Well il be getting a computer for new years. Im thinking a Mac Mini. They are pretty nice and give all of the performance that I can possibly use. Any other recomendations?
Sorry I forgot the main idea. Look now
Perhaps a iMac G5
welcome to the dark side! although in all honesty i would wait awhile on macs, as the new intel-based ones (intellimacs) are coming out sometime next year with big promises. so buying the low-end G4-powered mini right now doesn't make much financial sense.
Might get the iMac G5...the one thats all in one. Everything is built into the screen, all the guts are behind it. The 17in widescreen with 1.9GHz G5 procesor, 512 ra, Radeon 8800 video 128MB, and 160GB hdd, loaded with the software, keyboard, and the new mightymouse is $1,299. All it needs is speakers, and my ownership lol.
If you need a mac, then the Imac G5 is pretty good. How do you know if you need a mac? If you are a graphic designer or video editor, then you NEED a mac. But most people who buy them just buy them for looks. For that much money you can get a much much faster PC. But if you like the MAC stability and convience, then i would say go for the Powermac G5 or the Imac G5. I was a graphics designer for a while before, so i would personally prefer the Powermac G5. But for home use, the Imac is more practical. The Mini is definitely a no, its extremely slow, sure its small, but its not very practical.
A 17 inch iMac G5 is 1299 USD. For that much money i would rather get
AMD 64 3500+ CPU
Asus A8NE S939 Nforce 4 Motherboard
2xKingston Valueram PC3200 DDR400 512mb (total=1gig of ram)
Seagate Barracuda SATA NCQ 8mb 7200.8 250gb Harddrive
Nvidia 6800GT 128mb PCI-E 16x video card
Samsung DVDrw writer 16x8x16x
Antec Sonata II case with 450w PSU
Logitech MX518 gaming mouse
Samsung 19 inch 600:1 12ms 913mv LCD monitor
You can get a keyboard for 10 dollars, or just use your old one. If you want speakers, just spend 70 dollars on a nice logitech set. I'm currently using a Z680 set, but its a little pricy, 505 watts!.
Trust me this setup is ALOT better then the iMac G5, its a lot faster and can handle heavier loads. And all at 100 dollars cheaper then the iMac G5.
*barf* That ruins the whole point of getting a Mac in the first place. I beilve that by going the route currently planned Mac is in for some very angry customers that appreciated the diff between a Mac and a PC. Personally I donnot believe I would go the Mac route, they aren't right for me, but they are pretty Kick-Arse machines. From someone that sells them though, don't get a Mini.... go G5 or go home :thumbs:
I would buy a Mac for Video Compilation and Sound Engineering. That's it. If you don't plan on being heavily involved in that, stay PC. Grab a nice AMD rig, you'll find it a lot more versatile.
ugh...listen, i've been using macs since i was born. my first computer was
an Apple II GS, with the 2nd being an SE/30. i know them better than i
know my house, and i'm certified in both laptop and desktop hardware
when i first heard about apple switching to intel i was very pissed, but the thing of it is that the computer market is no longer a homebrew club where you can be picky about your product. if apple is to survive as anything more than a solely music-based company (ipod, itunes, etc), then making the switch to intel was a very necessary thing, unfortunately.
besides, the point of a mac isn't so much the hardware even now. the only difference between a PC and a Mac really is the CPU. they both use PCI, IDE, SATA, AGP, PCI-E, etc etc. the real point of the mac is the OS, namely OSX. classic os was very good for 1984 (and still better than windows as an every day os, imho), but it was far outdated in terms of new features by windows (multithreading, multitasking, automatic VM management, the list goes on). top that with a series of very bad CEO's, and apple's future was bleak. even after Job's came back and introduced the imac and all of it's successors, apple today is still nothing compared to apple of 10-15 years ago. the only way the company can stay alive is to make a massive shift in either it's software or it's hardware platform, and since windows is a POS, they chose to use different hardware.
as of now, i'm in full support of it. jobs makes mistakes, but you'd be certifiable to bet against him in the long run.
um...no. trust me, it's not. in GAMES, yes, that setup would be faster. for anything else the imac would be just as if not faster than that setup. trust ME, as somebody who builds those types of PC's and uses G5's (both imac and towers) on a daily basis.
