Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 11:28 UTC
Apple When Apple introduced the latest incarnation of its iMac G5 product line, the reactions were almost exclusively those of praise. They had managed to make the iMac G5 even thinner, while at the same time upgrading its specifications. Apple also introduced Front Row, a remote control, and a built-in iSight camera. MacSupport was so kind as to provide OSNews with this new iMac G5; here are our findings.
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Mon 9th Jan 2006 12:17 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't think this adds much more than what can be garnerd from playtesting an iMac at your nearest computer superstore or Apple store. I suspect a lot of PC users (me being one of them) will be so reluctant to try something else that they will spend their time bitching about specs, an operating system they've never used, oh and the price. over and over again.

Meanwhilst Mac users will be getting some work done.
About the "bar" under the screen, I've not yet accustomed to it, and still love the old pod and hinge design. I think it has become synonymous for Macs due to constant use in TV shows etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Jan 2006 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"oh and the price. over and over again"

Well, I don't know that there is a lot to complain about on price on this particular model. In the UK these seem to sell for around 750 ex vat, 880 or so inc. This is what you'd get in the UK for 680 ex, from a decent quality supplier:

Microsoft® Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor
512MB dual channel DDR RAM (PC3200) 400MHz
160GB Serial ATA hard drive with 8MB buffer
256MB ATI Radeon X550 PCI-E graphics
17" flat panel TFT monitor
Canon Pixma MP150 printer
[and obviously DVD writer]

It is certainly more machine for the money, which doesn't mean its better value necessarily. But you're getting a perfectly respectable machine in the Mac, and some may find the form factor more appealing. Certainly, its more transportable.

Reply Score: 4

RE
by Kroc on Mon 9th Jan 2006 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I'm aware of the value for money with Macs, but so many PC users look at their fugly beige box add up the sum of their components and declare Macs as underpowered and grosely overpriced. These people seriously need to get out of their basements and go see a Mac to relise firsthand that there exists nothing in the PC market that comes even close to the quality of a G5 case, or the overall build quality of an iMac.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by gizzlon on Mon 9th Jan 2006 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE"
gizzlon Member since:
2005-12-18

"..there exists nothing in the PC market that comes even close to the quality of a G5 case, or the overall build quality of an iMac".
See your point, but there are quality cases for pcs too, and since there are countless pc-makers thats kind of an overstatement, dont you think?

Reply Score: 1

RE:Re
by biteydog on Mon 9th Jan 2006 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE"
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

Why do Graphic Designers still prefer Macs?

PCs - Quality cases - yes.
Stylish cases - I've yet to see one.

Edited 2006-01-09 14:45

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:Re
by kiz01 on Mon 9th Jan 2006 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE:Re"
kiz01 Member since:
2005-07-06

I've got a Silverstone LC03 case and it's definately stylish. It has a black aluminum front with doors to cover the disk/CD drives and usb/firewire input as well as a piano black cover for the rest of the case. It basically looks like a super hi-end piece of home theater equipment which is exactly what I want out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the iMac case is quite stylish but don't assume that you can't get a stylish pc case. You just need to know where to look (hint: not Dell or HP).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:Re
by Johann Chua on Mon 9th Jan 2006 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE:Re"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Graphic designers prefer Macs because of the software. The industrial design is icing on the cake.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:Re
by Wintermute on Mon 9th Jan 2006 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE:Re"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

This is a gross overgeneralization. Are you trying to say, that only Apple is capable of making stylish cases? I think this sort of attitude is demonstartion of the effectiveness of Apple marketing and how then can make people see value where there is none. Just because a case has an Apple logo, that does not make it stylish.

And you graphic designer arguement is pretty simplistic. How you considered that maybe all these graphical designers were simply lured by Apple's niche position or their elitist marketing? Or maybe these designers were just being pragmatic, and chose make because of the software?

However you look at it, a PC builder can beat a Mac on all qualities, from performance/style/price. The only good thing about the Mac is that it comes pre built, but thats about it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]:Re
by Tobbe on Mon 9th Jan 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]:Re"
Tobbe Member since:
2005-07-06

As both a Mac- and PC-user I think there's more to the story here.

