Mac Value and Peace of Mind
From Josh Rutherford:
Dan,
Bravo to the responses claiming that Apple computers are overpriced.
Blame the media and savvy advertising dollars for plastering your
Sunday paper with $499 Acers and $799 Dells. I'm reminded of the
resource triangle concept we learned in IT school: Fast. Good. Cheap.
Pick two.
I used to sell PC laptops for a major chain retailer, and we ooh'ed
and aah'ed over the new models when they came out, with their RAM
upgrades and shiny gloss screens, but at the end of the day they were
all just nice-looking shells saddled with a 20-year-old operating
system that compromises too much. My experience is that people want the
power and flexibility that OS X provides, but someone put the idea
in their head that the hardware in that $399 Black Friday no-name
Winbook is the same, or at least "good enough", as what Apple's putting
in the MacBook. After all, they both have Intel processors, right?
That point alone is why the so-called "hackintosh" market is
destined to stay a fringe. It is not an oncoming tidal wave; it's a
ripple in the pond. OS X is largely not open-source; it is not
ours, it is Apple's, and we are paying for the privilege to use it. The
microcode in the chipset on a Dell or Toshiba that makes it go to sleep
and wake as it should is also proprietary information. And very few
people have the time or energy, or a good enough lawyer, to do that
much reverse-engineering. Innovators in communities are few, and the
masses are many.
Hobbyists will always play and hackers will always tinker. I don't
have the time for all that, and I don't have time for just "good
enough." I want to get my work done, be able to enjoy a DVD or CD, play
with my virtual photo albums, surf the Web, type an email or letter
. . . and do it all without the OS or some poorly written
software getting in my way. That's why I own a Mac and why my Windows
boxes are gathering dust.
I have peace of mind with my Mac, something I don't have with
Windows. Apple doesn't compromise, and it's all the better for it. And
when you think about it . . . peace of mind is a pretty good
value.
Regards,
Josh Rutherford
Josh,
Well said. You can run a crappy operating system on
crappy hardware just because it's cheap. You can run a crappy operating
system on good hardware because you're required to run Windows. You can
run a great operating system on run-of-the-mill hardware because you
think Macs are overpriced. Or you can run a great OS on excellent
hardware to get the full Macintosh experience.
I think Macs are worth it, and every encounter with
Windows further convinces me that I'm right. But hobbyists aren't happy
unless they're cobbling together their own boxes and tweaking hardware
- the perfect mindset for the hackintosh community. And you're right,
it's always going to be a small fringe group. But best of all, they'll
be promoting the Mac experience, which most people will only have by
buying a Mac.
Dan
The Mac Pro Is Overpriced
From Joe Blasi:
There are many good desktop systems they match or are better then
the single CPU Mac Pro. At a lower cost like $900 - $1,900 the single
CPU Mac Pro comes with a lot of high cost workstation/server hardware
that most uses don't need like high cost FBDIMM's and comes with a
low-end video card stating at $2,300.
The new iMacs are nice but still come poor build in screens.
Apple also makes you over pay for video cards like $150 for a ATI
Radeon HD 2600 XT 256 MB or $150 part of the base system cost + $150 =
$300 for a Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB
And they don't give the Cross Fire bridges that should come with the
card. People of said that Cross Fire works on the Mac Pro in Windows.
Does an EFI ROM really cost that much more?
You can get good high-end desktops with 4 GB of desktop RAM, Quad
core and better video cards for $1500 - $2,000 and they give less heat
from the chip set and RAM.
The power G4 and G5 had tower systems in the $1,200 and up price
range.
The Mac Pro RAID card is also a rip-off at $800 for a 4 port card
when good hardware PCIe x4 or faster cards are $400 - $500 with 8 or
more port cards at $600 and up.
Joe,
This is Low End Mac, so I'm going to have to assume
that high-end users know what they're talking about - and that Apple
has some pretty savvy engineers who make pretty reasonable choices.
