View Full Version : Help me pick....
08-03-04, 09:53 PM
I am getting a new computer this summer and plan to use it for my art stuff on a professional level. I know little about computers, but Dell's Dimension 8400 makes me very happy so far. However, my school is filled with Macs. What's the difference between Mac and PC? I keep hearing that all artists want to have Macs; why is that?
08-03-04, 10:02 PM
I don't know that much about Macs but my PC that I just built has got really great graphics and resolution for game play or image manipulation. I've heard that Macs are better with graphics but I think today that if you get a good processor, graphic card and software that you will be able to have anything you want done on any PC.
08-03-04, 11:22 PM
Most artists prefer Macs because they want to spend their time being creative and following through with ideas they have. You can't do that with a PC because you have to spend at least ten percent of your time being a software mechanic, or more like fifty percent if you haven't already learned how to be a software mechanic and have to do it during the time you'd rather be using your computer instead of begging it to give you back your own data.
I 'm an IT professional, I've been in this business since 1967. I've developed end-user application software, utility software for programmers and other technicians, and a colleague and I even wrote an entire operating system for a mainframe. I've also managed software projects. I've also trained people in various computer languages, taught relational database theory when it was just going commercial, and introduced computer security to one of the world's largest IT shops. I was so highly regarded that when I warned that shop of the Y2K risk, they started work on Y2K remediation in 1995 so they were completely finished in 1998. Now I teach and implement software project process improvement, including the measurement of software quality. I get $800 a day plus expenses when I'm contracting, although since the Y2K consulting recession I've had to take a salaried job that only pays $100K a year. I'm published and regarded as a guru by my peers.
Those are my credentials. Most people trust me, but you make up your own mind.
What I have to say is that the people who develop PC software have, as a matter of macho pride, chosen to ignore all the lessons we old mainframe jockeys learned the painful, hard way thirty years ago. By 1975 mainframes did not have deadlocks. Application programs could not crash the operating system. Nobody could sneak an instruction into a mainframe (at least not a Unisys mainframe) by disguising it as data -- no viruses, in other words.
As a result, PC software has all of these problems and many more. My current specialty is teaching IT shops how to improve their processes. You can measure the rate of that improvement in a variety of dimensions. The IT managers themselves like to see improvements in productivity, more software functionality delivered per person per year, making them all richer. But what matters to the people who use software -- whether employees of a corporation who have to use what their own programmers build or paying customers who have to use what they can buy from the software houses -- is improvements in quality. You want fewer defects in a given quantity of software functionality in 2004 than you had to settle for in 1999.
And you're not getting that. The defect rate in both commercial PC software and in-house developed PC software has not improved measurably in five years -- hell not even in ten years.
One reason is that the developers are overreaching. They haven't mastered the process of building mundane management information systems, but they're out there trying to build software that links the whole world together. The other reason is that their managers don't give a damn. They refuse to learn from anyone that it's possible to turn software development from the medieval craft that it is into a true engineering discipline. They don't run software projects the way any other engineering manager would run any other engineering project. If bridges, airliners, microwave ovens, or even toilets were engineered to the standards of PC software, we'd be back in the Dark Ages by midnight.
Apple, on the other hand, engineers its software. The best example is their operating systems, the heart of any computer. They are not still using an OS that was originally designed in the 1980s, when computers had monochrome monitors with single-font, text-only displays, floppy disks, a megabyte of memory, and no way to talk to each other, and hanging new functionality onto it every year or two to try to make it compatible with video graphics and the internet. They throw away their operating system every time they design a new model computer and build a new operating system to perfectly fit it and all the new technology. As a bonus, each operating system is built using the software engineering principles that have been learned since the last time. Each one is built better, stronger, and smarter than the last one. The downside is that a Mac user has to re-buy a lot of their software because it won't run on the new machine with the new operating system. But the upside is that the old software with its few unfound and uncorrected defects is in the garbage and you've got new software built to higher quality and performance standards.
