The new iMac G5

Originally Posted by jtwn

Useless for games, useless for me.

That's a bit like me writing the Xbox off as 'useless for web browsing, useless for me'.

Actually, not quite, as DQ says, the Mac can do games, there just isn't a huge market for Mac games, which is a disincentive to produce them - kind of a vicious circle.

If it doesn't fit your lifestyle, don't buy it. Just don't assume that because it's not right for you, it's not right full stop (I know you didn't say that, but plenty of people do).

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Chris T

If it doesn't fit your lifestyle, don't buy it. Just don't assume that because it's not right for you, it's not right full stop (I know you didn't say that, but plenty of people do).

...which is why I WANT TO PLAY WITH ONE.....

Aside from internet and a bit of MS Office work - my missus doesn't play games...

So when her current pc smegs up it may be easier for me to get her an all in one mac.

At the very least I can't be asked to fix it

[keithwalton]

my ex has a g4 imac 700 and i think its a great machine, mac os x is great and if they ever released it for x86, i'd be using it on my main machine. It's linux done rite.
If i could afford one i'd have one of my own. Though my computers are usually progressively upgraded rarely do i ever spend more than £500 at a time on them.

For those that have never used a modern mac but are dissing them please dont. Like anything dont knock it till you've tried it.

[jtwn]

Chris, i wasn't slagging it off, i was merely saying it was useless for games! The truth from what ive heard, not opinion, ive never used a mac.

I don't see why linux doesn't settle for mac users, still i'd take a pc over it anyday, apple seem to overcharge for all their products and anyway i'd rather build my computer myself, than have something rolled off a conveyor belt.

Ok so im knowledgeless when it comes to macs, but the thing doesnt look very upgradeable, the whole idea of having the computer inside my monitor and the design aspect drops too, i dont want to have to see the amount of wires in my computer now, coming out of the screen.

When it comes to computers, I'd take performance over aesthetics anyday.

So come on, tell me what a mac can do which a pc can't.

(what have i let myself in for )

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by jtwn

<snip>
So come on, tell me what a mac can do which a pc can't.

(what have i let myself in for )

Nothing, it can run heavy duty graphics and video packages in a very stable manner, perhaps better than a XP machine.

Talking about the new iMac, it can surf the net read email, chat, message, run office apps etc.

The great benefit and I think this comes back to Chris Ts point is that you pull this out of the box, plug it into the wall, plug the internet into it and off you go, a lot like buying a TV pluging it into the wall, pluging in the arial and turning it on. That is what most people want. Some will want more, but most want plug and play.

The mac benefit is it is stable, XP is far more stable than its predecessors, we probably have apple to thank for that, making Microsoft up its game to catch up and move ahead, but I bet our current PC OS would not look the same if apple were not around.

Just emailed apple online stores area asking that i wish to order one


Thats my kinda machine....

[Richard M]

May I ask why you want one?

Originally Posted by Damien

on other pcs you cant put a screen on the wall that is completely wireless. Internet, mouse, keyboard, computer in screen! alll wirless

Also the power may be slower buts macs are diffrenet they are more about design, reliable, and easy to use. They do everything PCs can do and also contain a lot of things bulit in, (bluetooth, wireless in bulit, etc etc) they are diffrenet so comparing them to a normal pc is stupid.

well said my man all depends on user i wish some people would get that into them, if your way of using a computer leans towards 64bit computers then fine but dont preach that they are best, end of day I have used I-macs on and off for years and keep going back they suit how i like a computer.

I am not right saying computers are crap ( windows based ) or i-macs are great nor are you saying so, each design and style and spec suits a person or genre spectrum of persons but not everyone.

While opinions are nice slating of those who have a I-mac or who show interest and this bull boy attitude of my computer is the greatest is pathetic and is something which should have gone in days of card trading at primary school.

Rant over


Edit: to richard I have used I-macs for years and heard of this model upcoming so i bought a cheapo computer to keep me going till it was released, once a i-mac nut always a i-mac nut

Originally Posted by Chris T

(Any wisecracks suggesting the iMac belongs in the 'humour' forum will result in a summary ban, I know where the button is and I know how to use it )

Some of us could just silently move it to it's proper home.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Some of us could just silently move it to it's proper home.

Mod fight!..

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

The mac benefit is it is stable, XP is far more stable than its predecessors, we probably have apple to thank for that, making Microsoft up its game to catch up and move ahead, but I bet our current PC OS would not look the same if apple were not around.

Actually, we'd probably still be using DOS.


Regarding stability. Well, let me put it this way. I support Macs and PCs running XP Pro at work. All are in air conditioned labs and left on permanently (apart from the summer months, when we close each lab individually for upgrades). The PCs seem to average around 6 months between crashes. The last time I saw a Mac properly crash (ie have to be physically reset) was in 1998, and that was a Power Mac G3 running OS 8. I have never seen Mac OSX crash.

[SMHarman]

Another thought I had on this power lacking Mac bashing subject is that we don't actually need the processing power most of us have on our desks. Your average PC user probably does not play games, edit video, use postgrad level mathematics in excel spreadsheets or work with multi gig databases. They write the occasional letter, email, chat, surf the web etc. To do all these things a Pentium 1Mz is probably more than adequate, so while the Mac is less powerfull than a PC, it is like comparing a 1.8litre family car to a 2.0 litre one, both do the job to a level well in excess of the legal requirements, just the 2.0 litre one may do 130mph flat out and the 1.8 115mph. Taking this analagy a step to far, the OS and chip design of the Mac could be compared to something like the Honda vTec engine which although smaller outperformes the larger engine by design superiority.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Another thought I had on this power lacking Mac bashing subject is that we don't actually need the processing power most of us have on our desks. Your average PC user probably does not play games, edit video, use postgrad level mathematics in excel spreadsheets or work with multi gig databases. They write the occasional letter, email, chat, surf the web etc. To do all these things a Pentium 1Mz is probably more than adequate, so while the Mac is less powerfull than a PC, it is like comparing a 1.8litre family car to a 2.0 litre one, both do the job to a level well in excess of the legal requirements, just the 2.0 litre one may do 130mph flat out and the 1.8 115mph. Taking this analagy a step to far, the OS and chip design of the Mac could be compared to something like the Honda vTec engine which although smaller outperformes the larger engine by design superiority.

I don't know about now with the Power PC processors, but I do know that the 68000 series processors that powered the original Macs were around 1/4 to 1/3 more powerful than an Intel processor with an equivalent clock speed.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by scastle

Actually, we'd probably still be using DOS.


Regarding stability. Well, let me put it this way. I support Macs and PCs running XP Pro at work. All are in air conditioned labs and left on permanently (apart from the summer months, when we close each lab individually for upgrades). The PCs seem to average around 6 months between crashes. The last time I saw a Mac properly crash (ie have to be physically reset) was in 1998, and that was a Power Mac G3 running OS 8. I have never seen Mac OSX crash.

True, MACs rarely crash, but that's not to say that the older OSs were actually stable. I've had to downgrade OS9 to OS8 in the past because some applications kept crashing. Very rare for this to happen on OSX though

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by danielf

True, MACs rarely crash, but that's not to say that the older OSs were actually stable. I've had to downgrade OS9 to OS8 in the past because some applications kept crashing. Very rare for this to happen on OSX though

True, I did have some problems with OS 9 (mainly because security wasn't worth a damn on it, and students were able to play about with parts they shouldn't even though I did lock it down quite thoroughly). I will say that I have only once had a Mac do an equivalent of blue screen on me..