The Mac Pro is a high-end computer aimed at the
workstation market, especially video professionals and heavy Photoshop
users. As such, the emphasis is on moving massive amounts of data
quickly. I'm guessing that's why Apple designed the Mac Pro to use
fully-buffered DIMMs instead of less expensive ones. It's also why
Apple doesn't put a high-end video card in the Mac Pro: It's not what
the target market needs.
If you're looking at Cross Fire and bridging video
cards, you're probably into gaming, and Apple has never positioned the
Mac Pro as a gaming machine. It's a serious tool for people willing to
spend $2,000 and up for the best video/graphics hardware, operating
system, and software available.
I agree that Apple is missing a huge market by not
offering a tower or minitower that's not optimized for high-end
applications. The iMac has the power, but no expansion slots - and
you're paying for a new display every time you buy a new iMac. Were
Apple ever to build a midrange desktop, I'm sure it would be
competitive with the $900-$1,900 PCs you refer to, but Apple has shown
complete disdain for that market since going Intel.
Dan
PowerPC vs. Intel Macs
From Mark Garbowski:
Hi Dan
There has been a lot of comments from fellow Mac users about need
for Apple to introduce a midrange computer with expansions slots, I
guess you could call it Open Mac, something folks from Florida tried in
the last month or so.
I recently moved from a dual 867 MDD to a mini, and video editing was the main
reason for the move. I guess my point is, Apple's 5-year-old expandable
tower that I gave up for a mini was more than capable of running latest
release of OS X. Sure, I added RAM to max it out at 2 GB, at one
point had an upgraded video card in it, and added DVD-RW drive and a
USB 2.0 card, but cost of the upgrades was peanuts compared to getting
a Mac Pro. If it was not for
hours that the G4 needed to render my videos, I would still be using it
today.
I guess my point is that Apple, in my opinion, is clearly defining
the market, and let's face it, from mini to iMac, MacBook to MacBook
Pro they have packed all that is needed or required by 90% plus of
their clients into every Mac they sell. They all have a hard drive,
optical drive (except for MacBook Air), wireless, Bluetooth, USB, and
FireWire.
I remember a discussion that went on in the PC world few years ago
about the possible demise of the ATX form factor. Folks argued
expandability, but besides that there is really no real reason for ATX
to stay alive. If we look 10 years back (I ran a PC store at that
time), we would not advise a customer to buy a motherboard with
built-in sound, the built-in video was an absolute heresy, and here we
are, 10 year later, and most PC manufactures sell everything integrated
in the motherboard. Why? Well, that motherboard replacement today costs
just about what a decent sound card cost 10 years ago.
What is my point? Well, I think that Apple pays really good money to
a bunch of market researches, call them visionaries if you like, and we
get what they believe is the way to go. Apple has now created a
clear-cut line between work and home computer: If you need a
workstation (name suggests that it will be a tool), you pay a premium
for it and get a Mac Pro; if you need a home computer, then depending
on your budget either mini or an iMac or a MacBook.
Yes, I can hear now all the voices raising up from the fellow LEM
readers commenting on a limited Mac that mini is, well my response to
it is this: I have used one for over a month now, the 5400 RPM spin of
the hard drive does not bother me at all, I have an external USB 2.0
hard drive connected to it, and it's possibly the best computer I have
ever owned (price to performance ratio). I will admit to purchasing a
Quicksilver 2002
last month via the LEM Swap List, why?
Well, it works great, and I'm a bit of a sap when it comes to those old
G4s - and if folks out there need expandability, get one of the late
G4s or G5s and install whatever cards you need in it, and if you need
it for work, spend the money on a "workstation".
Mark
Mark,
You make some good points. For video work, the worst
Intel Mac ever - the Core Solo
Mac mini - will outperform any dual processor G4 Power Mac ever,
and the Power Mac G5
Quad is the only PowerPC Mac ever built that had more raw power
than today's entry-level Mac mini.
