Post: The Great Mac Dilemma
Those of you who read Ben’s blog on a regular basis will know that he recently wrote a fairly lengthy essay on whether or not he should buy a PowerBook. His answer was a fairly resounding “yes”, with a side-note of “waah, so much money”. Up until very recently I haven’t even bothered with the dilemmas: I’ve known I want a PowerBook for quite a long time, for most of the reasons Ben suggested plus my vehement dislike of many Microsoft products. (I’m actually writing this from Windows, but only because I’m planning on playing a little Chaos Theory once I’ve finished writing this.)
I have, however, recently come across a dilemma of my own: the observant among you will have already seen the image to your right and guessed what it is. I’ve discovered that, for about the same price as a 15-inch PowerBook with a 1.5GHz G4 processor, I could get a PowerMac with dual 1.8GHz G5 processors. I may even be able to get something better if the rumours of imminent upgrades are to be believed. I could also decide to save a bit of money and just go for a single-G5 iMac (which the rumours claim will soon be clocked at 2GHz) with a nice 20-inch widescreen TFT.
What this really boils down to is the trade-off between portability and power, tied in with the question of how much benefit I would gain from the extra portability of a laptop. This is sadly a question for which I have no reference point, having never owned a laptop in my life. I also don’t really know how much power I’m going to need, seeing as I’m not planning on playing any games on my Mac (anyone who has seen the selection of games available on the Mac will know why) and will primarily use it for development work and, of course, wasting time chatting to people over my IM protocol of choice.
Yes, alright, it’s the MSN Messenger protocol. Stop bugging me.
So, in a nutshell, that’s my dilemma. (If you want to be pernickety, it’s actually my trilemma – “a syllogism with three conditional propositions, the major premises of which are disjunctively affirmed in the minor”. Obviously.)
Any comments that aren’t “just get a Windows PC, it’ll be much better” (yes Jonty, I’m looking at you) would be very much welcomed.
Steve at work has been through all of this (he is also short of a real “would I use the mobility” reference point). When I started work 8 months ago he was hellbent on a Powerbook. However, lack of a G5 processor drew him towards the new iMacs (very nice screens, not bad price, but not upgradable next year). A few months after this he had a brief flirtation back with the PB and at time of writing is lined up to buy the most expensive PowerMac he can find, with two of those lovely 20″ screens, just as soon as they updates get announced at the weekend (he was also waiting for Tiger).
In your position, I’d probably go for the desktop machine. Since you’re about to leave university, the demand for having a portable is likely to get lower (if you get a job that requires one, they’ll give you one). Like with the PC market, the desktop machines are cheaper bang-for-buck.
It is a hard call, I agree. Like you (and Steve) I have an inner power craving, but one of the midrange PowerMacs would do you (though this generation of iMac will always be appealing, I think). Of course, it kinda depends if you’re wanting to replace your screen with something as expensive as the 20″ Apple jobbys. If you were to get one (or two) more regular TFTs, you’d save some as well.
I don’t believe I’ve ever actually said that! I’ve merely played devil’s advocate (and Microsoft is the devil, so you keep telling me) in stating that PowerBooks and such aren’t for everyone.
I do, however, suddenly feel compelled to right a blog post and my own personal Mac dilemma. Are there support groups for this kind of thing? π
Kind Regards
As an honest question, what kind of power do Macs really need? A Windows XP machine, for example, cannot presently really use advanced hardware to its fullest potential unless software supports it (e.g. dual-core CPUs, 64-bit CPUs etc. require specialist software) and even then much of today’s hardware is really only required for gaming and/or other processor intensive tasks.
Are dual-CPU systems really needed on a Mac? Would, for example, a Mac Mini’s specs. be sufficient for most tasks given the Mac isn’t a gaming platform, and if most of us didn’t delve into video editing and such? Just curious
Kind Regards
For Joe User (not to be confused with Jo User, who would want to play The Sims 2 on it ;)), a Mac Mini would probably be perfectly adequate, although possibly a touch choppy if you had a load of apps open. The dual-CPU machines are generally intended for (to quote the Apple website) “designs, music, high-definition video or the next scientific breakthrough”: i.e. applications which take quite a hefty whack of processing power and are quite highly parallelisable (given well-written software). Herein lies part of my indecision between an iMac and a PowerMac, as I don’t know if I’d really gain from the extra power under the hood.