I'm as knowledgeable a computer professional as almost anybody on this forum, and I have a PC because the company I work for hasn't gotten the word yet. I spend a good ten percent of my time being a software mechanic, and I still lose a lot of data and miss a lot of deadlines. I double back-up everything important and I swear I still keep printouts of my most important stuff. Every second I spend at my computer is fraught with anxiety, wondering whether I'll be able to finish what I'm doing or stay up half the night begging my PC to do the job it was supposedly designed for. I play games too, and they work just as bad. I get a good one going and the keyboard freezes up, but the game goes on without me and I lose because it won't let me move. And do you want to hear about viruses and Trojan horses? Hackers are finding wormholes in Windows XP that were created in Windows 98. The operating system has been "enhanced" and "maintained" and "debugged" for six years and undergone four or five major upgrades, yet defects from the original version haven't been found or fixed.
My wife, on the other hand, is a retired social worker with a degree in English. She uses her Macintosh to run her home business and nothing ever goes wrong, except for the foolish mistake she made of installing the Mac versions of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel instead of paying for software that was written specifically for the Mac. She's actually quite an expert with PCs and can even tear them apart physically. She hasn't had to use any of that expertise since she got the Mac. Every second she spends at her computer is productive work or play. She's got anti-virus protection, but hardly anyone even bothers trying to write viruses to attack Macintoshes. Admittedly that is partially because most of you nice people refuse to buy them so it's not much fun to break into them. But mostly it's because it's really hard to find a wormhole in Mac OS. And just about the time you do, they throw OS-9 in the trash and come out with OS-X, which was built from the ground up and doesn't contain any of the few defects that escaped detection in OS-9, and was built to modern software engineering standards rather than those of five years ago -- much less those of the Dark Ages.
A Macintosh is an applicance. You buy it to use. You turn it on, use it, and turn it off. Kind of like a Mercedes-Benz.
A PC is a project. You bring it home, fiddle with it to get it working, use it until it stops working, then fiddle with it some more, sometimes having to rebuild the software, and eventually you end up getting a second one for backup. Kind of like a Polski Fiat.
You decide which one suits your lifestyle best.
Oh -- if you decide to ignore my advice, at least do yourself a favor and don't buy a Dell. My company leased a couple thousand of them and they had to hire more technicians to keep them running. We were counting the minutes until the lease ran out and had a big party when they were replaced with IBMs. If you've just got to be like everybody else and own a PC instead of a Mac, make it an IBM. At least the only problems you'll ever have will be in the software, not the hardware. That makes debugging much easier.
08-03-04, 11:26 PM
Macs are pretty. Pretty expensive. I'd like to play with one, but I'd rather not pay 5000 bucks for a computer. Sure, that's probably only for the high end macs, but still. They're far too pricey in my mind.
Never having used one I can't give any advice on which is better. But, I'll repeat myself here, they sure are pretty. Lots of eye candy going on.
I'll put it in point form. You decide:
Pro's for Mac
-Mac is stable and fast (good OS & system architecture)
-It works out of the box
-easy to use
Cons for Mac
-can't upgrade easily
-costs a lot relative to some PC's (unless you get a laptop, ie the 12" powerbook. Its a steal)
-isn't compatible with much of the software you find on the net
Pro's for PC
-cheap, really really cheap if you know where to buy your parts
-customizable & upgradeable. Pack it up with 2 gigs of RAM & you'll surely satisfy the windows beast
-poor students have been known to pirate needed software & OS, saving them huge amounts of $$$$
-Windows is unstable & susceptible to bugs, even XP. There's no alternative OS which can handle 'art' unless you're only interested in blender3d, maya, etc, in which case use linux.
-Parts are sometimes unreliable. Read different reviews before you buy
-noisy compared to mac
Basically, if you have the money, buy a mac (powerbook if you can). You'll love it. If not, buy a PC and have a geek friend help you get it working the way you want. Chances are you'll love it almost as much...as long as you don't disturb it.
As for why art students seem to like the Mac? Its pretty and obedient and doesn't break. Your type are manic control freaks
Myself - I use a PC because it fits the mold of my own prodigal son. Strong, feral, customizable, disobedient and in need of a spanking so that I can sex it up with a different OS depending on my mood. I'm not an art student.
You should go for a MAC,its better for Artists.Take my word for it.My cousin sister had it,she enjoyed the experience with it thoroughly.
08-04-04, 04:31 AM
if you can afford the software.
08-04-04, 05:13 AM
I don't know about one of the con's of the PC. Pixar's Renderman although capable of running on the MAC is also designed to run with clusters of Linux built machines (Notibly Red Hat) and judging by the output of their animated CGI films, the suggestion is that such machines can be used for Art successfully.
