Thread: iMac?

You could always dual boot!

Guys, I found a KDE theme like LCARS (Linux Can Also Run Star Ships...). Installing Kubuntu now.

Macs are overpriced, don't bother.

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Macs are overpriced, don't bother.

Virtually all preassembled computers are overpriced. It's not like the iMac is more expensive than some other computer that has the same specs, size, all-in-one form, look, etc. Apple products used to be more expensive than competitors, though. Anyway, if you want a "good deal" then buy the parts yourself.

That being said, I don't love Mac OS X. It's certainly a step up from Windows in the security department, but the GUI is equally inflexible. I myself use Arch Linux with a keyboard-controlled window manager (stumpwm), but lxde, xfce, and even kde4 are probably faster than Mac OS X's Aqua. If you care about choice and want to get an iMac, feel free to run Linux on it.

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Macs are overpriced, don't bother.

This statement is about a decade out of date. It's almost as out of date as "Macs have a one button mouse."

If you've used iTunes, then you pretty much know how OSX works. Unlike Windows, everything in OSX acts the exact same way as everything else. OSX has better memory management and multicore processing than either Windows or Linux. In terms of security, it's not quite Linux, but light years ahead of Windows.

As for software, Apple software is far better than the Windows equivalent. Windows has Office, OSX has iWork, Windows has Paint, OSX has GIMP, Windows has Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player OSX has iLife and iTunes.

Unlike the Windows of Quicktime, the OSX version is stable, faster, and can play any type of media.

Best of all, the average lifespan of a PC is just over two years, where as the average lifespan of a Mac is 6 years.

The only downside to the iMac hardware is that Apple only uses the old-fashion DVD players. It won't do bluray

No, putting Ubuntu on it will not void the warranty. You should dual or parallel boot anyway, Linux is good, but it doesn't have the programs that OSX and Windows have. (Windows programs will run natively on OSX using Darwine, including games. In fact, OpenGL Windows games will run better on a Mac using darwine than on Winodws because it manages multithreading and memory better.)

Both Ubuntu and OSX have very powerful disk utilities for repartitioning and verifing. Adding a second operating system is very easy using either one.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

OSX has better memory management and multicore processing than either Windows or Linux.

hmmm....

You do know the mainline Linux kernel can take advantage of many, many thousands of CPU's

see here
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7313

You think OS X beats this....

SMP & NUMA are server technologies (which have only recently hit the desktop)

Originally Posted by ninja9578

This statement is about a decade out of date. It's almost as out of date as "Macs have a one button mouse."

If you've used iTunes, then you pretty much know how OSX works. Unlike Windows, everything in OSX acts the exact same way as everything else. OSX has better memory management and multicore processing than either Windows or Linux. In terms of security, it's not quite Linux, but light years ahead of Windows.

As for software, Apple software is far better than the Windows equivalent. Windows has Office, OSX has iWork, Windows has Paint, OSX has GIMP, Windows has Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player OSX has iLife and iTunes.

Unlike the Windows of Quicktime, the OSX version is stable, faster, and can play any type of media.

Best of all, the average lifespan of a PC is just over two years, where as the average lifespan of a Mac is 6 years.

The only downside to the iMac hardware is that Apple only uses the old-fashion DVD players. It won't do bluray

No, putting Ubuntu on it will not void the warranty. You should dual or parallel boot anyway, Linux is good, but it doesn't have the programs that OSX and Windows have. (Windows programs will run natively on OSX using Darwine, including games. In fact, OpenGL Windows games will run better on a Mac using darwine than on Winodws because it manages multithreading and memory better.)

Both Ubuntu and OSX have very powerful disk utilities for repartitioning and verifing. Adding a second operating system is very easy using either one.

I thank you that you took the time to type out such a long reply! There's no problem in it not doing bluray. I yet have to find a need for more than 5 gb on a single disc

I'll think I'll make a dual-boot then, but only if I'm buying it. I promised I wouldn't until summer break. Anyway, I figured I'd get some advice early on. Thanks guys, keep them coming!

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

I thank you that you took the time to type out such a long reply! There's no problem in it not doing bluray. I yet have to find a need for more than 5 gb on a single disc

I'll think I'll make a dual-boot then, but only if I'm buying it. I promised I wouldn't until summer break. Anyway, I figured I'd get some advice early on. Thanks guys, keep them coming!