Like you, I'm used to a tweaked out Power Mac G4. Mine
has dual 1 GHz CPUs, 2 GB of RAM, two 400 GB hard drives (one just for
backup), two USB 2.0 cards, SCSI (which I've never used, but it came
with the used computer), and its stock video card. Except for video, it
really has all the power I need. If I ever upgrade to Leopard, I'm
pretty sure I'd pick up a better video card, but that's the only change
I can anticipate making. (Cost vs. benefit, I just can't justify a dual
1.6 GHz upgrade, although it is tempting.)
Were I buying a Mac for video work, I'd look at used
17" Intel iMacs and white 20" Intel iMacs. The 17" provides enough
screen space, but the 20" isn't priced much higher. And I'd set it up
as a pretty much dedicated video machine, replacing my old eMac.
The only problem I see with today's Mac line is that
there's nothing in the middle for those who want a modern, Intel-based
Mac and expansion slots without spending over two grand.
Dan
PA Semi and the iPhone
From Matthew Wright :
Hey again Dan,
Apple buys PA Semi-
so many questions- If Apple ends up using PA Semi chips in future
iPhones/iPods does that mean they'd essentially be running OS X (the
stripped down version on the iPhone) on [new, still in production]
PowerPC processors? It's the ARM that's in the iPhone now right? How
does that compare to Intel chips architecturally? Is there a distinctly
different version of the OS for iPhone's ARM processors, other than it
being stripped down?
The implications are confusing for this layman- if they keep writing
OS software to support PA Semi PowerPC chips (if they wind up in future
iPhones/iPods)- well, what the heck does it all mean Alfie? Will/Could
the OS X of the near future run or be made easily to run on other
similar chips (Power6, Power7, Broadway, etc.) if it's being coded to
run on the PA Semi chips?
Inquiring minds want to know,
Matthew
Matthew,
As far as I can determine, the CPU in the iPhone is a
Samsung S3C6400, which is a 667 MHz ARM1176JZF. That means that the
version of OS X on the iPhone has been compiled for ARM.
PA Semi has designed its own PowerPC CPU, the 64-bit
PA6T, which is optimized for power efficiency. As PA Semi's website is
down, I have to depend on third-party sources for information. The PA6T
is apparently available in single- and dual-core versions and uses 7W
of power at 2 GHz.
I have no idea how that compares with the chip found
in the iPhone, but with two cores and 3x the clock speed, I suspect the
future iPhone (and iPod touch) could be far more powerful than today's
models. It's possible that Apple could replace ARM with PowerPC, but
Apple is mum.
The question is whether Apple will use the PA6T
architecture or have the newly acquired company apply what it knows to
building a better ARM processor.
Dan
Kiss Intel Good-bye?
From Scott Cook:
Hey Dan,
I think the discussion of what Apple will do to prevent people from
building their own "Hackintosh" is kinda irrelevant now that Apple has
purchased their own chip designer. I predict Apple will obsolete all
Intel Macs as soon as their own new, fast, cool running, low power
consumption chips are ready. Apple dropped the G5 because it wasn't
fast enough, ran too hot, and used too much power. Intel chips were a
good fix until another "real" Mac was ready. This will be the next
major change Apple will go through.
All today's current Intel Macs, and their software, will be made
obsolete in the next few years. It's what I would do if I were Apple
. . . I can hardly wait! haha
Scott Cook
Scott,
That's a distinct possibility, but I don't think it's
at all probable. Sure, the PA Semi chip draws just 7 Watts at 2.0 GHz
and is available with dual cores, but I suspect it only has half the
processing power of a dual-core Penryn. On top of which, Apple wouldn't
have the same efficiency of scale that Intel does, as Apple would use
millions of CPUs per year while Intel is producing hundreds of
millions.
But in the end, I think the Intel decision is
irrevocable. Why? Because it makes it that much easier for Windows
users to migrate to the Mac while still having access to Windows.
