed you can run a tonne of programs with that setup. The Dock replaces the taskbar, but I have to agree, watching my dock getting smaller and smaller whilst every window is shrunk down into it would be an eyesore. Apple had alleviated this problem with Exposé, with one button click you can switch between windows and applications or get straight to your desktop. In Leopard, Apple is expanding on that with a program called "Spaces," so you can assign four different virtual desktops to house your windows in.

There are third party programs out there in which you can create a taskbar for Mac OS X.

Mac OS X is a mere $130 for the _full system_. Full administrative rights and professional tools, and it even includes developer tools should you wish to program your own applications. Windows XP Home _upgrade_ is $80. The catch-22 with that is that you must already own a previous version of Windows. And when it comes time to reinstall the OS because something went wrong, you have to install your old system first, and then your upgrade. A full version of Windows XP Home is $180. If you're looking for the professional tools, Windows XP Professional _upgrade_ is $200. The full version of Windows XP Professional is $300.

Mac OS X and Windows XP Professional are quite capable of performing each other's tasks and doing it very well. The problem is that right now Windows XP Pro is full of security holes and problems, and it becomes exceedingly frustrating when all of the sudden, you're missing a single DLL file which prevents you from installing that all-important application. I tend to think of Windows as a Jenga puzzle. If everything is in place, it runs just fine, but as soon as something is taken away, it breaks apart.

No wonder a huge chunk of the Windows XP is from *stolen* activation keys and pirated software. No one wants to pay the $300. As for me, I don't have a problem paying $130 for Mac OS X.

Oh and BTW, you get Mac OS X free with a new Mac. Including the iLife suite so you can make your movies, websites, photos, and videoconference right out of the box. And there are thousands of game titles for Mac, too. What you get with a new PC is Windows XP Home edition that is insufficient to us advanced users. At least to me, anyway. I have to have Windows XP Pro.

If Windows is your preference, that's fine.


----------



## Aikon (Aug 17, 2006)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> *respectfully snipped*



I agree with some of the points you made, but still, I used to own a Mac Mini and couldn't come to like OS X as much as XP.  And pound-for-pound, the  consumer models for consumers are more expensive.  I can build a PC equivilent of an iMac for much cheaper (display and all), or even purchase a Dell and still be cheaper. 

I did like certain things about OS X, but I'd want the ability to be able to run it natively on my PC hardware without it being emulated.  Not run XP on Apple hardware.

Oh yeah BTW, that link to hackintosh.org.... it led me to a message board, and apparently all the messages have been erased (having problems I guess?).  Is there a program that allows you to run OS X natively on the PC or did I misunderstand?


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 17, 2006)

3rd party apps cost money, do not include any of the apple support which people seem to talk about so much, etc.  Not to mention each minor upgrade of the operating system requires you to pay the full purchase price again.  Luckily for mac users, there's been some sort of gimmick to make most users want to upgrade each time, otherwise, why pay for the same thing over and over again?

Expose, like I said, was a hack of a fix, though it does look pretty darn cool and I wish windows had a similar feature for quick switching.  The 4 desktops thing was probably ripped off other window managers native to the OS theirs is based off of, since I remember using that feature like 10 years ago on Gnome/KDE.  It feels wrong -- you'll eventually forget you have windows open in an unused corner and stuff.


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 18, 2006)

I've got the privilege of using one of the new Intel G5's. I great piece of technology. Fast and stable from my use (Burning a DVD, running a 92kbps live streaming Podcast with 6 connections and copying a bunch of MP3's all at the same time. Smooth as).


----------



## Kougar (Aug 18, 2006)

In my opinion, it's the first Mac I'd ever want to have. It takes the fastest processor currently released in existence and then adds a second one. The hardware options with that system can be configured to handle just about any workstation or server use that exists. They even redesigned the inside of the case and made it better.

But, your post is a little misleading. For the exact specs you list, which is infact NOT the top end end all be all config, it would cost $10,578 USD. The base config only pairs off two 2.66ghz Woodcrest Xeons, and a graphics card that isn't worthy of being inside that computer... 

I also have to say that did you actually look at their upgrade prices? They make Dell look like a Dollar Store in comparison! Such as $400 per single 500gb drive you add. You can buy a 500gb yourself for half of that, or a Seagate 320gb SATA drive for $90 shipped. For the price of a 7300GT, you can get a 7600GT and have stuff left over, and for the $350 x1900XT upgrade, you can buy a Connect3d x1900XT that is NOT underclocked like the one that ships with the Mac for $200. $100 for a $30 dvd-burner isn't nice either... Just switching to the dual 3ghz Xeons is $800 more.

