Arghhh! I need a mac

[pedrocasilva]

I was quite interested for a while in mac mini, but it costs 500€ without keyboard and mouse, and it has a 32 MB ATi 9200 graphics card who lacks support for core image, so as I see they are preparing to switch from powerpc to intel, I think they wont upgrade it anymore.

 

so that leaves me with the problem, what do I really need? I need to work with freehand, photoshop, quark x-press and (possibly) maya.

Resolution and graphics card would be nice, and somebody told me ibooks were only able to output 1024x768 to an external screen the powerbooks are already too expensive but, I might consider the 12" pb for resolution output and gpu memory, I might even consider a 15" WXGA because of the extra resolution and the graphics card. I dont really know if it's that important but 32 MB seems too little for photoshop and maya.

With the price of these powerbooks I could already get a powermac with dual 2 GHz cpu's so that ads to my confusion :X

 

I've been mostly working with emacs till now, but they are too big to be portable and the CRT screen doesn't help it, although I like the image quality and all, with LCD screens it's easier for me to spot contrast/pixelization problems.

 

so with that... I'm interested in all these models :X

 

eMac (includes keyboard and mouse)

- PowerPC G4 1,42 GHz

- ATi Radeon 9600 64MB

from 771.99 € to 1,010.70 €

 

iBook 12" and 14"

- PowerPC G4 up to 1,42 GHz

- ATi Radeon 9550 32 MB

from 915.00 € to 1,376.00 €

 

Powerbook 12"

- PowerPC G4 1,5 GHz

- Nvidia Geforce FX5200 64 MB

from 1,542.99 € to 1,750.99 € (ouch)

 

Powerbook 15" Wide

- PowerPC G4 up to 1,67 GHz

- Ati Radeon 9700 64/128 MB (optional)

from 2,023.00 € to 2,324.99 € (ouch :shock: )

 

PowerMac G5 (includes keyboard and mouse)

- PowerPC Dual G5 2.0 GHz

- Ati Radeon 9600 128 MB

costs 1,970.99 €

 

Please help with your opinions, i'm really clueless in this, and if someone knows where to get bargain prices better than these please tell so

[Lammie]

OK, Powerbooks, although sleek and gutsy, are stupidly expensive.

 

So unless you want to be portable, don't bother.

 

I use Photoshop, InDesign, Freehand/Illustrator, Director all the time. I'm using a 2.0ghz iMac with 1gig RAM and it handles all that fine, I was just working on a 3metre by 30cm file in Photoshop (at 300dpi) and it wasn't too slow at all.........and that is one massive file.

 

So a PowerPC is a bit overkill. But you'd definately want something with the guts of an 1.8/2.0ghz iMac.

[Charlie]

Apparently Apple are going to upgrade the 1.42Ghz Mini to 1.5Ghz (http://www.macrumors.com). I would wait a while to see what happens about that. I've got the 1.42Ghz, 512mb RAM and I love it. I can work with Photoshop CS2 and Dreamweaver MX 2004 together all the time and they don't slow down at all. I also have iTunes, MSN and a bunch of other programs open all the time.

[Guest DS MaNiAc]

Yeah, I would get a Mac mini

[Choze]

Get a real pc. They are alot better at what you want to use them for.

[Charlie]

Get a real pc. They are alot better at what you want to use them for.

 

WTF??? Mac's are 10x (at least) better than PC's at what he's wanting to use it for.

[pedrocasilva]

Yeah, I would get a Mac mini

I'll probably go for ibook then, probably just wait till december or for the next update it has, probably more cpu upgrades will happen even if it's only up to 1,5 GHz

 

anyone knows if ibook's cpu is upgradable?

 

I also heard that it will be a widescreen ibook next year, and although I dont like widescreen things it might help me, what do you guys think? isn't 1024x768 a little too shabby for work? would you prefer a 1280x800 widescreen? or would you prefer the standard 12" version, (currently i'm not interested at all in the 14" version).

 

about the 1024x768 output i found that there is a firmware patch that allows dual screens being the external up to 1600x1200, so I think it might be perfect for my work needs.

 

Get a real pc. They are alot better at what you want to use them for.