I suspect the PA Semi team will be working on chips
for the iPhone, iPods, Apple TV, and other Apple products that don't
run the full Mac OS.
Dan
More on DVD User Op Patch
From Scott Cook:
DVD User Op Patch is one of the first things external DVD customers
need for their Mac. You can't watch a DVD with Apple's DVD Player
unless you have an internal Apple branded DVD drive in your Mac; at
least not in Panther, which is what Mr. Emery and I are using in our
iBooks.
The trailers and stuff don't bother me much. They only show up on
the first viewing of the DVD. If DVD Player is showing you a movie for
the second or subsequent time, it offers to start the movie where you
left off last time, which is always the ending credits for me. I start
the DVD over at that point, go to the menu, and then play the movie. If
I want to watch the trailers again, I start the DVD at the
beginning.
You may not want to print this next paragraph: Another application I
use to view DVDs on my iBook is Mac The Ripper. I rip the DVD to my
iBook's hard drive, which takes quite a while for a G3. I then enjoy
the movie in the comfort of my living room recliner with my iBook on my
lap and my headphones on. My iBook's battery easily lasts through a 2.5
hour movie. Mac The Ripper has more sinister uses, such as DVD piracy,
which I neither engage in nor condone. I just want the movie on my hard
drive, which of course Hollywood won't allow.
Scott Cook
Scott,
Thanks for sharing this information. And, for the
record, we have nothing against Mac The Ripper. Ripping a DVD you own
to your hard drive temporarily has traditionally been allowed under the
"fair use" doctrine. This may be a legal mess thank to the DMCA, but
unless you're pirating DVDs or sharing your rips via BitTorrent, you
should be okay.
Dan
$40 Wireless-G PCI Card for Power Macs
From Chris Kilner:
Hi Dan,
I know that with the recent availability of NewerTech 802.11n
adapters with Mac drivers from OWC for ~$50, many users aren't
looking for the slower 802.11g cards anymore, but for some (like me),
using Apple's built-in drivers and having a PCI card seen as an AirPort
Extreme card can be a big help (i.e., the kids are used to using
AirPort cards and the menu bar dropdown). Buffalo-brand adapters with
the Broadcom chips used to be easy to come by, but now it is harder to
find Broadcom-based PCI cards . . . hence this email with the
solution I found.
I recently picked up a Linksys WMP54GS Wireless-G PCI card from
Radio Shack for $40 to replace an AirPort card in my son's Power Mac G4 (so the AirPort card
could be used in a recently-acquired Clamshell iBook for my daughter). This
is the "speed booster" version that uses a Broadcom chip and it has a
Broadcom copyright notice on the bottom of the box (the similar, but
not "speed booster," v. 4.1 WMP54G PCI card from Linksys that is also
sold by Radio Shack for $40 uses a Ralink chip and requires
installation of Ralink drivers and use of Ralink's wireless app. -
older v. 1 & 2 of this card used Broadcom chips). As an easy
drop-in for Power Macs that is still widely available, I thought your
readers would want to know about it. My son's G4 is running 10.5.2, but
I first learned about this card from reports on xlr8yourmac.com that mentioned it working
with 10.3 and 10.4, so it should work with any recent version of OS
X.
Chris Kilner
Chris,
If you're willing to spend the money on an 802.11n
router and cards, you gain up to 4x the throughput plus nearly twice
the range, but sticking with 802.11g can save you the additional
investment in a new router, making that $40 Radio Shack card
attractive. Besides, 802.11g hardware is already faster than almost
anyone's Internet connection, so unless you're streaming video to Apple
TV or backing up wirelessly, there's not a lot of real benefit to the
faster protocol.
Dan
12" or 14" iBook G4?