Although you are right in suggesting that Professional Artists and Designers tend to use MAC, originally it was due to 24-bit hardware being more effectively programmed than the first 32-bit attempts and software programming for 16-bit peripherals.
However the current evolution of the PC is seeing 64-bit and higher transfer rates that again are going to have the teething problems of being correctly interfaced with but once worked out will prove to be better machines for the task. (But then you've still the point that the softwares where the development is needed)
MAC software costs insane ammounts of money while any pc software can be gotten for free ;)
08-04-04, 07:47 AM
I agree with Avatar because I've downloaded a whole bunch of free software for my PC from the net but you can't find that for the Mac.
Oh -- if you decide to ignore my advice, at least do yourself a favor and don't buy a Dell.
Has anyone else had bad experiences with DELL? Dell offers amazing deals. I've looked all over and DELL is pretty competative even when comparing it with build-it-yourself systems. I've often wondered about the quality of the Motherboards they use.
08-04-04, 08:33 AM
I suppose with companies like DELL and HP you can get a machine, warranty and support. (well attempt to get support) and you might find them cheap due to their method of batch building.
However there are other companies out there that specialise in batch building, they have sites that allow you to pick what components you want and they create the system for you to your specifications. They sometimes take a little time to build and send (12-18 days) but you can get all the warranty's and support you would of had with DELL or HP.
Most of the time I don't really bother with the Warranty if something works, purely because the likelihood of something well manufactured breaking down is limited (although not impossible) and sometimes the warranty's cost more than just buying another one of the same type a little in the future.
08-04-04, 08:50 AM
Has anyone else had bad experiences with DELL? Dell offers amazing deals. I've looked all over and DELL is pretty competative even when comparing it with build-it-yourself systems. I've often wondered about the quality of the Motherboards they use.
That is why I custom built my own. That way I know exactly what I have and how good it is. It isn't hard to build one yourself , it just takes a little time and patientce.
Mac pros=Eye Candy, (system stability- maybe)
Mac cons= everything else
PC cons- You get to pick parts that will malfunction. Its like election you get to vote witch guy you donít trust the least.
all softvare works and is made for pc. mac software is like a legacy compatibility for older people who feel the need to get their nostalgic toy in a newer wrapper.
# of macs I used and bought - 0
# of PCs/PC parts I used and bought - countless
and would I go through the fuss all over again? for art and games? in a blink.
p.s. mac is proly not as bad as I gave it credit for
p.p.s. PC arenít the 5% fuss I made it look like.
p.p.p.s. I use WinXP and I donít bother to restart it anymore. I turn my comp on do my stuff during day, download stuff during night, and it turn itself off when done. Tomorrow I turn it back on and all's ok. its stable 99,9% of the time. I use(d) 3ds Max 1-6 and Photoshop 4-7-CS. I had to restart Win98SE/Me like 300times a min for it to work fine - for comparison.
Passing judgement on something you haven't even tried..
\\Maybe compared to what you're used to (erm..98,SE, ME--all great operating systems), XP is 'stable.' But I mean come on-- integrating a gui and IE into the core OS?! Anybody can snap a few parts together and stick them in the case, not just l337 ;)
08-04-04, 05:04 PM
I remember on school macs, an application would unexpectedly quit; why did that happen?
(1) Which Application?
(2) Which OS version?
A crash on mac is almost always due to poor programming of the application, not poorly allocated resources. Mac will never force you to 'increase the paging file size' just to keep an app from crashing.
But if you personally feel that a mac is just as good as a pc, then why bring it to question? Go for the cheaper one, I'm serious.
08-04-04, 05:24 PM
Whitewolf, a lot fo people at my school are going nutty about Macs. I think it is mostly because they look slekk, sexy and some even have snap-on colour changers. The eye candy aspect of a Mac tend to appeal to artists.
If you get a well built PC with an Athlon precessor and a very compatible Motherboard and Video Card and a good version of XP or Linux, then your system will be just as stable as a Mac. There is some prestige (sp?) that comes with owning a Mac. THe look good and cost more than they have to.
I suggest getting a PC with solid components. Make sure there is a good Athlon processor. It also depends on what you plan to do with the computer. Will you be just using it for small apps or will you need a lot of RAM for large art programs (and video editing and such)?
