About Steve Jobs and his fear of buttons

[Nostromo]

nm

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice lie.

You might want to check your facts before spinning such obvious BS.

I've seen black iMacs. The humanities computer room in my college was full of iMacs for a time and there were many pretty colors including black.

Originally posted by Agathon
Apolyton nerds have no business buying one of those.

That is a computer for people who work with digital video or digital audio, or do heavy professional graphics work.

It is not a toy for video game geeks.

Have you actually worked with digital video Agathon on a professional level? You expect to actually get something done with ONE GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300? Heck 1 GB of RAM is barely enough for gaming these days, much less for professional graphics work.

That said, if your main purpose is gaming, you are still better off buying a Wintel PC, since a Mac Pro is ridiculously overpowered for gaming.

Again, 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300 is "ridiculously overpowered for gaming"?

Please, I know you have a crush with Steve Jobs but defending the Mac to the point of ridicule doesn't exactly make you look good (not that that has ever stopped you...).

[SpencerH]

Steve Jobs sucks and Apple sucks too. There! I've said it now you can all go home.

[Master Zen]

Btw, Agathon's contradictions have me cracked up. Check out his logic:

He claims the Mac Pro is for "professional graphics work" not gaming, thus justifying the price. When told the specs are hardly enough, he replies/implies that 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300 is enough for most video/graphics programs. Yet those specs are barely enough for most games (heck, play Doom3 from 2004 on a 7300 and tell me what frame rate you get, let alone games from 2007). Then he ends by saying that the Mac Pro is "ridiculously overpowered for games".

So basically his argument is that professional graphics systems have bigger requirements than gaming systems, then goes on to say that the meager specs of the Mac Pro are enough to run most professional graphics and video software... so how exactly is this "overpowered for gaming" when it will barely run a 2004-era FPS?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The other amusing part of Agathon's post there was about a year and a half ago, I got a desktop with 1 GB RAM and a GeForce 7800 GT, with 2.13 GHz Dual Cores (from Velocity Micro) for around $2000.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Master Zen

I've seen black iMacs. The humanities computer room in my college was full of iMacs for a time and there were many pretty colors including black.

Apple has never made a black iMac. Not one. Ever. They made Flower Power, Blue Dalmation, but not black. That is unless they released one today I didn't see.

You must be thinking of some other model. All the first ones were white/grey with translucent plastic of various hues. The last three models (G4, G5 and Intel) were all white.

Have you actually worked with digital video Agathon on a professional level? You expect to actually get something done with ONE GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300? Heck 1 GB of RAM is barely enough for gaming these days, much less for professional graphics work.

I'm sure that most customers will buy more RAM. They probably won't want to buy it from Apple, since they tend to be expensive.

And you are wrong about the video editing. Final Cut Pro does not make that much use of the GPU. That was my point. If you are using Motion, or something else that requires a lot of on screen rendering, you will be better off with one of the other cards, which, surprise surprise, Apple offers as an option at its store. If not, then you will be better off with the stock card. How dare Apple offer people options with video cards based on their needs. How outrageous.

Again, 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300 is "ridiculously overpowered for gaming"?

Who said that? I said a Mac Pro was ridiculously overpowered for gaming. An 8 core workstation is ridiculously overpowered for gaming, is it not?

Please, I know you have a crush with Steve Jobs but defending the Mac to the point of ridicule doesn't exactly make you look good (not that that has ever stopped you...).

Thank you, and do come again. Perhaps you will think first next time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The other amusing part of Agathon's post there was about a year and a half ago, I got a desktop with 1 GB RAM and a GeForce 7800 GT, with 2.13 GHz Dual Cores (from Velocity Micro) for around $2000.

Yes, because this is anywhere near comparable to an 8 core professional workstation.

Honestly... it's so easy sometimes...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, because this is anywhere near comparable to an 8 core professional workstation.

Honestly... it's so easy sometimes...

Actually it's a Quad Core. The 8 core is $1500 US MORE than the basic system.

OTOH, Dell, for instance has the Precision 690, with the same specs as the lowest MacPro, which is a Quad Core Xeon system for less than $2000.

And all this ignores that there is NOTHING between the highest non-upgradeable iMac and the lowest Mac Pro, so I actually do think it is very comparable. In addition, if I bought a computer from Velocity Micro today, the specs would blow the top iMac away for under $2000.

