[Axilon]

I've usually seen the temp meters register around 120 when I close out a game.. thats about as hot as my C2D gets.

[iollmann]

Quote:

---

The only think I never understood is why would anyone want to run Linux on a Mac that misses the whole point of the MacOS being a UNIX OS.

---

Linux Is Not UniX

[mdawson]

Indeed, the Mac is the best choice for a number of computer users and it was the better option long before the Intel transition. The problem before 2006 was that Windows, being the virus it is, spread into markets where the Mac, if not some other system, should have been the dominant platform. Windows has always been good enough in its original place in the business sector where IT support is available for dealing with its quirkiness, but in markets such as academia, particularly K-12 public education, and at home, having support staff on hand ranges from completely infeasible to budget killer.
Schools should not be using systems that cannot be reasonably maintained by the faculty. IT would be necessary for any type of network administration or serious hardware issues that may arise, but given that teachers maintained far less user-friendly systems long before Windows could be taken seriously and before Apple unequivocally meant using a Mac, any system with a modern GUI-based operating system should be that much easier to keep operational. Despite early growing pains with early versions of OS X, mostly because it was different from the Classic Mac OS, OS X retains the level of intuitiveness that Windows still lacks to this day; Vista is even worse than its predecessors in this area. Schools now have extensive IT staffing, or at least more staff than they should require for handling the tasks mentioned above, in order to do the most mundane of computer maintenance tasks. The problem is that the current platform of choice, Wintel, is simply too complex for the casual computer user to figure out on the software/OS level let alone if a hardware issue arises. How many Windows-centric forums exist that are as responsive and helpful as Macworld, MacFixIt, et al.? Based on experience and the praise from numerous switchers that have posted here, I would safely assume none.
On the home front, tech support issues are even more relevant, as the average household obviously does not have the financial resources to retain IT staff. Again for the Mac user most problems can be solved with common sense or a quick post to a few key support forums. A Mac is a Mac, and as there is not a wild variance in configurations from Apple, let alone nearly one hundred other Mac manufacturers, it takes much less effort to diagnose and often solve all but the most obtuse issues.
Microsoft along with an army of Microserfs in the media, Wall Street, IT, etc., made the average school and person falsely believe that they were headed for a dead end if they purchased anything that did not run Windows and as a result, the home, education and gaming markets quickly became Windows-centric. Ideally, we would have three other GUI-based OSes vying for their slice of the market share pie, but Microsoft used every underhanded tactic in the book to push everyone off the table. Only a tenacious Apple survived the dog-eat-dog OS wars, if only to be a small player in the game.
Trivialization of the Mac resulted in less support across-the-board from peripheral manufacturers and software developers until Jobs return to Apple began to reverse a decade long geometric decline. The Mac has since 1998/1999 been the better option for nearly most computer users. Once OS X was introduced and hit version 3 (Panther), all but hardcore gamersdue to the insistence of GPU OEMs refusal to produce universal graphics cards that are quite feasibleand business users in vertical software markets where the Mac has never been a factor could have been well served by a Mac. All of the major software packages have been cross-platform since at least the mid-1990s and where software existed for Windows and not the Mac a equal and often better Mac alternative was usually available. Ironically, going cross-platform during the 1990s meant transitioning from Mac-only to Windows compatible, as software such as Microsoft Officewell, its separate component apps: Word, Excel and PowerPointPhotoshop, Illustrator and a number of other still popular applications started out as Mac-only software
A dramatic increase in Mac sales is the result of consumer ignorance, inertia and a propensity for many to settle for mediocrity or just be cheap; I do not count those that genuinely cannot afford anything other than a $400 computer once every 7+ years, if that. With the Intel transition, Macs have become just than much more cross-platform. Windows can now be run without emulation with a trivial (virtualization) or non-existent (dual boot) performance hit. The attitude of graphics card manufacturers still prevents even the Mac Pro from being the ideal gamers platform, but the dedicated gaming consoles are the better option for gaming for a number of reasons anyway.
So, except for gamers or those that simply despise OS X, often for obtuse reasons, I would wholeheartedly recommend a Mac.

