The not so "all-in-one" computer...

Remove all ads!

Ok, I feel like a little Mac bashing right now. The other day I was over at my friend's house who swears that Macs are the best computers. His specific computer is that IMac "all-in-one" piece of crap. Well, lets see what features it has combined:

• A tiny monitor
• A pretty small HD
• A Really slow CPU (compared to PC's)
• A CD-Rom drive
• And a space heater

Yes, that's right, his IMac serves as a space heater on those cold nights when the computer room drops below 60 degrees (F).

But what happens if you want a zip drive, or a floppy drive, or a CD Burner, or anything else along those lines? Well, you have to buy a FireWire hub, or an USB hub to connect all those "external" things to the space heater.

Personally, my computer has all the things listed in the previous paragraph installed all inside the computer. And unlike the mac, my PC doesn't heat up to 110+ degrees.

So I call all mac defenders to throw their “not so all-in-one” space heaters away and join the masses in buying a PC!

 

Well, I just know that Macs are powerful at rendering graphics, so most graphic artists would choose this as their workstation. I don't have anything against the mac itself but the design.. grr

 

Firewire is actuall pretty decent. But external components always cost quite a bit more cash.

They may be evil, but I'm a i686 user. I don't really have anything against the Macs; I still have fond memories of my Apple //gs. But they just don't arouse me for how I use my computer. Games are ported to the Mac; although in recent months, coding the game in C++ has reduced the porting time to weeks.

 

I agree...the design is pretty pathetic, especially that new model that has a half-dome for a base and an lcd screen attached to it by a metal rod...pretty ugly if you ask me.

Hmmm...I wonder if there is a deal between Macintosh and some of the hardware manufacturers out there.

 

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Macs either, and I definitely agree that iMacs aren't the best of hardware... but the new Macs with OSX are actually pretty nice, although I will say it's not quite true that OSX is UNIX, it's really not, OSX can be pretty nice, and the comps aren't bad hardware-wise.

 

Why the fuss?
-First rule of a good computer-
Can it run the top ten list of most recent wanted games?
A) yes --> a good computer
B) no --> a calculator

 

One other bad thing about Macs - game delays. I heard that Neverwinter Nights would be released on Mac some time in the future.
I prefer my graphically inferior PC.

 

It's almost impossible to upgrade any of the hardware components of Macs (I'm not talking about drives), leaving you buying a new one.

Macs are much more expensive than comparable PCs.

Just thought I'd bring up another few issues. It's usually people that are basically computer illiterate that like Macs, as they are easier to use.

 

Personally, i prefer a pc, but i like Mac as well. I WAS going to get one, but then found a far cheaper PC that in my opinion, was better.
Mac tends to be like Marmite - you either love it , or hate it.

OSX is pretty much UNIX, as it can run Linux programs without an emulator. Or so i'm told.

 

I definetly prefer my PC!!

MAC's seem to be soooooo, well, limited. I do have to give them points for making their puters attractive though!

I also agree that most people who like MAC's are either computer illiterate, or they are just starting out and don't require, or know how to use a computer to its maximum abilities.

IMHO

 

Intentioner, the ability to run Linux programs isn't a huge deal, BSD for instance has had Linux binary compatability for ages (I'm not implying BSD isn't some type of UNIX, I'm just giving an example). OSX however is based on Darwin, which is a BSD-based kernel, and the binary compatability for Linux is similiarly based on the BSD compatability packages. The system is also largely based on NeXT, and I won't even get into how much I dislike that. They also don't use the usual configuration files for many things that most true UNIX-based OSs do. They use netinfo (much to my dismay, since when I was trying out OSX I found it to be a pain). To compound that, a lot of the standard UNIX apps are missing by default. There is no X server, instead it's handled by something else, the name escapes me at this point... I could go on but I think I've rambled enough. I discovered a lot of this in my own experience, some through reading. I've concluded that OSX is not UNIX, contrary to what I thought a couple months ago.

Now, I just wanna clarify: That's not to say that OSX is bad per se, it can be pretty nice for end-users, it has its pros and cons just like any other OS, but it's definitely not UNIX, and it's definitely not for me.

[ April 23, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: enjan ]

 

Eeeew! I think they are but ugly! Alienware computers are attractive looking.

The funny thing is that the majority of MAC computers that are used in industry aren't those trendy looking monstrosities, they look just like a PC's tower on it's side (I forgot what they're called).

 

I don't know anything about what was just said then, enjan, but i'm sure it must be true, otherwise you wouldn't have said it.
Guess it goes to show that the general public here a titbit of info ("OSX is a UNIX based OS") and take it for its face value.

 

Heh, OK. To cut through all that "techno babble", OSX is basically based only partially off a UNIX flavor (BSD) on the kernel-level, but largely altered it. The system is also largely based on NeXT which was an OS (with matching NeXT systems which are no longer marketed, although it can run on x86's and other more modern hardware) developed quite a while back, it was never particularly successful, but I never really liked it either. It also tore out many of the standard apps, including X (the X server which basically handles graphics). On top of that, it took to managing configuration through a program called Netinfo, which is kinda like the Windows Registry in some ways. Most binary compatability (the ability to run Linux programs for instance) is handled through compatability packages for the most part.

 

As a professional graphic artist myself, who has worked extensively on both Mac's and PC's, I can categorically say it makes little if any difference. I have colleagues who won't go near a Mac, and I know several who say PC's are the devil. But one thing I've learned is that people tend to blame their bad computer experiences on the computer it happened on.

It doesn't matter which you prefer because both boil down to the quality of your hardware. Mac's are much more USB friendly, but from a graphics standpoint they pretty well match up. In fact, I've had a hell of a lot more program crashes and system "freezes" on macs than I ever have on my PC at home. I prefer the simplicity and 'no-frills' approach to Mac OS over any version of crappy Windows, but that's about the only major advantage IMO and in my experience.

Some say that macs are better because they allow better program-to-program communication and they are less likely to crash. Well, both of those problems have to do with your RAM, Hard Drive and Processor speeds, but not the computer type itself. Besides, if you have too many programs open at one time, and are sending high-volume information back and forth quickly (like cutting-and-pasting huge image files) and not taking the proper precautions (such as RAM), then you're just begging for a crash, regardless of system.

So in my experience, it boils down to preference only.

@ Kitrax

I concur. iMacs are little more than furniture and no serious designer who knows his head from his ass would waste his time with one. G4's, yes, but not the iMac.