Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » To add fuel to the fire
| To add fuel to the fire [message #78260] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 14:51  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important person
on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
to play don't have Mac versions.
So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware is
somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when it's
nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac Book
and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it uses
an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
screed and costs around $750.
In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and using
it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording worth
it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78262 is a reply to message #78260] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 15:22  |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You forgot one major thing;you can't run OSX on a Dell.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important person
>on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>to play don't have Mac versions.
>
>So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware is
>somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when it's
>nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
Book
>and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it
uses
>an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
>I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
>screed and costs around $750.
>
>In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
>last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and using
>it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording worth
>it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>
>TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78263 is a reply to message #78260] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 14:42 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
had to infect it with XP. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important person
> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
> to play don't have Mac versions.
>
> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware is
> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when it's
> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac Book
> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it uses
> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
> screed and costs around $750.
>
> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and using
> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording worth
> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>
> TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78266 is a reply to message #78263] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 16:08 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it. Here
are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
James
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>
>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>
>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>
>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>
>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
person
>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>
>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
is
>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
it's
>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
Book
>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it
uses
>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
>> screed and costs around $750.
>>
>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
using
>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
worth
>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>
>> TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78267 is a reply to message #78266] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 16:11 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it. Here
>are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>
>James
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>
>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>
>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>
>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>
>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>
>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>
>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>
>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>
>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>
>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>
>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>
>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>
>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>
>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>person
>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>
>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>is
>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>it's
>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
>Book
>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
it
>uses
>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
and
>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a
larger
>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>
>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
hours
>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>using
>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>worth
>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>
>>>
>>> TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78268 is a reply to message #78267] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 15:36 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> Here it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it. Here
>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>
>> James
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>
>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>
>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>
>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>
>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>
>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>
>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>
>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>
>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>
>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>> person
>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>
>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>> is
>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>> it's
>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
>> Book
>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
> it
>> uses
>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
> and
>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a
> larger
>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>
>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
> hours
>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>> using
>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>> worth
>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>>> TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78269 is a reply to message #78268] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 16:33 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ah those guys SUCK! Just kidding!
Being a drummer, I've seen them several times, there a great band, it will
be a great show. I've even seen them at the NAMM show a few times. Morgenstein
and Morse rock! Have fun!
James
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> Here it is:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>>
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it.
Here
>>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>
>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
than
>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
low
>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
the
>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>
>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>
>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
that
>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>
>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>
>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>
>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>
>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>
>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
for
>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>
>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
you
>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>> person
>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
likes
>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>> is
>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
chipset,
>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
slightly
>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>> it's
>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
Mac
>>> Book
>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>> it
>>> uses
>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>> and
>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
a
>> larger
>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>
>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>> hours
>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>> using
>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>> worth
>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>>>> TCB
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78291 is a reply to message #78269] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 21:40 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Morgenstein still with them?
AA
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45a81ae2$1@linux...
>
> Ah those guys SUCK! Just kidding!
>
> Being a drummer, I've seen them several times, there a great band, it will
> be a great show. I've even seen them at the NAMM show a few times.
> Morgenstein
> and Morse rock! Have fun!
>
> James
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>>>
>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it.
> Here
>>>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>
>>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end
>>>>> models?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
> than
>>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
> low
>>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
> the
>>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>
>>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I
>>>>> imagine
>>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>
>>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
> that
>>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>> software.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>
>>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>> designs
>>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>
>>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>
>>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
>>>>> form
>>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
> for
>>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>
>>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
> you
>>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>> person
>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
> likes
>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>> is
>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
> chipset,
>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
> slightly
>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>> it's
>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
> Mac
>>>> Book
>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>>>>>> recently)
>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>> it
>>>> uses
>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>> and
>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
> a
>>> larger
>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>> hours
>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>>> using
>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>> recording
>>>> worth
>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>> TCB
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78293 is a reply to message #78291] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 22:53 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>Rod Morgenstein still with them?
>
>AA
>
I think so??? I'm Sure Jamie will be able to tell us tomorrow.
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:45a81ae2$1@linux...
>>
>> Ah those guys SUCK! Just kidding!
>>
>> Being a drummer, I've seen them several times, there a great band, it
will
>> be a great show. I've even seen them at the NAMM show a few times.
>> Morgenstein
>> and Morse rock! Have fun!
>>
>> James
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>> Here it is:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>>>>
>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it.
>> Here
>>>>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone
to
>>
>>>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end
>>>>>> models?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
>> than
>>>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
>> low
>>>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
>> the
>>>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>
>>>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I
>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to
gain
>>>>
>>>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
>> that
>>>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>>
>>>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>>> designs
>>>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness.
For
>>>>
>>>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not
for
>>>>
>>>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
>>>>>> form
>>>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>> for
>>>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry
you
>>>>
>>>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
>> you
>>>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>> person
>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>> likes
>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>> chipset,
>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>> slightly
>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots
when
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
a
>> Mac
>>>>> Book
>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>>>>>>> recently)
>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>> it
>>>>> uses
>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>> a
>>>> larger
>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>> hours
>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
and
>>>>> using
>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>>> recording
>>>>> worth
>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78295 is a reply to message #78293] |
Fri, 12 January 2007 22:19 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
well, it's probably safe to assume he's not in Winger anymore, heh.
AA
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45a873de$1@linux...
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>Rod Morgenstein still with them?
>>
>>AA
>>
>
> I think so??? I'm Sure Jamie will be able to tell us tomorrow.
>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:45a81ae2$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Ah those guys SUCK! Just kidding!
>>>
>>> Being a drummer, I've seen them several times, there a great band, it
> will
>>> be a great show. I've even seen them at the NAMM show a few times.
>>> Morgenstein
>>> and Morse rock! Have fun!
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>> Here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>>>>>
>>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it.
>>> Here
>>>>>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone
> to
>>>
>>>>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end
>>>>>>> models?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
>>> than
>>>>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
>>> low
>>>>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
>>> the
>>>>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>
>>>>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I
>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to
> gain
>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
>>> that
>>>>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>
>>>>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>>>> designs
>>>>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness.
> For
>>>>>
>>>>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not
> for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
>
>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>>> for
>>>>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry
> you
>>>>>
>>>>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
>>> you
>>>>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>> likes
>>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple
>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>>> chipset,
>>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>
>>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>>> slightly
>>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots
> when
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>
>>>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
> a
>>> Mac
>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>
>>>>>>>> recently)
>>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>> it
>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one
>>>>>>>> chip,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>>> a
>>>>> larger
>>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about
>>>>>>>> five
>>>>> hours
>>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
> and
>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>>>> recording
>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>
>>>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78303 is a reply to message #78263] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 09:42 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and a nice
black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>
>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>
>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>
>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>
>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
person
>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>
>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
is
>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
it's
>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
Book
>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it
uses
>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
>> screed and costs around $750.
>>
>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
using
>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
worth
>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>
>> TCB
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78304 is a reply to message #78303] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 10:49 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap tops
for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299. I
wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new ball
game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff from
Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When that
happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
James
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>
>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and a
nice
>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>
>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>
>TCB
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>
>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>
>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>
>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>
>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>
>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>
>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>
>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>
>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>
>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>
>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>
>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>
>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>
>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>TCB wrote:
>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>person
>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>
>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>is
>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>it's
>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
>Book
>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
it
>uses
>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
and
>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a
larger
>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>
>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
hours
>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>using
>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>worth
>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>
>>>
>>> TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78312 is a reply to message #78303] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 17:48 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the entire
motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
> My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
> argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
> Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
> That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
> I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and a nice
> black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
> and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
The black laptop case was worth an extra $200 to you. But I would have
bought the white one. And I would have bought it at a discount through
one of those sources we told you about.
It's odd to hear you complain about Mac prices, and then when you get a
chance to buy one (for someone else), you pay MORE than you have to,
only to complain about it. I can't figure out why people come to you for
OSX Mac advice, it's obviously not your forte and you hate 'em.
Granted, the argument for Apple hardware superiority has been made in
the past, when Apple did their own motherboards, fancy cooling designs
and chose different processors than those blessed by Microsoft.
But that was then. Your rant is out of date. The difference now is
mainly software and design. Not insignificant areas, but it's a change.
A "glass half full" kinda person, would probably see this as a good
thing. Apple leveraging standard components, fast new processors, BSD,
and adding value in design and software. Based on Mac sales, there seems
to be a thriving market for that. (Not with you or LaMont, of course -
but that's OK, someone has to buy the other stuff to keep the overall
market somewhat alive, so thanks.)
