Sign In
Register
Help
So some of you say you haven't had any problems?
Where are my bookmarks? I cannot even find a bookmark icon on ME anywhere, even though my syncing via .mac (still there?) seemed to be fine. This one is by far the most disconcerting problem I've encountered.
While I have have successfully synced my address book, only my "currently actie "inbox, drafts and sent messages show up. Once I've filed them off, P O O F! they are gone.
And my joy at sending iCards for any reason is kaput, since apple didn't appear to think anyone liked it, or at least half as well as I.
Before anyone thinks I am a closet Mac hater, please know that I would not buy or use any other comuter. I've long been using them (exclusively since 1994.) I even got my two sons to drink the koolaid (so to speak). They love their computers; mine I put up with, as its a now old 2004 macmini. It struggles w/iWork 08 and iLife 08 even though it's got 1G memory and 45 free Gs on it's HD. I will not put Leopard in without hearing that other's have had no problems.
Does this mean that my speed, capacity, and in fact, my computer itself is too OLD to run me successfully???
I sure feel discriminated against. Any suggestions or advice ? ? ?
Jobs: MobileMe "not up to Apple's standards"
MultiQuote
#44
whitedog 
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,363
- Joined: 09-August 04
Posted 11 August 2008 - 03:16 AM
{quote}Does this mean that my speed, capacity, and in fact, my computer itself is too OLD to run me successfully???
I sure feel discriminated against. Any suggestions or advice ? {quote}
Your Mac mini uses a G4 processor if it was made before February 2006, when Apple transitioned the mini to Intel processors. However, it still meets the minimum requirements for Leopard - though the graphics card cannot take full advantage of the Core Graphics capability in the OS. One problem with performance may be the slow (4200 rpm) hard drive in the first mini. The next version, also a G4, has a slightly faster 5400 rpm hard drive. But the graphics could also be affecting performance with a slow screen refresh rate.
In any event, if you want to try out Leopard you could install it on a faster external FireWire 400 hard drive. Other than that there is nothing more you can do to amp up your mini.
Of course you could get a new mini, which has much improved specs, with bigger hard drive options (though not much faster; still only 5400 rpm); it can take 2 to 3 GB of RAM; and, of course, up to a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo Intel processor and a much faster system bus. The graphics, though, are still underpowered. Of course, for another $400 you can get the base model 20" iMac with even better specs.
The simple fact is, however, that the mini was never intended to be a high performance computer. High-end iMacs are much more capable and take up no more room on your desk than a mini and a monitor. Be aware, though, that at the present time Apple puts much better monitors in the 24" iMac than in the 20" model. This doesn't matter if you don't use heavy duty graphics programs like Photoshop and FinalCut Pro.
I sure feel discriminated against. Any suggestions or advice ? {quote}
Your Mac mini uses a G4 processor if it was made before February 2006, when Apple transitioned the mini to Intel processors. However, it still meets the minimum requirements for Leopard - though the graphics card cannot take full advantage of the Core Graphics capability in the OS. One problem with performance may be the slow (4200 rpm) hard drive in the first mini. The next version, also a G4, has a slightly faster 5400 rpm hard drive. But the graphics could also be affecting performance with a slow screen refresh rate.
In any event, if you want to try out Leopard you could install it on a faster external FireWire 400 hard drive. Other than that there is nothing more you can do to amp up your mini.
Of course you could get a new mini, which has much improved specs, with bigger hard drive options (though not much faster; still only 5400 rpm); it can take 2 to 3 GB of RAM; and, of course, up to a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo Intel processor and a much faster system bus. The graphics, though, are still underpowered. Of course, for another $400 you can get the base model 20" iMac with even better specs.
The simple fact is, however, that the mini was never intended to be a high performance computer. High-end iMacs are much more capable and take up no more room on your desk than a mini and a monitor. Be aware, though, that at the present time Apple puts much better monitors in the 24" iMac than in the 20" model. This doesn't matter if you don't use heavy duty graphics programs like Photoshop and FinalCut Pro.
#45
DavidWolfe
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 02-July 07
Posted 11 August 2008 - 03:52 AM
Sorry message posted to wrong article.
#46
saljean
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 07-August 08
Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:53 AM
Thank you White Dog.
I am well aware of mac mini's shortcomings. My plan is to purchase a 24" iMac when I can. But because I am also going to have to also buy some seriously expensive software upgrades, mainly Photoshop and Illustrator, the cost is a HUGE factor for me.
I worked in graphic design and prepress all my life until disability forced me to a very premature retirement in 2001; it also forced me to be more conservative in how I spend my money. Unlike my working life, which centered on using Quark, Photoshop and to a lesser degree, Illustrator, since retiring, my computer has become a very important part of my LIFE?staying in touch with the wider world in a very personal way. My Mac mini was mostly adequate for my current needs and occasional use of these programs, though I find myself using iPhoto and iWork whenever I can.