Yes, it is easy... you can be as fanboi as Asher, but you just don't have to skills to back it up. So you are simply a poor imitation of an Apple Asher. So sad .

[Apocalypse]

Having done professional graphic works on a Mac...they do generally need more RAM. The people who buy the stuff I worked on do not really know what to look for and whatever Mac advertisements they looked at as far as recommendations for graphics and publishing were inaccurate or ineffective. Unfortunately, with Macs as opposed to PCs, when dealing with graphics that strain RAM, Macs will just crash without warning and you can lose quite a bit of data. Windows will just slow to a crawl.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
Apple has never made a black iMac. Not one. Ever. They made Flower Power, Blue Dalmation, but not black. That is unless they released one today I didn't see.

You must be thinking of some other model. All the first ones were white/grey with translucent plastic of various hues. The last three models (G4, G5 and Intel) were all white.

Indeed I was talking about the initial models. But please excuse me, the correct word was "graphite". How silly of me to think that Apple would use such a plain non-presumptuous name like "black" to indicate its color.

I'm sure that most customers will buy more RAM. They probably won't want to buy it from Apple, since they tend to be expensive.

From the guy who constantly argues that most people never upgrade their computers, this statement strikes me as all the more ironic.

Maybe they shouldn't by the video card either. Or the monitor. Or... pretty much everything.

(and before you start arguing that the leading PC vendors like Dell are overpriced, I do not disagree. But they're still cheaper than Apple).

And you are wrong about the video editing. Final Cut Pro does not make that much use of the GPU. That was my point. If you are using Motion, or something else that requires a lot of on screen rendering, you will be better off with one of the other cards, which, surprise surprise, Apple offers as an option at its store. If not, then you will be better off with the stock card. How dare Apple offer people options with video cards based on their needs. How outrageous.

Then we're talking about a different price aren't we? I'm quite sure the price tag will increase considerably if it had been a 7800 rather than a 7300, thus widening the price gap even more relative to, say, Imran's PC.

Who said that? I said a Mac Pro was ridiculously overpowered for gaming. An 8 core workstation is ridiculously overpowered for gaming, is it not?

With a measly 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300? Nope.

Thank you, and do come again. Perhaps you will think first next time.

Is that why you came back? To get pwned yet again?

[Nostromo]

Dell. About 3K$ cdn. For about the same money, you have a lot less CPU power (the Mac has 2 dual cores, whereas the Dell has 1), twice the amount of memory, a better GPU (I presume) and three times the warranty.

Components
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5130 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333MHz), English
Genuine Windows Vista™ Business, with media, English
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC in Riser (2 DIMMS)
Dell 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007FP Widescreen, adjustable stand, VGA/DVI
128MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285, Dual DVI or Dual VGA Capable
16X DVD-ROM with Cyberlink Power DVD™ for Vista Business
C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 or 2 drive total configuration
250GB SATA ll,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
Essentials
No Installation
Resource DVD - contains Diagnostics and Drivers
Accessories
No Floppy Drive
No Keyboard Option
No Speaker option
No Mouse Option
Options
3 Year Limited Warranty plus 3 Year NBD On-Site Service
Also Includes
SAS Integrated Controller - For Connecting Internal SAS Hard Drives

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually it's a Quad Core. The 8 core is $1500 US MORE than the basic system.

So?

OTOH, Dell, for instance has the Precision 690, with the same specs as the lowest MacPro, which is a Quad Core Xeon system for less than $2000.

Is this one of those cases where you strip it down to nothing to try to make it look good?

And all this ignores that there is NOTHING between the highest non-upgradeable iMac and the lowest Mac Pro, so I actually do think it is very comparable. In addition, if I bought a computer from Velocity Micro today, the specs would blow the top iMac away for under $2000.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Honestly...

[Adrian Hon]

Why does any Mac thread turn into a contest about whether Apple or Dell is cheaper? We've already seen this about a thousand times. I seem to recall the original argument was about whether the iMac is badly designed because it's not upgradable. Again, given that most home users *never* upgrade *any* internal part of their computer and wouldn't know what a graphics card is if it hit them on the head, and given that the current iMac revision had a graphics card capable of playing World of Warcraft and The Sims 2 perfectly fine - both mainstream games, if nowhere near the cutting edge - I fail to see how this could be classified as 'bad design'.