If you tell me what you want to use it for and how much money you have, then I can pick out a few example computers and you can tell me what you think.
08-04-04, 06:35 PM
(1) Which Application?
Illustrator, don't remember which version; latest, I guess (it's college :p )
(2) Which OS version?
Mac OS X.
I never bothered to ask why things happen this way and not the other way on a Mac, because things were hectic enough with the printer and the zip discs (during the finals month!). So I'm curious now. It's not decided yet, really.
Will you be just using it for small apps or will you need a lot of RAM for large art programs (and video editing and such)?
Uh, the usual arts stuff. The ones I know so far are Illustrator, Photoshop, Quark, and there are many others coming. Thing is, I don't really know which ones I'll need in particular, it all depends on the school program and new courses are being added at the speed of light. Uh, I, as an illustrator, might not require any sophisticated animation programs, but I do want to try my hand at it (and perhaps something might happen). Thing is, I really want this comp to last me for as long as possible.
What I want to spend is about 1500. I saw two Macs cheaper and at about that price, but most of them are way out of my reach.
Uh, someone at a store estimated that putting a computer together by myself that would fit my needs would cost about as much as buying it all completed. If you suggest buying from Chinese guys.... Eeeeh....
08-04-04, 09:52 PM
"Uh, someone at a store estimated that putting a computer together by myself that would fit my needs would cost about as much as buying it all completed."
But you would have a much better PC and you would gain more knowledge about PC's. You can get much better hardware than any manufacturer, Dell, H.P. ETC., will sell you and cheaper if you just look around and take the time to find the best prices available. I bought 4 sticks of 512 MB of DDR ram for 50.00 each at a great place and a good deal.
08-04-04, 10:02 PM
Uh, someone at a store estimated that putting a computer together by myself that would fit my needs would cost about as much as buying it all completed.
That is a bold and brutal lie. Pure and simple. Are you going to believe a salesperson? Sheesh. I got a bridge for sale. Cheap. Interested?
08-04-04, 10:03 PM
Wolf can't afford the software but somewhat like me wolf is incredibly bad at PC maintenence.
Fraggle's impressive advice made me want to buy a mac but I do not want to feel like shit every 2 years because I spent 5 grand on a mac only to be ousted by a stronger, better model coming out....I doubt wolf does too.
I love macs for their simplicity but Fraggle I must say I never, ever, had nearly the same amount of trouble as you. Yes, I do get frustrated at windows but only because I am using independent produced software which won't listen or cooperate with other home designed software. I do everything on my PC and never had to worry about shit *crosses fingers*....everything runs lickety split on my PC so I don't understand your predicament.
What I don't like about Macs is the setup...that mouse annoys me but that problem can be overcome with heavy usage of macs like I do with PCs.
P.S...can i borrow some money dude? You're loaded :)
For now I'd recommend the PC...incredibly cheap compared to macs and if your ethics don't bother you then safe versions of all needed software can be had for free. I do all my graphic work at home and prefer to do it at home.....the PC mouse makes more sense for me and Photoshop has never bailed out on me unlike school macs (motherfuckers made me lose whole assignments).
Make sure there is a good Athlon processor.
from my experience Intel Pentiums are more stable, need less cooling and are better for graphical softs.
What AMD Athlons do for instance one my friends works at a tv company and they once bought athlons for their video rendering. what happened is that they had to change them all back to pentiums because AMD did bad processing from their rendering software and they ended up with a solid 1% frame loss. It might be seen as little, but when you have to find that 1% and render it by hand ... it's a hell.
So he adviced everyone not to use Athlons for video rendering. Maybe it is so for graphical rendering also.
Intel Pentiums are better :cool:
08-05-04, 08:37 AM
With AMD HyperTransport serial data links instead of using FSB it can punch data through at a rate of 3.2GB/s and with data running in both directions simultaneously it has 6.4GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Pentium 4 at 533MHz FSB has a maximum data transport of 3.97GB/s but not in both directions at the same time unlike the AMD Athlon 64.
A great improvement with these new AMD Athlon 64 processors is that the memory controller is now part of the core instead of being in the North bridge chipset. This reduces latency and consequently increases performance. It is also running at the same core speed.
AMD Athlon 64 processors use AMD's HyperTransport to interface with the North & South bridges instead of through the old FSB and run at up to 800MHz DDR (or effective 1,600MHz) which gives a maximum of 6.4GB/s bandwidth.