Don't listen to him, most of the stuff he said was wrong. Most of the Windows programs are far better, and GIMP will run on all platforms. It doesn't really matter, because Photoshop is much better. iWork isn't that great, Office 2007 is actually pretty nice, and if you don't like it, you could always try OpenOffice(But it sucks). Macs do not last any longer than PCs, I've had this PC for 4 years, only having to put in a couple minor upgrades. I've used Macs that are 3-4 years old, they are very slow, and can hardly handle having two programs open at once. Also, iTunes is a piece of crap, it's really bloated, and infested with DRM. Foobar2000, Winamp, and Media Monkey are far better alternatives. Quicktime does not play "every media file", it's just a piece of crap. If you want to play media, get Mplayer, it's plays everything, and is pretty awesome. It's a lot better than VLC, anyway.

Also, Macs ARE overpriced. You are paying more money for the same hardware as a PC of lower price. The average PC can be built from scratch for maybe about 1/4th of the price, and sometimes it's more expensive, depending on what you're putting on it. Building a PC with the same parts as an iMac can be up to half the price, which sort of proves that it's overpriced. And no, you're not paying for "superior quality" or any other bullshit like that, you're paying for aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Don't listen to him, most of the stuff he said was wrong. Most of the Windows programs are far better, and GIMP will run on all platforms. It doesn't really matter, because Photoshop is much better. iWork isn't that great, Office 2007 is actually pretty nice, and if you don't like it, you could always try OpenOffice(But it sucks). Macs do not last any longer than PCs, I've had this PC for 4 years, only having to put in a couple minor upgrades. I've used Macs that are 3-4 years old, they are very slow, and can hardly handle having two programs open at once. Also, iTunes is a piece of crap, it's really bloated, and infested with DRM. Foobar2000, Winamp, and Media Monkey are far better alternatives. Quicktime does not play "every media file", it's just a piece of crap. If you want to play media, get Mplayer, it's plays everything, and is pretty awesome. It's a lot better than VLC, anyway.

Also, Macs ARE overpriced. You are paying more money for the same hardware as a PC of lower price. The average PC can be built from scratch for maybe about 1/4th of the price, and sometimes it's more expensive, depending on what you're putting on it. Building a PC with the same parts as an iMac can be up to half the price, which sort of proves that it's overpriced. And no, you're not paying for "superior quality" or any other bullshit like that, you're paying for aesthetics.

Quicktime on Mac will play any media file other than DVDs (there is another program for that) It requires the proper codecs (like every other media player,) and will prompt you if you try to open a file that you have to download the codec for.

Photoshop is a Mac program, the Windows version is the port. Photoshop also doesn't come with Windows, it's $900 for the whole Adobe package (cheaper if you're a student.)

The average PC lifespan is 2 years. It's problem is that the core of it is the registry, which requires additional software to clean. The disk also gets fragmented, which most people forget to fix. The average span of a Mac is 6 years. No one cares how long your PC lasted, average is what people should look at.

Word has an absolutely terrible rendering and formatting engine. iWork has a LaTeX backend. LaTeX has been the word processing gold standard for 35 years. Keynote is considered he gold standard in presentation tools. The only thing that Office has that's better than the iWork equivalent is Excel, but unless you're doing advanced metrics, Numbers will suit you just fine.

You need to come up with some figures that show that Macs are overprices, not just saying that they are. Find a PC with a quad core processor, all-in-one display and computer, 20" screen, Nvidia gfx card and Intel gfx card, 5 receiver n wireless receiver, and 4gb of DDR3 ram that's significantly cheaper than a 20" iMac (running Windows of course, Linux PCs are always cheaper because their OS is free).

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

Don't listen to him, most of the stuff he said was wrong. Most of the Windows programs are far better, and GIMP will run on all platforms. It doesn't really matter, because Photoshop is much better.

Photoshop is not all that much better, they're about the same.

iWork isn't that great, Office 2007 is actually pretty nice, and if you don't like it, you could always try OpenOffice(But it sucks).

WTF. MS Office released for Macs as well, so I don't know what you're talking about. And OpenOffice IMO is better than MS Office, it has features the latter does not. I love it far better.

Macs do not last any longer than PCs, I've had this PC for 4 years, only having to put in a couple minor upgrades.