If you haven't actually owned a Mac, or used one for a longer period of time, I guess it's pretty hard to see why you'd want to pay big bucks for something that just looks good, compared to the powerful PC you'd get for the same price.

I think the answer lies both in the quality of the machine itself and in OS X. You can't run OS X on a regular PC today (legally). And when using OS X on a Mac it doesn't take long until you realize that OS X actually is designed to go with the Macs - the design of the interface actually extends beyond the display. The machine itself feels well-built and everything just works, just as OS X.

As a graphic designer / web developer I can just as well use the Adobe software-suite on my Windows machine, sure. I just really prefer to do it on my Mac. I'm really amazed over the fact that they've managed to create this extremely pleasant desktop environment that somehow manages to suit both computer newbies and power users.

Compared to OS X, XP really (and then I mean *really*) shows its age. The over-all feeling of quality you get with a Mac is hard to beat and I get the feeling that most anti-Apple complaining in these forums haven't actually tried the Apple products seriously.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]:Re
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Jan 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]:Re"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

You feel good about it. That's fine, lots do. It is not however an objective quality of the machine, its something about you. Its very relevant to you, its going to make you happier with a mac, but its not going to make anyone else happier. Its subjective. Its no reason for anyone else to do anything. Other people feel the same way about linux, XP. W98, even OS 9.

Hard to believe, but it is so.

I can't really imagine people liking Fluxbox, or fvwn, but I know there are guys who sit down in the morning, and feel real good as fvwn comes up on the screen. Well, its taste, nothing more.

If people would only realise this, lots of energy could be put to so much more constructive uses than reproaching others with not being like us, when there is no reason why they should be...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:Re
by sp29 on Mon 9th Jan 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE:Re"
sp29 Member since:
2006-01-04

Why do Graphic Designers still prefer Macs?

PCs - Quality cases - yes.
Stylish cases - I've yet to see one.

Better color pickers for one have always been on Mac OS built right in the OS. Software from the OS, to the apps are seamless, it makes workflow more effect.

Some real Mac strengths, Apple, Mac OS X, Final Cut, Motion,Garageband Studio Artist,Safari and one of the best HD editng apps under 500 bucks, iMovie HD, also engergy savings under X for laptops.

My pc strengths, Intel/AMD(faster developement), that's why I own a few new ones, Adobe/macromedia.

I'm about 70/30 or more on the mac side when i develope.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]:Re
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE:Re"
Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

Macs have multiple advantages over PC's for graphic designers some of which have already been mentioned. The one PC only users always miss is the ability to smoothy multi-task between multiple apps due to the multi-threaded nature of OS X/Unix. Dual core PC's with Windows aren't even close. They will get better as the OS is optimized for dual core and apps too but thats going to be awhile. Also the general high quality of software on the Mac is a real advantage. Interesting how PC only people rant about Macs when they have no idea what they are talking about. Use one for a week and you will see the difference and maybe not be so insecure about your PC.

Edited 2006-01-10 13:01

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:Re
by gizzlon on Mon 9th Jan 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE"
gizzlon Member since:
2005-12-18

Like some of the "clean" Beantech and Silverstone cases, never owned them though ..

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Ben2040 on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE"
Ben2040 Member since:
2005-06-29

See your point, but there are quality cases for pcs too...

Yeh, true, but then you're talking about spending more money...

Reply Score: 1

RE
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Jan 2006 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"These people seriously need to get out of their basements and go see a Mac to relise firsthand that there exists nothing in the PC market that comes even close to the quality of a G5 case, or the overall build quality of an iMac."

This is typically part of the Apple problem. People who use other sorts of machines are not living in their basements, the contemptuous reference is, at best, pure snobbery, and often borders on something even less attractive. And if you have actually looked at modern SFF stuff from the same Far Eastern manufacturers that Apple uses, you would see that it is just as well built, and in fact rather better designed.

