StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am looking into getting a Mac.

I currently have

1 HP Desktop running windows XP, I do most of my principle work on this machine.

2. A compaq laptop which I use on the road and sometimes when I'm at school. Since I will be starting work soon I will be given a work laptop. The laptop often goes days without being touched. It is painfully slow (but I think that can be solved with some extra RAM).

I can only replace one item with a mac, so I was wondering, should I replace my Desktop or my laptop with the mac?

Also, I was wondering regarding the iMac, it is seriously limited in that you can't add peripherals except through USB or Firewire, has anyone experienced problems with that. Also I've heard you can run Windows and OS X at the same time on a mac, not just a dual boot situation, but with both OS active at the same time with the ability to switch between them at will. Is this accurate?

How much of the software you regularly use already exists on OSX? If it's less than 90%, changing might not be a good idea. You can run both operating systems at once through utilities like Bootcamp, though.

Lord MJ wrote:I can only replace one item with a mac, so I was wondering, should I replace my Desktop or my laptop with the mac?

Laptop.

You'll receive more benefits from Apple's ergonomic and light-weight engineering that way.

If you're going with a macbook make sure a 13" screen is big enough.

I'm on a MacBook now; myself I'd prefer an iMac for the better graphics card and bigger screen, but that's me. Go with what you need. I got the MacBook because I needed portability for school.

Also, I was wondering regarding the iMac, it is seriously limited in that you can't add peripherals except through USB or Firewire, has anyone experienced problems with that.

Well yeah; it has no PCI ports, obviously. But there's no serious problem; any non-professional peripheral you can think of except GPU is available via USB or Firewire.

Also I've heard you can run Windows and OS X at the same time on a mac, not just a dual boot situation, but with both OS active at the same time with the ability to switch between them at will. Is this accurate?

Yes, through virtual machines. Look up an application called Parallels.

Laptops are inherently less sensitive to platform, since you can Parallel almost all apps and most games, and anyone who plays cutting-edge high-spec games on a laptop is dumb anyway. Like people who buy 'portable' 'laptops' with 17" screens.

I don't think I'd ever buy an Apple desktop. I'd love to install OSX on my PC, but Apple laptops are the way to go.

Stark wrote:Laptops are inherently less sensitive to platform, since you can Parallel almost all apps and most games, and anyone who plays cutting-edge high-spec games on a laptop is dumb anyway. Like people who buy 'portable' 'laptops' with 17" screens.

My sister has one of those huge 17" mobile workstations (since she has to do CAD and 3D work on it for school). The thing is enormous and weighs a ridiculous amount!

I hear bigger screen = bigger battery = bigger laptop and less endurance?

Stark wrote:I hear bigger screen = bigger battery = bigger laptop and less endurance?

Yep. 17" screen, Core Duo, Quadro GPU ... and it was the "required" laptop for school. She hates the thing (and its built to usual Dell standards).

A T60p or MBP would've cost less and probably been vastly superior for those roles (though I'm not sure if the MBP is certified for CAD/3D work, since it "only" has the consumer GPU variant in it).

I think those machines are best suited for people who either have such cramped living space, or think computers are unacceptably unfashionable to leave out in plain sight, as to require their computer to be something they can put away yet still have sufficient power to do whatever they want to do.

Stark wrote:Like people who buy 'portable' 'laptops' with 17" screens.

My Powerbook weighs 6.9 lbs. It's a doddle to carry around.

A 30% increase in weight from 15" to 17" laptops is crazy on something that's supposed to be 'portable' first and foremost. As U235 says, many people pay the massive price premium solely because they want to hide it or move it a little bit. An MBP 17" costs enough to buy two killer desktops and have enough left over for a holiday down the coast. Of course they have a role, but every time I see people at uni lugging their amazingly huge and ugly portables around with the spare battery and the AC adaptor and shit I laugh about how much they paid for that 'luxury'.

vmware fusion is another virtual machine like parallels

unless you need the large hard drive and graphics card i'd say go with macbook. you can also get a dvi connector and connect a keyboard and large monitor to your macbook and use it like a desk top if screen size is required

Personally, I would go for the MacBook. I have a friend that runs TF2 through Parallels on his MacBook pro (not as well as through Boot Camp, but it runs). iMacs are sexy machines, but their limited upgradeability (RAM and HDD only) just doesn't suit me, and I can't afford a Mac Pro. If I could afford a Mac Pro and could use it to its full potential, I would buy one in an instant. I know I can use an iMac to its full potential (I have at a previous job), which means I can easily do so even with a newer MacBook.

Since your current laptop isn't keeping pace, I think this is the solution for you as well.

Stark wrote:Laptops are inherently less sensitive to platform, since you can Parallel almost all apps and most games, and anyone who plays cutting-edge high-spec games on a laptop is dumb anyway. Like people who buy 'portable' 'laptops' with 17" screens.

Depends - I have a desktop replacement, and a ultraportable. The desktop replacement works fine for both gaming and development, and even though battery life, weight etc is inferior to the ultraportable, that's not the point. It gives me an (somewhat expensive) computer that is as good as a stationary, but that I can bring to customer site, hotel etc.


My next portable laptop will be a Apple, IPU willing.

Edit: Also, on topic, I'd go for the Apple laptop - as has already been said that's where you gain most.

Edit2: splelling

haard wrote:The desktop replacemet works fine for both gaming and development, and even though battery life, weight etc is inferior to the ultraportable, that's not the point.

But don't you know that "laptop" implies <9" screen size, a palmtop form-factor and mass less than a small grapefruit? How can you be so technologically unaware?

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the mac mini.

I've kindof been leaning toward the desktop mac since I'm feeling I won't really be using the laptop often enough to justify the cost. I spend a lot of my time in front of the desktop and only pull out the laptop when needed. I am however interested in the option to use the laptop as a desktop. I'm not sure how much gaming I will be doing, but I do have a feeling I want to pop in Civilization IV from time to time, and watch some WinTV...

Also for Windows, would you recommend VMWare, Parallel or something else as the best way to run windows on the mac?

Parallels and Boot Camp. You can run both off the same partition (unless that's something that changed in Leopard) and although it is most definitely possible to run games from Parallels (as seen in my previous post), I wouldn't recommend it.

Lord MJ wrote:I was wondering what your thoughts are on the mac mini.

All the disadvantages of a laptop (performance, a GMA950 and laptop drive, no upgradeability) without the mobility (no screen or battery, so it has to be plugged in and hooked to a monitor).

Go with the iMac if you can.

I really want a 13" macbook I can just surf wirelessly in my apartment, I got a home built PC for the serious stuff and my GF also has a pretty decent PC which sits in the living room, doubling as a TV as we haven't got one, nor do I want so since we'd be forced to pay 200-300e in tv-license, per year. Fuck that.

What is a tv license..?

InnocentBystander wrote:What is a tv license..?

Some countries have it that you have to pay a TV license annually to receive free to air television. You may get free to air, but certainly, you have to pay to receive it.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:What is a tv license..?

Some countries have it that you have to pay a TV license annually to receive free to air television. You may get free to air, but certainly, you have to pay to receive it.

We get a bunch of channels we don't watch and which could be run privately just as good. If they wanted "bias-free" public service which is their motivator and which they fail at anyway they could just run a news program and put it on a private channel(s).

So since I watch TV rarely and I can DL most of what I want to see, I do just fine without one. My GF not so well so she'd like one.

Ah, so in addition to a cable bill you've also got to pay for government television? Yuck.

I wonder how those large lcd monitor/tv work for taxation...