I already have a PC, and a good one at that, I need a Apple to work not for leisure, i wouldn't even think about playing games on a Mac, but likewise windows is pretty unstable (lots of crashes=work lost) and lacks most of the tools I need for work with, also it's slower running them than the emacs I work with who have only 1 GHz; my PC even with a 6600GT and a powerful cpu can't get that smooth with all the work; by the way i've been working with emacs with 256 MB of RAM, Macs need 512 MB for work so 256MB is too little, and still it outperforms my home computer in photoshop.

 

I wonder why most people in design work get macs instead of real PCs, they must be all mistaken.

 

just the fact that a mac mini @ 1,25GHz and a Radeon 9200 with 32 MB runs all those powerful aplications without getting slow, shows that pcs might not be that good at that kind of work dont you think? 1,25 GHz is slow, even if you picture that the most expensive mac is a dual 2,7 GHz 2.7+2.7=5.4 GHz (theoretical) that leaves mac mini in the dust, but still he manages to hold it's own; what do you say of that?

 

A pentium4 1,4 GHz doesn't hold it's own against a Pentium 4 3,6GHz; nor does a AMD 1,4 GHz (1700+) against a AMD64 3800+ in fact those are not even enough for most of today tasks.

 

I wouldn't buy one now if I didn't need one; as I dont have much money in the first place, let alone waste it on things I dont need.

[RoadKill]

Get a real pc. They are alot better at what you want to use them for.

 

One of the times I really want to agree with Choze, and that doesn't happen often.

[Sarka]

Can someone explain to me why Macs are better? I have always wondered this...

[RoadKill]

Macs aren't better.

 

Only graphic designers and people sucked in by the Steve Jobs/Apple reality distortion field think they are better.

 

They are pretty though.

 

Ohh shiny and pretty.

 

PCs != Windows.

 

You don't have to run Windows on a PC, just like you don't have to run Mac OS X on an Apple Mac. However I choose to run Windows since it's by far the most compatible OS with the widest range of applications and hardware that exists today.

[pedrocasilva]

Can someone explain to me why Macs are better? I have always wondered this...

lots of reasons for that... one of them is surely because they have small amounts of hardware available so aplications can be optimixed to run on that hardware to the maximum, the GUI (graphics user interface) on MacOS X uses your graphics card, just like they are saying "longhorn" will, so the aplications can be switched quicky and with no load whatsoever for the CPU, they are well balanced machines most of the time, more than PC's for example Power Mac G5 2,7GHz has a 1,35 GHz front side bus for each cpu exacly half of each processor speed, much better rate than pentiumIV 3,8 GHz with 800 MHz fsb.

 

other part of the explanation might be that x86 (PC's) come from CISC architecture (Complex Instruction Set Computer) while PowerPC's use RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) sure the x86 are RISC emulating CISC since P6 aka 686 aka Pentium Pro, but it has to emulate it, POWER architecture is RISC from the ground.

 

Also, IBM cpu's have a small pipeline while Pentium 4 prescott has 39 stages that gives it a advantage of efficiency like AMD has above Netburst (P4) architecture, that's why Pentium 4 goes as high as 3,8 GHz and still looses to CPU's with a whole GHz missing.

 

Xbox 360 CPU uses xenon cpu a modified PowerPC with a extended 32 stage pipeline and the cache miss because of the large pipeline is 5%! when that happens you have to clean the pipeline and possibly wait up to 40 cycles to use it again fully, PS3 cpu might be even worse, Pentium 4 (netburst) also has that problem and a system to prevent it.

 

As a curiosity, the XBOX is the first console ever to use a x86 CPU; PSone and N64 were the first RISC consoles using MIPS cpu's, PS2 uses MIPS and GC powerPC and all the next generation consoles will use PowerPC's... heh... the powerPC's must be good for something, that architecture in Sony and M$ case allows much higher fill rate (even if they get bigger pipelines for that and simplify the overall system that hammers the high level code execution)

 