For my part, I am not complaining about my "old" dual G5 with an Apple
designed motherboard, and "obsolete" PowerPC processors that kick
through my work pretty dang blazingly (PDB), on an almost unusable OSX
operating system. Oops, I was channeling you for a second there. Meant
to say, a reasonably elegant OSX operating system. :^)
BTW, I was surprised by the change in direction at Apple. I haven't
needed an Intel Mac yet, but it looks like the current machines are
decent and fast. Since my current main production machine is doing fine,
I can afford to wait for a few more dishes in the buffet, such as
desktops with 8 CPU cores, and laptops that can address more than 3GB RAM.
It's interesting to hear all the complaints about Apple seemingly rooted
in the past. That's where most of my Apple complaints exist, too. Like
OS8 and 9 having major multitasking and memory allocation limitations.
And Logic losing soft synth output. Those were NOT the days.
Glad we're past all that.
> BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
> money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
You go, bro! And while you're at it, since you're good at this stuff,
get some of that Linux audio software working better so we can all move
to open source. Then we'll have nothing to argue about. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>
>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>
>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>
>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>
>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>
>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>
>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>
>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>
>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>
>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>
>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>
>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>
>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>
>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
> person
>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old likes
>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>
>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
> is
>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
> it's
>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a Mac
> Book
>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because it
> uses
>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip, and
>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a larger
>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>
>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five hours
>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
> using
>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
> worth
>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>
>>> TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78313 is a reply to message #78291] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 18:19 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Awesome show. First show of the tour. Steve said they were able to do a
quick tour because everyone was available for a short window of time.
They all seem to be pretty busy with other projects.
It was the most recent lineup, with Dave LaRue on bass and Jerry Goodman
on violin, along with T Lavitz, Steve Morse and Rod Morgenstein. LaRue,
Morse and drummer Van Romaine played first as the Steve Morse Band.
Later Romaine joined the full Dregs lineup for their encore which
started with a blazing drum duet.
There were some minor stumbles with arrangements here and there. First
show kinda stuff. Didn't phase anyone. Amazing players, and a great
night of music.
If you have the chance, see this tour.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Aaron Allen wrote:
> Rod Morgenstein still with them?
>
> AA
>
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45a81ae2$1@linux...
>> Ah those guys SUCK! Just kidding!
>>
>> Being a drummer, I've seen them several times, there a great band, it will
>> be a great show. I've even seen them at the NAMM show a few times.
>> Morgenstein
>> and Morse rock! Have fun!
>>
>> James
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks James. Have a great weekend! I'm off to see the Dixie Dregs. :^)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>> Here it is:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6ckjy-gdY&NR
>>>>
>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie! MacWorld Magazine has a good video, but I cant find it.
>> Here
>>>>> are some user videos on changing RAM and the hard drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmHef6fjyM
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerwvktWtKA
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end
>>>>>> models?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
>> than
>>>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
>> low
>>>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
>> the
>>>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I
>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
>> that
>>>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>>> designs
>>>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
>>>>>> form
>>>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>> for
>>>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
>> you
>>>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>> person
>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>> likes
>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>> chipset,
>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>> slightly
>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
>> Mac
>>>>> Book
>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>>>>>>> recently)
>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>> it
>>>>> uses
>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>> a
>>>> larger
>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>> hours
>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>>>> using
>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>>> recording
>>>>> worth
>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>>> TCB
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78314 is a reply to message #78304] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 20:09 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot. I
set up two of them last week.
TCB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
tops
>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
I
>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>
>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new ball
>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff from
>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>
>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When that
>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>
> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>
>James
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>
>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and a
>nice
>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>
>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>
>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>>
>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>>
>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>>
>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>
>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>
>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>
>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>>
>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>
>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>
>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>
>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>
>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>
>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>
>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>
>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook for
>>
>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>
>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>>
>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>TCB wrote:
>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>person
>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
likes
>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>
>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>is
>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel chipset,
>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's slightly
>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>it's
>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
Mac
>>Book
>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>it
>>uses
>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>and
>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has a
>larger
>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>
>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>hours
>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>using
>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>worth
>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78317 is a reply to message #78312] |
Sat, 13 January 2007 20:56 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> TCB wrote:
>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>
> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the entire
> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>
Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you guys
arguing about? ;-)
An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new Macs
use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect for a
PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the OS.
The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively) because,
well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other hardware
devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors - Intel
and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different framework -
68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for math -
vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the structure
and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's the
main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto is they
couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a limited
design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and go for
Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is selling
enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably drop most
any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the OS is
setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other parts are
too low.
With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference is what
the GUI and the logos look like.
The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
Borders to Barnes & Noble.
Regards,
Dedric
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78331 is a reply to message #78317] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 08:53 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
what differences remain.
The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of the
GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
waste time on these threads. :^)
But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real difference...
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the entire
>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>
>
> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you guys
> arguing about? ;-)
>
> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new Macs
> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect for a
> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the OS.
>
> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively) because,
> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other hardware
> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors - Intel
> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different framework -
> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for math -
> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the structure
> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's the
> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto is they
> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a limited
> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and go for
> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>
> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is selling
> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably drop most
> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the OS is
> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other parts are
> too low.
>
> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference is what
> the GUI and the logos look like.
>
> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78333 is a reply to message #78331] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 09:37 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
> what differences remain.
>
> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of the
> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
> waste time on these threads. :^)
Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed to be
arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best to
evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>
> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real difference...
Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain, not
just the groomed runs.
BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge phone,
so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and orientation
detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down, I might
consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>> processors.
>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the entire
>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>
>>
>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you guys
>> arguing about? ;-)
>>
>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new Macs
>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect for a
>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the OS.
>>
>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively) because,
>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other hardware
>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors - Intel
>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different framework -
>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for math -
>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the structure
>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's the
>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto is they
>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a limited
>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and go for
>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>
>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is selling
>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably drop most
>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the OS is
>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other parts are
>> too low.
>>
>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference is what
>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>
>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78343 is a reply to message #78333] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 11:31 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I wasn't
accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
:O)
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
>> what differences remain.
>>
>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of the
>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>
> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed to
> be
> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best to
> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>
>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>> difference...
>
> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain,
> not
> just the groomed runs.
>
> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge phone,
> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and orientation
> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down, I might
> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>> processors.
>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>>>> entire
>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you
>>> guys
>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>
>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new Macs
>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect
>>> for a
>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the OS.
>>>
>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively) because,
>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other hardware
>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors -
>>> Intel
>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>> framework -
>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>>> math -
>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>>> structure
>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's
>>> the
>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto is
>>> they
>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>>> limited
>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and go
>>> for
>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>
>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>>> selling
>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably drop
>>> most
>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the OS
>>> is
>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other parts
>>> are
>>> too low.
>>>
>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference is
>>> what
>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>
>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78344 is a reply to message #78343] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 11:37 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I wasn't
> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>
> :O)
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
>>> what differences remain.
>>>
>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of the
>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed to
>> be
>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best to
>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>> difference...
>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain,
>> not
>> just the groomed runs.
>>
>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge phone,
>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and orientation
>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down, I might
>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>>>>> entire
>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>
>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you
>>>> guys
>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new Macs
>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect
>>>> for a
>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the OS.
>>>>
>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively) because,
>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other hardware
>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors -
>>>> Intel
>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>>> framework -
>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>>>> math -
>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>>>> structure
>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's
>>>> the
>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto is
>>>> they
>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>>>> limited
>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and go
>>>> for
>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>
>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>>>> selling
>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably drop
>>>> most
>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the OS
>>>> is
>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other parts
>>>> are
>>>> too low.
>>>>
>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference is
>>>> what
>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>
>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78345 is a reply to message #78314] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 12:34 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>
>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>
>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot. I
>set up two of them last week.
>
>TCB
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>tops
>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>I
>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>
>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new ball
>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff from
>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>
>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When that
>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>
>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>
>>James
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>
>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
a
>>nice
>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>
>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>
>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>
>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>>>
>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>>>
>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>>>
>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>
>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>
>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>
>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>>>
>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>
>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>
>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>
>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>
>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>
>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>
>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>
>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
for
>>>
>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>
>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>>>
>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>person
>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>likes
>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>is
>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
chipset,
>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
slightly
>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>it's
>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
>Mac
>>>Book
>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>it
>>>uses
>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>and
>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
a
>>larger
>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>
>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>hours
>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>>using
>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>worth
>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78346 is a reply to message #78345] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 12:36 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
And a web cam built in it.