It'd still be a hell of a system though, if you can afford to upgrade anything from the stock set up.


----------



## Aikon (Aug 18, 2006)

Kougar said:
			
		

> I also have to say that did you actually look at their upgrade prices? They make Dell look like a Dollar Store in comparison! Such as $400 per single 500gb drive you add.



Not to mention over HALF of the $10,000 cost is from the RAM alone.  $5700+ for 16 GB's?  I can get decent quality RAM for less than $1600 shipped.  And how hard is it to install RAM?, so it's definately not the labor cost of doing it.


----------



## spree (Aug 18, 2006)

Cool. More awesome stuff for Linux to be on.. with something like that mmmm Linuxy goodness. Thats not like a PC but more like a freaking game console with that much memory. *wonders if its possible to make a computer run PS2 Xbox 360 and gamecube discs*


I'd definetly be interested in one of those. For the money you can't beat it. With a big harddrives. I'd have Mac, Linux, and Windows on the harddrive.


----------



## Kougar (Aug 18, 2006)

Good point about FB-DIMMs... even though those are expensive on their own you can still save a bundle buying those yourself too, such as from Newegg!

And don't forget that since it has two Woodcrest Xeons, that rig  actually has four physical CPU cores. You can run a Xbox 360 emulator, a PS3 emulator, a Wii emulator, and still leave a core for XP all at once without much of a performance hit...


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 18, 2006)

*RE:    Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...*



			
				Aikon said:
			
		

> The Sonic God said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From SNCFurs I was witness to Mac OS X being successfully ran on a Toshiba laptop. I asked what it was, and he said "It's Hackintosh." My searches led to that site. The messageboard is where you get the drivers, apparently.

When you say, "couldn't come to like OS X as much as XP," what exactly do you mean by this? Is it just something æsthetic?

I run both Windows and Mac OS X in my home, two machines running Windows, and two running Mac OS X. Here's what I logged from installation procedures, and driver software:

HP Pavillion:
Insert Windows (2000) CD, perform initialization, partition drive. Install Windows, restart computer. Network card drivers were not available, had to go to my Mac (which was already online) and download Linksys wireless network card drivers (as well as other drivers) and burn them to a hybrid CD. (I did not have the original OEM disc). Install network card drivers. Restart (#2). Opened Linksys setup, found the wireless network, connected, entered passphrase and WEP key. Went to HP.com to download drivers for the OfficeJet T45 printer. Installed and restarted (#3). There was a problem printing to the printer. Windows did not see the device. I had to go to the Device Manager and manually delete the HP Printer, which curiously was labelled with a question mark. After the device was deleted, I had to restart (#4). Windows eventually detected the T45 printer and continued with the installation. Finally got to print. Went to Windows Update. I couldn't download the software updates I needed due to compatibility problems. I installed IE6 and restarted (#5). Went back to Windows Update. Still couldn't download the updates. I aborted. Went to Windows Media and downloaded Windows Media Player 9. Installed, and restarted (#6). By now I have a headache and this was getting ridiculous. Windows kept complaining that some DLL files were missing. I didn't have the time to check it out. Fortunately, Windows 2000 had the appropriate video card drivers. No need to install those. After that, I could do anything.

Macintosh:
Booted from the CD, and installed Mac OS X. All of the drivers needed were included with the operating system. The drive was formatted and partitioned during the installation. Finished, restarted (#1). Went to Software Update from the Apple Menu, and from there, installed Quicktime, iTunes, all software updates, and security updates. Restarted (#2). After that, I could do anything.

Wow...


----------



## ChakatBlackstripe (Aug 18, 2006)

Well I just got a new MacBook and I love it.  only cost $1490.  It has all I need and more.  Came with OS X Tiger 10.4.6 which updates to 10.4.7 on connection to internet.  It's quite handy.


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 19, 2006)

*RE:  Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...*



			
				ChakatBlackstripe said:
			
		

> Well I just got a new MacBook and I love it.  only cost $1490.  It has all I need and more.  Came with OS X Tiger 10.4.6 which updates to 10.4.7 on connection to internet.  It's quite handy.