Macs don't NEED any upgradesm from as far as I have used it. Unless you want optional RAM and HD space.

I've used Macs that are 3-4 years old, they are very slow, and can hardly handle having two programs open at once.

You lost me here. I use old macs all the time, and they flow just as easily as they always did. I don't know where you got that from. I have had 5 programs open at once on an oldie, worked fine. LIER.

Also, iTunes is a piece of crap, it's really bloated, and infested with DRM.

iTunes store has DRM. If you get music elsewhere, it doesn't need DRM. Dummy. Also, please clairify the "crap" other than DRM (optional?) and "it's really bloated". As for the latter, how do you mean? Filesize? Who gives a shit, there's enough memory on your mac a few megs won't matter.

Foobar2000, Winamp, and Media Monkey are far better alternatives.

Or if you're on Linux, Rhythmbox Music Player is amazing. It doesn't make you erase all the crap on there.

Quicktime does not play "every media file", it's just a piece of crap. If you want to play media, get Mplayer, it's plays everything, and is pretty awesome. It's a lot better than VLC, anyway.

Quicktime was the first media player of it's kind. It has the most experience. I also use it mainly for anything I watch on a Mac. I haven't encountered a problem with it, period. Sources for the "it's just a piece of crap".

Also, Macs ARE overpriced. You are paying more money for the same hardware as a PC of lower price. The average PC can be built from scratch for maybe about 1/4th of the price, and sometimes it's more expensive, depending on what you're putting on it. Building a PC with the same parts as an iMac can be up to half the price, which sort of proves that it's overpriced. And no, you're not paying for "superior quality" or any other bullshit like that, you're paying for aesthetics.

I actually mainly agree with this, but hey. Mac hardware is pretty standardized, so it's actually a good thing. Bringing computers closer to game consoles.

Originally Posted by Ynot

hmmm....

You do know the mainline Linux kernel can take advantage of many, many thousands of CPU's

see here
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7313

You think OS X beats this....

SMP & NUMA are server technologies (which have only recently hit the desktop)

Darwin is UNIX, so it has all the features of UNIX. The only difference is that Darwin was written specifically for multicore computers, I don't even think it will run on a one core machine. It's not as flexible as the Linux kernel because Macs have a most 32 cores. Linux would beat it at the super computer level with hundreds and hundreds of cores, but at the average level, OSX and Linux are about the same.

Oops, I meant to say that Linux has better memory management Linux outperforms OSX when it comes to memory allocation and management, but once the memory is allocated, OSX outperforms Linux because of it's thread and process management.

Also, starting with 10.6, OSX will use OpenCL and push large chunks of it's floating point calculations out to the graphics cards.

Just to fact check...

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Darwin is UNIX, so it has all the features of UNIX. The only difference is that Darwin was written specifically for multicore computers, I don't even think it will run on a one core machine.

That can't be accurate because Darwin has been around since Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah), which came out eight years ago. My parents have an iMac that came with Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma). Its CPU is an 800 MHz PPC G4, which needless to say has a single core.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

but once the memory is allocated, OSX outperforms Linux because of it's thread and process management.

Not true. Depending on your X environment (e.g. any WM lighter than Aqua) and file system types (e.g. JFS), Linux can certainly be less resource intensive and can outperform Mac OS X. Edit: That's one of the main reasons I switched to Linux.

Originally Posted by dsr

That can't be accurate because Darwin has been around since Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah), which came out eight years ago. My parents have an iMac that came with Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma). Its CPU is an 800 MHz PPC G4, which needless to say has a single core.

There are two versions of Darwin. A PPC version and an Intel version. The Intel version never did, nor was ever designed to run on a single core processor.

It will run on one core, but not designed to. You can even find comments in the Darwin source code to that affect.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

This statement is about a decade out of date. It's almost as out of date as "Macs have a one button mouse."

...

As for software, Apple software is far better than the Windows equivalent. Windows has Office, OSX has iWork, Windows has Paint, OSX has GIMP, Windows has Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media Player OSX has iLife and iTunes.

Unlike the Windows of Quicktime, the OSX version is stable, faster, and can play any type of media.

Best of all, the average lifespan of a PC is just over two years, where as the average lifespan of a Mac is 6 years.

...

In fact, OpenGL Windows games will run better on a Mac using darwine than on Winodws because it manages multithreading and memory better.)

