 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / UK Mac Group / May 2008Slightly off-the-wall idea for getting a new Mac...
My old G5 is doing it's job quite admirably still, but I can't help thinking that this lot is wasting lots of electricity (it idles at over 300W) I haven't any spare money at the moment either, and need to look at ways to save costs. I just had a thought, I wonder if the latest Mac Mini would now outperform my old G5. I could get a Maxed out Mini for about what my G5 box is worth. I'm currently reverting back to using iPhoto, and no longer using Aperture, so high end performance isn't a priority, although the specs of the Mini means it should outperform my G5, and be much more economical to use. Thoughts?  SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > My old G5 is doing it's job quite admirably still, but I can't help > thinking that this lot is wasting lots of electricity (it idles at over [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of the Mini means it should outperform my G5, and be much more > economical to use. You might want to think about the cost of upgrading your apps, if you're still running older PPC-only versions on the G5 ? Paul > > My old G5 is doing it's job quite admirably still, but I can't help > > thinking that this lot is wasting lots of electricity (it idles at over [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Paul Not really. You have already bought licences, so under 'fair-use' you may be allowed to simply copy the Intel versions from a mate. (I'm no legal expert so I'd check) :-) > My old G5 is doing it's job quite admirably still, but I can't help > thinking that this lot is wasting lots of electricity (it idles at over [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thoughts? The Mini will be a *lot* more economical in use - <20W at idle - £2 p/week @ 6 hrs use p/day. I don't know the precise performance figures, but as you'd probably know, the main performance bottleneck is the hard drive. Which at least for me means apps take longer to open, video work especially can be sluggish, and of course capacity is limited/comes at a cost. But once it's up and running with normal apps (email, wp, net browsing, Front Row) I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between a 1.6 Mini core duo and a 2.4 iMac. Rob > > My old G5 is doing it's job quite admirably still, but I can't help > > thinking that this lot is wasting lots of electricity (it idles at over [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Front Row) I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between a > 1.6 Mini core duo and a 2.4 iMac. Yes, I realise it's a laptop guts in a box. I already have a 20" LCD display, keyboard, mouse, trackball and external hard drives. I have considered a MacBook, but the screen is smaller, and I don't like the keyboards on a Book. It'd be interesting to see comparisons with an old dual processor G5 with a stock 5200FX card in it. In theory the processor should at least out perform the G5. I'm not so sure about the onboard graphics though. Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > > But once it's up and running with normal apps (email, wp, net browsing, > > Front Row) I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with a stock 5200FX card in it. In theory the processor should at least > out perform the G5. I'm not so sure about the onboard graphics though. Hmm, interesting. I found some benchmarks at GeekBench and XBench, and both show the Intel Mini to be a bit faster than the 1st generation G5 PowerMac. Hmmm.... SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > > > But once it's up and running with normal apps (email, wp, net browsing, > > > Front Row) I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hmmm.... I bought a MacBook which works really well as a desktop with its lid closed and a monitor, keyboard & mouse. For day to day stuff it's almost silent and uses a lot less electricity than my G5. Stuart Signaturecut that out to reply > > Hmm, interesting. I found some benchmarks at GeekBench and XBench, and > > both show the Intel Mini to be a bit faster than the 1st generation G5 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > closed and a monitor, keyboard & mouse. For day to day stuff it's almost > silent and uses a lot less electricity than my G5. I'm suspecting a MacBook and a Mini would be similar in performance, albeit with not as good graphics on the Mini, although I see the MB also has Intel onboard with shared memory. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > > > Hmm, interesting. I found some benchmarks at GeekBench and XBench, and > > > both show the Intel Mini to be a bit faster than the 1st generation G5 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > albeit with not as good graphics on the Mini, although I see the MB also > has Intel onboard with shared memory. In my Mini it is the GMA 950 chipset for the integrated graphics, on the current MacBook it is the GMA X3100, which takes 144 MB off the main memory against 64 MB on the 950. The wording about this in System Profiler is curiously different, it refers to 'Shared system memory' on the mini and 'VRAM (total)' in the MB. Signatureflavio matani guitar tuition homepage.mac.com/flavio_matani/guitar/ www.livejournal.com/users/flavius_m/ [..] > > > I bought a MacBook which works really well as a desktop with its lid > > > closed and a monitor, keyboard & mouse. For day to day stuff it's almost [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Profiler is curiously different, it refers to 'Shared system memory' on > the mini and 'VRAM (total)' in the MB. As long as it works at least as well as what I have now, I am not bothered, I'm not after any more performance, the G5 performs quite well thank you, but I wouldn't want any performance hits either. I think if the Mini had a 7200rpm drive in it, or a FW800 port, I wouldn't be hesitating. I'd really love to go for an iMac, but I don't think I'd get enough for my G5 kit to cover it. Out of interest, anyone got any idea what this'd be worth...? Original G5 dual 1.8GHz (8x RAM, and 3x PCI-X slots) Upgraded with 4.5GB of RAM Upgraded to a DL Superdrive Will be refitted with the original 160GB internal drive. And an additional 300GB internal drive too. Supplied with a spare AGP card (a PC flashed Radeon 9800 Pro). New PSU fitted in August 2007. No mouse, but will have a slightly sticky Apple Pro keyboard. And can throw in a free Apple Colorsync 20" monitor. Supplied with a full retail box with OS 10.5. I