The AMD Athlon 64 have an increased processor stage pipeline from 10 to 12-stages (Intel Pentium 4 has 20-stages). There are core architecture improvements making up for the slight loss of performance with the deeper pipeline. Having a small pipeline means that AMD processors can do more instructions per clock-for-clock than the Intel Pentium 4, but having such a deeper pipeline partly enables the Pentium 4 to run at higher speeds.
The AMD Athlon FX basically uses the Opteron core with its memory controller but with DDR400 (PC3200) support. Unfortunately it needs registered or buffered DIMMS unlike the regular AMD Athlon 64 that needs only the usual unbuffered DIMMS.
AMD to Intel: ďTimeís UpĒ
All the rumors are true, you can now insert the new term Athlon 64 FX into your processor name bank. Luckily for AMD, itís not the craziest name to be introduced in the past week or so. Extreme Edition, anyone?
Now that you know that the Athlon 64 FX processor does indeed exist, youíll want to know what it is, and what it isnít. In short, the Athlon 64 FX processor, at least in its current form is equivalent to an AMD Opteron processor. Both have 940-pin counts; both use the dual-channel memory controller; and both are very, very fast.
The technology powering the Athlon 64 FX and the AMD Opteron hasnít changed since the launch back in April, so I wonít bother going over again what all the new AMD64 architecture entails. Reread that article for a good summary. I also wonít be going over what previous steppings of the Opteron (er, I mean Athlon 64 FX) core are capable of, after all we did that a few weeks ago in our look at the nForce3 and the Opteron 144. Reread that if you havenít done so. :)
So, what isnít the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor? Well, it isnít the Athlon 64 processor that we have all been expecting. While that CPU, the Athlon 64 3200+, is still being released today as well, you wonít see as much buzz about it because AMD wants all of the attention on the new flagship, their jewel that will take back the performance crown from Intel, the FX-51. The Athlon 64 FX (Iíll be calling it the AFX) and the Athlon 64 (Iíll call this one A64) differ, mainly, in the ways listed below:
You can see the Athlon FX uses a 940-pin package, where as the Athlon 64 uses the 754-pin package that everyone was expecting to see since this time last year (maybe two!). The Athlon FX memory controller is 128-bit (dual-channel) while the Athlon 64 is a single channel 64-bit memory controller. The only remaining difference is the need for Registered memory on the Athlon FX processor, which makes finding memory slightly more complicated.
well, they didn't have 64bit processors back then, but it still doesn't say anything about that processing glitch they had which was diagnosed to be unique to AMD processors when dealing with their rendering software
besides, to use 64bit processor efficiently you have to have 64bit programs.
apart from that and the cooling issues AMD is not bad
I stick with Itel though
08-05-04, 08:59 AM
This is what I bought for my new PC:
AMD's Athlon 64 FX-53 processor
Hammer swings higher
by Scott Wasson ó March 18, 2004
APPARENTLY, the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor wasn't enough. This $733 former Opteron, converted into a desktop chip just to put the smack down on Intel, was no slouch. In fact, it abused our benchmarks throughout its tenure, making its sky-high price seem almost reasonable. Now, however, a new model, the Athlon 64 FX-53, is replacing the FX-51 wholesale.
Perhaps it was the competition. Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was magically transmogrified from a Xeon into a desktop part to do battle with the Athlon 64 FX, and Intel recently cranked the P4 Extreme Edition up to 3.4GHz. The Overall Performance Lead is a very important thing to have, especially if you're playing number two to an 800-pound gorilla like Intel. Or perhaps it was just time for AMD's Hammer processors to make the move to 2.4GHz, finally reaching clock speeds higher than their Athlon XP predecessors.
Whatever the case, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is here, ready to challenge the P4 Extreme Edition and all comers for the Overall Performance Lead in the x86 processor world. To gauge the FX-53's success in its quest for the Overall Performance Lead, we've lined up sixteen of its competitors and tested it against 'em all. Our contestants range from the exotic (the P4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz) to the novel (the Pentium 4 Prescott) to the massively overclocked (the Athlon XP-M 2500+ dialed up to 2.4GHz.) To make things even more interesting, we'll be exploring how the various AMD and Intel processors assembled here scale with clock speed and model number increases.