"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>
>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>
>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
I
>>set up two of them last week.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>tops
>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>
>>I
>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>
>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
ball
>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
from
>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>
>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
that
>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>
>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>
>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
the
>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
$1300
>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>a
>>>nice
>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>
>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>
>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
than
>>>>
>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
low
>>>>
>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
the
>>>>
>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>
>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>
>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>
>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
that
>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>
>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>>
>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>
>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>
>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>>
>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>for
>>>>
>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>
>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
you
>>>>
>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>person
>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>likes
>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>is
>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>chipset,
>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
firewire
>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>slightly
>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>it's
>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
a
>>Mac
>>>>Book
>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
recently)
>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>it
>>>>uses
>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>and
>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>a
>>>larger
>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>hours
>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
and
>>>>using
>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>>worth
>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
goes.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78347 is a reply to message #78346] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 12:38 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>And a web cam built in it.
>
>"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>>
>>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>>
>>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
>I
>>>set up two of them last week.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo
lap
>>>tops
>>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>>
>>>I
>>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>>
>>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what
I've
>>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
>ball
>>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
>from
>>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>>
>>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
>that
>>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>
>>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
>the
>>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their
machines.
>>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
>$1300
>>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>>a
>>>>nice
>>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical
drive
>>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had
more
>>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB
>>>>>
>>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone
to
>>>
>>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
>than
>>>>>
>>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
>low
>>>>>
>>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
>the
>>>>>
>>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>
>>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>>
>>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>>
>>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
>that
>>>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>>
>>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>>>
>>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness.
For
>>>>
>>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not
for
>>>>
>>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
form
>>>>>
>>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>>for
>>>>>
>>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry
you
>>>>
>>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
>you
>>>>>
>>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>>person
>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>>likes
>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>>is
>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>>chipset,
>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>firewire
>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>>slightly
>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots
when
>>>>>it's
>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
unusual
>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
>a
>>>Mac
>>>>>Book
>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>recently)
>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>>it
>>>>>uses
>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>>and
>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>>a
>>>>larger
>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>>hours
>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
>and
>>>>>using
>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>>>worth
>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78351 is a reply to message #78347] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 12:30 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/14/07 1:38 PM, in article 45aa86a2$1@linux, "Nappy"
<mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
>
>
Which since they are the same hardware, begs the question as to why any core
2 duo computer can't run OSX. Oh, that's right, Steve J. won't let us. :-)
So...what's the more flexible, cost effective, scalable hardware? ;-)
This is all in good fun, btw. Just for sake of conversation more than
anything....
Serious Q: Can you buy a Mac core 2 duo that is compatible with a quad core
cpu? I am doubting it since there are only a few motherboards that support
both currently, and I believe the current core 2 duo Macs were designed
before quads really hit the market, but I am curious if anyone knows.
The kicker on this one for me is that I can build a core 2 duo PC today for
less than, or about the same cost of the same core 2 duo cpu Mac but with
more PCI/PCIe slots, more Sata ports, higher buss speed, more RAM, dual DVI,
wireless bluetooth, *and* be able to upgrade to a quad core cpu by simply
dropping one in whenever I want. (That's what I'll be putting together in
the next month - it's already spec'd out and ready to order). That's a
significant consideration for me (and yes, I've been through Apple and
Dell's custom configurators, as well as a few others - I still come out
better doing my own from Newegg).
That's a much better investment for me at least. The OS is secondary for me
to a large degree - just a means to an end that depends more on hardware
than the OS. Now if I could buy OSX standalone, I could have an AppleggPC
running WindowsOSX. I would also mix logos and make a fruit salad. ;-)
I had considered a Mac this time around, or maybe later this year, but so
far the above advantage is still outweighing the convenience of a plug it in
and turn it on solution.
I think that's where a lot of audio PC users are (not average users, but
power/tech savvy users). It isn't so much about "us against them" as
different requirements and decision making approaches - some want to turn on
the switch and not think about it; others want to get a fast system and
hotrod it even more, and the time is paid for in the gains made in workflow
later.
My personal decision making process is simply one of numbers and my own
application - if it makes more sense (power, speed, cost, upgradeability,
software support without crossgrade costs), then a Mac is fine. So far,
that cost has been noticeably higher than staying with a PC. I don't care
which anyone chooses, as long as you see both sides equally.
My main reason for entering this thread is to balance what James said about
PC users - that the conversations turn into bashing Macs, but I see it both
ways. Mac users are also pretty adamant about Macs being an overall better
choice. My other reason...okay, it's kind of fun in a twisted sort of way.
;-) It's fun to talk geek/tech with other pro audio folks from time to
time. Nice diversion from actually getting work done with these beasts. :-)
Regards,
Dedric
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78354 is a reply to message #78314] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 14:18 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There are some things to consider. To start the Dell cost $125.00 more to
add the Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, Or $200.00 more for the 2.0 GHz, so you looking
at $875.00 to $950.00 to start. The Dell has a 15.4" screen, which I think
is an advantage over the MacBook, although some people would Prefer the Compactness
of the MacBook's size. Jobs said some years ago that Apple buys the vary
best LCD screens, they pay more for first choice and their competitors buy
their rejects. I don't know if that's the truth, but I'm sure you guys would
say BS!
Anyways, the MacBook comes with a full version of Mac OSX, not a cut down
home addition. It would cost more to get XP Pro, so you would have to add
another hundred bucks. The MacBook comes with similar software to MS 8,
address book, iCal etc..
The MacBook also comes with the ilife suite of software. I would value that
at a bout two to three hundred dollars. If you consider say, Acid For GarageBand
your looking at around a hundred bucks. You would also have to come up with
the following: Comparable DVD authoring software that is as good as iDVD.
A Photo program that is as good as iPhoto for editing and organizing photos
and a High Definition video editing software that is as good as iMovie HD.
There is also iWeb for web page building that integrates with iPhoto, GarageBand,
and iMovie to up load your multi media to your web Pages, and list your stuff
on the iTunes store. It also has integrated Pod Casts software. The iBook
has front Row, a multimedia playing and organizing software, with a wireless
hardware remote control.
The MacBook also has a built in isight video camera/ still camera, with iChat
audio video conferencing software. Built in wireless, including Bluetooth
2.0+EDR, I don't believe the Dell has Bluetooth???. The MacBook also has
built in firewire, I'm not sure if the Dell has that??? I don't know about
the Dell, the MacBook has the ability to plug in up to a 24" monitor for
extended desk top at up to 1920 x 1200 resolution. The MB has 6 hours of
battery life, I don't know about the Dell??? Industries say that Macs have
better used resale value, i don't know if that's true but it something to
consider. The MacBook has the advantage of being able to run more operating
systems, thus, the ability to run more software, which gives you more choices.
I think if you add it all up, they are comparable Price wise, and one may
have the edge.
James
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>
>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>
>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot. I
>set up two of them last week.
>
>TCB
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>tops
>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>I
>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>
>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new ball
>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff from
>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>
>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When that
>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>
>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>
>>James
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>
>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about $1300
>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
a
>>nice
>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>
>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>
>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>
>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more than
>>>
>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>>>
>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>>>
>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>
>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>
>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>
>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs that
>>>
>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>
>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>
>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>
>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>
>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>
>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>
>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>
>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
for
>>>
>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>
>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>>>
>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>person
>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>likes
>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>is
>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
chipset,
>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic firewire
>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
slightly
>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>it's
>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
>Mac
>>>Book
>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up recently)
>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>it
>>>uses
>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>and
>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
a
>>larger
>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>
>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>hours
>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>>using
>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>worth
>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it goes.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78355 is a reply to message #78345] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 14:29 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
And upgrading the machine I linked to with the exact same Core 2 Duo chip
that is in the Macbook is a whopping $75. And you have a wealth of other
options, since Dell figures the person buying the computer might deserve
a chance to make some choices about what they buy.
None of which has anything to do with the original point I made, which is
that the mystical higher quality components in Macs simply don't exist.
TCB
"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>
>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>
>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
I
>>set up two of them last week.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>tops
>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>
>>I
>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>
>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
ball
>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
from
>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>
>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
that
>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>
>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>
>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
the
>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
$1300
>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>a
>>>nice
>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>
>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>
>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
than
>>>>
>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
low
>>>>
>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
the
>>>>
>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>
>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>
>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>
>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
that
>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>
>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>>
>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>
>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>
>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>>
>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>for
>>>>
>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>
>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
you
>>>>
>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>person
>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>likes
>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>is
>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>chipset,
>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
firewire
>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>slightly
>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>it's
>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
a
>>Mac
>>>>Book
>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
recently)
>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>it
>>>>uses
>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>and
>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>a
>>>larger
>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>hours
>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
and
>>>>using
>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>>worth
>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
goes.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78356 is a reply to message #78351] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 14:31 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ah, we were talking about lap tops!