Case in point: i have two main desktops at my house a mac and a PC:
Mac: PowerMac G4 "Digital Audio"
256k L2 733MHz, 1MB L3 at 1/5 CPU speed
1.25GB PC-133 RAM
200 and 160GB western digital 7200rpm 8mb cache ata/100 drives attached to a Sonnet Tempo ATA/133 PCI card, each with it's own dedicated bus
nVidia GeForce 4 ti 4600 128mb agp4x
M-Audio Revolution 7.1
*other random stuff*
PC: Big-Ass Antec server case, 400watt Smart Antec PSU(five 80mm fans in this bad boy)
2.4GHz P4 "Northwood" 512k L2, 533Mhz bus
Foxconn 865A01 motherboard
120gb Maxtor 7200rpm 8mb cache ata/133 on on-board ata/100 bus
Radeon 7000 64mb agp4x
granted, the mac has over twice as much ram, but it's the ridiculously slow sd-ram standard, whereas the pc has 400mhz DDR.
that being said, i can have many more applications open and running well on the mac than i can the PC. like right now on the mac, i've got itunes, safari, adium, entourage, mactracker, adock, and it's acting as my intranet server to other computers in the house, and i'm having no real problems in terms of bogging down.
the PC can do all of these things as well, but switching between the different apps does take longer than it does on a mac, and since it's just win2k instead of XP (i lurv sn-less 2k), it's nowhere NEAR as pretty, lol.
in all reality, however, both machines serve their purpose and get the job done. the final decision should NOT be based on hardware, but on the OS. choose which OS you prefer to use and then build a hardware scheme around the one you like more. just looking at pure numbers is for idiots.
thats my :2cents:
For a gaming computer, I'd get a PC, and actually for anything, but I've
never really wanted a Mac for some reason...I've heard lots of people say
that they were for media, but I don't see any difference in computers...At
school we've been using them for media arts, and basically every program
that we have used, I have used a very similar one on a PC...it also pisses
me off without the right mouse button, and it's harder to use Photoshop
because of that missing button...Just from my exepriences...
IMO Aerith's idea sounds pretty damn nice :hi:
Granted that the mac multitasks a lot better. But with one cpu intensive program, im am 100% sure the PC will run faster. I use a Dual core powerpc G5 at work, and a AMD X2 at home. Using the Jaguar OS vs the Windows XP Pro OS, both running Photoshop CS with no other programs on; my PC runs a lot faster; faster like using filter effects or other cpu intensive tasks. Its kind of unfair to compare Tiger with XP pro, we'll have to wait till Vista. I admit MAC OS is a lot more stable, but hardware wise; the PC's have the advantange.
well there's your problem. Jaguar is OLD. the subsequent OSX releases,
Panther and Tiger brought tons of speed, stability, and overall usability
enhancements. i wouldn't touch jaguar with a 10-foot stick these days,
lol. and by the time Vista does finally come out, Leopard will either be
not far off or out already.
that's why 2-button USB mice are $5. any USB mouse will work with osx, even wireless ones. plug'n play baby! of course for any other functionality besides the two buttons and the scroll wheel you will need software of some sort. same story as windows.
I've used all the OSes from Jaguar up to Tiger, all the little variants and everything. I think that Mac's are great for multitasking but when it comes to one cpu intensive task, it struggles a bit compared to PC's. You have to admit that PC's have superior hardware; ie the video cards, and the CPU's. I'm pretty sure the Dual core im running in the G5 is a bit slower then my X2 4600+. Plus, the LCD's in the iMac and the Cinema Display are slow, although they have virtually no dead pixels, their response time is 25ms compared to Samsung's offerings of 8ms.
