I want a Macintosh...

[JMET]

Caliander allready answered this question, but im curiouse as to what constitutes those as a better brand?

The in thing for over clockers doesnt mean better..

Crucial might not be the fastest thing in the world but there ram works...

[Takumi]

As for the Macs are too expensive, the new eMac is now available for $799 with a 1ghz G4, 40gb HD, and CDR-W among other features. My grandfather bought this exact computer and is loving it. That's a damn good deal for $800 and would make a great first Mac for anybody interested.

The Dual 2GHz G5's are the fastest machines on the planet. I've seen fast PCs and I've seen the Dual 2GHz and let me tell you - the Dual 2 is TOO fast.

Agreed. This computer is insanely fast. I seriously could have gotten the single 1.6 and it still would have blown me away. I've never used a computer as fast as the one I am using right now

[Lhadatt]

Caliander allready answered this question, but im curiouse as to what constitutes those as a better brand?

The in thing for over clockers doesnt mean better..

Crucial might not be the fastest thing in the world but there ram works...

I'm not talking about overclocking. Corsair and some of the other brands that are percieved as being better are seen that way because they have proven their quality. I wouldn't put generiram or Kingston in anything, but most of my new stuff is Corsair because it gets the job done when other makes don't. What's so special about Crucial?

[Schlep]

Are you kidding me? The cheapest G5 is $1,999. I could build a PC that would beat the living shit out of that for much much less.

Just the processor is $404 according to Newegg.com. You're saying that once you throw in all the RAM, HD, DVD-R, optical audio etc that you could make it significantly less than $1999? Just wondering, not talking smack.

[cka]

Aren't Macintosh PPC processors some kind of crazy motorola/DEC Alpha chips? That's probably why they cost so much...

[Schlep]

Aren't Macintosh PPC processors some kind of crazy motorola/DEC Alpha chips? That's probably why they cost so much...

I believe they're scaled down IBM Power4's.

[mollipen]

ive been using a Mac for about 2 months now. and i dont like it. maybe its the mouse. maybe its the whole file system. maybe its the screen-saver randomly starting when im working. maybe its that i like the PC version of Photoshop a whole lot better. or maybe its that goddamn mouse.

Which is kinda funny, because I can't stand the PC version of Photoshop. And this doesn't come from my dislike for Windows... there is something honestly different about the two versions. It all comes down to what you're used to, and if you're used to the PC version, then I'm not surprised you weren't happy with the Mac version.

I'm not sure about the file system comment, though. What exactly didn't you like?

And, as far as the mouse issue goes, I can understand why Apple still releases their computers with only one mouse button, but for me, I could never use a one-button mouse these days. But Mac OSX is a multi-button mouse OS anyhow, so you just plug in any old mouse and you're ready to go.

Aren't Macintosh PPC processors some kind of crazy motorola/DEC Alpha chips? That's probably why they cost so much...

The PPC chips were originally designed in a joint venture between Apple, IBM, and Motorola. IBM and Motorola both had rights to build upon the chip, and each went their own way with it.

The original Power PC chips that went into a piece of Mac hardware, I'm not sure which side they were from, or if they were joint. This was when Macs moved from the 680x0 series of chips to the PPC "Power Mac" series.

The next big jump came in the move to the G3. I know that IBM has been responsible for the G3 for a long time now, but I don't know if Motorola had a hand in the G3 as well. G3, of course, isn't the real name of the chips, but the name Apple gave to them for being put inside of Mac hardware.

The G4 came from Motorola, and is pretty much a slightly faster chip with a high-performance vector unit (AltiVec) attatched to it. Moving to this chip gave Mac hardware a speed boost and some real power in the graphics department when software made use of the new AltiVec instructions. However, this was the Mac platform's big downfall - Motorola became shit and couldn't produce new technology worth a damn and Macs suffered because of it. A lot of people pointed at Apple because of their crappy processors, but it wasn't any of Apple's fault - they very much wanted to keep up in the Mhz race. They were stuck, though, and had to live at the mercy of Motorola. The problem got so bad that IBM's "old" G3 chips were soon outperforming the G4s when it came to raw speed, but Apple couldn't just switch back to using them instead of the G4 with a publicity nightmare. (Of course, there is now talk about an IBM produced G3 X+ that has a vector processing unit, that would get more performance than the G4 while having the same abilities. Talk is that Apple might take it, call it a G4 just for the sake of it, and use it in the lines where the move to a G5 isn't logical yet.)

The G5 is for all purposes a scaled-down version of the new Power 4 server processor that IBM debuted a short while back. Apple needed help getting away from being tied to Motorola, and IBM was the company that could save them. When talk first came out about a desktop version of the Power 4, there were a lot of rumors if they would go into Apple hardware or not. As soon as it was mentioned that this new chip would have "an added vector processing unit," everybody pretty much knew that it had been added for the sake of Apple, and that they indeed would be the new heart of the Mac platform.

[Grave]

(Of course, there is now talk about an IBM produced G3 X+ that has a vector processing unit, that would get more performance than the G4 while having the same abilities. Talk is that Apple might take it, call it a G4 just for the sake of it, and use it in the lines where the move to a G5 isn't logical yet.)

Word has it that the processor in these new "G4" iBooks is the G3 processor with AltiVec, IBM's PPC750GX. I'm not so sure of this, but it seems logical to me.

Wonder how much longer it's going to take for the PowerBook line to jump to G5s. Granted, I just got my TiBook this summer, and I'm not happy with the models Apple keeps introducing... I'd like to think their next wave of design will be a bit more exciting than the PowerBook redesigns and the new iBooks. Am I the only one who misses color? Or hell, even black now and then?

[Rumpy]

I'm not talking about overclocking. Corsair and some of the other brands that are percieved as being better are seen that way because they have proven their quality. I wouldn't put generiram or Kingston in anything, but most of my new stuff is Corsair because it gets the job done when other makes don't. What's so special about Crucial?

Since 1999 I've always bought crucial ram for upgrades to my last computer and the one I'm using now (built in January). I've never had a problem with ram from them. Plus they give you free shipping (although a lot of places do that now), a really good price and the shipping is really fast (2, 3 days tops). They've got a good reputation.

[Rhydant]

Which is kinda funny, because I can't stand the PC version of Photoshop. And this doesn't come from my dislike for Windows... there is something honestly different about the two versions. It all comes down to what you're used to, and if you're used to the PC version, then I'm not surprised you weren't happy with the Mac version.

I'm not sure about the file system comment, though. What exactly didn't you like?

i would like PS on a Mac more if i had a different mouse. and if there were only two buttons the bottom of the keyboard (Ctrl, Alt).

about the file system: i should of said "file and folder window management". i dont like the OSX setup of this. Windows Explorer does a much better job at this than what the Mac has. its kind of hard for me to explain this.