(...)RISC has made few inroads into the desktop PC and commodity server markets, where Intel's x86 platform remains the dominant processor architecture (Intel is facing increased competition from AMD, but even AMD's processors implement the x86 platform, or a 64-bit superset known as x86-64). There are three main reasons for this. One, the very large base of proprietary PC applications are written for x86, whereas no RISC platform has a similar installed base, and this meant PC users were locked into the x86 despite a lack of performance. The second is that, although RISC was indeed able to scale up in performance quite quickly and cheaply, Intel took advantage of its large market by spending enormous amounts of money on processor development. Intel could spend many times as much as any RISC manufacturer on improvements in design and manufacturing, making up for inherent flaws in the basic x86 architecture. The third reason is that Intel designers realized that they could apply RISC design philosophies and practices to their architecture. For example, the P6 core of the PentiumPro processor and its successors has special functional units which expand, or "crack", the majority of the CISC instructions into multiple simpler RISC operations. Internally, processors using the P6 core are RISC machines that emulate a CISC architecture.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC

 

EDIT: That said mac is not necessarily faster, but it's more eficient even at the software level, optimization does miracles, and it's like said above... if I'm learning to use macs from the beggining with programs not available for windows nor linux then I need a mac rather than try to be diferent than the masses, truth to be told, I find the work done at inferior hardware apple's runs much smoother than on my "superior hardware" PC, if I have to work I want the best tool available to get the results faster thus better.

 

(...)You don't have to run Windows on a PC, just like you don't have to run Mac OS X on an Apple Mac. However I choose to run Windows since it's by far the most compatible OS with the widest range of applications and hardware that exists today.

and by far the most troublesome operating system in the way it handles the resources available, it's also pretty vulnerable, sure... mac is for work, only that, pc does that and more, but what if you just want your work to be safe from being leaked by spyware, harmed by virus or loosing it because of constant computer crashes?

 

Mac are undoubtly better for work rather than gaming and multimedia (although that might be changing *looks at ipods*)

[Sarka]

Cool, thanks for the explanation. Apple seem to be kinda, going in the right direction it seems. I always hear people going on about Mac's being so awful, the only thing I've found I've hated about our school ones is the mouse. It never seems to need to load or anything. Tis great!

[pedrocasilva]

Cool, thanks for the explanation. Apple seem to be kinda, going in the right direction it seems. I always hear people going on about Mac's being so awful, the only thing I've found I've hated about our school ones is the mouse. It never seems to need to load or anything. Tis great!

that single button mouse is just silly you have to press CTRL key anyway to get the second button click, apple makes lots of silly things based on design alone those apple cinema screens are also silly

 

Apart from that... Apple is going to ditch PowerPCs to Intel CPUs starting in june 2006, there's already people running Mac OS x86 leaked on computers out there, they are going for the mainstream market rather than the people who work with the system, meaning in future macs you'll be able to install and run windows as well as change the graphics card directly rather than waiting for the "mac version".

 

Of course the system was cracked to run on the regular systems, they'll still sell hardware, but this time based on x86, for people buying macs and installing windows for games and also in a attemp of getting the developers to port most windows programs over, since it now runs on the same cpu language. it simplifies the work and optimization; but it will take a while for the system to mature if that'll happen at all, as there is official support for PowerPC's for 5 more years (from the date of the last PowerPC released (probably already in 2007). I dont think switching to x86 is good for designers and and people who use the system for work is a good idea at all though. I for one just want a stable and proven system.

 

MacOS X evolved from the "NEXT" operating system used in some old servers and when apple bought them they always kept it running in x86 too, just in case.

 

In terms of optimization, the powerPC's are perfect right now, photoshop is fully written to take advantage of altivec for example (like MMX/SSE instructions but for PPC) so rewritting it to that speed will take a while, also a dual 2,7 GHz mac is still the most powerful home computer available, it will be even more if macrummors is right that it might still be updated to dual core CPUs, if that's so 2 dual core cpus at 2,7 GHz... :shock:

[RoadKill]

Apple will only want you to do things their way. It treats you like an idiot.

 

Windows doesn't. User error or substandard hardware are the vast cause of Windows crashes.

 

By the way, the Dual 2.7Ghz PowerMac is not the fastest home computer available, do you not remember all the hoohah in the press when Apple was forced to take down such a statement?

 

However I have nothing against the hardware, or the PowerPC architecture, but rather Mac OS X and the way Apple does things. It's all just too cutesy.

[pedrocasilva]

Apple will only want you to do things their way. It treats you like an idiot.

 

Windows doesn't. User error or substandard hardware are the vast cause of Windows crashes.

 

By the way, the Dual 2.7Ghz PowerMac is not the fastest home computer available, do you not remember all the hoohah in the press when Apple was forced to take down such a statement?