I promise, if you like performance graphs like I do, this review will satisfy your cravings. Read on to see what I mean.
Big picture of the chip
Here, folks, is a big picture of the chip.
The Athlon 64 FX-53
The FX's 940 pins require an Opteron-style socket
To review, the Athlon 64 FX is much like AMD's regular Athlon 64 processors. Like the Athlon 64, it has a 1MB L2 cache on chip and a built-in memory controller with support for DDR400 memory. Like the Athlon 64, it has support for SSE2 and extensions for 64-bit memory addressing, giving it a healthy dose of future-proofing. Unlike the Athlon 64, though, the Athlon 64 FX nestles into a 940-pin socket and supports dual channels of DDR400 memory, giving it up to 6.4GB/s of memory bandwidth.
To unlock this goodness, you'll need a 940-pin motherboard and registered DIMMs, because the Athlon 64 FX won't work with regular ol' unbuffered memory. AMD has said that all Athlon 64 chips, including the FX line, will eventually be moved to a new 939-pin socket that doesn't require registered DIMMs. However, that glorious day hasn't come yet. For our testing, we used an Asus SK8N motherboard and a pair of Corsair CMX512RE-3200LL memory modules.
About the funny line graphs
Many of the graphs you'll find on the following pages are colored line graphs intended to demonstrate how the various processor types we've tested scale with clock speed increases and other such enhancements. We've used such graphs before in processor and graphics reviews, but they're a little tricky here. In this case, we have six distinct CPU types, ranging from the Athlon XP to the new Pentium 4 "Prescott" processors, and we have multiple performance grades of each type. The Pentium 4 chips are plotted according to straight clock speeds. For the AMD chips, we've graphed them according to their model numbers, provided they correspond roughly to Pentium 4 clock speeds.
That leaves a couple of exceptions. Most prominently, we have today's star, the Athlon 64 FX-53. I chose to graph the Athlon 64 FX chips to correspond with the clock speeds of the regular, non-FX Athlon 64 processors. As a result, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is in a category that's currently all its own. I believe this arrangement makes sense, all things considered. Then there's the Athlon XP-M 2500+, which we have overclocked to 2.4GHz. Since the Athlon XP 3200+ runs at 2.2GHz, the XP-M at 2.4GHz was the next logical step in the sequence, so I've plotted it as a "3400." Once we get to the line graphs, you'll see what I mean. Again, I think this placement is eminently sensible. You'll see for yourself shortly.
Finally, we've used the Pentium 4's "C" and "E" designations on our bar graphs, where we can list individual product names one by one, while we've stuck with codenames on the line graphs, where a single letter designation would be inadequate to capture the lovely nuances of Intel's product naming schemes. If all this talk of Northwoods and Prescotts baffles you, please read our Pentium 4 Prescott review to become further confused.
08-05-04, 09:13 AM
Here's a comparrison graph:
08-05-04, 04:38 PM
For $1500, I suggest getting the following:
Cases: 100534 - PS 420W - Logisys Scorpio Mid-Tower Case $59.00 $59.00
Case Fan: 100873 - 80mm - Antec 80mm Quiet Case Fan $15.99 $15.99
Motherboards: 110590 - AMD-XP - Abit AN7 nForce2 SATA/USB/IEEE/A $102.00 $102.00
Processor: 120729 - AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton Core) 333 FSB $124.00 $124.00
Heat Sink Fan: None
Memory: 140693 - DDR (400) 3200 - 1 GB (2 pcs 512) OCZ (OC $195.00 $195.00
Hard Drive: 150515 - IDE - Hitachi (07N9549) 120 GB/7200-RPM/8 $95.00 $95.00
2nd Hard Drive: None
RAID Setup: None
CD/DVD-ROM/CD-RW: 160873 - CD-ROM - Asus CD-S520 52X CD-ROM (Black) $26.00 $26.00
CD-RW/DVD-RW: 160935 - DVD-RW - Teac DVW58GA02 4X-DVDĪRW/8X/4X-D $75.00 $75.00
Floppy Drive: None
More Storage: None
Sound Card: 180210 - Creative Sound Blaster Live 32Bit/5.1/MID $45.00 $45.00
Video Card: 190321 - ATI (Sapphire) Radeon 9550 128MB DDR 8X-A $81.00 $81.00
Operating System: 800008 - None - Barebone /No Software Support /1 Y
Network Card: None
RAID Controller: None
2nd Memory: None
Power Supply: None
Warranty: 800007 - 1 Year - Parts & Labor - Barebone (No Sof
Hot Rush: None - Standard Order ( ships within 8-13 business
Thermal Grease: None
Case Function Add-On: None
Noise Killer: None
Additional Software: None
Round Cables: None