I think your going to see some great desk tops come from Apple in the next
few months, I wouldn't count them out just yet!
Since you are talking about audio, I will speculate here a bit and say, I
think you may see PC software developers write more programs for the Intel
Macs. Maybe even your favorite programs! Adobe made announcements at MacWorld,
I wonder what NAMM, Music Messa, and NAB will bring. I wonder if there will
be a Logic version for PC??? LaMont will still hate it no matter what;
) LOL!
James
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>On 1/14/07 1:38 PM, in article 45aa86a2$1@linux, "Nappy"
><mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
>>
>>
>Which since they are the same hardware, begs the question as to why any
core
>2 duo computer can't run OSX. Oh, that's right, Steve J. won't let us.
:-)
>
>So...what's the more flexible, cost effective, scalable hardware? ;-)
>This is all in good fun, btw. Just for sake of conversation more than
>anything....
>
>Serious Q: Can you buy a Mac core 2 duo that is compatible with a quad core
>cpu? I am doubting it since there are only a few motherboards that support
>both currently, and I believe the current core 2 duo Macs were designed
>before quads really hit the market, but I am curious if anyone knows.
>
>The kicker on this one for me is that I can build a core 2 duo PC today
for
>less than, or about the same cost of the same core 2 duo cpu Mac but with
>more PCI/PCIe slots, more Sata ports, higher buss speed, more RAM, dual
DVI,
>wireless bluetooth, *and* be able to upgrade to a quad core cpu by simply
>dropping one in whenever I want. (That's what I'll be putting together
in
>the next month - it's already spec'd out and ready to order). That's a
>significant consideration for me (and yes, I've been through Apple and
>Dell's custom configurators, as well as a few others - I still come out
>better doing my own from Newegg).
>
>That's a much better investment for me at least. The OS is secondary for
me
>to a large degree - just a means to an end that depends more on hardware
>than the OS. Now if I could buy OSX standalone, I could have an AppleggPC
>running WindowsOSX. I would also mix logos and make a fruit salad. ;-)
>I had considered a Mac this time around, or maybe later this year, but so
>far the above advantage is still outweighing the convenience of a plug it
in
>and turn it on solution.
>
>I think that's where a lot of audio PC users are (not average users, but
>power/tech savvy users). It isn't so much about "us against them" as
>different requirements and decision making approaches - some want to turn
on
>the switch and not think about it; others want to get a fast system and
>hotrod it even more, and the time is paid for in the gains made in workflow
>later.
>
>My personal decision making process is simply one of numbers and my own
>application - if it makes more sense (power, speed, cost, upgradeability,
>software support without crossgrade costs), then a Mac is fine. So far,
>that cost has been noticeably higher than staying with a PC. I don't care
>which anyone chooses, as long as you see both sides equally.
>
>My main reason for entering this thread is to balance what James said about
>PC users - that the conversations turn into bashing Macs, but I see it both
>ways. Mac users are also pretty adamant about Macs being an overall better
>choice. My other reason...okay, it's kind of fun in a twisted sort of way.
>;-) It's fun to talk geek/tech with other pro audio folks from time to
>time. Nice diversion from actually getting work done with these beasts.
:-)
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78357 is a reply to message #78351] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 13:50 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One of those tech web sites (ars technica?) dropped the quad core into a
Mac Pro and it ran. No link handy, sorry.
OSX standalone would be great.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Dedric Terry wrote:
> On 1/14/07 1:38 PM, in article 45aa86a2$1@linux, "Nappy"
> <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
>>
>>
> Which since they are the same hardware, begs the question as to why any core
> 2 duo computer can't run OSX. Oh, that's right, Steve J. won't let us. :-)
>
> So...what's the more flexible, cost effective, scalable hardware? ;-)
> This is all in good fun, btw. Just for sake of conversation more than
> anything....
>
> Serious Q: Can you buy a Mac core 2 duo that is compatible with a quad core
> cpu? I am doubting it since there are only a few motherboards that support
> both currently, and I believe the current core 2 duo Macs were designed
> before quads really hit the market, but I am curious if anyone knows.
>
> The kicker on this one for me is that I can build a core 2 duo PC today for
> less than, or about the same cost of the same core 2 duo cpu Mac but with
> more PCI/PCIe slots, more Sata ports, higher buss speed, more RAM, dual DVI,
> wireless bluetooth, *and* be able to upgrade to a quad core cpu by simply
> dropping one in whenever I want. (That's what I'll be putting together in
> the next month - it's already spec'd out and ready to order). That's a
> significant consideration for me (and yes, I've been through Apple and
> Dell's custom configurators, as well as a few others - I still come out
> better doing my own from Newegg).
>
> That's a much better investment for me at least. The OS is secondary for me
> to a large degree - just a means to an end that depends more on hardware
> than the OS. Now if I could buy OSX standalone, I could have an AppleggPC
> running WindowsOSX. I would also mix logos and make a fruit salad. ;-)
> I had considered a Mac this time around, or maybe later this year, but so
> far the above advantage is still outweighing the convenience of a plug it in
> and turn it on solution.
>
> I think that's where a lot of audio PC users are (not average users, but
> power/tech savvy users). It isn't so much about "us against them" as
> different requirements and decision making approaches - some want to turn on
> the switch and not think about it; others want to get a fast system and
> hotrod it even more, and the time is paid for in the gains made in workflow
> later.
>
> My personal decision making process is simply one of numbers and my own
> application - if it makes more sense (power, speed, cost, upgradeability,
> software support without crossgrade costs), then a Mac is fine. So far,
> that cost has been noticeably higher than staying with a PC. I don't care
> which anyone chooses, as long as you see both sides equally.
>
> My main reason for entering this thread is to balance what James said about
> PC users - that the conversations turn into bashing Macs, but I see it both
> ways. Mac users are also pretty adamant about Macs being an overall better
> choice. My other reason...okay, it's kind of fun in a twisted sort of way.
> ;-) It's fun to talk geek/tech with other pro audio folks from time to
> time. Nice diversion from actually getting work done with these beasts. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78358 is a reply to message #78354] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 15:17 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The basic Core 2 duo 1.8 Dell is $1052, and that is with out any of the multi
media software the Mac Book comes with, or the other things I mentioned.
I forgot to mention you can get $100 off a printer or a free printer, after
rebate with the purchase of a Mac.
Here is the basic Dell configuration:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
Apple rebate:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/ChoosePerfectPrinte r.pdf
Apple's other Promos:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore. woa/wa/RSLID?mco=3A357264&nclm=Promos
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore. woa/6744003/wo/8a2DIlmx7GQU2lkqa3dIKAsjFm1/1.0.0.21.1.0.8.7. 1.4.1.1
James
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>There are some things to consider. To start the Dell cost $125.00 more
to
>add the Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, Or $200.00 more for the 2.0 GHz, so you looking
>at $875.00 to $950.00 to start. The Dell has a 15.4" screen, which I think
>is an advantage over the MacBook, although some people would Prefer the
Compactness
>of the MacBook's size. Jobs said some years ago that Apple buys the vary
>best LCD screens, they pay more for first choice and their competitors buy
>their rejects. I don't know if that's the truth, but I'm sure you guys
would
>say BS!
>
>Anyways, the MacBook comes with a full version of Mac OSX, not a cut down
>home addition. It would cost more to get XP Pro, so you would have to add
>another hundred bucks. The MacBook comes with similar software to MS 8,
>address book, iCal etc..
>
>The MacBook also comes with the ilife suite of software. I would value
that
>at a bout two to three hundred dollars. If you consider say, Acid For GarageBand
>your looking at around a hundred bucks. You would also have to come up
with
>the following: Comparable DVD authoring software that is as good as iDVD.
> A Photo program that is as good as iPhoto for editing and organizing photos
>and a High Definition video editing software that is as good as iMovie HD.
> There is also iWeb for web page building that integrates with iPhoto, GarageBand,
>and iMovie to up load your multi media to your web Pages, and list your
stuff
>on the iTunes store. It also has integrated Pod Casts software. The iBook
>has front Row, a multimedia playing and organizing software, with a wireless
>hardware remote control.