 

However I have nothing against the hardware, or the PowerPC architecture, but rather Mac OS X and the way Apple does things. It's all just too cutesy.

really?

 

look at these real-world benchmarks:

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Sure the G5 is not the all-mighty unbeatable CPU and there's xeon cpu's with higher speeds than 2.4 GHz out there, but the fact is that no company sells xeon or opteron computers with 2 or more cpus as a home computer, that make G5 2,7 GHz the fastest home computer mass produced for market, also, sure dual 3,2 GHz could beat the PPC G5 2,7 at some tests but not all of them... it's still a great system in my opinion.

 

As for windows... yes; I doubt apple could maintain it's stability with that much hardware and drivers support out there, but it achieves it's goal right? being stable and powerful for work I dont care about the hardware they use, even if I have to pay a extra buck, as long as It can improve my work.

 

As for them taking people for stupid... I think microsoft is even worse, sure, the tests on their site are just plain dumb impossible, and the way they claim their superiority is dumb, and some of their choices are dumb aswell for example: most apple computers still came with 256MB a few months ago, their mouses and keyboards are not really that functional, their cinema screens are just expensive, they could put better graphics cards in their computers. but you only get dragged along to those if you want, apple is really one of those brands were you really pay for the brand, but that's not so bad in my opinion.

[craig]

Apple will only want you to do things their way. It treats you like an idiot.

 

Windows doesn't. User error or substandard hardware are the vast cause of Windows crashes.

 

 

[RoadKill]

STUPID IMAGE

 

Wow, that was an informed and witty response, you could have at least tried, like the other guy who is putting up some decent arguments.

 

Windows is just not as bad as people think.

[craig]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and I have no inclination to have a technical debate with a MS fanboy.

 

:lmao:

[Lammie]

I used to hate Macs.

 

I used to absolutely despise them.

 

Then I was forced to use the iMacs in the deisgn suites at Uni. Slowly they grew on me. I don't care if my iMac isn't as gutsy as someone elses PC, the important thing is that the software and the hardware all run in beautiful harmony. I don't have to arse around with drivers and little upgrades like with XP all the time.

 

And although it seems weird to begin with, once you start using OSX you can't go back to Windows.

[Waylander]

And although it seems weird to begin with, once you start using OSX you can't go back to Windows.

I switched over to a Mac after 5 years of using Windows. WinXP is a pretty stable OS but it still crahsed on me. I had my Powerbook for almost 2 years and the total crashes in that time I could count on one hand. I also dont have to worry about viruses or spyware. I'm currently using OSX 10.4 (Tiger).

[James]

I haven't had my mac mini crash on me once yet.

[dukkadukka]

i have an imac and love it, but don't listen to me all i ever use is itunes, iphoto, safari, tomatotorrent and photoshop, and vlc sometimes. it's just simpler and smoother than any pc's i've used and fits my needs perfectly, i know that your needs are different but i'd recommend a mac any day of the week.

[Joethesmoe]

I much prefer Macs over Windows PCs because of the OS; Mac OS X is just way better than Windows whatever, in my reasonably humble opinion.

It might seem that most people say Macs are crap, etc, but that's because most people do, as most people have Windows. People always say 'this' is crap, if they have 'that'.

 

Anywho, back to the real topic!

Unless you really want to carry your computer around, I'd wait a few weeks and get the slightly upgraded mini.

As far as I know the lack of core image only means it can't do the super snazzy, yet pointless visual effects. I could be wrong though..

And I think they've said it'll be late next year when they start to move to intel, so whatever you buy, it'll be a while till it's behind the times, so to speak.

Or if you haven't already got a monitor (pretty unlikely..), get the eMac.

And just remember, the more RAM the better. It makes way more difference than the extra ghz. 512mb's been fine for me, but if you want to use all those apps at the same time, I'd go for 1gb.

 

Also worth a note: You can use USB meese on Macs, so that means any 7 button microsoft whatever.

[RoadKill]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and I have no inclination to have a technical debate with a MS fanboy.

 

:lmao:

 

Aww... please do, I'd love to hear your cute excuses!

 

At least I'm not stupid enough to make sweeping generalisations about a guy I don't even know.

[nicolasmasset]

Haha

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

...