The only thing about Tiger is that it's a bit quirky seeing as it was a rushed release, but I'm taking a look at Leopard and seeing a lot of promise in it. Check it out when you get the chance, it's coming out in the spring.


----------



## foxystallion (Aug 19, 2006)

When I read that OS X is really UNIX with a friendly face,  I bought a Mac mini strictly for interneting.  I'd never dare use a Windows machine that contained any important data on the web; unlike UNIX which was developed under ARPA (Defense Dept. Advanced Research Projects Agency) contracts and has military-industrial complex grade security designed in from the root out,  Windows was designed as a single user non-networked "personal" computer OS.  Windows networking and security were  kludges added on from the outside around the prior system,   and loaded with lots of yet-to-be-discovered holes.
      I was an alpha test site for putting AT&T licensed Ver. 7 UNIX on the IBM XT back around 1983.  The XT had 640 KB (not MB) ram, a 10 Mb (not 100 GB) hard disk, and an 8 bit 4.88 Mhz (not Ghz) cpu, the Intel 8088.  Sounds pretty laughable, doesn't it.  Because of the efficiency of the UNIX OS design,  those IBM XTs literally ran oil refineries and factory production lines.  (They did a great job on real time interrupts.)  They even wrote a MS-DOS emulator that ran every DOS program that I tested faster than with native MS-DOS, and the OS used less ram than MS-DOS while running - only about 58 KB.  
      The Mac mini is cheap at $600.  If youv'e got both the knowledge and the time, you can probably get free Linux running on an old $25 PC from Goodwill.  I'm running four businesses,  so I have less time than $600.
      Before the truth gets irretreveably (wish this thing had a spelling corrector) lost in the entropy of history,  Apple did NOT!!!! invent the graphic interface for which they are generally given credit.   They copied the interface of the Xerox Star (which, because of cost, was a plaything of high level software and aerospace engineers).  In fact,  about a minute after I saw the first Mac in a computer store,  I said to the salesman, "I didn't know that Xerox had bought Apple."
                                                       Foxystallion


----------



## Zippo (Aug 19, 2006)

Pity its a unix system, that would make a screaming awesome windows gaming machine, pop in an ati all in wonder x1900xt (my current card) and there ya go. :3

-Z


----------



## Ruiner (Aug 19, 2006)

Christ, whatever happened to the good old iBook G3 Clamshells.


----------



## Aikon (Aug 19, 2006)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> From SNCFurs I was witness to Mac OS X being successfully ran on a Toshiba laptop. I asked what it was, and he said "It's Hackintosh." My searches led to that site. The messageboard is where you get the drivers, apparently.
> 
> When you say, "couldn't come to like OS X as much as XP," what exactly do you mean by this? Is it just something æsthetic?



Yeah I read up a little on it elsewhere, it's interesting. 

The installation issues you had with Windows are something that I'm all to familiar with.  But, I have to be fair here, I haven't had any of these issues you have since Windows ME on my Dell.  Installing Windows XP though still takes a little longer than OS X, true, but that stuff doesn't bug me.  XP is pretty seemless.  I don't have to do partitions and since XP I've never had an issue with drivers, ever.  

My reasons for not liking OSX are many (as are some of my reasons for not liking XP).  The funny thing is, is that many are small things that Apple could fix (and likewise, I grew to adapt to).  Like for example, I couldn't stand not having a real 'maximize window' button.  In Windows you could cut and paste files, but oddly you can't do that Mac, you're limited to just drag n' drop... As I said, stupid little annoyances.  I see it all the time, that Apple tries too hard to be different even if different doesn't necessarily mean better.  That's about as easy as I can say it.  

Plus, (I'm not directing this at you) but OS X doesn't crash, my ass.  Everytime I turned around something was crashing.  To be fair though nothing made by Apple crashed all too often.  It's just a testament to those that say that Apple doesn't crash as often as Windows, vause mine sure did.

The biggest reasons why I didn't like it is because I was limited in options in terms of software.  For example, I searched for months trying to find a good (even basic) image viewer for Mac that is similar to ACDSee, but there's only one program (Shoebox) and it was buggy.  I didn't like iPhoto, ACDSee for mac (Strangly) didn't anti-alias thumbnails, and all the other software I tried didn't allow me to categorize my images.  Or, you had to manually add images to a database just to browse them (I forget the title of that one).  ThumbsX (or was it ThumbsPlus?) was a nice little app, but slow and buggy.  