Look for instance at the Antec 180. In cooling and quiet it far exceeds a PowerMac. Look at Shuttle, or the Asus small form factor machines. They are well built, quiet and cool.

This sort of random abuse of the rest of the world is the most unattractive aspect of the Apple culture.

All the same, it remains true that the particular model Thom was reviewing, though a bit more expensive, is not outlandishly so for what you get. But that's as far as you can go.

Reply Score: 3

RE
by MikeGA on Tue 10th Jan 2006 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

I actually bought myself a Shuttle about a year and a half ago. I have to admit that it was pretty nice on the whole. However, quite frankly, my PowerBook (of about the same age) and my Mac mini both "feel" like better designed and more solid products.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE"
Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

A case alone means nothing. You can take an Antec case and have a noisy vid card etc. Comparing a case to a Mac is nonsense.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by alcibiades on Mon 9th Jan 2006 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Is there really nothing that comes close in quality to the PowerMac build?

This is the usual nonsense of course. If you read Rayiners very careful review of the design, you see that it is not particularly good quality. It is very heavy. Its case is made of very thick plate. But this is actually, however appealing it may be aesthetically, not functionally good design. It makes it noisier. Again, read Rayiners review about fans. In the interests apparently of an aesthetically pleasing interior layout, you find that air flow has been serverely damaged and thus noise raised. You can tell this just by reading the Mac newsgroups, also, where the real story is published. If you want to see good design in cases, you have to look at Antec. Form totally subordinated to function, with the result that performance is outstanding.

Then, nothing coming close to the iMac.

I'm not knocking it, its fine. But if you want quality in a screen hardware wise, look at some of the glass fronted ones that are coming from major suppliers now. The build quality is definitely higher. If you want a really nice compact system, a Formac 19 or 20 inch screen with a good Shuttle will be at least as well built, and better performing. The glass screens now being sold under the Xerox brand in Europe are also better.

Unlike the fanatics, I do not say that anyone who buys a Mac is an idiot or must have various undesirable personal characteristics, or shop at some store I feel is ridiculous, or.....a whole host of other perfectly ordinary characteristics they seem to regard as insults.

Its a perfectly reasonable thing to do with your money.

But, no, it is not second to none in quality or performance, and its more expensive. Sometimes a bit, sometimes a lot.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by rayiner on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Define "quality"? The G5 case is horrible where it counts (expandability, ergonomics, hell transportability). There are several other cases in the PC world that I'd rank above the G5's.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by pxa270 on Mon 9th Jan 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE"
pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08


Define "quality"? The G5 case is horrible where it counts (expandability, ergonomics, hell transportability). There are several other cases in the PC world that I'd rank above the G5's.


You forgot the most important criterion: well do they grate your cheese? :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE
by rayiner on Mon 9th Jan 2006 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Very poorly! The holes on the G5 are a bit too large for effective cheese grating. And getting the 40lb+ beast into the kitchen and back is very tiring...

Reply Score: 3

RE
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE"
Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

Get real. Who cares about carrying their desktop PC back and forth? If your a lan gamer maybe but then you would mot be very smart to have a full size case.

Reply Score: 1

X11
by rexbinary on Mon 9th Jan 2006 12:44 UTC
rexbinary
Member since:
2006-01-04

X11 is included now with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger and a download is not required, but it is not installed by default. Need to do a custom install of OS X and only select X11.

Reply Score: 1

RE: X11
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 12:49 UTC in reply to "X11"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

X11 is included now with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger and a download is not required, but it is not installed by default. Need to do a custom install of OS X and only select X11.