[George76]

For anyone who is worried about a budget, I couldn't honestly recommend a Mac. The "entry-level" Macs haven't been updated in ages and have no ability to be upgraded except for memory. So it contains more features than the PC equivalent like Bluetooth, Firewire, wi-fi, and the mostly-worthless Apple Remote. All things that the budget consumer probably doesn't care about. And if they decide they need any of those features, they can easily be added later (except the remote, but even that's do-able with the right TV tuner card).
Beyond those features, it's only real selling point is OS X. That may be a big selling point, but it's not worth the huge markup for the average consumer. If someone came to me saying they had $600-900 to spend on a computer I would without hesitation point them at the Dell site long before I'd even consider suggesting a Mac Mini. If they couldn't commit resources to at least the 20" iMac, I'd steer them away from a Mac and even then they could build a damned good a gaming PC and still have money left over.

[sinful]

Quote:

---

Windows has always been good enough in its original place in the business sector where IT support is available for dealing with its quirkiness, but in markets such as academia, particularly K-12 public education, and at home, having support staff on hand ranges from completely infeasible to budget killer.

---

What exactly makes administrating 10,000 PC's for school people any different than administrating 10,000 PC's for business people?
Additionally, any large installed base pretty much requires some sort of IT staff. Because, as businesses know, the problems (with computers) are solved in one of two ways: by an IT staff, who (should be) experts in the field (and regardless of your viewpoint of them, are going to be "better than the average user" in the grand scheme of things), or by the end users, who usually AREN'T experts, whose time is poorly used trying to fix problems they shouldn't be dealing with in the first place.
Oh sure, a teacher can fix a broken faucet and not need a plumber, and they can build school additions without a construction company, and they can troubleshoot computers without an IT dept. - but that ignores the very concept that they should be TEACHING, doing what they're BEST at, and leave those tasks to the people that will get the job done right in the least amount of time.
Many of the things that make Macs excellent PERSONAL computers don't translate over to 'mass administration', which is one of the key reasons why Apple has such a difficult time in education.
OSX is a step in the right direction in this area, but it's still a largely new concept to Apple.

Quote:

---

Based on experience and the praise from numerous switchers that have posted here, I would safely assume none.

---

Do you see the obvious flaw in that reasoning?

Quote:

---

Ideally, we would have three other GUI-based OSes vying for their slice of the market share pie, but Microsoft used every underhanded tactic in the book to push everyone off the table.

---

I think it's somewhat obvious that the market prefers homogeneity among software, rather than variety. As it's often said, everyone just wants everything to "Just work". While variety in software is great in theory, in practice everyone wants everything to look the same, act the same, and work the same.
For instance, People complain about inconsistances between different versions of Word... but then they somehow think 10 document formats from 10 different companies on 10 different platforms is going to make things better?
So, would you like it if half the programs on your computer each had a totally different "look & feel"? It's funny, because last time I checked, people generally disllike anything that doesn't look, act, and behave in exactly the "Mac" way or the "Windows way" -- but somehow they think 10 different platforms wouldn't compound this problem tremendously??
Isn't the consistent look, feel, and behavior of OSX the thing that makes it better than all the hundreds of flavors of Linux, Unix, etc?

Quote:

---

Once OS X was introduced and hit version 3 (Panther), all but hardcore gamersdue to the insistence of GPU OEMs refusal to produce universal graphics cards that are quite feasible..

---

Oh brother, "It's a CONSPIRACY!". Please, elaborate on why they refuse to do this, even though it's "quite feasible".

Quote:

---

Windows can now be run without emulation with a trivial (virtualization) or non-existent (dual boot) performance hit.

---

Yes, and once you ignore all those horrible IT costs you were just preaching about, it looks like a good deal. Right up until you realize that with two OS's, you now have even MORE support issues - and then you've got even more problems than you would if you used either exclusively, because you are now trying to integrate features from one platform into the other platform.
In other words, if one platform has a total number of "A" issues, and the other platform has a total number of "B" issues, your combined platform could now have "A * B" issues. What a great option!
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[sinful]

Quote:

---

If an "average" user needs more RAM in a mini, I would say that the solution is the same as when they need more RAM in their generic PC: they take it to a service shop, they don't do it themselves.