From Brian Troisi:
Hello! At wegenermedia.com, they have
a mid 2005 iBook G4
12" for $499. For $529, they have a 14" mid 2005 iBook G4 (1.42
GHz, 60 GB hard drive, etc.) Do you think it is worth the extra $29 for
the 14" version? Well, kinda dumb question (or of course it is!) but I
am not sure if the 14" will be too large. I have handled 12" iBooks at
my school, and they seem like a very portable and small size and
weight. The 14" is 1 pound heavier, which may not seem like a lot, but
is it a big difference? Have you ever handled a 14" iBook before? The
14" iBook is obviously larger than the 12", but I don't think that it
would be a real big deal. Considering how many PC laptops are 15.4"
windscreens, so....
Any advice is appreciated! Thank you very much! :-)
Brian,
Feature for feature, spec for spec, the only
differences are the larger display, the larger and heavier design, and
a slightly faster (less than 7% faster) CPU. They use the same version
of the G4 CPU, have the same video processor, and even display exactly
the same information, as both have 1024 x 768 displays. Unless you have
a reason for wanting a larger screen (maybe doing presentations or
having older eyes), stick with the smaller iBook.
Dan
VGA with a Power Mac 6100
From Thomas Friedle:
Dear Dan,
I have been working with Macs for many years, at work, in school,
and I have finally decided to get a Mac for myself. In the next few
days I am planning on ordering a shiny new black MacBook, but as of
today that will no longer be my first Mac.
On my way home today I spotted a yard sale, and I though I would
stop by and have a look. There I purchased my first Mac . . .
a Power Mac 6100. The
owner gave me the Power Mac, an Apple Design Keyboard, and a 1-button
mouse for only $2. He was even kind enough to hook it up to his monitor
to show me that it worked. I was excited and bought it right there on
the spot without thinking, a horrid mistake. The problem is I do not
own the right kind of monitor for it. Do you know of anywhere selling
cheap HDi45-to-VGA converters or know any cheap monitors?
I am planning on installing Mac OS 8 on it, if it doesn't already
have it, and use it for no-distraction typing, or maybe convert it into
a simple web server. I love my first Mac, and I would love to see it in
action.
~Thomas
Thomas,
That HDi45 connector was one of Apple's big mistakes. The
problem wasn't so much Macs that needed a monitor adapter, but monitors
that required HDi45 Macs. And, as time goes by, it's harder to buy the
adapters - and more dear. Worse yet, the Apple adapters aren't VGA;
they are for Apple's DB15 connector, which requires a Mac DB15-to-VGA
adapter.
The only HDi45-to-VGA adapter I can find on the
Internet (hooray for Google!) is available from The SCSI Store
and sells for $24.95.
Dan
Dan,
Thanks for the advice. I'll definitely be ordering the adapter
tomorrow. I just got the Mac OS 8.1 and 9.1 CDs from a great friend,
and I'm planning on installing one of them when the adapter comes in.
Anyway thanks for the help!
~Thomas
PS. I just got my MacBook, best thing I ever bought.
Pismo with an External Widescreen Monitor
From Gerald Wilson (following up on More Pismo Resolutions with an External
Monitor):
Dear Dan,
Ran test on Pismo connected to Dell 24" widescreen (2407WFP) with
native resolution 1920 x 1200. Pismo now upgraded to Tiger, all
patches. So don't know if a Panther Pismo would achieve the highest
resolution. Essentially results same as previous for panther Pismo on
Dell 20" widescreen.
However, Pismo can also drive 1920 x 1200 (coo) at 59.9 Hz, but
(shame) at only 256 colours. Not so good therefore with OS X.
The colour depth setting for the external monitor seems to be
independent of that set for the internal XGA screen. So reducing the
internal display to 256 does not seem to free up VRAM for the external
monitor. Don't know how the graphics system splits the VRAM up.
Recommendation: Pismo users can make good use of widescreen monitors
with 1680 x 1050 resolution (available in 20" and 22" size). For higher
resolutions, forget it.
rgds,
GWW
Gerald,
Thanks for the additional info. OS X isn't much to
look at with 8-bit graphics, but I'll add a note to our Pismo profile
that this resolution does work at this reduced bit-depth.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