And both buttons work? Why am I being told now?...I might buy one just for school :smoke:...It sounds odd though for some reason, probably because I've used the one button mouse for about six years now, from the old iMacs.
well the mac never was a gaming platform. if all your interested in is
games, then a windows based PC is the obvious way to go, but as i stated
before the ultimate decision in buying anything should NOT be based just
off of numbers alone. i have a PC for all the gaming needs i have (mainly
the Homeworld series of games), and for school, and the mac for everything
else. i just simply enjoy using the MacOS more than the windows OS, and
ultimately regardless of whatever bench you use, going with the most
trouble-free option is preferable.
and on the cinema display's having a slow response time...again, that could very well be true, but you're looking at silly statistics again. obviously for games you would want to use a faster refreshing display, but for somebody to whom games are of no real consequence (me for instance), i would rather have an apple display because i know it's going to last till hell freezes over and all the while it's going to do it with style.
PC's are just too garish these days. if nothing else i buy apple just for the quality of the machine and the software. you buy a HP or DELL or gateway they've got all sorts of pre-installed junk that does nothing but slow the system down and hog resources. you start up a mac and you have a clean slate with nothing but the essentials and a few niceties that don't rear their heads unless you tell them to. plus OSX just feels it a completely different league from windows, better design, better implementation, better look, better everything.
granted, my PC smokes my mac on anything flash based, or gaming, or using a single program, but for me those are a set of circumstances that i hardly ever run into, so if we do go by simply those criterion, a mac is the obvious choice for myself. then there are the small things, built-in system-wide automatic "as-you-type" spell-checking, SIMPLE networking that always works, cleaner and more obvious path to programs. and my biggest beef with windows, it's MUCH less complicated for the end-user. to install Firefox on OSX, you drag an Application package to the Applications folder (or whatever folder you want to use), and it's done. on a winxp machine, you have to install 3,000 files and you still have to use IE (which is conveniently built-in to the system making it un-removable) for software updates.
i dunno. to me OSX just feels like a quality product and windows feels like something a high schooler would code.
to each their own.
yup. in fact, i am right now typing this on a Microsoft Wireless Desktop Elite keyboard and i'm about to click "Save Changes" with my Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer 2.0 (they have GOT to get shorter names for these things....). i had plug and play functionality of the keyboard and both mouse buttons and the scroll wheel, but for the extra features i had to install the M$ software which isn't half-bad, actually...
Yeah, i totally agree with you. Windows sucks. I like the OSX interface a
hell lot better. But im just talking about hardware superiority, not
software in PC's. And with the Dell, HP products; i agree as well. Thats
why i build all my own computers. I love the Apple designs; that's why i'm
using a Lian Li PCV1000 case which is basically the PowerPC G5 case, but
ironically it has better build quality then the case it emulates. Windows
is a bitch to use, but you have to keep in mind, the Mac OS is constantly
refined while the XP os hasn't been touched really except for the SP crap,
which doesnt really do anything. I'm just saying for general use, i would
go with the PC because it can play games a lot better, has more
applications, and its compatible with basically everything.
The reason i don't have a Mac at home is because hardware-wise; its boring, like my PC: i built with my own hands, i sleeved the PSU myself, i watercooled it myself, its just a lot my satisfying when i finally have it running, like fixing up a car.
Just a random thought, and this is probably not possible, but just to be sure, could you install a Mac OS on a factory Windows (Like could I install Mac OSX on my laptop right now [I'm not planning on it, but just to know])...
Not right now. But i heard the new OS to launch on the Intel based Mac should be able to after some modifications.
not "legally", no, but there is a hacked version of OSX called OSX86 that
runs on any Intel-based PC with SSE3 (although SSE2 chips can run a patch
that will make it emulate SSE3, but emulation is never as good as the real
thing). it's not really all that useful right now, app's don't work right,
not many devices supported....
but it is OSX running natively on a PC, so i guess that's something, lol.
true, macs never were big in the customization scene, but that's not to say you cant' have a little fun with them. i own...goin on 10-15 desktops and 7 or so laptops (all macs) from various years, and each and every one has something done to it. nothing as extravagant and water-cooling, but enough to keep a hobbyist like myself happy for a few weekends. i also have 2 PC towers, one which holds my closet floor down, the other of which is basically being used as an expensive "Holiday Lights" box. siiiiiilent niiiiight...holllllly niiiight...blaaaaah blah blaaaaaah, somthiiiiin somth-somthiiiiiin.... :screwy: :mrgreen:
again, all depends on what you're looking for in a computer.