[geeks] can't wait for Vista

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 @ 16:14 -0500, Nadine said:

> The multi-core desktop machines are less than any other name-brand
> computer vendor's unless you are buying at corporate discount prices.
> These aren't no-name white-box computers.

I'm not saying it isn't a nice machine. I'm saying that it is too high a
price for a tower system, mainly because they have no mid-range option.

There are jobs that are too much for the iMac and Mini, but which don't
justify the price of the Pro model.

Something in between would be nice.

Or, since the Pro probably uses a socket that can take a wide range of
CPUs, why not offer Pentium D dual core as options and shave $1000 of
the base price?

> > Apple basically has no option for users who want to upgrade or
> > repair their machines. Their solution is for you to buy a totally
> > new machine.
> 
> I disagree entirely, and so would a whole heck of a lot of people out
> there using "low-end" Macs.

Not unless they were also not listening to what I said.

No one using a low-end Mac has it upgraded to a newer or current
generation, you can't do it without replacing the machine.

I've been doing Mac upgrades for 15 years now, and most of them were CPU
upgrades since that's about all there is.

They are nothing like what is out there in the PC market.

> Not to mention the fact that with PPC boxes, the newer versions of OS
> X have actually improved performance (outside of graphics, easily
> cured with a new card).  

So have most versions of UNIX, like Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, and FreeBSD.

It's why I'm able to keep old PCs and UNIX workstations running for
years after they've been EOLd.

You are talking about software here.

> Case in point: My current home Mac desktop was built in '01 and
> handles 10.4 fine. On the other hand, the work PC I had when I started
> $curr_job, a Dell built in '02, labored under 6 xterms and 1 instance
> each of FFox, T-bird and oCal running under KDE. Admittedly, my Mac
> has 2x as much RAM (512MB vs 256MB) and a newer ATA HD.

In other words, you ran two totally different software loads on two
totally different machines and you are trying to compare them.

That wouldn't even work if both were Mac systems.

> However, while the Mac slowed gracefully when I overtaxed it with
> MySQL, Amarok, and X--still useable but not fun, the Dell box got to
> the "don't bother with anything but ctrl-C" stage when I tried to load
> a 40K line db into MySQL on the command line--even after closing
> everything but a couple of xterms.  That Dell regularly had a load of
> 2+ with just my usual desktop apps running.

Here you describe a broken Dell.

I ran a higher load than that on my old PC, a 700MHz 32-bit AMD with
256MB of RAM, all the time.

Note: I'm not saying my old PC was worth a damn, just that something was
bad wrong with your 2002 Dell if it was having trouble.

> > Your options are basically the anemic Mini, or the very expensive pro
> > line.
> 
> I doubt many would call a dual-core Mini "anemic" unless they were
> trying to do video editing  using the internal drive only.

It's mostly the video that makes it anemic. While better than most
motherboard graphics chipsets, the GMA 950 is quite far behind most
good AGP/PCIe graphics cards, and since it uses system memory there is
contention between it and the CPU.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Mini and almost bought one last month,
but it couldn't handle my workload so I backed off.

I'm needing to replace my desktop, and I was hoping it would be an
Apple.

I came close to buying it anyway just because it is so small, but it
won't really do what I want.

> > Apple needs a mid-range badly.
> 
> They have a mid-range it's just not designed for you.  It'ss designed
> for people who want a stunning display without the hassle of a machine
> with multiple parts--people who use their machines for a very limited
> set of applications but have no interest in portability.  

Like I said, they need a mid-range badly.

People that need a tower system and want an upgradable system need
something between the Mini/iMac and the Pro.

I mean normal average joes.

> Go lay hands on a recent vintage Mac before you dismiss them out of
> hand, 'cause from what I can tell, your bias slip is showing.

I *have*, and I've used Macs for about 17 years now.

I've got a very good idea what they will and won't do, and how they
compare to various UNIX workstations and PC machines.

I don't know what kind of bias you were guessing at, but I'm fairly sure
you are wrong.

On the desktop, my bias is toward Apple and has been since the release
of MacOS X. Before that, I basically hated all desktop systems. I
somewhat liked vanilla X, liked parts of the old MacOS, and thought KDE
and Gnome had future promise, but wasn't very happy with any of it.
Anything I did like, such as NeXT, had basically died.

For server work I have a bias toward UNIX and server class hardware,
and almost nothing except UNIX as the OS. I make exceptions where money
forces me to, or a lower end machine will do the job just as well. No
point in throwing money away.

Also, most of the comments I'm making about Apple are not my own.  They
are from a very, very biased group of people: die-hard Apple users.

-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["The object of war is not to die for your
country but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S.
Patton]