could even include my original Aperture 1.5 disc too. Looking on eBay it could be anything from £500 - £900, would it be reasonable to look for about £700 for that lot? SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > [..] > > > > I bought a MacBook which works really well as a desktop with its lid [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > wouldn't be hesitating. I'd really love to go for an iMac, but I don't > think I'd get enough for my G5 kit to cover it. I had the idea that they had 7200rpm drives as bto but, alas, that is not so, so it would be a case of warranty-voiding surgery. Depending on what you intend to do, though, an external drive might just be right -evven if it is only FW400. Here I start mine up from an external Iomega Minimax; I don't do photoshopping in my mini but I do do a fair bit of playing with Logic and haven't had problems with the disk not coping (oh, ok, I have had, occasionally, when I've gone overboard with tens of software instruments and effects but that could also be memory). That's anoher issue: apparently you can install 4GB but the mini can only address 3GB. > Out of interest, anyone got any idea what this'd be worth...? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Looking on eBay it could be anything from £500 - £900, would it be > reasonable to look for about £700 for that lot? Sounds reasonable from here but don't really know. Scary how you pay thousands for these things and sell them for hundreds. Of course, you may have had four years of use out of it.. Signatureflavio matani guitar tuition homepage.mac.com/flavio_matani/guitar/ www.livejournal.com/users/flavius_m/ [..] > > I think if the Mini had a 7200rpm drive in it, or a FW800 port, I > > wouldn't be hesitating. I'd really love to go for an iMac, but I don't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's anoher issue: apparently you can install 4GB but the mini can > only address 3GB. The current data sheets only show them taking up to 2GB. Mind you, now I'm not using Aperture, that isn't such a problem. > > Out of interest, anyone got any idea what this'd be worth...? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thousands for these things and sell them for hundreds. Of course, you > may have had four years of use out of it.. Oh yes, it's just over four years now, so that kind of return on a computer is bloody good really - considering an equivalent age PC is given away on Freecycle. Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >Oh yes, it's just over four years now, so that kind of return on a >computer is bloody good really - considering an equivalent age PC is >given away on Freecycle. Hmm buy for £1200, sell for £700 lose £500. Buy for £299, give away, lose £299. ;-) All the best .. T i m > >Oh yes, it's just over four years now, so that kind of return on a > >computer is bloody good really - considering an equivalent age PC is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Buy for £299, give away, lose £299. ;-) Actually, an *equivalent* PC at the time I bought the G5 would have cost nearer £1000 more to buy. I actually paid £1800 for the G5, plus about another £500 for extras (LCD monitor, RAM, and Applecare). I priced up a Dell at that time, trying to meet as best I could build quality, and specifications, and that would have come to almost £3500. Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> >Oh yes, it's just over four years now, so that kind of return on a >> >computer is bloody good really - considering an equivalent age PC is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Actually, an *equivalent* PC at the time I bought the G5 would have cost >nearer £1000 more to buy. Really? Maybe that why I have never 'bought' a RTR one then! ;-) And are you really telling me that whatever you are doing with yer 'PC' (Mac or PC) requires that sorta spend? I have never spent anything like that on any PC (in fact on anything outside this actual house, even my BMW motorbike was only £2k!) and have rarely wanted for any more performance / capacity / facilities etc? Do you really do that much *work* that requires said (genuine questions etc). A mate runs an old 3G Intel box and is heavily into photography, 12G RAW images etc .. etc. I can't remember him complaining about how slow everything was or that he couldn't do stuff? Ok, granted I've recently built him a Quad core machine with decent graphics card etc but that's mainly because he's bought himself a HD Camcorder and likes to make his own movies etc. > I actually paid £1800 for the G5, Was that new then Andy? >plus about >another £500 for extras (LCD monitor, RAM, and Applecare). Plus £100 for a PSU ...? ;-) > I priced up a >Dell at that time, trying to meet as best I could build quality, What does that actually mean though please Andy? I mean, I have built probably 100's of PC's in my time so I guess am responsible for the 'build quality' and I have never, ever, suffered because that wasn't always the best even I could manage. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter if say a cable doesn't run in the most perfect geometric and neat manner, as long as it does it's job electrically and doesn't interfere with anything else then AFAICS, it's 'built'? I *have* seen some PC's that have been 'built' by PC shops or individuals and some of them have been disgusting, but that's not the fault of the boxes (one POS was bought off Fleabay and the builder had re-used an old Compac PC, built it into a new case and had used very long self tapping screws to hold things like the HDD in. Now whilst it wasn't elegant or correct (in the purest sense) as long as said screws didn't interfere with any other component then there was no actual 'issue'. I 'sorted it' for them (CPU heatsink not attached properly) and it's been fine ever since). > and >specifications, and that would have come to almost £3500. Feck! All the best .. T i m > >Actually, an *equivalent* PC at the time I bought the G5 would have cost > >nearer £1000 more to buy. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but that's mainly because he's bought himself a HD Camcorder and likes > to make his own movies etc. I was thinking of future proofing myself for as long as possible at the time. Although my G5 doesn't hold a candle to even the slowest Mac now, it still performs perfectly well for *me*, and I have no other reasons for wishing to change, other than trying to save a bit of leccy costs. It handles even HD video well enough, and performs as well as some of the early Intel Macs with things like Aperture. I edit RAW images too, and even iPhoto can manage those without any performance issues. In fact my iPhoto library is over 14000 images, and a hundred or so movies. > > I actually paid £1800 for the G5, > > Was that new then Andy? Yes, and a newly released model too (only a minor facelift type of thing). > >plus about > >another £500 for extras (LCD monitor, RAM, and Applecare). > > Plus £100 for a PSU ...? ;-) Yes, although I've probably added another £100 of kit to the cheap PC I do have here too. The cheap PC is a 2.8GHz box, with a GeForce 5500 card in it (which is supposedly better than the one in my Mac), but it doesn't come anywhere near performing as well as the G5 Mac at 1.8GHz (OK, so there's 2 processors, but they don't always both get used by all apps). In fact I'd go as far as to say that this PC is only just about on a par with the old 400MHz G4 I gave my brother-in-law. > > I priced up a > >Dell at that time, trying to meet as best I could build quality, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > geometric and neat manner, as long as it does it's job electrically > and doesn't interfere with anything else then AFAICS, it's 'built'? It means I was trying to make as fair a comparison as possible - i.e. ready built machines, or at least BTO (the Dell would have been BTO, the G5 Mac was off the shelf at the same spec). Building a Mac isn't easy, at least not using new components, so a self-build option was not used for comparison. Even then, I suspect it wouldn't have been cheaper, taking into account the standard of motherboard needed (twin processor, AGP 8X graphics and PCI-X slots) plus Buying two processors to match a pair og 1.8GHz G5s. Remember this was four years ago. > I *have* seen some PC's that have been 'built' by PC shops or > individuals and some of them have been disgusting, but that's not the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'issue'. I 'sorted it' for them (CPU heatsink not attached properly) > and it's been fine ever since). Indeed, so already be have a comparison that doesn't match, as I said, 'as near as possible'. > > and > >specifications, and that would have come to almost £3500. > > Feck! Exactly. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >I was thinking of future proofing myself for as long as possible at the >time. I've never bothered doing that for several reasons .. two of which are that doing so is normally disproportionately expensive and that you never know what's round the corner that may suit your needs better? > Although my G5 doesn't hold a candle to even the slowest Mac now, >it still performs perfectly well for *me*, and I have no other reasons >for wishing to change, other than trying to save a bit of leccy costs. Understood. >It handles even HD video well enough, and performs as well as some of >the early Intel Macs with things like Aperture. Ok. >I edit RAW images too, and even iPhoto can manage those without any >performance issues. In fact my iPhoto library is over 14000 images, and >a hundred or so movies. Ok. >> > I actually paid £1800 for the G5, >> >> Was that new then Andy? > >Yes, and a newly released model too (only a minor facelift type of >thing). K .. >> >plus about >> >another £500 for extras (LCD monitor, RAM, and Applecare). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes, although I've probably added another £100 of kit to the cheap PC I >do have here too. But not a £100 PSU I bet (and I know you can spend that on a PC PSU etc etc). ;-) Both Jenny and I now (built) Core 2 Duo PC's but neither of us have actually replaced our existing single core AMD powered boxes with them? Why, for me because this old one is still working well enough (and I've had other distractions) and her because she tends to sit with us (rather than in her room) on the EeePC atm. She's even got an un-installed Sims2 addon sitting here! ;-) >The cheap PC is a 2.8GHz box, with a GeForce 5500 card in it (which is >supposedly better than the one in my Mac), but it doesn't come anywhere >near performing as well as the G5 Mac at 1.8GHz (OK, so there's 2 >processors, but they don't always both get used by all apps). Ok. But the OS will still use both won't it? >In fact I'd go as far as to say that this PC is only just about on a par >with the old 400MHz G4 I gave my brother-in-law. Ok. >> > I priced up a >> >Dell at that time, trying to meet as best I could build quality, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >ready built machines, or at least BTO (the Dell would have been BTO, the >G5 Mac was off the shelf at the same spec). Ok ... >Building a Mac isn't easy, at least not using new components, so a >self-build option was not used for comparison. Understood, but as you are a clever chap you could have easily built your own PC at the time (not that you wanted to etc) and it could have been cheaper so could have been considered as a comparison couldn't it? Maybe you could have done 3 price comparisons? > Even then, I suspect it >wouldn't have been cheaper, taking into account the standard of >motherboard needed (twin processor, AGP 8X graphics and PCI-X slots) >plus Buying two processors to match a pair og 1.8GHz G5s. Remember this >was four years ago. Understood, but if anything I understand Apple have reduced the price differential over that period? >> I *have* seen some PC's that have been 'built' by PC shops or >> individuals and some of them have been disgusting, but that's not the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Indeed, so already be have a comparison that doesn't match, as I said, >'as near as possible'. Eh, that wasn't intended to 'match exactly' <waves, it's *me* Andy!>, it was just some general questions / observations. And you started it by bringing PC's into the conversation! I was asking in the last bit what you mean by 'build quality' and I don't think you have answered that bit yet? I wouldn't add any value to Apples 'build quality' because I believe I can achieve the same (functional) standard without paying the Apple premium? All the best .. T i m > >I was thinking of future proofing myself for as long as possible at the > >time. > > I've never bothered doing that for several reasons .. two of which are > that doing so is normally disproportionately expensive and that you > never know what's round the corner that may suit your needs better? True, although at the time I had the opportunity to do so. [..] > >Yes, although I've probably added another £100 of kit to the cheap PC I > >do have here too. > > But not a £100 PSU I bet (and I know you can spend that on a PC PSU > etc etc). ;-) No. [..] > >The cheap PC is a 2.8GHz box, with a GeForce 5500 card in it (which is > >supposedly better than the one in my Mac), but it doesn't come anywhere > >near performing as well as the G5 Mac at 1.8GHz (OK, so there's 2 > >processors, but they don't always both get used by all apps). > > Ok. But the OS will still use both won't it? The OS will yes, but hopefully that isn't something that is processor intensive. [..] > >Building a Mac isn't easy, at least not using new components, so a > >self-build option was not used for comparison. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > been cheaper so could have been considered as a comparison couldn't > it? Maybe you could have done 3 price comparisons? I could have, and have done recently (although only using salvaged PC parts). > > Even then, I suspect it > >wouldn't have been cheaper, taking into account the standard of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Understood, but if anything I understand Apple have reduced the price > differential over that period? That could be. By all accounts, high end PCs, and laptops are still as much, or more, than the equivalent Mac. If you want *real* performance, you have to pay for it. It's all relative anyway. [..] > >Indeed, so already be have a comparison that doesn't match, as I said, > >'as near as possible'. > > Eh, that wasn't intended to 'match exactly' <waves, it's *me* Andy!>, > it was just some general questions / observations. And you started it > by bringing PC's into the conversation! <waves> yes, but I made it clear I was talking about *equivalent* hardware. > I was asking in the last bit what you mean by 'build quality' and I > don't think you have answered that bit yet? I wouldn't add any value > to Apples 'build quality' because I believe I can achieve the same > (functional) standard without paying the Apple premium? My own observations would suggest that isn't so. Just look at the build quality of a G5 case against a good ATX case for a start, there's no way an ATX box is ever made that well. For sure Apple has had the odd manufacture issue, the capacitors in the PSU for one, but similar failures in Dell machines are far more common, and at a much shorter service life. For sure, by careful selection of components I could make myself a very good quality computer, but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit what I do, and already have available. Replacing all my software would probably almost double the cost - *if* I could even find the same functionality that *I* like to work with. I have used Vista lately, in helping others, and I find it bloody awful, I'd got used to XP, but Vista seems to have 'fixed' lots of things that were never broken, and broke lots of things that worked OK. And OK, some components are limited in availability, but this is because most are custom made to work with the Macs, the limited selection means it's much easier to supply reliable drivers. Having a limited combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the OS to work with it, and less chance of conflicts occuring. I was working with a relatively new Toshiba laptop a few days ago, a few months old, and it's Nortion trial period had expired. I went there to uninstall it and install AVG. It took the thing nearly an hour and a half just to uninstall the Norton stuff! SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> <snippage> >> Understood, but if anything I understand Apple have reduced the price >> differential over that period? > >That could be. By all accounts, high end PCs, and laptops are still as >much, or more, than the equivalent Mac. Oh. Luckily I can't afford 'high end' so it doesn't affect me. ;-) > If you want *real* performance, >you have to pay for it. It's all relative anyway. Yeah, the quad core, box I made for my mate recently cost him ~£600. >[..] >> >Indeed, so already be have a comparison that doesn't match, as I said, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] ><waves> yes, but I made it clear I was talking about *equivalent* >hardware. Good and I changed the subject a bit .. ;-) >> I was asking in the last bit what you mean by 'build quality' and I >> don't think you have answered that bit yet? I wouldn't add any value [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >quality of a G5 case against a good ATX case for a start, there's no way >an ATX box is ever made that well. Well, not looking at many Apple boxes I really can't say but from those I have seen or got I really can't see what they achieve over any average (30 quid) PC case? What is their purpose after all, to house .. oh hold on .. it's also go to be pedantically and irreverently 'neat' inside and look 'pretty' .. <sigh>. > For sure Apple has had the odd >manufacture issue, the capacitors in the PSU for one, but similar >failures in Dell machines are far more common, and at a much shorter >service life. What's this obsession with Dell Andy???? FWIW I have worked with hundreds of Dells over the years but have only had one 'die' because of capacitor issues (and with many of them Dell replaced them foc)? >For sure, by careful selection of components I could make myself a very >good quality computer, No, by 'simple selection of components' ... I have bought some of the very cheapest components I could find and can't think of even one of them that has ever failed or been difficult to work with? With Jenny's new PC (and pretty well all those I have built before) we loosely choose the sort of components that were appropriate and typically accepted what was actually delivered (stock levels / price etc). > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit >what I do, <snip OT OS / App issues> >And OK, some components are limited in availability, but this is because >most are custom made to work with the Macs, the limited selection means >it's much easier to supply reliable drivers. Funny how you turn what most people would see as a negative into a positive Andy. Ok, I can see how what you say could be 'good' but not at the overall cost of being very very limited. > Having a limited >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the >OS to work with it, and less chance of conflicts occuring. True, you are less likely to get into trouble wearing handcuffs ;-) >I was working with a relatively new Toshiba laptop a few days ago, a few >months old, and it's Nortion trial period had expired. I went there to >uninstall it and install AVG. It took the thing nearly an hour and a >half just to uninstall the Norton stuff! Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with what we were talking about as we all know Norton is bloatware and as much use to your PC as putting an elephant on your roofrack of your car. Maybe the(ir) mistake was actually running the trial version in the first place? And how on earth did you uninstall it for it to take that long, one file at a time!? Even though I agree with you in that it takes a while in comparison with most other apps it only generally takes 'a few minutes' in most cases (and I've probably removed at least tens of times). No wonder you prefer Macs if this really is your perception of PCs .. ;-( All the best .. T i m [..] > >My own observations would suggest that isn't so. Just look at the build > >quality of a G5 case against a good ATX case for a start, there's no way [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > .. oh hold on .. it's also go to be pedantically and irreverently > 'neat' inside and look 'pretty' .. <sigh>. Not really, it's just a solid lump of aluminium that's going to last for years, and not fall apart in a couple like some of the plastic ones. > > For sure Apple has had the odd > >manufacture issue, the capacitors in the PSU for one, but similar [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hundreds of Dells over the years but have only had one 'die' because > of capacitor issues (and with many of them Dell replaced them foc)? None at all, just a major brand that I use for comparison. > >For sure, by careful selection of components I could make myself a very > >good quality computer, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > choose the sort of components that were appropriate and typically > accepted what was actually delivered (stock levels / price etc). Hmmm. > > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit > >what I do, > > <snip OT OS / App issues> Hmmm. > >And OK, some components are limited in availability, but this is because > >most are custom made to work with the Macs, the limited selection means [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > positive Andy. Ok, I can see how what you say could be 'good' but not > at the overall cost of being very very limited. I've always seen this as a positive, right back to when I bought my first computer - an Atari XL800. > > Having a limited > >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the > >OS to work with it, and less chance of conflicts occuring. > > True, you are less likely to get into trouble wearing handcuffs ;-) <sigh> > >I was working with a relatively new Toshiba laptop a few days ago, a few > >months old, and it's Nortion trial period had expired. I went there to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as we all know Norton is bloatware and as much use to your PC as > putting an elephant on your roofrack of your car. Even as bloatware, it should have taken that long on a new machine. > Maybe the(ir) mistake was actually running the trial version in the > first place? And how on earth did you uninstall it for it to take that > long, one file at a time!? Even though I agree with you in that it > takes a while in comparison with most other apps it only generally > takes 'a few minutes' in most cases (and I've probably removed at > least tens of times). I used the built in Windows uninstaller - something that's (mostly) unecessary on the Mac OS. > No wonder you prefer Macs if this really is your perception of PCs .. > ;-( Yes, and it has been for years. > All the best .. And to you, A. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >[..] >> >My own observations would suggest that isn't so. Just look at the build [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Not really, it's just a solid lump of aluminium that's going to last for >years, and not fall apart in a couple like some of the plastic ones. Again, what on earth do you do with your machines Andy? I've never had a PC 'fall apart' and they are mosty steel? >> >For sure, by careful selection of components I could make myself a very >> >good quality computer, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Hmmm. You see there are so many variables and combinations that all 'just work' if you are willing to be a bit flexible you can often get a good deal. Like, I say to my mate 'could you get me the best VFM C2D cpu on the day' as the prices of this gear vary frequently. It's not unknown for a faster version on 'special' to be cheaper than a slower one? >> > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit >> >what I do, >> >> <snip OT OS / App issues> > >Hmmm. We were talking hardware. ;-) >> >And OK, some components are limited in availability, but this is because >> >most are custom made to work with the Macs, the limited selection means [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I've always seen this as a positive, right back to when I bought my >first computer - an Atari XL800. Understood, horses for courses etc but as part of my enjoyment is having the freedom and flexibility of a vast range of compatible hardware I find anything that doesn't offer said 'limiting'. Maybe this is helped because *I* can get this stuff all working easier than some others? It's for the same reason I run a BMW motorbike or built a MK2 Escort based kitcar, the huge range of cheaply and readily available spares, accessories and options. >> > Having a limited >> >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ><sigh> Isn't that what you (effectively) just said though? >> >I was working with a relatively new Toshiba laptop a few days ago, a few >> >months old, and it's Nortion trial period had expired. I went there to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Even as bloatware, it should have taken that long on a new machine. Correct. I just removed it from 'a new machine' and it took 7 mins tops (it felt longer, it was probably less). Incidentally this was a brand new Sony Vaio bought in the States and after a couple of weeks he got me to take Vista off and put XP on. Everything works now and a load faster. >> Maybe the(ir) mistake was actually running the trial version in the >> first place? And how on earth did you uninstall it for it to take that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I used the built in Windows uninstaller - Ok .. >something that's (mostly) >unecessary on the Mac OS. And probably why you prefer it, especially after an hour and a half removing Norton! ;-) >> No wonder you prefer Macs if this really is your perception of PCs .. >> ;-( > >Yes, and it has been for years. Maybe the next time Jenny and I are looking to go on a little ride-out I can knock up a mini box and bring it up for you to play with, just so you can see they *can* actually work reliably and predictably Andy! ;-) All the best .. T i m <snipped a load of PC-centric bollocks> Tim, we get it. You prefer PCs and don't really like Macs at all. Can you just spare us the same old arguments time after time? This is a Mac group, we (mostly) prefer the choice we've made and have no bloody interest at all in how reliably a home-built PC running Windows will be. We just want a well designed system, with a well designed, secure and stable OS that 'just works' - as in really 'just works', not 'kind of just works, sometimes'. I have both OSX, Vista and XP machines here, without fail the OSX machines work better most of the time. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # ><snipped a load of PC-centric bollocks> > >Tim, we get it. We? I suggest you 'don't get it' at all Steve (or you wouldn't be adding your 4dth now). > You prefer PCs and don't really like Macs at all. When I can build my own Mac I'll come back to you re the preference thing. >Can you just spare us the same old arguments time after time? I was talking to Andy. You have a delete key. >This is a Mac group, we (mostly) prefer the choice we've made and have >no bloody interest at all in how reliably a home-built PC running >Windows will be. You don't *have* to read *anything*. Are you interested in iPods, iPhones or the fantasy world of some of the inner circle. Do you 'understand' them (in a COMP sys group) or is it just me you can't cope with? >We just want a well designed system, with a well designed, secure and >stable OS that 'just works' - as in really 'just works', not 'kind of >just works, sometimes'. Well that may be your experience with Macs but are you talking for me, a Mac owner, as well? If so then I'm afraid it's you that is talking bollocks. And you don't need my view for further proof. Read some of the other several thousand posts on this very group to see how Apple kit doesn't always 'just work' for many many people. >I have both OSX, Vista and XP machines here, without fail the OSX >machines work better most of the time. Good for you, although I'm not sure what the OS's have to do with it (.... OS (and Apple FWIW) advocacy is this way ... >>> ) All the best .. T i m [..] > >Hmmm. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the day' as the prices of this gear vary frequently. It's not unknown > for a faster version on 'special' to be cheaper than a slower one? If I wanted to do a build I see your point. However, like the reason for buying a Honda car, I want to buy something to 'just work'. > >> > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit > >> >what I do, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We were talking hardware. ;-) Actually, it's the whole package. If I could build a PC and run Mac OSX on it, I would. [..] > >I've always seen this as a positive, right back to when I bought my > >first computer - an Atari XL800. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > MK2 Escort based kitcar, the huge range of cheaply and readily > available spares, accessories and options. Or buy something that doesn't need repairing in the first place. I had a BMW bike, and although it was reliable (in that it got from A to B), there was always something that needed replacing. > >> > Having a limited > >> >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Isn't that what you (effectively) just said though? No. I choose a Mac because it does just work out of the box, I have some upgradeability, enough to enhance its use when needed. > >Even as bloatware, it should have taken that long on a new machine. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he got me to take Vista off and put XP on. Everything works now and a > load faster. Hmm, I wonder if this is just Vista then. > >> Maybe the(ir) mistake was actually running the trial version in the > >> first place? And how on earth did you uninstall it for it to take that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And probably why you prefer it, especially after an hour and a half > removing Norton! ;-) Indeed. > >> No wonder you prefer Macs if this really is your perception of PCs .. > >> ;-( [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so you can see they *can* actually work reliably and predictably Andy! > ;-) But I know they can't. In one workplace I installed no less than 17 brand new Acer PCs with XP Pro on them. They were all delivered at the same time. I installed them onto the network, copied across all the old user files, and installed new versions of Office. They did not all install exactly the same, although I used the same process to install each machine. Some had to be fiddled with to get them to work on the dealer 'intranet', where others just worked, amongst other issues. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >[..] >> >Hmmm. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If I wanted to do a build I see your point. However, like the reason for >buying a Honda car, I want to buy something to 'just work'. Fairy muff, I have never said you should do anything else. When I want something to 'just work' I prefer to build it myself because I don't know what I'll want the box to be tomorrow and can't afford to buy another complete box tomorrow. Like with the Mac Mini ... quite a few people buy them for role A then move them to role B but then ask if they can do X, Y and Z with / to them to make them suit role B better. When I build a machine I have already factored in the though that I may want to change it's role, possibly even in the near future. [1] >> >> > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit >> >> >what I do, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Actually, it's the whole package. Of course, but I (at least) was talking about hardware .. I never mentioned any OS? > If I could build a PC and run Mac OSX >on it, I would. Why, what's wrong with the Apple hardware then (and I thought you could in any case .. the Hackintosh ..)