The point remains. I had X11 installed on my iBook, so Migration Assistant should have detected this and should have installed X11. Seeing iMacs come pre-installed, you don't even GET to select X11 during OSX's installation-- because you don't install OSX at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: X11
by DevL on Mon 9th Jan 2006 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: X11"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm...I'm 100% sure that yo can install X11 without reinstalling OS X. Just put in the install CD and look att Additional apps or what it is called.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: X11
by CrimsonScythe on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: X11"
CrimsonScythe Member since:
2005-07-10

I'm actually a bit more than 100% sure, so we're up to about 205% certain by now. There are no need for reinstalling OS X; X11 is just another app. You can find it by running the Optional Installs installer on the OS X DVD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: X11
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: X11"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm actually a bit more than 100% sure, so we're up to about 205% certain by now. There are no need for reinstalling OS X; X11 is just another app. You can find it by running the Optional Installs installer on the OS X DVD.

I know. But that is besides the point. The Migration Assistant FAILED on this issue (which is my point), end of story.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: X11
by rexbinary on Mon 9th Jan 2006 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: X11"
rexbinary Member since:
2006-01-04

"I know. But that is besides the point. The Migration Assistant FAILED on this issue (which is my point), end of story."

So if the Migration Assistant copied Photoshop files over for you would expect it to install Photoshop on your new Mac for you? That's silly. All it does is copy the contents of your old home folder to the new Mac, it's not magic.

Also no one said anything about re-installing OS X to obtain X11. You have to launch the OSX 'installer', choose custom install, and select ONLY X11. This installs X11 ONLY and not the entire OS X. This is why X11 is for expert users. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: X11
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: X11"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So if the Migration Assistant copied Photoshop files over for you would expect it to install Photoshop on your new Mac for you? That's silly. All it does is copy the contents of your old home folder to the new Mac, it's not magic.

Mig. Ass. also copies your applications directory, and all apps contained within it. And guess where Apple's X11 resides?

Exactly.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: X11
by Unbeliever on Mon 9th Jan 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: X11"
Unbeliever Member since:
2005-07-09

Apple's X11 is not a great piece of software. It's something that was not created with ease of use and transferability in mind. It's Apple's fault for not doing so, and for not re-writing it to comply with some basic norms of their OS (Migration Assistant) but it's an optional install, one that is free and readily available with your Mac OS X DVD so it's not as big of a problem as you make it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: X11
by skingers6894 on Tue 10th Jan 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: X11"
skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

Any Mac user who knows what X11 is will have no problem running the installer to install it. Yes it's inconsistent that migration assistant misses it but no it's not the end of the world for those who actually use X11.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: X11
by Unbeliever on Mon 9th Jan 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE: X11"
Unbeliever Member since:
2005-07-09

If you downloaded X11 from Apple's website, then you made a mistake. The X11 Apple offers is for *Panther*, not Tiger, and you need to re-install X11 from the Tiger DVD (do NOT do a re-install, it is unnecessary).

Just insert your Tiger DVD while you're running OS X, and it should mount as a simple Data DVD. Then go to Extras, and it's there.

Reply Score: 1

The camera
by Buck on Mon 9th Jan 2006 12:53 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Gee, you could've turned some light on instead of being illuminated by the glow of the display!
At least that'd greatly reduce the amount of color splotches. Digital cameras need lots of light.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The camera
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 12:57 UTC in reply to "The camera"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Gee, you could've turned some light on instead of being illuminated by the glow of the display! At least that'd greatly reduce the amount of color splotches. Digital cameras need lots of light.

The lights WERE on.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The camera
by Gryzor on Mon 9th Jan 2006 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: The camera"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

The lights WERE on.

Who's got a "real" iSight to compare? I'm interested in seeing the difference.

Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The camera
by Peragrin on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE: The camera"
Peragrin Member since:
2006-01-05

The lights WERE on.

Then you didn't have a good light source. My brother bought his first computer a few weeks ago and got the 17" with 512mb of ram. When he told me this I went out and bought an iSight to chat with him. With both camera's you need a light colored background and at least one good light source in front of you. Griffin's ilight(?) is a good exmple of use though not availble for the G5. You don't need much (I used a AA flashlight on weak batteries).

What I thought was great was the quailty of ichat video over a crappy connection. My connection was 802.11g 5 feet from the router. His was 802.11g 100 feet from the router through 3 exterior walls. The video was sometimes choppy but never the audio.

