I've got no agenda of my own, I'm only here to do the best job I can possibly do in the best interest of the readers. That being said, I'm wondering if a good way of tackling the price issue is to do a month with an iMac G5?
That could provide an interesting way to incorporate many of the things I didn't talk about in the first Mac article that I would have liked to have touched on. Just a thought.
That could provide an interesting way to incorporate many of the things I didn't talk about in the first Mac article that I would have liked to have touched on. Just a thought.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
Appu - Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - link
#19 - Filesystems commonly used on *nix platforms are similar in behaviour to the Mac's. They rarely go above 2% as long as the ratio of free to used space on the partition is greater than 0.3 or so.Doc - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
You might like to look at drive fragmentation & how Mac OS X seems impervious to it - there is a script here:http://www.kernelthread.com/software/hfsdebug/
You can run on your Mac and then compare XP.
My Mac after nine months since install & much moving around of 1000's of my photos - on & off to external drives gave a figure of just 0.7% of (the over 100,000) files fragmented. I asked a friend to check his XP install only one week after a hard drive upgrade to his laptop and it gave overall fragmention at 17%.
Anonymous - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
"should compare depreciation over time, and the time/money variable where Mac users don't have to 'detox' their computers. All of this is part of the TCO comparison that should be presented objectively...not just looking at initial cost."We're not talking cars here, we're talking computers. Moore's law really comes into play here not only as a basis of how technology changes but as a general depreciation "rule" for computer tech. Lets face it, the bulk of the computer buying public isn't worried about computer 'depreciation', none of that factors into the equation. It's usually price and availability both of which are the Mac's achilles heel. Though considering Apple is the sole provider for the Mac platform I'm sure the price is justified. They're obviously not in business to compete with 'cheap pcs' but to make a profit. They're the sole source for hardware/software R&D and have to make it up some how.
As far as detoxing goes you have to be real. Apple has 2% of market share. What's the point of even bothering with those numbers from a hacker/malware/spyware/virus makers prospective. Crack those market share numbers up a bit and I'm sure all the supposed security of the Mac OS will be a lot more contested.
PS. I love Macs and want to marry one.
SD - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I can't be the only one that laughed at the phrase "a mysterious third speaker".Uh, anyway. I'd definitely like to see another article on that, especially if it took into account a LOT of factors. The more, the better, given how likely people are to raise other factors afterwards in the comments.
#14, one thing to note. If you're a PC user who's careful with their computer, or just a marginally cautious PC user behind a good firewall machine, you really don't have to spend much time "detoxing" you machine. Maybe an hour and a half a month average, assuming you sit and stare at things when they're running. That's not really totally necessary, either, actually (Ad-Aware hasn't caught anything for the last two months, I'm getting bored ;( ), but I like to be careful.
Michael - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I would suggest going for either a 17" Imac or a 12" Ibook if you want to tackle the $ issue. Really, Macs are totally competitive on price. The only issue is they don't make POS computers like other manufacturers do so they can't hit bargain basement prices. Although the Emac does pretty well at $799.Louis - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I think you just want an excuse to get more Macs!brichpmr - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
Anand, a review of the iMac G5 would be interesting, especially given your even-handed approach. However, the relative price of entry is only one component in evaluating the pricing issue. You also should compare depreciation over time, and the time/money variable where Mac users don't have to 'detox' their computers. All of this is part of the TCO comparison that should be presented objectively...not just looking at initial cost.rpitre - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I'm sure that your review of the iMac G5 would be really interesting and useful but I think that that review would be addressing different issues from those addressed by your eval of the PowerMac G5.It seemd to me that your evaluation of the G5 pretty much told the story for those who like and value the kinds of things that you like and value in a PC. In that context it seems like your remarks about price are good guidance.
Peter - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I think an iMac for a month would be a great article. I'm a die-hard PC user, but have always been intrigued by Macs, especially the newer ones, running OS X.ksherman - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - link
I agree that it would be an intersting article... see how the openGL GUI works with a vastly inferior processor than the dualie G5. Also, as already stated, a power book article merrits considereation as i have yet to find anything that compares to it in terms of price (yes i mean price), size, looks, and raw power.