I'm going to tackle these points one by one.

Out of date:
Reasonable rebuttal. Macs are still not cheaper than PCs though.

Software:
Ok. iWork is in no way superior to Office. Have you used office 2007? iWork is on the same level as OpenOffice.
Comparing paint with GIMP is like comparing notepad and iWorks. It's not the same class of program. Also there's the fact that GIMP is free and works just as well on windows.
MovieMaker is included free with Windows whereas iLife must be bought separately. EDIT: (or so I thought! WMM and iMovie are still both useless though)
Finally, I have friends who use Media Player over iTunes because they prefer it. It all comes down to how you like to manage your music. Also, iTunes works just as well on Windows, no emulation required so you can hardly use it as a valid argument for why macs are better.

Quicktime:
Who uses quicktime? It's rubbish. I've used it on both Mac and PC (yes I own both) and it is significantly worse in terms of functionality and performance than VLC which is available on both platforms.

Lifetime:
I have a computer which I used to play all my games on till recently. I bought it back in 2002 or something. At the time it was less than $2000 AUD. That computer played every game I ever owned up until Crysis (which to be fair, slaughtered a lot of new computers) and happily upgraded to Windows 7 recently.
Significantly longer lifespan than 2 years.

OpenGL Games:
Darwine is just a port of Wine. Wine is an emulation program. If you seriously think that you can load up an OpenGL game in emulation mode on a mac and have it perform better than that same game running on the same system with windows installed natively then you probably shouldn't be allowed on the internet.
There's also the fact that Darwine/Wine often fail to work with OpenGL at all (See: Google).

iLife comes with every new mac.

I never said they were cheaper, I said that they were competitively priced. The original accusation was that they were way more expensive than a PC, which is not true.

Office is a disaster. LaTeX has been the standard word processing tool for 30 years, and iWork uses it as the back end. Microsoft claims that they get requests every day for features that Office already has. Most of the coming from professional users, if a professional user can't find a feature, it's very poorly designed.

Wine is not an emulator, it's just a layer that tricks programs into thinking that they are running on Windows when they are not. There is no emulation what-so-ever. Everything runs at native speed both on CPU and GPU, and for things like games, memory management is key, which UNIX runs circles around NT.

I corrected my comment about iLife being a separate product shortly after posting. My mistake.

I didn't say you did say they were cheaper.

RE: LaTeX / iWork, if that is the case, why have I never seen a LaTeX formatted file in my entire life? And why do packages like OpenOffice show off their compatability with the .doc/.docx format rather than LaTeX? Everything just seems to be distributed in .pdf or .doc.

Office's new layout with 2007 just took some getting used to. Once the initial learning curve is over, it's significantly faster to use than 2003 / OpenOffice / iWork. For me anyway.

You're right about Wine not being an emulation program. I was getting confused with the old Darwine that I used to run on my Mac Cube which had to be paired with QEMU because of the PPC processor.

I'll give you the Apple hardware though. It really is beautiful. Some would say that the new MacBooks are just large lumps of aluminum but to me they just look uncluttered and shiny. Core 2 Duo MacBook + Bootcamp + Windows 7 RC -> my ideal work PC.

Originally Posted by bobthemonkey

RE: LaTeX / iWork, if that is the case, why have I never seen a LaTeX formatted file in my entire life?.

You're joking right? I'll bet you 98% of everything you've EVER read was LaTeX formatted.

You're right about Wine not being an emulation program. I was getting confused with the old Darwine that I used to run on my Mac Cube which had to be paired with QEMU because of the PPC processor.

Yes, if you ran a PPC, then Windows software had to be emulated, so it ran slowly. On x86 Macs, Windows programs run as fast or faster (because of better memory, thread management) than they do on windows.

I'll give you the Apple hardware though. It really is beautiful. Some would say that the new MacBooks are just large lumps of aluminum but to me they just look uncluttered and shiny. Core 2 Duo MacBook + Bootcamp + Windows 7 RC -> my ideal work PC.

Yep, the unibody also cuts down on weight, increases strength, maximizes battery space (find a Windows laptop with a 10 hour battery.) Granted, some of the cost does go to just having the Apple name, but it evens out considering the stability of the hardware, how cheap the software is and how little you have to spend on tech support and virus protection.