Reply Score: 1

v prize
by netpython on Mon 9th Jan 2006 14:27 UTC
antique
by netpython on Mon 9th Jan 2006 14:42 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Occasion: Powerbook G4 1Ghz 17" 1Gb/60Gb Superdrive 56k/Airport/ BT EURO1599 EURO1902,81

Well it's hard to estimate the real value of antique.

Reply Score: 0

wilburpan
Member since:
2005-08-09

One thing that never gets mentioned in cost comparisons between Macs and Windows machines is the fact that Windows boxes need antivirus protection. For the major antivirus program publishers, this requires an annual subscription fee at some point. For example, Norton Antivirus provides virus updates for 12 months -- after that, you have to pay a subscription fee of $30/year. If you keep your computer for 3 years, that adds at least $60 to the price. More, if an antivirus isn't included with your computer and you have to buy an antivirus program in the first place.

Compare that to the Mac: because of OS X's Unix underpinnings, viruses are much much much less of an issue. I may be foolish, but my Mac has been connected to the internet via a broad band connection since Feb 2002 and I have never gotten a virus. Thus, I don't have to spend extra money on antivirus software.

I know that someone will bring up the "security by obscurity" argument, but (1) it seems that even security researchers have not come up with many OS X viruses with an equal threat level to the more malignant Windows viruses, and (2) I can't believe there isn't some hacker out there that wouldn't love to have the "First one to infect OS X" title.

Reply Score: 2

jtrapp Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing that never gets mentioned in cost comparisons between Macs and Windows machines is the fact that Windows boxes need antivirus protection.

Where have you been?

For a home machine (non-business use) quality security software can be had for free.

Reply Score: 1

Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Why choose the extreme? There is lots of free anti-virus software. No one forces you to buy Norton. And its not too hard to keep Windows secure. Keep everything up to date, use something like SpyBot S&D and Firefox with NoScript extension. If you are lazy to do all this, then pay for Norton, but don't say that Norton is a must and don't add it to the price of using windows.

One exmaple doesn't mean anything really (not saying that all Mac users except you have viruses, just showing a whole in your arguement). For instance, I haven't had a virus since 1998. And use everything a normal windows user would use: IM, email, web browsing, P2P.

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

NT's security model is actually quite sophisticated. It is not the security model of UNIX that provides the low incidence-rate. It is a combination of platform obscurity, and application integration with the security policy. Those that use administrator accounts on NT, often do so because they happen to make use of software that is poorly-designed. The remainder of problems that would manifest even with the basic file permission safety from not using administrator accounts (disregarding of course the more powerful aspects of NT's security model permitting other forms of access-control) would manifest anyway because Windows is ubiquitous. They are endemic of social problems, and buggy software.

As has been stated before, there are numerous anti-virus programs that are obtainable for free.

As for the technical possibility of writing a virus for OS X, I do not understand what you think the problem is. You can modify binaries that you have permission to access, and can do so in such a way as to be self-replicating by modifying accessible executables to be just that. You can go the extra mile and include a barrage of checks and attempts to exploit flaws in other software as a means of extending the range of influence if you really want.

Now that you have lots of executables modified to spread your wicked virus of doom, you're going to have to spread it. If there are few carriers, they are far between, and not prone to distributing executables to each other, this won't spread very quickly if at all. Even modern software-piracy conspires against the would-be Photoshop-infector, as P2P programs provide superior speeds for the 200 copies of an uninfected Photoshop to the single copy provided by you.

Reply Score: 1

wilburpan Member since:
2005-08-09

"As for the technical possibility of writing a virus for OS X, I do not understand what you think the problem is. You can modify binaries that you have permission to access, and can do so in such a way as to be self-replicating...."

Which still begs the question, why hasn't someone done this already?

Again, I can't believe there isn't some hacker out there that wouldn't want the title of "Writer of the First Mac Virus".

That's why I think there is a problem. If it was a trivial exercise, then it would have already been done.

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

I'm sorry, but silly arguments like "if it was so easy then it would be done to my satisfaction" don't carry any weight with me.