>
>The MacBook also has a built in isight video camera/ still camera, with
iChat
>audio video conferencing software. Built in wireless, including Bluetooth
>2.0+EDR, I don't believe the Dell has Bluetooth???. The MacBook also has
>built in firewire, I'm not sure if the Dell has that??? I don't know about
>the Dell, the MacBook has the ability to plug in up to a 24" monitor for
>extended desk top at up to 1920 x 1200 resolution. The MB has 6 hours of
>battery life, I don't know about the Dell??? Industries say that Macs have
>better used resale value, i don't know if that's true but it something to
>consider. The MacBook has the advantage of being able to run more operating
>systems, thus, the ability to run more software, which gives you more choices.
>
>I think if you add it all up, they are comparable Price wise, and one may
>have the edge.
>
>James
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>
>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>
>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
I
>>set up two of them last week.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>tops
>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>
>>I
>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>
>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
ball
>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
from
>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>
>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
that
>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>
>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>
>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
the
>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
$1300
>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>a
>>>nice
>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>
>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>
>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
than
>>>>
>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
low
>>>>
>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
the
>>>>
>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>
>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>
>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>
>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
that
>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>
>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>>
>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>
>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>
>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>>
>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>for
>>>>
>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>
>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
you
>>>>
>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>person
>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>likes
>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>is
>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>chipset,
>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
firewire
>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>slightly
>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>it's
>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
a
>>Mac
>>>>Book
>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
recently)
>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>it
>>>>uses
>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>and
>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>a
>>>larger
>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>hours
>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
and
>>>>using
>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>>worth
>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
goes.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78359 is a reply to message #78357] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 14:36 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Cool - I would hope it would - e.g. there shouldn't be a technical reason
why not unless the motherboard doesn't support it. That's a continual
challenge for both platforms though - every motherboard isn't upgradeable
(at least not beyond a certain point as processors/socket types change), and
every motherboard doesn't have the best PCI slot options.
On 1/14/07 2:50 PM, in article 45aaa2b3@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> One of those tech web sites (ars technica?) dropped the quad core into a
> Mac Pro and it ran. No link handy, sorry.
>
> OSX standalone would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> On 1/14/07 1:38 PM, in article 45aa86a2$1@linux, "Nappy"
>> <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
>>>
>>>
>> Which since they are the same hardware, begs the question as to why any core
>> 2 duo computer can't run OSX. Oh, that's right, Steve J. won't let us. :-)
>>
>> So...what's the more flexible, cost effective, scalable hardware? ;-)
>> This is all in good fun, btw. Just for sake of conversation more than
>> anything....
>>
>> Serious Q: Can you buy a Mac core 2 duo that is compatible with a quad core
>> cpu? I am doubting it since there are only a few motherboards that support
>> both currently, and I believe the current core 2 duo Macs were designed
>> before quads really hit the market, but I am curious if anyone knows.
>>
>> The kicker on this one for me is that I can build a core 2 duo PC today for
>> less than, or about the same cost of the same core 2 duo cpu Mac but with
>> more PCI/PCIe slots, more Sata ports, higher buss speed, more RAM, dual DVI,
>> wireless bluetooth, *and* be able to upgrade to a quad core cpu by simply
>> dropping one in whenever I want. (That's what I'll be putting together in
>> the next month - it's already spec'd out and ready to order). That's a
>> significant consideration for me (and yes, I've been through Apple and
>> Dell's custom configurators, as well as a few others - I still come out
>> better doing my own from Newegg).
>>
>> That's a much better investment for me at least. The OS is secondary for me
>> to a large degree - just a means to an end that depends more on hardware
>> than the OS. Now if I could buy OSX standalone, I could have an AppleggPC
>> running WindowsOSX. I would also mix logos and make a fruit salad. ;-)
>> I had considered a Mac this time around, or maybe later this year, but so
>> far the above advantage is still outweighing the convenience of a plug it in
>> and turn it on solution.
>>
>> I think that's where a lot of audio PC users are (not average users, but
>> power/tech savvy users). It isn't so much about "us against them" as
>> different requirements and decision making approaches - some want to turn on
>> the switch and not think about it; others want to get a fast system and
>> hotrod it even more, and the time is paid for in the gains made in workflow
>> later.
>>
>> My personal decision making process is simply one of numbers and my own
>> application - if it makes more sense (power, speed, cost, upgradeability,
>> software support without crossgrade costs), then a Mac is fine. So far,
>> that cost has been noticeably higher than staying with a PC. I don't care
>> which anyone chooses, as long as you see both sides equally.
>>
>> My main reason for entering this thread is to balance what James said about
>> PC users - that the conversations turn into bashing Macs, but I see it both
>> ways. Mac users are also pretty adamant about Macs being an overall better
>> choice. My other reason...okay, it's kind of fun in a twisted sort of way.
>> ;-) It's fun to talk geek/tech with other pro audio folks from time to
>> time. Nice diversion from actually getting work done with these beasts. :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78360 is a reply to message #78356] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 14:42 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The cross-platform commitment by developers has as more to do with
the balance between cost to port and potential sales, so, if univ. binary to
MacIntels is an easier port than Motorola based OSX, it makes more sense to
do it - crossp-latform isn't easy for anyone though, esp. given testing,
maintenance, etc.
Nuendo already runs on Macs, but for some reason the univ. binary version
has yet to make an appearance. Could be summer NAMM or even fall for that
though. Vegas? I really doubt a Mac version will ever appear.
I wouldn't hold my breath for a PC version of Logic. That was a pretty
definitive platform-centric decision at the time, but who knows.
Dedric
On 1/14/07 3:31 PM, in article 45aaa117$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
<excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, we were talking about lap tops!
>
> I think your going to see some great desk tops come from Apple in the next
> few months, I wouldn't count them out just yet!
>
> Since you are talking about audio, I will speculate here a bit and say, I
> think you may see PC software developers write more programs for the Intel
> Macs. Maybe even your favorite programs! Adobe made announcements at
> MacWorld,
> I wonder what NAMM, Music Messa, and NAB will bring. I wonder if there will
> be a Logic version for PC??? LaMont will still hate it no matter what;
> ) LOL!
>
> James
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> On 1/14/07 1:38 PM, in article 45aa86a2$1@linux, "Nappy"
>> <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh ya,did I mention,it runs both OSX and XP
>>>
>>>
>> Which since they are the same hardware, begs the question as to why any
> core
>> 2 duo computer can't run OSX. Oh, that's right, Steve J. won't let us.
> :-)
>>
>> So...what's the more flexible, cost effective, scalable hardware? ;-)
>> This is all in good fun, btw. Just for sake of conversation more than
>> anything....
>>
>> Serious Q: Can you buy a Mac core 2 duo that is compatible with a quad core
>> cpu? I am doubting it since there are only a few motherboards that support
>> both currently, and I believe the current core 2 duo Macs were designed
>> before quads really hit the market, but I am curious if anyone knows.
>>
>> The kicker on this one for me is that I can build a core 2 duo PC today
> for
>> less than, or about the same cost of the same core 2 duo cpu Mac but with
>> more PCI/PCIe slots, more Sata ports, higher buss speed, more RAM, dual
> DVI,
>> wireless bluetooth, *and* be able to upgrade to a quad core cpu by simply
>> dropping one in whenever I want. (That's what I'll be putting together
> in
>> the next month - it's already spec'd out and ready to order). That's a
>> significant consideration for me (and yes, I've been through Apple and
>> Dell's custom configurators, as well as a few others - I still come out
>> better doing my own from Newegg).
>>
>> That's a much better investment for me at least. The OS is secondary for
> me
>> to a large degree - just a means to an end that depends more on hardware
>> than the OS. Now if I could buy OSX standalone, I could have an AppleggPC
>> running WindowsOSX. I would also mix logos and make a fruit salad. ;-)
>> I had considered a Mac this time around, or maybe later this year, but so
>> far the above advantage is still outweighing the convenience of a plug it
> in
>> and turn it on solution.
>>
>> I think that's where a lot of audio PC users are (not average users, but
>> power/tech savvy users). It isn't so much about "us against them" as
>> different requirements and decision making approaches - some want to turn
> on
>> the switch and not think about it; others want to get a fast system and
>> hotrod it even more, and the time is paid for in the gains made in workflow
>> later.
>>
>> My personal decision making process is simply one of numbers and my own
>> application - if it makes more sense (power, speed, cost, upgradeability,
>> software support without crossgrade costs), then a Mac is fine. So far,
>> that cost has been noticeably higher than staying with a PC. I don't care
>> which anyone chooses, as long as you see both sides equally.