Yeah. I DO feel discriminated against. I just want my connections (email, address book, bookmarks, etc.) to work without having to purchase a new computer and new software every couple of years.
There's no way I could see installing Leopard on my mini.
My rosy view of Apple has been brought into sharper focus after all these years. I guess it really is all about the bottom line for Apple, which may find that pushing products out before they're ready is gonna bite it in the a. Eventually.
I am well aware of mac mini's shortcomings. My plan is to purchase a 24" iMac when I can. But because I am also going to have to also buy some seriously expensive software upgrades, mainly Photoshop and Illustrator, the cost is a HUGE factor for me.
I worked in graphic design and prepress all my life until disability forced me to a very premature retirement in 2001; it also forced me to be more conservative in how I spend my money. Unlike my working life, which centered on using Quark, Photoshop and to a lesser degree, Illustrator, since retiring, my computer has become a very important part of my LIFE?staying in touch with the wider world in a very personal way. My Mac mini was mostly adequate for my current needs and occasional use of these programs, though I find myself using iPhoto and iWork whenever I can.
Yeah. I DO feel discriminated against. I just want my connections (email, address book, bookmarks, etc.) to work without having to purchase a new computer and new software every couple of years.
There's no way I could see installing Leopard on my mini.
My rosy view of Apple has been brought into sharper focus after all these years. I guess it really is all about the bottom line for Apple, which may find that pushing products out before they're ready is gonna bite it in the a. Eventually.
#47
Peter Cohen
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,646
- Joined: 05-February 03
Posted 12 August 2008 - 06:54 AM
I wouldn't say "discriminated against," but there's certainly a heavy dose of "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware). The days of being able to get a half decade or decade out of a single computer are long gone. We Mac users used to pride ourselves on the amount of "mileage" we'd get out of our Macs compared to our PC-using colleagues, but those days are receding behind us. Apple's as guilty as any major technology producer of engineering a certain amount of "planned obsolence" into its product line, encouraging people to buy new hardware to keep up with new software every few years.
I'm faced with the same difficulty you are, though on a slightly different level. I continue to use G4-era machines in my home -- my kids, specifically, each have their own system, and my eldest two have Power Mac G4s -- and it's been increasingly difficult keeping the computers running and up-to-date with the latest software and capabilities they want or need for school and their hobbies. As a point of maintenance, as well, it becomes more of an issue for me -- having to keep track of which operating system is installed on what computer, deciding what upgrades (RAM, more hard disk space, a better video card) are worth making on some systems and not worth making on others.
Frankly, if I had the budget for it, I'd just as soon throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, and replace these older systems with modest new ones. But I certainly am not well-heeled enough to just arbitrarily throw a few thousand dollars into new computer hardware for the kids, so I continue to make do, and accept that keeping the older systems running optimally will be more work for me but less of a cash outlay in the long haul.
I'm faced with the same difficulty you are, though on a slightly different level. I continue to use G4-era machines in my home -- my kids, specifically, each have their own system, and my eldest two have Power Mac G4s -- and it's been increasingly difficult keeping the computers running and up-to-date with the latest software and capabilities they want or need for school and their hobbies. As a point of maintenance, as well, it becomes more of an issue for me -- having to keep track of which operating system is installed on what computer, deciding what upgrades (RAM, more hard disk space, a better video card) are worth making on some systems and not worth making on others.
Frankly, if I had the budget for it, I'd just as soon throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, and replace these older systems with modest new ones. But I certainly am not well-heeled enough to just arbitrarily throw a few thousand dollars into new computer hardware for the kids, so I continue to make do, and accept that keeping the older systems running optimally will be more work for me but less of a cash outlay in the long haul.
#48
whitedog
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,363
- Joined: 09-August 04
Posted 12 August 2008 - 03:11 PM
I can certainly sympathize with those who cannot afford to buy new hardware and software as often as they would like. I used my old dual 1 GHz G4 tower for five years before I could see my way clear to get a refurbished Mac Pro. In fact, I skipped the G5 altogether. I'm not rich, either.
But to blame Apple and software developers for keeping their product lines current with the latest advances in technology is shortsighted, to say the least, not to say unwise, shoveling sand against the tide. If Apple didn't keep up, Windows PCs would still do so, putting Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Since Apple moved to Intel processors they have, indeed, been able to keep up, with the result that their market share - and mindshare - have been growing vis a vie the competition.
This marks Apple, not as a ruthless, but as a savvy business. It's simply the case that computer technology develops at what seems an accelerated pace. It always has done; if you think otherwise your memory is defective - or too short. And, since much of the work and play we do nowadays depends on computers and related technologies like cell phones and MP3 players, the pace of change makes many people feel disadvantaged, not just in their inability to afford to upgrade their hardware and software, but in their failure to even understand the changes. I think it's this lack of understanding of the process of change that leads to much of the discontent so often expressed.