Everything I told you is true. You can patch binaries to execute arbitrary self-replicating code and then function normally. There have been fairly primitive linux viruses that have done just that. Doing this is substantially easier than obtaining a useful vector for distributing the virus.
The payoff for writing Windows viruses is far greater, in that they're actually distributed.

They would also not be the author of the first MacOS virus. There were a small number of MacOS viruses before OS X. If Apple ever obtains a larger share of the personal computing market, that would be a major incentive.

Reply Score: 0

crystalattice Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. Regardless of whether you can get AV software for free, people still don't know how to use them. I used Windows for 14 years and never got a virus, i.e. my virus checker never found anything on my computer. I did detect several viruses received from work through emails or floppies, but nothing that was my fault.

Most people I talk to know they need AV software (and maybe anti-spyware) but they usually just buy it. So having free software available usually only applies to the more computer-savvy types, who are also more likely to take precautions against malware.

I was in Best Buy yesterday and realized how much money I've saved since I moved to Mac and Linux. I don't need AV software, don't need anti-spyware, don't need Norton Systemworks or other maintenance suite, don't need a firewall, etc. All of this is either included w/ the OS or simply not required.

Granted, "smart" people don't need these apps or can find them for free, but the average user (in my experience) is willing to pay $100's on boxed software. They won't look at software reviews and aren't interested in alternatives. It's just like people looking for the Intel logo; you might find something better, cheaper, or fits your requirements better, but if it's not "brand-name" then it's not an option.

Reply Score: 2

Bla bla bla "expensive" bla bla bla
by jeffbax on Mon 9th Jan 2006 16:27 UTC
jeffbax
Member since:
2005-07-27

Macs may cost more, but the ability to use OS X is far worth the price.

After being a Microsoft-only person for my 19 years of existance... 10 Months of my Mac has been plenty for me to get a good grip on comparing the two... and while PC has the gaming support, I'd rather use the Mac for *everything* given the chance.

Windows is insecure and straight up not as pleasant to use (or pleasant at all) as OS X.

Apple not going with AMD64 in their PowerMac's is going to be a crime, and really hurt when its time for me to build a new PC (for Linux and Windows). That said, I will never buy a non-apple laptop again.

Reply Score: 1

Article images
by syphon on Mon 9th Jan 2006 17:06 UTC
syphon
Member since:
2005-07-14

Sorry, but size of each photo in atricle is about 1.5 MB...

Reply Score: 1

Interesting to note...
by DigitalAxis on Mon 9th Jan 2006 18:20 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

There always seems to be the one thing that prevents you from rushing out and buying an Apple- price, lack of TV capability, games, the way iPods lack Vorbis support...
If it weren't for that one thing you'd buy an Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting to note...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jan 2006 18:42 UTC in reply to "Interesting to note..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If it weren't for that one thing you'd buy an Apple.

If it weren't for that one thing, I'd buy this iMac. I already have an Apple (iBook).

Reply Score: 5

BryanFeeney
Member since:
2005-07-06

There was very little about how the hardware stacked up, what the display was like, what the integrated iSight was like.

For example, where was the realisation that iSight on the iMac has a fixed 50cm focus, and is therefore unusable with Delicious Library for example? It may be fixed with 1.6, but maybe not. Where was the stuff about sound quality (as I understand it, the iMac has some tinny built-in speakers, and that's it).

Really, there was was a brief introduction, talk about setting up the computer (which admittedly is a significant advantage, I'm sure there are entire civilisations lost in the cabling behind my Dell), a reasonably detailed review of Front Row, and then a conclusion that appeared out of nowhere.

And as for skipping OS X, as it's an integral part of the Mac experience, why didn't you discuss it's advantages (security, ease of use) and disadvantages (awkward finder, occasional beachballs). What about the mighty-mouse that comes with the iMac, I found it fairly awkward when I tried it in a store, what about you?

I'd have liked another three or four pages myself. This is more of a "first impressions" article really.