>>
>> My main reason for entering this thread is to balance what James said about
>> PC users - that the conversations turn into bashing Macs, but I see it both
>> ways. Mac users are also pretty adamant about Macs being an overall better
>> choice. My other reason...okay, it's kind of fun in a twisted sort of way.
>> ;-) It's fun to talk geek/tech with other pro audio folks from time to
>> time. Nice diversion from actually getting work done with these beasts.
> :-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78362 is a reply to message #78344] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 15:14 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm building a new one right now with an AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU that's going to
have 3 x EDS cards in it pretty soon. I've had some "issues" with it though.
Strange stuff, but I'm getting there. this is one of the coolest mobo's I've
ever seen as far as being able to assign IRQ's to individual PCI slots, but,
of course, like Paris, it's a discontinued model and rarer'n hen's teeth. Of
course, being a Mac guy instead of a normal person, you don't get to rejoice
in the ability to assign IRQs.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45aa8362@linux...
>
> Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
> about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die. ;^)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
>> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I wasn't
>> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>>
>> :O)
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
>>>> what differences remain.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of
>>>> the
>>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
>>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
>>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed to
>>> be
>>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best to
>>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
>>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>>> difference...
>>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain,
>>> not
>>> just the groomed runs.
>>>
>>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge
>>> phone,
>>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and
>>> orientation
>>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down, I
>>> might
>>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>>>>>> entire
>>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you
>>>>> guys
>>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new
>>>>> Macs
>>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect
>>>>> for a
>>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the
>>>>> OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively)
>>>>> because,
>>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors -
>>>>> Intel
>>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>>>> framework -
>>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>>>>> math -
>>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>>>>> structure
>>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's
>>>>> the
>>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto
>>>>> is they
>>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>>>>> limited
>>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and
>>>>> go for
>>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>>
>>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>>>>> selling
>>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably
>>>>> drop most
>>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the
>>>>> OS is
>>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other
>>>>> parts are
>>>>> too low.
>>>>>
>>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference
>>>>> is what
>>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
>>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78363 is a reply to message #78346] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 15:15 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
How many tracks can that webcam record and play back?
"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:45aa864c$1@linux...
>
> And a web cam built in it.
>
> "Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>>
>>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>>
>>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
> I
>>>set up two of them last week.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>>tops
>>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>>
>>>I
>>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>>
>>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what
>>>>I've
>>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple
>>>>manufactured
>>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
> ball
>>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
> from
>>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>>
>>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
> that
>>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>processors.
>>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>
>>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
> the
>>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an
>>>>>equivalent
>>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their
>>>>>machines.
>>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
> $1300
>>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>>a
>>>>nice
>>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical
>>>>>drive
>>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had
>>>>>more
>>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB
>>>>>
>>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>>
>>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end
>>>>>>models?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
> than
>>>>>
>>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
> low
>>>>>
>>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>
>>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I
>>>>>>imagine
>>>>>
>>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>>
>>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
> that
>>>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>>>software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>>
>>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>>>designs
>>>>>
>>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>>
>>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>>
>>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their
>>>>>>form
>>>>>
>>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>>for
>>>>>
>>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>>
>>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
> you
>>>>>
>>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an
>>>>>>> important
>>>>>person
>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>>likes
>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple
>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>is
>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>>chipset,
>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
> firewire
>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>>slightly
>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>it's
>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
> a
>>>Mac
>>>>>Book
>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
> recently)
>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>>it
>>>>>uses
>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>>and
>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>>a
>>>>larger
>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>>hours
>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
> and
>>>>>using
>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>>> recording
>>>>>worth
>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
> goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78364 is a reply to message #78354] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 15:22 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>Jobs said some years ago that Apple buys the vary
best LCD screens, they pay more for first choice and their competitors buy
their rejects. I don't know if that's the truth, but I'm sure you guys
would
say BS! <
Did he say this at one of his symposiums where he was also saying that
Motorola G4 Powermacs were faster than AMD Athlon PC's?
;o)
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45aa9e2d$1@linux...
>
> There are some things to consider. To start the Dell cost $125.00 more to
> add the Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, Or $200.00 more for the 2.0 GHz, so you looking
> at $875.00 to $950.00 to start. The Dell has a 15.4" screen, which I
> think
> is an advantage over the MacBook, although some people would Prefer the
> Compactness
> of the MacBook's size. Jobs said some years ago that Apple buys the vary
> best LCD screens, they pay more for first choice and their competitors buy
> their rejects. I don't know if that's the truth, but I'm sure you guys
> would
> say BS!
>
> Anyways, the MacBook comes with a full version of Mac OSX, not a cut down
> home addition. It would cost more to get XP Pro, so you would have to add
> another hundred bucks. The MacBook comes with similar software to MS 8,
> address book, iCal etc..
>
> The MacBook also comes with the ilife suite of software. I would value
> that
> at a bout two to three hundred dollars. If you consider say, Acid For
> GarageBand
> your looking at around a hundred bucks. You would also have to come up
> with
> the following: Comparable DVD authoring software that is as good as iDVD.
> A Photo program that is as good as iPhoto for editing and organizing
> photos
> and a High Definition video editing software that is as good as iMovie HD.
> There is also iWeb for web page building that integrates with iPhoto,
> GarageBand,
> and iMovie to up load your multi media to your web Pages, and list your
> stuff
> on the iTunes store. It also has integrated Pod Casts software. The
> iBook
> has front Row, a multimedia playing and organizing software, with a
> wireless
> hardware remote control.
>
> The MacBook also has a built in isight video camera/ still camera, with
> iChat
> audio video conferencing software. Built in wireless, including Bluetooth
> 2.0+EDR, I don't believe the Dell has Bluetooth???. The MacBook also has
> built in firewire, I'm not sure if the Dell has that??? I don't know
> about
> the Dell, the MacBook has the ability to plug in up to a 24" monitor for
> extended desk top at up to 1920 x 1200 resolution. The MB has 6 hours of
> battery life, I don't know about the Dell??? Industries say that Macs
> have
> better used resale value, i don't know if that's true but it something to
> consider. The MacBook has the advantage of being able to run more
> operating
> systems, thus, the ability to run more software, which gives you more
> choices.
>
> I think if you add it all up, they are comparable Price wise, and one may
> have the edge.
>
> James
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>
>>Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>
>>There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot. I
>>set up two of them last week.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>tops
>>>for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>
>>I
>>>wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>
>>>I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>>read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple
>>>manufactured
>>>proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
>>>ball
>>>game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
>>>from
>>>Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>
>>>I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
>>>that
>>>happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>
>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>processors.
>>>>You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>
>>>>My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard the
>>>>argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an
>>>>equivalent
>>>>Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their
>>>>machines.
>>>>That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
>>>>$1300
>>>>I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
> a
>>>nice
>>>>black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical
>>>>drive
>>>>and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>
>>>>BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>>money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>
>>>>>Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
>>>>>than
>>>>
>>>>>a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their low
>>>>
>>>>>end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has the
>>>>
>>>>>snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>
>>>>>doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>
>>>>>they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>
>>>>>an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
>>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and
>>>>>software.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>
>>>>>memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop
>>>>>designs
>>>>
>>>>>have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>
>>>>>example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>
>>>>>HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>>
>>>>>factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
> for
>>>>
>>>>>someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>
>>>>>had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier you
>>>>
>>>>>had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>TCB wrote:
>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>person
>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>likes
>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>is
>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
> chipset,
>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
> slightly
>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>it's
>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing
>>>>>> unusual
>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for a
>>Mac
>>>>Book
>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
>>>>>> recently)
>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>it
>>>>uses
>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>and
>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
> a
>>>larger
>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>hours
>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches and
>>>>using
>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer
>>>>>> recording
>>>>worth
>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
>>>>>> goes.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78365 is a reply to message #78362] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 15:29 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Heh. True, and good thing too. Don't forget to keep track of your costs
in all this, so next time we discuss which platform is actually
"cheaper" we remember to take into account all these systems you keep
building. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I'm building a new one right now with an AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU that's going to
> have 3 x EDS cards in it pretty soon. I've had some "issues" with it though.
> Strange stuff, but I'm getting there. this is one of the coolest mobo's I've
> ever seen as far as being able to assign IRQ's to individual PCI slots, but,
> of course, like Paris, it's a discontinued model and rarer'n hen's teeth. Of
> course, being a Mac guy instead of a normal person, you don't get to rejoice
> in the ability to assign IRQs.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45aa8362@linux...
>> Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
>> about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die. ;^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I wasn't
>>> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>>>
>>> :O)
>>>
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>>>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
>>>>> what differences remain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look of
>>>>> the
>>>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences. How
>>>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire to
>>>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>>>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed to
>>>> be
>>>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best to
>>>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
>>>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>>>> difference...