? >[..] >> >I've always seen this as a positive, right back to when I bought my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >BMW bike, and although it was reliable (in that it got from A to B), >there was always something that needed replacing. Because no matter what it is it will go wrong sometime. Ironically my BM has been the least reliable of all my bikes ever. However I don't *need* it (as in for commuting etc) and for what I use it for it suits my needs. Their international popularity also means there is a pretty good supply of cheap spares. If I wanted something that did what the R100RT did and did so faultlessly for ever I'd get a 900 Divvy, but I had one for a week and found it completely soulless. The only thing I've bought where I'm pleased it just works is our Miele cleaner ... that's because I don't have any interest in it and am unlikely to ever want to modify it! ;-) >> >> > Having a limited >> >> >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No. I choose a Mac because it does just work out of the box, I have some >upgradeability, enough to enhance its use when needed. Yes, I understand that Andy, but you sited the argument where 'having a limited combination .. ' bit, for you as a plus, for me it's not. We finished Jenny's new PC last night .. took the Audigy sound, 4 port USB and Pinnacle DTV card out of her old PC and transferred them to her new one, they all just worked, that's the flexibility I'm talking about. >> >Even as bloatware, it should have taken that long on a new machine. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Hmm, I wonder if this is just Vista then. Well, Vista was definitely a bigger burden to the hardware than XP that's for sure but Vista was what I initially took Norton off and it was fairly quick (slow compared with nearly any other app though etc). [2] >> Maybe the next time Jenny and I are looking to go on a little ride-out >> I can knock up a mini box and bring it up for you to play with, just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >each machine. Some had to be fiddled with to get them to work on the >dealer 'intranet', where others just worked, amongst other issues. I'm not sure what that has to do with the builds though Andy and it sounds like software .. I'm not interested in software. ;-) All the best .. T i m [1] Where the feck is that Mac Midi!! [2] Another reason for doing yer own thing was when I 'upgraded' his laptop from Vista to XP I didn't need to remove all the shovelware. > >If I wanted to do a build I see your point. However, like the reason for > >buying a Honda car, I want to buy something to 'just work'. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > already factored in the though that I may want to change it's role, > possibly even in the near future. [1] Of course, but you can't always plan for the future that well. Macs being well performing to start with can usually cope with future needs for a while - my first Mac, a 75MHz Performa, lasted me six years, and then with Emily for another two or three. > >Actually, it's the whole package. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why, what's wrong with the Apple hardware then (and I thought you > could in any case .. the Hackintosh ..)? Nothing's wrong with the Apple hardware, but if there was a way to have a high performance Mac and make it cheaper, I would. You see, it's all about the software for me, and how useful it is to me, the hardware is secondary, as long as it is capable of running the software I need. [..] > >Or buy something that doesn't need repairing in the first place. I had a > >BMW bike, and although it was reliable (in that it got from A to B), [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that's because I don't have any interest in it and am unlikely to ever > want to modify it! ;-) Ah, now I did need my bikes to be useful, I commuted every day, all year, for about 13 years. I think you'd find the Divvy worse. I had a 600, and bits literally fell off it while I was riding along. > >No. I choose a Mac because it does just work out of the box, I have some > >upgradeability, enough to enhance its use when needed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > her new one, they all just worked, that's the flexibility I'm talking > about. That doesn't always work IME. I have been rebuilding, admitedly older, machines here, and getting swapped peripherals to work has been a real pain. [..] > >But I know they can't. In one workplace I installed no less than 17 > >brand new Acer PCs with XP Pro on them. They were all delivered at the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not sure what that has to do with the builds though Andy and it > sounds like software .. I'm not interested in software. ;-) Or maybe some of them had different hardware installed? In any case, if the software doesn't run, what's the point of the computer in the first place? SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> <snip> >Ah, now I did need my bikes to be useful, I commuted every day, all >year, for about 13 years. I think you'd find the Divvy worse. I had a >600, and bits literally fell off it while I was riding along. Oh, I thought they were in the 'unbustable' list. Oh well, I didn't like it anyway, nothing to fettle. ;-) Anyway, to get back on your topic (and FWIW) I had Jenny's new C2D box plugged into one of those basic power monitor plugs while we were installing 10 x Sims2 .... With the PC, little 12" LCD and speakers it was drawing ~130W (peaking up to about 150W (240VA). The screen equated for about 14W (24VA). On the back it says 12V @ 3A so in theory the max power consumed can only be 36W. The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps? All the best .. T i m > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, I thought they were in the 'unbustable' list. Oh well, I didn't > like it anyway, nothing to fettle. ;-) No, the FJ1200 was though, which was my last bike. But they're getting a bit long in the tooth now. > Anyway, to get back on your topic (and FWIW) I had Jenny's new C2D box > plugged into one of those basic power monitor plugs while we were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the back it says 12V @ 3A so in theory the max power consumed can only > be 36W. Hmm, about half that of my G5 at idle then. I actually looked up the VA unit, just to see what it does actually mean, did you know it's NOT an SI unit? > The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps? PF? (According to Wikipedia it means 'Packet Filter') Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> Oh, I thought they were in the 'unbustable' list. Oh well, I didn't >> like it anyway, nothing to fettle. ;-) > >No, the FJ1200 was though, which was my last bike. But they're getting a >bit long in the tooth now. ;-) >> Anyway, to get back on your topic (and FWIW) I had Jenny's new C2D box >> plugged into one of those basic power monitor plugs while we were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Hmm, about