Thanks for that, Fatty
I don’t honestly know if you’d need excessive amounts of power either, but like most things I suppose more is better. Out of Apple’s list, ‘design’ I’m guessing refers to Photoshop or video editing, which fair enough potentially takes a lot of resources. But music I’m guessing doesn’t, nor everyday tasks like you mentioned. HD video has always been demanding, MS recommend the following over on WMVHD.com: (Minimum) 2.4GHz processor, 384MB RAM, 64MB video card; (Recommended) 3.0GHz processor, 512MB RAM, 128MB video card (admittedly the latter is for full blown 1920×1440 resolution).
Anyway, good hunting
In order of my personal preference, I’d probably go for a PowerBook/PowerMac, then a Mac Mini, then an iMac, as the finish on the iMac G5 sadly looked very cheap despite the gorgeous screen (that said, it was probably because it had been mauled by the PC World masses).
Kind Regards
The major let down in the Mac Mini (that Joe User might notice and Jo User definately would) is the hard disk. If I remember correctly, it’s actually a notebook drive at 4200RPM. Given the increase in speed I noticed when moving my Windows XP machine from a 5400RPM to a 7200RPM disk drive, I’d be concerned that application load times might be quite slow. That aside, it’s quite a nice machine (for its size it’s fantastic).
Apple are very calculated in their specifications. It’s this which causes the problems with choice really. They cut features out of products to save money when they can make a good case for the end user not needing it (consider the absence of a screen on the iPod Shuffle, which incidently now has about 45% of the flash based MP3 player market). In the case of the portables, this means low resolution screens on the iBook 14″ models, no choice of a DVD writer on the 12″ iBook, no Bluetooth 2.0, no embedded numpad in the keyboard. There are a lot of fringe features between the iBook and Powerbook that cause ponderance.
I’m not sure if the same is as true of the iMac/PowerMac, mind. When iMac was first introduced then maybe it was harder, but they’ve diverged into quite separate markets and as such it’s probably an easier call. Maybe.
Interesting stuff, Ben. As for the iPod Shuffle market share, that’s just insane! With the greatest respect to Apple’s PR department, I couldn’t believe the audacity of Apple to omit a screen and then market it as ‘randomisation’, hehe.
Kind Regards
One of Murphy’s Laws of Combat:
People, it seems, would prefer no screen at all to a tiny, low-quality screen which they can barely use.
I see your reasoning, Fatty, but I’d personally sooner have a small screen that none at all. I think we both conceed that the iPod Shuffle is selling because of its brand name and fancy marketting. Still, hats off to Apple, they must be rolling in it
As for Murphy’s laws, I do love them. I believe Half-Life: Opposing Force had a select few printed in the manual
The latter brings me back to the Shuffle, I suppose. It would have been easy for Apple to include a screen, but this then brings issues of usability, battery life, cost etc. I’ll give Apple credit where it’s due, they do play make well-thought out products, it’s just in the Shuffle’s case I’m not entirely convinced it’s ‘all that’.
Kind Regards
Jonty
P.S. One thing I didn’t realise was that when you sync with your PC’s record collection it picks music at random, so in theory you sync one morning, listening to whatever that day, sync the next morning etc. That said, as a control freak, I think I’d sooner choose, hehe. There’s just no pleasing some people … π
Well, actually the random fill is only one of several options: you can tell it to fill completely at random, fill at random from a specific playlist, fill randomly with a preference for higher-rated songs, or fill it up manually with specific songs.
So you see it does make a pretty good attempt at pleasing even the fussiest of people :p
mutters hehe. I still think I’ll pass for now. Is the sync software the same as for your iPod?
Kind Regards
Yup – it’s iTunes.
“Yup – it’s iTunes.”
And therein lies the reason that I will never own any kind of iPod, shuffle or otherwise! wanders off, muttering under her breath
<debate>What don’t you like about iTunes Jo?
I’m not sure it’s anything I can really put into words as such. I use winamp, and I understand it. Whenever I want to play something on Ben’s machine, I have to battle with iTunes. It doesn’t have a playlist thingy – not sure what it’s called. The list of “now playing”, that you can add things to, play on shuffle, or whatever. I very rarelt listen to just an individual artist, so just saying “play” to a whole artist is not for me.
I can’t get my head around the interface, the pause/stop button issue confuses me, and it always ends up with Ben having to come and do it for me…
In short, I’m not sure there’s anything I like about it…
I don’t think I really have room to comment, given I use Windows Media Player 10, but I must admit I think Steve Jobs’ description of iTunes as ‘the greatest program ever produced for PC’ (or words to that effect) was slightly off (granted, he was no doubt kidding, but given some of things CEOs say these days, particularly Microsoft CEOs, you have to wonder). Anyway, I don’t think iTunes is particularly bad at anything, although I do find it slightly annoying you can only access the iTunes Music Store through it and not via an ordinary website like OD2 or other offerings.