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

There are countless reviews of MacOS X. I would prefer that when reviewing hardware, fewer sites would include their opinions of the operating system. They should have a review for each major release of the operating system, and then individual reviews of hardware with more depth. Discussions of the software would then consist of the experience provided because of the hardware in question, rather than some baseline opinion of the Finder.

Reply Score: 1

Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

Delicious Library is planning an upgrade that will allow you to use the iSight camera.

Reply Score: 1

iMac G5 in Brazil
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 9th Jan 2006 19:44 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

The price of this model of iMac G5 (however with only 512 MB of RAM) in Brazil is R$ 6500, almost US$ 3000 !!

Of couse MacOS X market share in Brazil (and most of the countries) is almost zero and, of course, linux is the second platform, after pirated copies of Windows (and may be linux is the first considering only legal copies of windows).

Reply Score: 1

Very fine Review
by oracle2025 on Mon 9th Jan 2006 20:27 UTC
oracle2025
Member since:
2005-07-11

I enjoyed reading it, thanks. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Stylish?
by Kancept on Mon 9th Jan 2006 22:48 UTC
Kancept
Member since:
2006-01-09

I personally find my IBM Netvista X41 very stylish. It's also expandable, given it has half height PCI slots. I have TV in mine, and a handle to tote it around with should I so desire. It also has normal drive bays for upgrading drives and such. Easy to access it all as well.

I also have an Acer Veriton FP2, which I really like. It's a nice Thundercracker Blue color, and even has an AGP slot. It has TV and a nice graphic card installed atm. Also has hot swap laptop bays in it. VERY nice.

Both of these boxes run all of the OSes I choose to run on them - BeOS, ZETA, OS/2, eComStation, and a ton of flavors of linux, along with their defacto Windows.

I don't know what all you Mac heads are talking about lack of style, esp in smaller boxen. I find them much more stylish and more upgradeable than all in one macs (iMacs).

Edited 2006-01-09 22:54

Reply Score: 1

gah
by deathshadow on Tue 10th Jan 2006 03:44 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I always get a kick out of apple reviews... I dunno, for some reason I don't consider a quarter inch of lexan lined with painted 0.05mm aluminum to be 'high quality construction', much less durable or desireable. Nor do I really consider that a 'hard plastic'. I'll take one of the el-cheapo $17 Rosewill steel cases over this RINKY piece of junk any day, as I've NEVER understood how people can think these things are 'well made'... To me, anyone who thinks a Apple product is well made has likely never picked up a screwdriver in their life, much less actaully worked in manufacturing.

As to a 'best bargain' I don't consider $1800 for a machine with NO upgrade path desirable nor a bargain... Especially in a age where $1800 gets me a A64 X2 4200+ with a Radeon X850 video card, double the disk space, a PAIR of 19" LCD's, an Audigy 2 (which blows the GARBAGE sound built into the best mac out of the water) something better than that pile of CRAP 'mighty mouse' with cash LEFT OVER.

.. and people wonder why I think Apple should pull the plug on the idea of selling the hardware for their OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: gah
by rayiner on Tue 10th Jan 2006 05:03 UTC in reply to "gah"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

An Audigy 2 is a horribly crappy sound card. At least the Mac's onboard sound doesn't mutilate the audio stream even when using the digital out!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: gah
by deathshadow on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: gah"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Quote: An Audigy 2 is a horribly crappy sound card. At least the Mac's onboard sound doesn't mutilate the audio stream even when using the digital out!

Don't know what Audigy 2 board you've been using... but I suspect it wasn't a Audigy 2... Sounds like you either had the speakers configured incorrectly, or screwed up and turned on EAX for normal playback.