half that of my G5 at idle then. I haven't tried putting it to sleep and not sure if the Intel C2D's adjust their clock etc. That was with the 2 x 250G SATA drives (Raid1) , Floppy (idle) and the Audigy panel (it uses the floppy size power connector). PCIe x16 with GeForce 6800GT and 4 port USB, Pinnacle DTV card and Audigy cards in PCI slots. We didn't have a optical drive in at the time (gonna get a SATA DVDR) but were using a external USB one. >I actually looked up the VA unit, just to see what it does actually >mean, did you know it's NOT an SI unit? No? >> The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps? > >PF? (According to Wikipedia it means 'Packet Filter') ;-) Power Factor, from memory summat about the power being drawn in phase with the voltage or not. Like if you have a pure resistive load you get a PF of 1. Something offering a more capacitive or inductive load would be less than 1 (ie, my .6). The lower the number (tending towards 0) the worse way the energy is consumed, therefore less efficient therefore more expensive to run. That's why PF should be taken into account when working out the metered 'cost' of a load. So, if you take Jenny's new PC. If it is using 140W the actual £ cost would be that of 240 VA (Volts x Amps = Watts but only into a pure resistive load, for AC this all is of course) so because her PC isn't a pure resistor it cost more than the displayed 140W to run. Or summat like that! PC / SM PSUs are notoriously bad re this and we are going to fit an "80+" PSU when we know the total load. All the best .. T i m > >Hmm, about half that of my G5 at idle then. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > card and Audigy cards in PCI slots. We didn't have a optical drive in > at the time (gonna get a SATA DVDR) but were using a external USB one. No, I meant 'idle' not sleep. The machine is sitting there, running, but no work is being done in any apps. [..] > >> The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps? > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Or summat like that! Well, you got me looking this up... And your PF of 0.6 is pretty poor according to these: <http://www.cip.ukcentre.com/Power%20Factor.htm> <http://www.energy-in-motion.com/PFC.html> Reading those sites indicates that this calculation has limited purpose in domestic usage, and seems to be more commonly used with three phase setups. > PC / SM PSUs are notoriously bad re this and we are going to fit an > "80+" PSU when we know the total load. Righto. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> >Hmm, about half that of my G5 at idle then. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No, I meant 'idle' not sleep. <Shrug> I know, I haven't tried putting it to sleep <stop>. It might give another set of values <stop> ;-) > The machine is sitting there, running, but >no work is being done in any apps. Yep, and ours was ~ 140 W >[..] >> >> The PF of the whole lot was about .6 if that helps? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Well, you got me looking this up... And your PF of 0.6 is pretty poor >according to these: Yep but not untypical and why we will look at replacing the PSU. ><http://www.cip.ukcentre.com/Power%20Factor.htm> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in domestic usage, and seems to be more commonly used with three phase >setups. Agreed, apart from PC power supplies, oh, and my Arc welder. ;-) And then there is the bigger question as to how well our 'domestic' meters work in the first place etc? [..] > >Well, you got me looking this up... And your PF of 0.6 is pretty poor > >according to these: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And then there is the bigger question as to how well our 'domestic' > meters work in the first place etc? Indeed, I'll bet their err on the side of the supplier too. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >[..] >> >Well, you got me looking this up... And your PF of 0.6 is pretty poor [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Indeed, I'll bet their err on the side of the supplier too. Sorry Andy, I meant 'our' (as in your and my domestic testers) rather than 'their' as in the suppliers way of billing us. But yes, I believe the billing meters count what we use no matter how badly we use it, and why I believe big users (machine shops / welding plants / steel smelting etc) use PF correction technology (as also found in better PC PSU's). All the best .. T i m > >> And then there is the bigger question as to how well our 'domestic' > >> meters work in the first place etc? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry Andy, I meant 'our' (as in your and my domestic testers) rather > than 'their' as in the suppliers way of billing us. I see, understood. > But yes, I believe the billing meters count what we use no matter how > badly we use it, and why I believe big users (machine shops / welding > plants / steel smelting etc) use PF correction technology (as also > found in better PC PSU's). It's interesting to know about for sure, although I'm not sure how much effect we can make in the home. It's not something they tell us about is it, and may even be more significant than just trying to switch off the odd standby light (my 28" CRT TV uses <2W on standby). Cheers. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > I bought a MacBook which works really well as a desktop with its lid > closed and a monitor, keyboard & mouse. For day to day stuff it's almost > silent and uses a lot less electricity than my G5. Similar story here, I use my MacBook primarily as a desktop; I sit it on a Griffin Elevator stand next to an external monitor and have a dual monitor setup using the two screens. I also connect an Apple Keyboard and a Logitech MX1000 mouse and it's basically like a desktop, except I can unplug it and take it with me whenever I like without having to syncronise files etc... One thing to note: I disconnect the battery when I'm keeping it at home and run it batteryless to keep the battery in good working order (though I connect it up and charge/discharge it once a month to keep it on its toes) [snip] > But once it's up and running with normal apps (email, wp, net browsing, > Front Row) I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between a > 1.6 Mini core duo and a 2.4 iMac. Multiple CPUs help avoid bottlenecks. The current Mini has a dual core CPU (I think), so I'd guess that'd be nearly as good as the dual CPU G5 in that department, I reckon. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.