I liked OSX for its simplicity of installing things, and it was an interesting feeling not having to worry about viruses. The only way I would go Mac again is if I saw a good image browser that was similar to ACDsee that was reasonable in price.  I wouldn't move from Windows because I purchased Photoshop and Illustrator for my PC, as well as ACDSee, DivX, etc etc etc... but I'd be willing to give it another shot.   

Suggestions?


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 19, 2006)

*RE:      Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...*

_The installation issues you had with Windows are something that I'm all to familiar with.  But, I have to be fair here, I haven't had any of these issues you have since Windows ME on my Dell.  Installing Windows XP though still takes a little longer than OS X, true, but that stuff doesn't bug me.  XP is pretty seemless.  I don't have to do partitions and since XP I've never had an issue with drivers, ever._

Well, like I said, Windows works as so long as everything is in place. With newer systems, drivers are readily available and Windows XP has many of those drivers already on the operating system disc.

_My reasons for not liking OSX are many (as are some of my reasons for not liking XP).  The funny thing is, is that many are small things that Apple could fix (and likewise, I grew to adapt to).  Like for example, I couldn't stand not having a real 'maximize window' button.  In Windows you could cut and paste files, but oddly you can't do that Mac, you're limited to just drag n' drop... As I said, stupid little annoyances.  I see it all the time, that Apple tries too hard to be different even if different doesn't necessarily mean better.  That's about as easy as I can say it._

If I had a 1600x1200 windows, expanding my browser window to full screen just wouldn't be necessary. Though, true, the maximize button doesn't automatically make a window full screen on the Mac, that, too, bothers me. Surprisingly though, I don't use the copy and paste method to copy files in Windows. Sometimes I forget that the feature is there.

_Plus, (I'm not directing this at you) but OS X doesn't crash, my ass.  Everytime I turned around something was crashing.  To be fair though nothing made by Apple crashed all too often.  It's just a testament to those that say that Apple doesn't crash as often as Windows, vause mine sure did._

lol. All systems crash eventually. It's usually as a result of shotty programming, or someone forgetting to take out their "zero divide" error.

_The biggest reasons why I didn't like it is because I was limited in options in terms of software.  For example, I searched for months trying to find a good (even basic) image viewer for Mac that is similar to ACDSee, but there's only one program (Shoebox) and it was buggy.  I didn't like iPhoto, ACDSee for mac (Strangly) didn't anti-alias thumbnails, and all the other software I tried didn't allow me to categorize my images.  Or, you had to manually add images to a database just to browse them (I forget the title of that one).  ThumbsX (or was it ThumbsPlus?) was a nice little app, but slow and buggy._

"Preview" is the default image viewer in OS X. Not too many features, though. I don't use iPhoto, either, beyond getting images out of my camera. There are a tonne of thumbnail-making programs out there, but I didn't want to pay all of those shareware fees. 

_I liked OSX for its simplicity of installing things, and it was an interesting feeling not having to worry about viruses. The only way I would go Mac again is if I saw a good image browser that was similar to ACDsee that was reasonable in price.  I wouldn't move from Windows because I purchased Photoshop and Illustrator for my PC, as well as ACDSee, DivX, etc etc etc... but I'd be willing to give it another shot._

Run the two side-by-side. That's what I'm doing. I eventually just "forgot" about the operating system and my brain switches accordingly. Kind of like speaking two languages fluently. You get used to it.

Oh, and BTW, your Photoshop and Illustrator discs *should* already have Mac software on them. I think it was recently that Adobe put both the Windows and Mac versions of their software on the discs, I think. At least my Photoshop Elements disc has both Mac and Windows software.


----------



## foxystallion (Aug 19, 2006)

Oops!  I can see in the warm light of day that I shouldn't be writing about quarter century old chips at midnight; I like to get up when the eastern sky starts to grey, and I wasn't quite all there.  The 8088, used in the IBM PC and XT was a 16 (not 8 ) bit chip with a bus structure designed to make use of available 8 bit bus and memory interface chips.  The 8086 had the full aray of 16 bit chip lines, and was used in the IBM AT when the 16 bit interface chips became available.


----------



## Aikon (Aug 19, 2006)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> lol. All systems crash eventually. It's usually as a result of shotty programming, or someone forgetting to take out their "zero divide" error.



Exactly.  Some Apple fans take it too far though.  