Either that or you were using the CRAP linux drivers (which means the problem does not lie with the card) or had one of the {censored} VIA chipset mainboards with the southbridge incompatability (which probably means a sub 1.5ghz Athlon). Given the hardware is on par with the EMU APS, there's no reason to complain about the audio quality of the audigy 2... Meanwhile I listen to the audio out on a Mac I damn near cringe at the high frequency distortion, hiss and 'boomy' bass (boomy is a insult in audiophile circles)

Originally I thought much of it was just the software, since iTunes playback quality sucks donkey balls... which is why I use XMMS on my iBook, but after testing out both a G4 iMac and a mainstream G5 my finger is pointing squarely at the integrated audio which seems to be on par with the Realtek AC97 (hell, it probably IS a Realtek or similar) which is not exactly the most impressive piece of audio hardware. Sterile, flat, distorted with poor frequency response.

Edited 2006-01-10 12:45

Reply Score: 1

RE: gah
by Jimbob on Tue 10th Jan 2006 09:11 UTC in reply to "gah"
Jimbob Member since:
2005-07-07

Nice machine, I'm sure my Nana would have no problems putting that together, installing all the software and running virus free with no problems... No wait... she doesn't know how to do that, she needs something that plugs in and works.

I'm not saying Macs are the be all and end all in computerland as PC's are great for a lot of people, but the reason you can get a computer with those specs for that price is that you put it together yourself, same as most people who read this site. My nana doesn't read this site...

Reply Score: 1

RE: gah
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:59 UTC in reply to "gah"
Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

I only wonder why you write comments when you don't know what your talking about.

Reply Score: 1

re:gah
by netpython on Tue 10th Jan 2006 07:13 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Exept for the real graphics pro's and scientists with "real" Macs (dual G5) in the high end segment,it's all wannabee and religeous milking.

Reply Score: 1

Why Intel?
by vegai on Tue 10th Jan 2006 09:11 UTC
vegai
Member since:
2005-12-25

If you already own a 1st generation iMac G5, there is no need to upgrade now; you are much better off waiting for the coming Intel iMac.

Umm, why exactly? I've always felt that the Intel processors are not wrestling in the same series as the Gx ones.

Can someone elaborate on that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why Intel?
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 13:09 UTC in reply to "Why Intel?"
Snooks Member since:
2006-01-10

I sold my 2nd Gen iMac on ebay for what I paid for the 3rd Gen. Pretty good deal for me. Got a faster Mac with a better screen and more features.

Reply Score: 1

Puh-lease
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 12:52 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

"I downloaded Apple's X11 off of the web, but couldn't install it; it complained I already had a newer version installed. So I couldn't use GIMP anymore."

Well Boo hoo. I laughed out loud when I read this. You give up awful easy.

Reply Score: 1

Front row
by Snooks on Tue 10th Jan 2006 13:07 UTC
Snooks
Member since:
2006-01-10

The only thing Jobs compared to Windows Media Center was the remote. Front Row is obviously Apple's first introduction to a Media Center interface and not meant to compete with Windows Media Center. WMC is awful btw. Apple will do it right.

Reply Score: 1

@Snooks
by deathshadow on Tue 10th Jan 2006 23:18 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Quote: the one PC only users always miss is the ability to smoothy multi-task between multiple apps due to the multi-threaded nature of OS X/Unix.

Yeah, I really do MISS that ability a lot, especially on OS X. Totally amazed at how a OS with such good multitasking interface ideas (like Expose) can SUCK SO BADLY at actually MULTITASKING.

Seriously, while OS X is a step up in multitasking from OS 9, it does NOT compete well with Windows in that department. That I can choke off MP3 playback in itunes to the point of skipping just because I'm running opera and proteus at the same time on a middle of the road G4 does NOT bespeak 'good multitasking'... Especially since a 7 year old Celery 533 running XP can do those without even registering more than 5% CPU use... and given the slow low level messaging thanks to the microkernel (which was pointed out by the various articles about the Doom 3 port) claiming better multitasking on the OS X platform is just utter nonsense.

Quote: A case alone means nothing. You can take an Antec case and have a noisy vid card etc. Comparing a case to a Mac is nonsense.

Unless you are comparing quality of manufacturing; which is why it was brought up. Might want to read before kneejerking about our belittling your beloved Apple.

Oh yeah, I'm the one writing ignorant comments... Right.

Reply Score: 1