If you want to buy a computer that is upgradable, for whatever reason, don't buy an iMac. There are plenty of PCs out there to do that sort of thing on, and Apple clearly thinks that the market for upgradable iMacs is not worth bothering with. Maybe that's a mistake, but it's a conscious choice on their part.

As an aside, I recall seeing some stats which suggested that laptop sales will soon exceed desktop sales; I suspect that among consumers, they already do. While there is a possibility for some laptops to have their graphics upgraded, the vast majority of laptops do not allow anything beyond RAM and hard drives to be upgraded. The fact that laptops are beginning to replace desktops means, to me, that most people don't give a **** about upgrading. Most people just go and buy a new computer.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Master Zen

Indeed I was talking about the initial models. But please excuse me, the correct word was "graphite". How silly of me to think that Apple would use such a plain non-presumptuous name like "black" to indicate its color.

So grey is now the same as black.

Next time I go order a car painted in black, I should expect it to be in mid to dark grey.

Honestly...

From the guy who constantly argues that most people never upgrade their computers, this statement strikes me as all the more ironic.

Let me explain this to you very slowly. There is a big difference between do and can. For example, anyone can have homosexual sex, but hardly anyone does. Similarly, anyone can pop a new hard drive in their computer (even an iMac), but hardly anyone does.

I can't believe you actually said that.

Maybe they shouldn't by the video card either. Or the monitor. Or... pretty much everything.

I really can't understand what you mean by this comment.

(and before you start arguing that the leading PC vendors like Dell are overpriced, I do not disagree. But they're still cheaper than Apple).

It depends. You can get a really cheap computer from Dell, which is rubbish. You can also occasionally get voucher discounts on medium price Dell models which make them cheaper.

But if you honestly spec out a Dell with the best equivalent you can get on a Mac, the price differential is normally not that much different. It's absolutely amazing how much cheaper a Dell can be when you fail to include the cost of a professional class OS, bundled software, and other things that come standard with Apple computers.

Then we're talking about a different price aren't we? I'm quite sure the price tag will increase considerably if it had been a 7800 rather than a 7300, thus widening the price gap even more relative to, say, Imran's PC.

What's your point here? What does this have to do with the fact that the standard graphics card on a Mac Pro is perfectly fine for running most of the apps it is designed to run?

Is this non-sequitur for charity week or something?

With a measly 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 7300? Nope.

Um... because it isn't a gaming machine.... that's not what it is designed for.

Gee whiz... I'm going to buy an 8 core Mac Pro and then max it out with 16 gigabytes of RAM, and then I am going to play games on it. What sane person would do that?

That's like saying I am going to buy a Kenworth as a family car. WTF is wrong with you?

Is that why you came back? To get pwned yet again?

Obviously not by you. Your last post is appalling, even by your low standards.

[Agathon]

OTOH, Dell, for instance has the Precision 690, with the same specs as the lowest MacPro, which is a Quad Core Xeon system for less than $2000.

I looked and I couldn't find that machine. The cheapest Mac Pro is $2200 and it has a 250GB hard drive and two dual core 2.0Ghz Xeons.

If I put those on the lowest Dell Precision Workstation that will take it (the 490), I get $2,217. And that is before I've put any software on it, or any of the other stuff it will need.

Add to that the fact that you are taking the cheaper Dell 690 which has a 750w power supply, when, if my brief research is correct, you should be taking the 1kw model which is $500 more expensive. The Mac Pro draws about that much, from what I have read.

You can put the single crappiest Quad Core Xeon in the cheapest 690, but it will be slower, since the processor speed is less than the two dual core Xeons in the cheapest Mac Pro. I'm guessing that's what you did, but that was disingenuous. If you add the Quad Xeon after that it is more expensive than the Mac Pro.

There is a cheaper Dell workstation, but it doesn't use the Xeon Processor.

Moreover, I can't seem to find the Dell Precision 690 which allows you to customize for the 3 Ghz Quad Core Xeons that the top Mac Pro has.

I did add two 2.66Ghz Xeons and that was $4000 or $4500 depending on the power supply.

Meanwhile, I am looking at an 8 core 3Ghz Mac Pro I just configured at Apple's shop and it is just shy of $4000.

Dell's site is a nightmare, but I've been looking for 15 minutes now, and I can't find this cheap machine.

You do get a better deal on a smaller display. You can get a crap one for free with the Dell, but the good ones are about the same.

What gives?