Subtotal for 800001 with your selected options: $866.99
Order Total: $991.99
Fo rthings like a mouse, case monitor and things like that, you can beef it up, but you can get a decent computer for arts stuff for under $1000
I think I can do better (for under $1000 US): (note: amounts in Canadian $)
MBM-K8V64-2800 C :: Asus - K8V - Socket 754 Motherboard and AMD Athlon 64 2800+ Processor
In Stock $405.99
S457-1017 :: Speeze AMD K8 CPU Cooler Fan for AMD Athlon 64 Processors
In Stock $27.99
U10-4911 :: Ultra 512MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz Memory 2 Pack (1024MB Total)
In Stock $272.99
P450-8505 :: XFX GeForce FX 5600 XT / 128MB DDR / AGP 8X / VGA / DVI / TV Out / Video Card
Available While Supplies Last $139.99
S130-1208 :: Seagate 80GB / 7200 / 8MB / Serial ATA Retail Hard Drive
In Stock $167.99
P456-5002 :: Powmax ATX Silver Case with Window, LED Fan, Front USB Ports and 400Watt Power Supply
In Stock $55.99
K51-1068 :: Khypermedia / 8x4x12x DVDĪRW / 40x24x40x CD-RW / Cyberlink PowerDVD / Sonic MyDVD / Dual Format / DVD Burner
Available While Supplies Last $83.99
K13-1300 CD :: Mercury 56x CD-ROM / Black / CD Drive
In Stock $27.99
TOTAL: $1,182.92 (CANADIAN$!)
08-06-04, 02:08 AM
I've been using Macs in my studies, frankly I haven't noticed any spectacular advantages(or any at all). The only real difference between Quark, photoshop, premiere etc. is that I get bloody annoyed everytime I try to third-click something. It sounds stupid, but is really handy to have that extra button.
Re: stability, I've found XP to be quite good(I really hate to say this), better than most of the macs I've used. That is quite remarkable given that I've seriously fucked with XP.
If you want the computer to last a few years, I'd go with a PC. They offer the best performance by far. For nearish performance on a mac you'll have to sell a kidney.
08-07-04, 08:41 PM
Last week Microsoft announced a "major upgrade" to Windows. Normally we software types use the term "upgrade" to mean "addition of new functionality to fufill new user requirements." However, what Grungeware is doing is what we in the trade call "corrective maintenance": the repair of defects. In this case, making (excuse me, "trying to make") the software finally fulfill the original, implicit user requirements for quality and security.
The Seattle Scammers have actually published the figure that a full five percent of the Windows code has been modified in this project. Five frelling percent! Not adding new features, which can be a rather well-organized, high-likelihood-of-success kind of project if done right. No, diddling with existing old features that already don't work right, which almost always turns into a nightmare of ripple effects and modification of code that's already been modified by so many different people that it's almost impossible to read. Elevators and automobiles improve with maintenance. Software degrades with maintencance.
If any corporation discovered that one of the most important applications built by its own programmers was so bad that it needed a full five percent of its code rebuilt it would not rebuild it. First it would look for the people and the organizational structure that allowed that piece of drenn to be built, pass testing, signed off, released into production, and kept running with toothpicks and chewing gum for the past decade. Then it would toss those people off the roof (I'm talking about managers here, not the programmers who are just trying to do what they're told with an impossible deadline and no inspections), reorganize the structure, and launch a project to build the application over from scratch, using 21st century software project management principles instead of the medieval guild philosophy that prevails on Puget Sound.
Five percent! I would not have approved that project and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a company that tries so desperately to patch up worthless old software instead of throwing it out. And I would for damn sure not install that software on my computer! There's no possible way it can fix much more than half of the quality and security problems in Windows, and I guarantee that this project will inject almost as many defects as it removes. Software development American-style is simply like that. This is the reason that so much of the industry is going offshore where people plod their way boringly and carefully through software development instead of being creative cowboys.