>>>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain,
>>>> not
>>>> just the groomed runs.
>>>>
>>>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge
>>>> phone,
>>>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and
>>>> orientation
>>>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down, I
>>>> might
>>>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are you
>>>>>> guys
>>>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new
>>>>>> Macs
>>>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and the
>>>>>> OS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively)
>>>>>> because,
>>>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other
>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors -
>>>>>> Intel
>>>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>>>>> framework -
>>>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>>>>>> math -
>>>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>>>>>> structure
>>>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto
>>>>>> is they
>>>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them and
>>>>>> go for
>>>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>>>>>> selling
>>>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably
>>>>>> drop most
>>>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless the
>>>>>> OS is
>>>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other
>>>>>> parts are
>>>>>> too low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference
>>>>>> is what
>>>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going from
>>>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78366 is a reply to message #78355] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 16:38 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> None of which has anything to do with the original point I made, which is
> that the mystical higher quality components in Macs simply don't exist.
Except that no one here or AFAIK at Apple has been claiming such a
mystery for the current generation. Which is why no one has disagreed
with your point, other than to note that it's old news.
I could use some fuel for the fire though, it's very cold in Denver today.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
> "Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> The Macbooks have core duo 2 cpu's,try again.
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us& cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bndwe4j&s=bsd
>>>
>>> Core Duo laptop, 15.4" screen, DVD burner, 1 GB memory. $750
>>>
>>> There are better deals on occasion but this is the current sweet spot.
> I
>>> set up two of them last week.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey Thad! I was checking Dell's prices, I didn't see any Core 2 Duo lap
>>> tops
>>>> for $750.00. I could be wrong, but it looks like they start at $1299.
>>> I
>>>> wonder what they would cost similarly configured?
>>>>
>>>> I think Apple typically makes more margin per unit, well that's what I've
>>>> read. As a dealer margins were always tight. In the past Apple manufactured
>>>> proprietary hardware, and they just didn't sell the number of units that
>>>> PC manufactures did to have low prices. With Intel, it's a whole new
> ball
>>>> game for Apple. I would think Dell still buys 10 times as much stuff
> from
>>>> Intel as Apple does. Dell probably gets better pricing.
>>>>
>>>> I have seen Dell do a thousand dollar rebate on their lap tops. When
> that
>>>> happens, Apple will not be able to compete.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks ?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel processors.
>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point, which I stated fairly clearly, was that I have often heard
> the
>>>>> argument made that the reason Apple hardware is pricier than an equivalent
>>>>> Dell or home build is because they use superior components in their machines.
>>>>> That's nonsense. Having seen their 'low end' laptop which runs about
> $1300
>>>>> I can say for sure that aside from the slot loading optical drive and
>> a
>>>> nice
>>>>> black case it's a slight downgrade from a $750 Dell. If the optical drive
>>>>> and case are worth 45% more to you, than that's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - Debian Etch is relatively easy get working on these. If I had more
>>>>> money than sense I'd get one as a Debian machine because it's black.
>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Where's the fuel? You mean you finally noticed that Apple has gone to
>>>>>> Intel for hardware designs, and onboard graphics on the low end models?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is pretty old news. When Apple announced the Intel switch more
> than
>>>>>> a year ago, this was one of the reasons given. The Macbook is their
> low
>>>>>> end laptop, and probably the biggest cost reduction was using the
>>>>>> onboard graphics instead of something snazzier. The Macbook Pro has
> the
>>>>>> snazzier stuff, but it's still off the shelf with OSX drivers. Apple
>>>>>> doesn't and hasn't ever AFAIK developed their own graphics chipsets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well heck, they don't develop their own CPUs either, although I imagine
>>>>>> they give input to those companies. Up until last year Apple chose
>>>>>> different CPU models than were blessed by Microsoft, and tried to gain
>>>>>> an advantage from the differences. Now they are using the same CPUs
> that
>>>>>> Microsoft likes, so any advantage is going to be from design and software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Apple's desktop case design. Really easy to get into and change
>>>>>> memory, drives, etc.; quiet and cool running airflow. The laptop designs
>>>>>> have varied at accessibility, sometimes compromising for thinness. For
>>>>>> example my PowerBook is easy to access for memory upgrades but not for
>>>>>> HD upgrades. That may have changed in the new ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac laptop sales are rising, other manufacturers are copying their form
>>>>>> factor, but if you ever buy one (other than overpaying for a Macbook
>> for
>>>>>> someone else, and then complaining about it) I'll be amazed. Sorry you
>>>>>> had to subject yourself to working on a Mac today, but even sorrier
> you
>>>>>> had to infect it with XP. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> So, I had to set up XP on a Mac Book today. The child of an important
>>>>> person
>>>>>>> on my office had one and, surprise, most of the games a 12 year old
>>> likes
>>>>>>> to play don't have Mac versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, once and for all I can put to rest the notion that Apple hardware
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> somehow 'super special' and thus justifies the higher price. Intel
>> chipset,
>>>>>>> Intel integrated graphics, Atheros wireless, Marvell NIC, generic
> firewire
>>>>>>> controller. The CD/DVD burner was the slot loading kind, so that's
>> slightly
>>>>>>> cool (unless you want to pop out the CD before the machine boots when
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> nice to have a physical switch), but that's about the only thing unusual
>>>>>>> about the hardware. If you were to show me the XP device list for
> a
>>> Mac
>>>>> Book
>>>>>>> and the same list from a Dell 640m (two of which I've also set up
> recently)
>>>>>>> I would have given a _slight_ preference to the Dell, mostly because
>>>> it
>>>>> uses
>>>>>>> an Intel wireless chipset that does b/g/n and bluetooth on one chip,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> I've had very good luck with those wireless cards. A 640m also has
>> a
>>>> larger
>>>>>>> screed and costs around $750.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In better news, I wound up on modular synth dreamland for about five
>>>> hours
>>>>>>> last night, wiring up my John Bowen Pro Wave into modular patches
> and
>>>>> using
>>>>>>> it to feed vocoders and all of the things that make computer recording
>>>>> worth
>>>>>>> it. Then I forgot to save the presets, but hey, that's the way it
> goes.
>>>>>>> TCB
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78367 is a reply to message #78365] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 17:31 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Heh. True, and good thing too. Don't forget to keep track of your costs
>in all this, so next time we discuss which platform is actually
>"cheaper" we remember to take into account all these systems you keep
>building. :^)
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
Soon it will be Vista surgery time, ouch! ; )
http://www.apple.com/getamac/
....and it goes on, and on!
>
>DJ wrote:
>> I'm building a new one right now with an AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU that's going
to
>> have 3 x EDS cards in it pretty soon. I've had some "issues" with it though.
>> Strange stuff, but I'm getting there. this is one of the coolest mobo's
I've
>> ever seen as far as being able to assign IRQ's to individual PCI slots,
but,
>> of course, like Paris, it's a discontinued model and rarer'n hen's teeth.
Of
>> course, being a Mac guy instead of a normal person, you don't get to rejoice
>> in the ability to assign IRQs.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45aa8362@linux...
>>> Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
>>> about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die.
;^)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I wasn't
>>>> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>>>>
>>>> :O)
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>>>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>>>>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to discuss
>>>>>> what differences remain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look
of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>>>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences.
How
>>>>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire
to
>>>>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>>>>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed
to
>>>>> be
>>>>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best
to
>>>>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>>>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much difference
>>>>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>>>>> difference...
>>>>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole mountain,
>>>>> not
>>>>> just the groomed runs.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge
>>>>> phone,
>>>>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and
>>>>> orientation
>>>>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down,
I
>>>>> might
>>>>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of tech.
>>>>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are
you
>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new
>>>>>>> Macs
>>>>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or TigerDirect
>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and
the
>>>>>>> OS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively)
>>>>>>> because,
>>>>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other
>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors
-
>>>>>>> Intel
>>>>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>>>>>> framework -
>>>>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>>>>>>> math -
>>>>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions - that's
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with Moto
>>>>>>> is they
>>>>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them
and
>>>>>>> go for
>>>>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>>>>>>> selling
>>>>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably
>>>>>>> drop most
>>>>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless
the
>>>>>>> OS is
>>>>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other
>>>>>>> parts are
>>>>>>> too low.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real difference
>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going
from
>>>>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78368 is a reply to message #78367] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 16:50 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So how do I get rid of 90% of the bloat that is advertized as being loaded
on the Mac? Is that as simple as everything else it does?