> "Preview" is the default image viewer in OS X. Not too many features, though. I don't use iPhoto, either, beyond getting images out of my camera. There are a tonne of thumbnail-making programs out there, but I didn't want to pay all of those shareware fees.



Actually I wouldn't mind paying for shareware if it suited my needs.  And I don't remember Preview, but Finder would be a helluva lot better if you had the option to view more file information like creation date.  



> Run the two side-by-side. That's what I'm doing. I eventually just "forgot" about the operating system and my brain switches accordingly. Kind of like speaking two languages fluently. You get used to it.



Yeah I got used to a lot of the different aspects of OSX.  Most of the things I don't like about OSX can be overcome just by using it for awhile.  But that maximize window thing... I'm obviously biased since I've used Windows for over 10 years, but at the same time I don't see why Apple doesn't swallow their pride, a lot of Apple fans wouldn't mind this either I'm told.  



> Oh, and BTW, your Photoshop and Illustrator discs *should* already have Mac software on them. I think it was recently that Adobe put both the Windows and Mac versions of their software on the discs, I think. At least my Photoshop Elements disc has both Mac and Windows software.



Unfortunately with their pro apps it's OS specific.  Also I guess they no longer trade up their software of equivilant software for a different OS.  Although, I did more research on the Hackintosh project, it's interesting, but I can't come to realize it right now without a second HD with enough space.  I plan on upgrading my PC early next year, I wouldn't mind getting back into OSX, but I'm waiting for Leopard news ultimately (as I'm sure you Mac fans are


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 24, 2006)

_Some Apple fans take it too far though._

I think Linux users in General take it too far. Mac OS X is a BSD-based system now since 1999, so the only real thing that has happened is Apple putting the GUI on top of the core. Sometimes programming errors happen. And they even happened during Worldwide Developers' Conferences. Check the most recent one. A lockup is experienced during the Leopard "Time Machine" demonstration.

_Actually I wouldn't mind paying for shareware if it suited my needs.  And I don't remember Preview, but Finder would be a helluva lot better if you had the option to view more file information like creation date._

You mean this?

http://www.ultimategamers.org/firefox_info.jpg

The creation date is available in the info pane of any file or folder. Furthermore, the Finder creates previews of an image of everything, so when choosing to browse the computer in list, tabs, icons, or columns, you can see all of the data, and movies can even be played in the Finder, just like Windows.

_Yeah I got used to a lot of the different aspects of OSX.  Most of the things I don't like about OSX can be overcome just by using it for awhile.  But that maximize window thing... I'm obviously biased since I've used Windows for over 10 years, but at the same time I don't see why Apple doesn't swallow their pride, a lot of Apple fans wouldn't mind this either I'm told._

Would be curious if Apple and Microsoft just created one platform, using the benefits of both systems, but America likes competition. It keeps prices low... well.. for some products anyway.

Raise your paws if you're using a pirated version of Windows because you don't want to pay the $300 price tag! lol

_Unfortunately with their pro apps it's OS specific.  Also I guess they no longer trade up their software of equivilant software for a different OS.  Although, I did more research on the Hackintosh project, it's interesting, but I can't come to realize it right now without a second HD with enough space.  I plan on upgrading my PC early next year, I wouldn't mind getting back into OSX, but I'm waiting for Leopard news ultimately (as I'm sure you Mac fans are _

They did seal it off.... huh. I thought they would have kept both versions on the same disc. Now since Apple went to Intel, the same x86 code structure can be rebuilt on the Mac more easily from the PC. Shouldn't take programmers too long to translate. Some apps though will still be Universal Binary, so that's kind of a pain right now, at least for the transition. That's something that kind of bothers me, but Apple's Rosetta usually solves most of those problems.

Microsoft, however, is curiously pushing their Office for Mac software saying that it has more features on the Mac side than the Windows side. My question is... who will use those features and why? Most office environments are Windows only, or Heterogenous, with less than 10% of their network being Mac based. (Most TCF ATMs here don't even run Windows, Novell, Linux, or Mac. They still run IBM OS/2. Scary.)

If you're new to Apple, come talk to me. I promise to keep an open mind, and make it your decision. If you're not new to Apple, and you don't like it, give me a reason. I see some people here, including yourself have given me decent reasons. However, I still find a lot of people out there still bashing (I hate bashing. It goes absolutely nowhere.) No expert criticism or influental reasoning of any kind. Just straight out, "it sucks."