As for sync’ing, does iTunes handle all iPod sync’ing Fatty? (e.g. ordinary files etc., or is it just done as if it were a removable storage device).
Kind Regards
Overstatement is one of Steve Jobs’ most impressive skills. If you believe everything he says, Tiger “will change the way you use a computer” and the iMac is “the world’s most beautiful desktop computer” (although it’s entirely possible that it is). He’s a marketing guy: blowing his company’s own trumpet is a large wodge of his job.
Regarding iTunes usability issues, it certainly works quite differently to your average Windows app and hence takes a bit of getting used to, but I would certainly say it’s pretty much on a level with Winamp in terms of usability (once you’re past the learning curve) and features. Its library management system is also rather nifty.
And Jonty, iTunes handles synchronisation of music, but for anything else the iPod has the option of acting just like any other USB/FireWire drive: you just go into iTunes and enable the “use as removable storage” option.
Ah, okay, thanks for the info Fatty
You’ll turn me into an Apple convert yet (well, maybe :D).
Kind Regards
I think that there are a couple of real questions you need to answer before you can choose the Mac for you. I’ve been thinking along similar lines since being surrounded by the sea of opalescent laptops at SXSW this year. Things I’ve picked up so far:
Personally I think I’ll probably grab us a Mac mini as a no-hassle machine to have in the lounge for checking email and getting used to. Then I’ll decide whether to soup up an older Thinkpad or something and put Linux on it or whether to invest in an iBook
Any idea why this is? Is it to do with the operating system or something to do with the PowerPC architecture? I speak as someone who’s putting off revision for his Comparative Architectures course…
Seeing as most of your power-whore-age stems from your gaming addiction and, as you say, you aren’t planning on playing games on whichever Mac you buy, I’d say go for the portability. But then again, I’m a sucker for the idea of being able to work in a coffee shop….. mmmm coffee.
1) The problem with iTunes is that, for better or worse, it’s designed to be used in ‘one way’. With WinAMP, you can do things in numerous different ways, mainly due to it’s global playlist thing (and the fact that the media library and other features were hacked on in later versions). iTunes is more refined and designed, thus you can’t do things quite as freely (if you happen to disagree with Apple’s design decision). I’m not advocating one over the other, though for me WinAMP’s feature-bloat just got silly and I fell for iTunes instead.
2) iBook vs. PowerBook. I’m fast agreeing with Meri. The battery life on the iBook is better and the real benefits of having a PowerBook instead (bar hoarding aluminium) are quite hard to justify – especially for machines where the processor is getting on a bit. In fact, a top spec PC is almost certainly faster than a top spec Mac right now (especially with Intel about to go dual-core). For me (and I from what I can tell, you too David) getting a Mac right now is more about getting MacOS than getting cutting edge hardware. In my view that still makes it worth buying Apple rather than a Windows machine, but doesn’t make a case for buying Apple’s fastest hardware.
Discussing this with someone who has a Powerbook yesterday, they tapped the case and cryptically muttered “Faraday cage”. When my A-level Physics deserted me, they at last explained : wireless reception is apparently WAY better on the iBooks than the Powerbooks, because of the case. Not a major issue now, but I think that the UK will soon start having wireless everywhere, like the US does.
As for why Apple stuff runs so much faster, I think it’s a combo of the hardware architecture and the near total control they have of what runs on their machines. I remember back in 1995 or so trying out a 5 year old Apple Mac and it being faster than a brand new PC of the time. That said, my old IBM Thinkpad 570 runs blazingly fast with Linux on it, whereas a similar machine I had at work at one stage running Win 95/8 was like wading through treacle. I think the fact that a lot of the Apple developers appear to be Unix hackers all grown up may also have something to do with it.
I think I’ll be getting an iBook next year when I can afford one — if I was looking for one Mac to be my only machine, though, then I might be tempted by the Powerbooks. I suppose the advantage of the Powerbook is really that you have a great work machine and if you need to take it out occasionally and use it as a laptop, then it can be done. The Mac Mini is portable if you are going from one KVM setup to another. But for a full time laptop it looks to me like it has to be the iBook
About iTunes. I can’t seem to make it do what I want it to do. Despite Ben having had it on his computer for a very long time. And him trying to explain it to me every time I visit. So, if I can’t make it do what I want, I have no time for it.
As to whether that’s because I’m dense, or because of a fundamental flaw in iTunes I have no idea.