As someone who does Mac tech support for a living - among other things - I have trouble enough keeping myself up-to-date. Explaining the issues to my clients is no walk in the park, either. Many of them feel the same dismay as some of those posting on this blog. So I do understand the problem.
In regard to the Mac mini, though, when you buy a low-end computer, from Apple or anyone else, if you expect it to keep up with developments you have simply made an uninformed purchasing decision. An inexpensive computer, almost by definition, is out-of-date the day you take it home. If you want a computer to last longer you should buy in at the high-end. Even better is to buy a computer like the Mac Pro that can be upgraded as the need arises. Certainly it's more expensive initially, but it will pay for itself in productivity savings as time goes by. I have every reason to believe my 3 GHz quad core Mac Pro will do the job for the next five years or so. Unlike my G4, for instance, which maxed out at 1.5 GB, the Mac Pro supports a substantial amount of RAM - I currently have 8 GB installed. It can handle 16 GB. Except for the entry-level model, the new Mac Pros do even better, doubling the ceiling on RAM and the number of CPUs.
None of this, of course, is any consolation to someone who cannot afford a high-end computer. But, as Apple's sales figures indicate, many people can or manage to afford one. Unlike most PC makers, Apple has never made much of an effort to cater to the low end of the market - margins are just too low. That's why, for instance, Microsoft has to make a stripped down version of Windows - so that it will run on those cheap PCs that are so popular in certain circles. In fact, the newest and most inexpensive PCs don't or won't run any flavor of Windows and come with Linux installed instead. The market is diverse and Apple focuses on the share where they think they can make money. This is not a conspiracy against poor people, nor even planned obsolescence. Apple has a reputation for making quality products. While this reputation is not always deserved, it is still a fundamental part of their brand identity.
Two examples from my own experience: When I finally replaced my G4 I did not have to replace the 22" Apple Cinema display that came with it. Though it needs an ADC to DVI adaptor to work with my Mac Pro, the point is, after six years, it still does work (and so does the G4 for that matter). On the other hand, my G3 died a premature death from motherboard failure. So I've experienced both sides of the quality issue with Apple. Which is why I say their reputation for quality is not always deserved. But I don't believe they intentionally make bad products.
In respect to the high costs for software upgrades, there is a viable way around the problem. Adobe, like many software developers, offers substantial discounts on the education versions of their software. To quality you need to be a current student or teacher. But it's not expensive to take a class or two at your local junior college to meet this requirement. You can get the discounted software at the college book store or order it online from a company like Creation Engine. I saved at least 50% on Adobe CS3 and other products. And, who knows, you may learn something useful at the same time - like how to use your new software. :-)
PS: being a student (or teacher) will get you a more modest discount on a new Mac, too.
But to blame Apple and software developers for keeping their product lines current with the latest advances in technology is shortsighted, to say the least, not to say unwise, shoveling sand against the tide. If Apple didn't keep up, Windows PCs would still do so, putting Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Since Apple moved to Intel processors they have, indeed, been able to keep up, with the result that their market share - and mindshare - have been growing vis a vie the competition.
This marks Apple, not as a ruthless, but as a savvy business. It's simply the case that computer technology develops at what seems an accelerated pace. It always has done; if you think otherwise your memory is defective - or too short. And, since much of the work and play we do nowadays depends on computers and related technologies like cell phones and MP3 players, the pace of change makes many people feel disadvantaged, not just in their inability to afford to upgrade their hardware and software, but in their failure to even understand the changes. I think it's this lack of understanding of the process of change that leads to much of the discontent so often expressed.
As someone who does Mac tech support for a living - among other things - I have trouble enough keeping myself up-to-date. Explaining the issues to my clients is no walk in the park, either. Many of them feel the same dismay as some of those posting on this blog. So I do understand the problem.
In regard to the Mac mini, though, when you buy a low-end computer, from Apple or anyone else, if you expect it to keep up with developments you have simply made an uninformed purchasing decision. An inexpensive computer, almost by definition, is out-of-date the day you take it home. If you want a computer to last longer you should buy in at the high-end. Even better is to buy a computer like the Mac Pro that can be upgraded as the need arises. Certainly it's more expensive initially, but it will pay for itself in productivity savings as time goes by. I have every reason to believe my 3 GHz quad core Mac Pro will do the job for the next five years or so. Unlike my G4, for instance, which maxed out at 1.5 GB, the Mac Pro supports a substantial amount of RAM - I currently have 8 GB installed. It can handle 16 GB. Except for the entry-level model, the new Mac Pros do even better, doubling the ceiling on RAM and the number of CPUs.