Come to think of it, as I see Apple and Windows progress, they're becoming more like each other. Apple's using two-button mice, Windows is using a smoother-style GUI, little things. They share each other's networking protocols and a lot of software is now cross-platform. Heck, Microsoft makes Windows Media codecs for Quicktime. lol


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Aug 25, 2006)

*RE:   Apple's sick and wrong new Mac Pros...*



			
				The Sonic God said:
			
		

> ChakatBlackstripe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Panther is the way to go yo.


----------



## xsv (Aug 26, 2006)

Apple power mac series always has been over the top.

Nuff said.


----------



## The Sonic God (Aug 28, 2006)

Over the top of some people's budgets, too, apparently. (They're trying to bash that myth, though...)

$2499 gets a decent machine with everything you need. My Power Mac that I bought nine years ago is still my primary computer. And I only paid $1500 for it back in 1997.

I don't want to skimp out, though. 512GB of hard drive space is a lot... The guy at the Apple Store said that the Mac Pro comes with a 250GB hard drive. SATA, not PATA.

And then I saw the mother of all displays: http://www.ultimategamers.org/temp/huge_apple_desktop.jpg

Okay, Dell makes big monitors, too. Whoopie. I still might use my CRT, though. (Since it can support 2 displays right out of the box, I can grab two CRTs for cheap at an old computer store and be happy.)


----------



## Fuzzy (Aug 31, 2006)

Ive used macs since i was 10, im on my 4'th one, the G5 tower, aka industrial size cheese grater/nachos warmer, (like the laptop - you could cook eggs on it XD)

im thinking of selling my mac and pc to buy the new macs that run both XD

god i love apple


----------



## The Sonic God (Sep 11, 2006)

Geez, the G4s I so admired back years ago are being sold for $199 at a small computer store in Minneapolis. @_X


----------



## Foxlink (Oct 18, 2006)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> Okay, when it comes to power hungry computer users, Apple's the one to go to for multimedia needs as well as home computing.
> 
> Blah all you want. Macs run Windows now natively, too, so please don't bash.
> 
> ...




OK.. this is all well and good, but for the comp you said here ^ it will cost you WAY more than $3299

I am sorta with Apple (ADC) not paid.. just get the new stuff before it's released... and that computer you said up there is going to cost Subtotal	Please note that your subtotal does not include sales tax or rebates.	$12,228.00
It is a great computer, but if you don't need that much storage space get less RAM... the 16 GB ram is gonna cost you the most...

=^_^=
-Fox


----------



## Foxlink (Oct 18, 2006)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> you could probably run a ton of programs at once with that kind of setup.Â Â It's too bad it took apple some 20 years to come up with a way to manage tasks intuitively, and even though it looks cool, I wonder how awesome it really works with a bajillion windows open compared to the good old-fashioned taskbar.



It actually works really well- they are coming out with a new OS, called Leopard.  It runs smoother, much less to worry about.  You can go here http://www.apple.com and check out the new goodies on Leopard... won't be out until next year though...

=^_^=
-Fox


----------



## The Sonic God (Oct 18, 2006)

Yeah, I knew about the full cost. Apple wants $1500 for 4GB RAM kits... Crucial runs a better deal for just $1000.

Apple can be a ripoff for upgrades.


----------



## sasaki (Nov 22, 2006)

The Sonic God said:
			
		

> High-end NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT



Since when was a 7300 GT High-End? IIRC the 7300 GT is an economical GeForce 7 series model. :?


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Dec 5, 2006)

If you've seen the WWDC footage you'll agree, this is the best deal to date. I've been a faithful Mac user for the past 12 years, by the way.

Yes, the costomability is appealing. but I suggest not going for the insane RAM upgrade or the extra 3 harddrives. Same with the video card, dont go for the 4x cards if you're only going to use a single moniter. Just get the middle-end 512mb card by ATI and you'll be fine for years.

Apple's prices on upgrades tend to get extreme, also. Go for something like a single 2gb card of RAM, and buy some third-party cards later when they drop in price. Hard drives? Same idea. You physically have the space for the extras, so add them later.

DVD burners? Get the single 16x then do through Futureshop or Best Buy for a good Sony secondary drive, it'll be a lot cheaper.

One last thought is OS 10.4.7. If you aren't going to but this right away, wait until after christmas when 10.5 comes standard. That's what I'm doing.


----------

