Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:13 pm
by pickle
Actually, it does come with the new Intel iMacs.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:19 pm
by nickman013
Oh, I didnt look at the inte iMac yet, only the MacBook Pro.
Are you a mac user?
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:25 pm
by pickle
/me != Mac user
/me = raving Mac fan

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:27 pm
by nickman013
lol me too, i have a iMac g4 (

), and a powerbook g4 which i love to death!
what kind of macs do you own?
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:38 pm
by neophyte
I admit Macs are beautiful machines -- inside and out. I never believed their propaganda about g4 and g5 being faster. Looked to me that they were charging a whole lot for a slower machine. Now they charge to much for an equal machine. So where does that leave me -- still not buying a Mac until they become competitive. I've been using a Mac on the job for 6+years. I even owned a G3 Imac. I'm still waiting for them to release a Mac with advanced usage features for techno geeks. I think KDE is better than then Finder. But still I think the move to Intel was a good one. Maybe in a few years they'll try releasing their OS for other platforms.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:14 pm
by Roja
neophyte wrote:I admit Macs are beautiful machines -- inside and out. I never believed their propaganda about g4 and g5 being faster.
I think its far more reasonable to state that for a time, they absolutely, provably were faster - for some tasks.
Unarguably, Photoshop, graphics rendering, and type/layout work was tremendously fast on a Mac in virtually every benchmark compared to a PC. However, it is also very reasonable to say that they chose their benchmarks well, just like they are doing now.
The difference is that the architecture, in general, then wasn't faster than the architecture, in general, for a PC.
Now, its the same.
neophyte wrote:Now they charge to much for an equal machine. So where does that leave me -- still not buying a Mac until they become competitive.
I actually went and spec'd out the closest possible Dell equivalent on launch day, and they were very close on price, to which I exclaimed "They are not only better, they are also competitive on price!"
The new Pro model compared with the same model from Dell is only off by about $300 dollars, all of which can be argued to pay for the value-add software that MacOS includes, that Windows doesn't.
$300 out of $2,400 is definitely competitive.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:00 pm
by nickman013
yes, i agree with both of you.
macs are very epensive, its just the name.
for example, i had nextel, the phones were $150+, for a flip phone, w/o camera. i got rid of nextel and bought a razr v3 for 130!
but the macs are beatiful as you said.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:39 pm
by neophyte
Only $300 difference eh? Not bad. Has anybody spec'd out the cost for a build it yourself? Here's one other thing that bothers me about Apple. Maybe somebody can resolve this concern: for what I do, I don't need 2 processors and the best vid card on the planet. If I buy an Apple I'm forced into hardware I don't really need.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:30 pm
by Roja
neophyte wrote:Only $300 difference eh? Not bad. Has anybody spec'd out the cost for a build it yourself?
Actually, as of today (and I stress today, because hackers are hard at work trying to get around it) you cannot build a beige-box that will run the official release of OSX. (You can run the developers version, etc etc).
The trick is in the EFI/Bios-replacement that OSX is tied to. Without it, no boot.
Rest assured, it will occur, and it will occur 'soon'.
neophyte wrote:Here's one other thing that bothers me about Apple. Maybe somebody can resolve this concern: for what I do, I don't need 2 processors and the best vid card on the planet. If I buy an Apple I'm forced into hardware I don't really need.
Its by far not the best vid card on the planet. In fact, its not even close in *any* field - not 2d, not 3d, not multi-diplay, nothing. It is however, a rather high-end card.
But, to answer your latter question, you can wait for the other models to be released. Don't hope too hard on the no-dual-cpu concept however. I suspect that Apple will not make a new IntelMac without dual cores, at the least. I think it benefits Apple and Intel too much.. even on the low-end models, there is little reason not to.
Remember, they've only revamped *two* out of eight(?) different lines of products with Intel inside. If those two don't meet your needs, you can wait a bit for them to revamp the line that fits your needs.
Or you can go buy a Mac today.. no one says you NEED an IntelMac.
Well, almost no one.

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:40 pm
by neophyte
Thanks for the reply Roja. I hope Apple continues the trend of building low cost pc's. I'd like to see some low cost towers. If they do I may move my stuff back to Apple.
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:29 am
by nickman013
It seems that every new PowerMac (tower computer) they come out with goes up by like 200-300 dollars.
Honestly, if you want a computer than has no viruses, doesnt crash alot, and is different. Get a mac. The only bad part about getting one is, the new layout. It took me like 3 days to get it down.
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:09 am
by Grim...
And all the games you can't play...
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:00 am
by nickman013
thats very true.
the only game i have for my mac is roller coaster tycoon.
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:19 pm
by m3mn0n
Appears that these guys got Windows XP running on the Intel Mac:
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/vmware/
We now have Windows XP running on the Intel-based Macintosh — as a guest operating system under the Linux version of VMware.