---

Actually, the "average" user would probably just have their local teen/family PC expert do it for them for pizza & soda. Installing RAM or a hard drive is very trivial for anyone with even modest computer experience. We're talking about snap-in components here, often with fully illustrated instructions.

[griffman]

Yes, and even on a mini, those same experts could easily replace the RAM themselves, too. It's not as simple as the genericase PCs, but it's really not tough. Having done it a few times now, I think it takes me about 10 minutes from start to finish. Instructions can be found in many places, and are well illustrated. I used a couple of them the first time I did it.
And more so than on the genericase PCs, those same teens would think it's really cool, ripping the mini apart to plug in more RAM /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
-rob.

[sinful]

Quote:

---

(2) the delay in needing to replace hardware means the future hardware will have even greater capability and lower price than if it was purchased sooner (because with time, prices drop and power increases);

---

I think you've got a fallacy in there somewhere.
You either don't replace very often (requiring an expensive system at the start), or you replace often with cheaper PC's.
Which is going to give you the better system:
Buying an expensive PC for $4500 and holding on to it for 6 years, OR
Buying a "standard" PC for $1500 and buying another "standard" PC every 2 years?
If the performance of a PC doubles every 18 months, shouldn't it be obvious that buying more often is going to be the better value? Then consider that's just with the price of electronics remaining constant, not going down. Buying a really expensive system infrequently doesn't give you the best "bang for the buck".

[MacBrogdon]

I think one thing might need to be pointed out (even though most people already are aware of this): Game players come in a very large spectrum. So far it seems like we focus on the people who play a simple game like Sudoku on their computers and then we jump to people who have to play the most advanced games out there with the graphics cards fired up to freaking full-blast.
I am the gamer in the middle. I love to play 3D shooters (Halo, Doom, Quake, Half-life 2, etc.) as well as the occasional World of Warcraft and warcraft III (one day maybe even a little Mist Online). However, I do not feel the need to have the graphics on these games turn up to the max. One thing I do want though is the games from Windows PCs. With virtualization software like CrossOver for Mac, Macs are now the perfect computer for me! I now play Half-life 2 and a few other Windows only titles on OS X. I love it! Yes, with the virtualization stuff you really can't turn the graphics to the max without some slowdown, but as I said, I don't need (or want) them up high. My MacBook Pro performs better than what I need! I just set it on a table (to avoid the heat because Apple calls them Notebooks and not laptops for a reason) and I can play for hours. I am about to install 'Elder Scrolls: Oblivion' with CrossOver just to see how well it does.
Macs right now will not appeal to the hardcore gamer until Apple makes a gaming Mac with upgradable components. However, for people like me, who appreciate games and want Windows only titles but don't need intense graphics, Mac are now a very great option.

[estumpges]