If the whole world were not insane, this project would be the biggest boost for Macintosh sales in history.
Fraggle's impressive advice made me want to buy a mac but I do not want to feel like shit every 2 years because I spent 5 grand on a mac only to be ousted by a stronger, better model coming out....I doubt wolf does too.My wife's had her PowerBook for four years and it shows no signs of becoming obsolete soon. It's got Jaguar and she's going to upgrade it to the Panther OS before she hands it down to me.
She just bought a PowerMac G4 which will probably last her the rest of her life, and it barely cost half of your figure.
Remember: You only need a computer that does what you want, not the glitzy new one they're advertising on TV.
I've thrown away three laptop PCs in the past eight years. Not because they became obsolete, but because they stopped working! All of the hardware gurus tell me that the way to keep a PC/Windows-architecture machine from going down is to wipe the hard drive once a year and reinstall everything. I believe them. I'm sure I could get rid of my Trojan Horse(s), get Norton System Works and the Disk Defrag utility to run again, and stop crashing Mozilla twice a night, if I spent all my free time over the next two weeks tracking down the installation diskettes and CDs for all my software, getting one for Windows which I never had, and going through the pain of another Windows installation. And it might very well run okay (what passes for okay with Windows, meaning only five percent of my time spent being a software mechanic) for a whole year. But I'm not willing to settle for that. I want to forget everything I know about hardware and software technology and just be a computer user, just like I stopped rebuilding carburetors for fun 30 years ago because now all I want to do is just drive the damn car.
(Yes, it is a Mercedes. We bought in new in 1978 and it still runs like new. And it doesn't have a damn carburetor because it's a diesel. The automotive equivalent of a Macintosh. You get what you pay for plus the added reward that it keeps on working so you save a lot of money not having to replace it.)
P.S...can i borrow some money dude? You're loaded :)No, it's been thirty years since I smoked a... oh I misunderstood you. ^_^ I'm also sixty as I've admitted many times and after having been unemployed for a few long stretches, it's a struggle to put together enough money to retire, even at what undoubtedly looks like a generous income.
08-07-04, 09:31 PM
I forgot abou Tiger Direct. I bought some peripherals from them at half price.
Not because they became obsolete, but because they stopped working! All of the hardware gurus tell me that the way to keep a PC/Windows-architecture machine from going down is to wipe the hard drive once a year and reinstall everything.
I have been running WinXP along with Red Hat,since Xp was released.Haven't had any problems.If you are talking about reliability,then i think Windows is reliable,but with my recent experiences with SunOs at Hughes Software,i find former less attractive.But you must remember,that Most of the Softwares,Even Linux dont use the 100% Power of The CPU,this is because of Hardware Vendors.They have made their Processor Speed faster and faster,but has the main issue changed? with I/O Speeds,System Speed not increasing our computers still wont be very fast.
Its really the Hardware.Intel introduced SECC with P-II,It was a severe trade off,which meant going back to old days.But while Intel continues to dominate market impressively the analogous good quality softwares are rare these days.You require faster processor to run Windows Based Computer today,why? because its graphical user interface is heavy and uses FPUs tremendously.Employees here use Linux at office and say great things about Linux,Open Source and things like that,but when it comes to Home,they use Windows.(They dont wanna be bothered with Hassles of Hardware Compatibility etc. enough of that at office...;))
Macs are great,but they are not cheap.Their costs,coupled with several other issues make them not so great when compared with other machines.Steve Jobs might have thought off a great dream to beat the IBM and create Home Computers and Dominate like Bill did,but sadly it has failed miserably.Apple is investing in unexplored areas more.I am impressed with the way Mac has worked with those Graphical Applications,but you have to admit that their costs is what is so differentiating them from the others in the Markets.
Linux is great O.S,windows Sucks is alright.But how long before Linux falls for the same trap? For designing Great Interfaces like XP(Macs are too good,i love the look,but not the price),you would need memory reqmts etc?Reverse the market and see if as many people today are using the Windows start using Linux...they will find faults...they will...Macs will remain untill Steve is.When he goes,Macs will too...
08-08-04, 12:59 PM
I had Win 98 Second Ed for over 5 years without many problems that I didn't cause. I am very satisfied with the ease and navigation of my new Win XP Pro. and am happy that I got it, but not that I paid 150.00 for it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.