;o)
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45aacb64$1@linux...
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Heh. True, and good thing too. Don't forget to keep track of your costs
>
>>in all this, so next time we discuss which platform is actually
>>"cheaper" we remember to take into account all these systems you keep
>>building. :^)
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>
> Soon it will be Vista surgery time, ouch! ; )
>
> http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> ...and it goes on, and on!
>
>>
>>DJ wrote:
>>> I'm building a new one right now with an AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU that's
>>> going
> to
>>> have 3 x EDS cards in it pretty soon. I've had some "issues" with it
>>> though.
>
>>> Strange stuff, but I'm getting there. this is one of the coolest mobo's
> I've
>>> ever seen as far as being able to assign IRQ's to individual PCI slots,
> but,
>>> of course, like Paris, it's a discontinued model and rarer'n hen's
>>> teeth.
> Of
>>> course, being a Mac guy instead of a normal person, you don't get to
>>> rejoice
>
>>> in the ability to assign IRQs.
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45aa8362@linux...
>>>> Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
>
>>>> about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die.
> ;^)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I
>>>>> wasn't
>
>>>>> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>>>>>
>>>>> :O)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>>>>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now that
>>>>>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to
>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>> what differences remain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look
> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>>>>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences.
> How
>>>>>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire
> to
>>>>>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>>>>>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed
> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always best
> to
>>>>>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>>>>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much
>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>>>>>> difference...
>>>>>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole
>>>>>> mountain,
>
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> just the groomed runs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge
>
>>>>>> phone,
>>>>>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and
>>>>>> orientation
>>>>>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down,
> I
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of
>>>>>>>>>> tech.
>>>>>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do the
>
>>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are
> you
>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the new
>
>>>>>>>> Macs
>>>>>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or
>>>>>>>> TigerDirect
>
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and
> the
>>>>>>>> OS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively)
>>>>>>>> because,
>>>>>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other
>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors
> -
>>>>>>>> Intel
>>>>>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>
>>>>>>>> framework -
>>>>>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much for
>
>>>>>>>> math -
>>>>>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in the
>
>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions -
>>>>>>>> that's
>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with
>>>>>>>> Moto
>
>>>>>>>> is they
>>>>>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was a
>
>>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them
> and
>>>>>>>> go for
>>>>>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu is
>
>>>>>>>> selling
>>>>>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably
>
>>>>>>>> drop most
>>>>>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless
> the
>>>>>>>> OS is
>>>>>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other
>
>>>>>>>> parts are
>>>>>>>> too low.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real
>>>>>>>> difference
>
>>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going
> from
>>>>>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: To add fuel to the fire [message #78369 is a reply to message #78368] |
Sun, 14 January 2007 17:50 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>So how do I get rid of 90% of the bloat that is advertized as being loaded
>on the Mac? Is that as simple as everything else it does?
>
>;o)
System stuff you can strip out but I would do some reading first. Language
libraries would be first on my list. Programs, just drag them to the trash
and flush the toilet. It's easy!
James
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:45aacb64$1@linux...
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Heh. True, and good thing too. Don't forget to keep track of your costs
>>
>>>in all this, so next time we discuss which platform is actually
>>>"cheaper" we remember to take into account all these systems you keep
>>>building. :^)
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>
>> Soon it will be Vista surgery time, ouch! ; )
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>>
>> ...and it goes on, and on!
>>
>>>
>>>DJ wrote:
>>>> I'm building a new one right now with an AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU that's
>>>> going
>> to
>>>> have 3 x EDS cards in it pretty soon. I've had some "issues" with it
>>>> though.
>>
>>>> Strange stuff, but I'm getting there. this is one of the coolest mobo's
>> I've
>>>> ever seen as far as being able to assign IRQ's to individual PCI slots,
>> but,
>>>> of course, like Paris, it's a discontinued model and rarer'n hen's
>>>> teeth.
>> Of
>>>> course, being a Mac guy instead of a normal person, you don't get to
>>>> rejoice
>>
>>>> in the ability to assign IRQs.
>>>>
>>>> ;o)
>>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45aa8362@linux...
>>>>> Don't get a Mac Deej. If we don't hear at least one story every month
>>
>>>>> about an amazing cobbled together Deej DAW contraption, we will die.
>> ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> I really thought hard about jumping into this, especially since I
>>>>>> wasn't
>>
>>>>>> accused of hating Macs, but it's worse than arguing politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :O)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:C1CFB853.6939%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>>> On 1/14/07 9:53 AM, in article 45aa5d12@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're right Dedric, they're all computers. They have always used
>>>>>>>> similar components and people argued about the differences. Now
that
>>>>>>>> they use pretty much the same components, there's still room to
>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>> what differences remain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difference between OSX and, say, Vista, is more than the look
>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> GUI and logos. While there are strong similarities, different
>>>>>>>> philosophies and implementations create different user experiences.
>> How
>>>>>>>> much of that difference matters to you will influence your desire
>> to
>>>>>>>> waste time on these threads. :^)
>>>>>>> Of course - I was just giving you guys a hard time because you seemed
>> to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> arguing the same point from different perspectives. It's always
best
>> to
>>>>>>> evaluate tech gear for what it is rather than how it is marketed.
>>>>>>>> But if you just want to get down the hill and don't see much
>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>> in how you get there, a snowboard is as good as skis. No real
>>>>>>>> difference...
>>>>>>> Skis are better :-) ...and it's important to enjoy the whole
>>>>>>> mountain,
>>
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> just the groomed runs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW - iPhone is very cool. I don't have a new PDA, or cutting edge
>>
>>>>>>> phone,
>>>>>>> so maybe there are other options too, but the touch screen and
>>>>>>> orientation
>>>>>>> detection rock. Too expensive for now though. If they come down,
>> I
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> consider getting one if it isn't too bulky for a phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/13/07 6:48 PM, in article 45a988e7@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> That's right, Jamie, I finally noticed that Apple is using Intel
>>>>>>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>>>>>>> You know me, never up on much in that wild and crazy world of
>>>>>>>>>>> tech.
>>>>>>>>>> Guess not, for Apple anyway. This is old news. Processors, onboard
>>>>>>>>>> graphics chipsets on the low end, and, heck, doesn't Intel do
the
>>
>>>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>>>> motherboard now? So now, what were you complaining about?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pardon me dropping in uninvited.... but...umm... what exactly are
>> you
>>>>>>>>> guys
>>>>>>>>> arguing about? ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An Intel cpu is an Intel cpu. Don't know what motherboards the
new
>>
>>>>>>>>> Macs
>>>>>>>>> use, but undoubtedly they are also available on Newegg or
>>>>>>>>> TigerDirect
>>
>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>> PC - the same goes for every other part, other than the case and
>> the
>>>>>>>>> OS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Motorola boards were made for Apple (probably exclusively)
>>>>>>>>> because,
>>>>>>>>> well, no one else used Motorola cpus for a PC (mostly for other
>>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>>> devices). I learned assembly language on 808x and 68k processors
>> -
>>>>>>>>> Intel
>>>>>>>>> and Motorola. Both do much the same thing, but with a different
>>
>>>>>>>>> framework -
>>>>>>>>> 68k's were a little better suited for graphics, but not so much
for
>>
>>>>>>>>> math -
>>>>>>>>> vice versa for the Intels, though the differences were more in
the
>>
>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>> and form of the instruction set, rather than actual functions -
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> main difference the later versions inherited. The problem with
>>>>>>>>> Moto
>>
>>>>>>>>> is they
>>>>>>>>> couldn't get their clock speeds down with their design - it was
a
>>
>>>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>>> design there. I think it is smart of Apple to finally ditch them
>> and
>>>>>>>>> go for
>>>>>>>>> Intel (or AMD as was considered for a while I believe).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Motherboard manufacturers just make boards to run whatever cpu
is
>>
>>>>>>>>> selling
>>>>>>>>> enough to warrant making a board for it, so now you could probably
>>
>>>>>>>>> drop most
>>>>>>>>> any core 2 duo compatible mobo in a Mac and it should run, unless
>> the
>>>>>>>>> OS is
>>>>>>>>> setup to lock out all but spec'd boards, or tolerances with other
>>
>>>>>>>>> parts are
>>>>>>>>> too low.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With comps today, when it comes down to it, the only real
>>>>>>>>> difference
>>
>>>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>>>> the GUI and the logos look like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rest is no more of a variation on a theme than you get going
>> from
>>>>>>>>> Borders to Barnes & Noble.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 13:24:35 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06976 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