I really enjoyed the article. Here are some of my thoughts...
Lately, Apple has been making the headlines a lot and its image has turned around completely in the eyes of the press. This environment is great for getting people to switch to the Mac. Intel processors and the ability for Macs to run all three major operating systems really made the difference in my opinion. Macs have always been great for me and I'm constantly trying to convince my friends to make the switch. However, it's not always as easy as your article would make it seem.
One of the biggest issues is cost. Apple computers are great in the high end market and, to a lesser degree, the mid level market. However, Apple doesn't even attempt to play in the low end market (and for good reason). However, your article failed to adequately account for this. Apple computers may be more comparably priced to PCs than ever before but that doesn't mean they're affordable for the average user. Many people still just want a decent computer for Microsoft Office, email, web browsing, along with basic photo capabilities. These users would be wasting a lot of money in buying a Mac. Also, you can buy decent used PCs for considerably less than new ones. Used and refurbished Macs hold their value much better. While this is great for Mac users, it prevents people on a low budget from considering even used Macs.
Many mid level buyers are also put off by Apple's current computer lineup. For example, many people really want a Mac model somewhere between an iMac and a Mac Pro. They consider buying an iMac a waste of money because you can't upgrade it or repair it yourself and if you need a new computer, you have to buy a new screen as well. The Mac Pro is too expensive and packs more power than they need. The Mac Mini is underpowered and it seems far overpriced. This is their argument. What can I say? Their claims are completely legitimate.
Often potential mid level laptop buyers are also put of by Apple's options. The MacBook seems like a great deal until you see that it has no dedicated graphics card (that can't be upgraded) and no expansion slot. The MacBook Pro is a really nice laptop, but starting at $2000, it's not exactly a mid range machine. Handicapping the MacBook graphics is Apple's incentive to get people to buy the pro model instead, but savvy Windows users see right through Apple's deceptive marketing. Honestly, I can't blame them on this.
Also, Apple's lack of computer options may simplify ordering but many people want options that Apple simply doesn't offer.
All Mac users know that OSX is well worth the price premium, but many people can't be convinced that it's worth paying more money for a Mac and not even getting as good a specs. Consider this comparison. I know there are others and it's impossible to configure PCs and Macs identically, but this is pretty close.
MacBook ($1474)
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (667Mhz FSB/4MB Cache)
13.3" Display (1280 X 800)
2GB DDR2 (667MHz)
120GB Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD Drive
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi
Bluetooth
iSight
90 Days Of Free Service
Dell Inspiron 1420 ($1,244)
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (800Mhz FSB/4MB Cache)
14.1" Display (1280 X 800)
2GB DDR2 (667MHz)
160GB Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD Drive
Intel Next Gen Wireless N Mini Card
Bluetooth
2.0 Megapixel Webcam
1 Year Of Free Service
Those machines look pretty comparable to me. With the Dell, you get a faster processor, a larger screen, a larger hard drive, an expansion slot for wireless internet, and longer free support service all for $230 less than the Mac. What advantages does the Mac have? OSX, better design, and no viruses.
Is the Mac worth it for me? Absolutely.
Is the Mac worth it for my friends? Not always.
That's my take. Let me know what you think or if you find flaws in my Mac/PC comparison.

[MacBrogdon]

Quote:

---

...Which is going to give you the better system:
Buying an expensive PC for $4500 and holding on to it for 6 years, OR
Buying a "standard" PC for $1500 and buying another "standard" PC every 2 years?...

---

That is a very good point. It works out very well on paper. On the top of my head I can't think of why it wouldn't work in real life.

[bladerxl9000]

Quote:

---

Sixth, what about upgrade options? Upgrading the motherboard, CPU, GPU and hard drive on the Mac isn't an easy process (unless you shell out $2,500 bucks for a Mac Pro). And whos going to do that when for the must part most users just want to check email, surf the web, and type out Word documents.

---

So, you say that someone out there, checking their email, surfing the web, and typeing documents is worried about a GPU upgrade? Like they would dare enter their computer case to clear out the dust. Someone with those need could be satisfied with an old iMac G3. Or and old Windows machine with a Pentium3, 700MHz, 128MB ram and now they are set.
I am a teen who lives in a Mac and PC world. I am not an average user, and thefore I appricate it when I get to upgrade an old G3, give it new life. I learn this way. Most of my friends and family have me do anything upgrade wise to thire machines.
My point is that they are the average user surfing the web and checking email, and they don't dare open the case.

[griffman]

"Those machines look pretty comparable to me. With the Dell, you get a faster processor, a larger screen, a larger hard drive, an expansion slot for wireless internet, and longer free support service all for $230 less than the Mac. What advantages does the Mac have? OSX, better design, and no viruses."
Actually, the Mac has the faster clock speed in your comparo /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif. And you've shortchanged the Mac's optical drive: the $1,474 model would have a Superdrive, not just a CD/DVD drive as you get on the Dell. That's at least some of the price premium (about $50, using a similarly equipped but Superdrive-lacking entry-level MacBook).
As for the screen, it's a toss-up as to which is better: they both offer identical resolution. For me, I'll always take the smaller screen in that case, because the density will be much better (and it will weigh less). Someone whose eyesight is worse may prefer the 14" version.
With all that said, I will admit that Mac doesn't compete as well on laptops, unless you place a value on industrial design (which obviously, many people do given Apple's booming portable sales). My article was targeted at desktops (hence no mention at all about laptops).
-rob.