None of this, of course, is any consolation to someone who cannot afford a high-end computer. But, as Apple's sales figures indicate, many people can or manage to afford one. Unlike most PC makers, Apple has never made much of an effort to cater to the low end of the market - margins are just too low. That's why, for instance, Microsoft has to make a stripped down version of Windows - so that it will run on those cheap PCs that are so popular in certain circles. In fact, the newest and most inexpensive PCs don't or won't run any flavor of Windows and come with Linux installed instead. The market is diverse and Apple focuses on the share where they think they can make money. This is not a conspiracy against poor people, nor even planned obsolescence. Apple has a reputation for making quality products. While this reputation is not always deserved, it is still a fundamental part of their brand identity.
Two examples from my own experience: When I finally replaced my G4 I did not have to replace the 22" Apple Cinema display that came with it. Though it needs an ADC to DVI adaptor to work with my Mac Pro, the point is, after six years, it still does work (and so does the G4 for that matter). On the other hand, my G3 died a premature death from motherboard failure. So I've experienced both sides of the quality issue with Apple. Which is why I say their reputation for quality is not always deserved. But I don't believe they intentionally make bad products.
In respect to the high costs for software upgrades, there is a viable way around the problem. Adobe, like many software developers, offers substantial discounts on the education versions of their software. To quality you need to be a current student or teacher. But it's not expensive to take a class or two at your local junior college to meet this requirement. You can get the discounted software at the college book store or order it online from a company like Creation Engine. I saved at least 50% on Adobe CS3 and other products. And, who knows, you may learn something useful at the same time - like how to use your new software. :-)
PS: being a student (or teacher) will get you a more modest discount on a new Mac, too.
#49
saljean
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 07-August 08
Posted 13 August 2008 - 09:17 PM
Quote
But to blame Apple and software developers for keeping their product lines current with the latest advances in technology is shortsighted, to say the least, not to say unwise, shoveling sand against the tide. If Apple didn't keep up, Windows PCs would still do so, putting Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Since Apple moved to Intel processors they have, indeed, been able to keep up, with the result that their market share - and mindshare - have been growing vis a vie the competition.
This marks Apple, not as a ruthless, but as a savvy business....
This marks Apple, not as a ruthless, but as a savvy business....
Of course you are right that Apple has to not only "keep up," but really should (and is) clearly in the lead. It is frustrating in many ways for us many consumers who struggle financially, but I absolutely understand.
While I've not ever been an official Apple tech (or had your level of knowledge), over many years I had to learn a LOT. I worked for a very large local government's printing/graphics division and we had no choice but to learn as much as we could as fast as we could because their IT folks were Windows-centric and entirely clueless about anything Mac.
Since retiring, I've always managed to keep our personal computers up and running, backing stuff up, resolving problems,etc. I've never ever had to call anyone for advice or to repair anything, much less retrieve lost data.
I know I need to get a new computer BEFORE an iPhone and BEFORE that new camera I so badly want... my old Canon G2 will have to work a bit longer...and those great shots of my 10 year old grandson, a competitive and now, champion "grommet," will have to wait. (FYI, a "grommet" is a very young and competent surfer?he just placed first first in a big competition this weekend.)
My three external hard drives are loaded with photos and backed up data. But a new camera makes no sense w/o a decent computer to download & edit them on. I am thinking about a 24" iMac w/as much storage, speed, etc. as I can afford.
I just wasn't quite ready yet!
And I do know about the education discounts. My husband was a teacher for many years, and so we've often used it, but he is now retired, so that doesn't fly w/Adobe or Quark. Maybe I'll have to take a class at my local community college as you suggest...
Anyway, thank you for your insights and suggestions!
Sal
#50
jrllanes
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 01-July 09
Posted 01 July 2009 - 08:21 PM
Do not buy Mobileme if you want to keep your data intact, no matter what Steve Jobs promises.
While synching with my new iPhone, MobileMe created three, copies of all contacts and when I tried to erase the copies, it erased over 800 contacts that cannot be recovered. I?m not the only one, check the customer blog in MobileMe page for an amazing number of lost data stories.
In addition if you subscribe to MobileMe you will not be able to talk to a person about your problem. You?ll have to find the iChat in the MobileMe page (it took an Apple rep ten minutes to find it) and then you will wait 30-60 minutes for someone who knows little or nothing to help you. It is a waste of money. Google does it for free and it won?t loose your contacts.
While synching with my new iPhone, MobileMe created three, copies of all contacts and when I tried to erase the copies, it erased over 800 contacts that cannot be recovered. I?m not the only one, check the customer blog in MobileMe page for an amazing number of lost data stories.
In addition if you subscribe to MobileMe you will not be able to talk to a person about your problem. You?ll have to find the iChat in the MobileMe page (it took an Apple rep ten minutes to find it) and then you will wait 30-60 minutes for someone who knows little or nothing to help you. It is a waste of money. Google does it for free and it won?t loose your contacts.
