How good is the quality of new Macs really?
In our office we have mainly Macs, well, besides 3 or 4 computers all are using a Mac. So, I see quit a variaty of old and new machines. The old ones seem to be fine, quiet, still working like if they were new etc.
But the new ones?
Are they as good as the old ones??
We have 3 G5 iMacs, one of them is extremely loud (the noice of a high pitch cooling fan), anohter one is shutting down lately quit often because (most likely) it's overheating and is as load as the 1st one. One Intel based laptop needed repair because that one also was shutting down, reason was a hardware failure. This one and another laptop are fairly loud. Then there is yet another laptop that has keyboard issues from time to time and what ever you type in will not appear on the screen. It might or might not come up a minute later.
I don't know if that are all issues but that's what comes to my mind right now.
When I look at my laptop, 3 years old and still working like a new one, but for a price you could get 3 compared to a new Mac. My laptop is not really quiet but still not that loud like those Macs and especially not such a annoying high pitch. But it was the cheapest one I found at this time. It's kinda strange but I think that my 3 years old Acer TravelMate 240 has still some (hardware) things that are better than the new Apple laptops for 3 times the price.
Well, after the announcement that MS will only allow one hardware upgrade anymore then it requires to get a new license in Windows Vista I thought that will drive a lot people to Apple. But honestly, if the quality is not increasing and coming back to that "just-works", and that for a long time, people will not be happy with that either.
I don't necessarily like one better than the other, I think people can use what ever they want to. But I think that the quality of computers at the moment is not as good as it could be and especially not as good as the companies are advertising it. Just say, if I would buy a computer and had trouble like that I would feel that I didn't got what I paid for
Just my 2 cent.
neo
Comments
PC Laptops Quality
You are right about the old MAC computers. In the National Office located at our base they are using some old MACs and they work great, but my comment here is on PC Laptops. The new ones (bottom and middle range) are not as good as you would expect them to be. They are built with a mix-n-mach of hardware and seem have no standard within the same brand. Also there's the issue of Costumer Support, this week we've been battling with the new Vaio (Cassino Royale), I tried to get some online support but in order to do that we had to enter the laptops serial number, when I did it I realised that the website's database wasn't up to date and the brand new (expensive) computer would have to wait on my desk for a while... funny! All we needed was to get the new drivers for the built-in camera, which were causing the computer to freeze at shutdown.
PC Laptops Quality
I have to agree with you and at the same time make a comment to neo. The quality of low-end pc laptops has always been hit-and-miss. I think the quality of some of the newer macs may have something to do with the sudden increase in popularity, not to mention the huge move to intel processors, which was probably one of the best things apple could have ever done (after the iPod, of course).
I read an article somewhere, which I can't find anymore, that was comparing Apple to PC's. People always ask me why they should buy a Mac when they can get a pc laptop for much cheaper. This article pointed out that Apple doesn't make any low-end laptops, so it's like comparing apples and oranges (his pun, not mine, though I wish I could take credit for it). They start immediately at the middle and go quickly upwards from there.
laptop quality
Hi,
just to get that right. I am not complaining about the quality of the low-end computers. You get what you pay for, that's what a lot of people say.
However, I have a low-end, or better say the bottom of the low-end, laptop myself. But I don't have real problems. Of course I can not expect the best screen etc. But I should be able to expect that when I buy a laptop that is more towards the high-end. Even when they switch technology.
Just keep it like that. If you buy a top-end car would you expect or even accept it to have the same problems like a low-end car? When your car stops working the 3rd time this month would you just say: That's OK, that happens because their control unit comes from another vendor...? Well, I for sure would give back the car.
But the Mac users seem to just accept all that. I wouldn't accept that my new computer gets dirty, shuts down, is loud like vacuum cleaner with the high pitch that gives you a headache etc. I wouldn't say anything if that is one computer but 3/4 of those IntelMacs I see here have major problems.
So, what is it that should make me buy a Mac? For sure it's not the easier way to upgrade the hardware in a Mac. Also it's not the the fact that Macs just work, like the Apple adds try to convince us. Is it the only reason that it gets almost no viruses, at least at the moment? I read about demo viruses and also about how Apple opened the same (internet) security problems them selfs by introducing Widgets and the way Safari is implemented in the OS, like MS has with their OS and IE.
Right now I don't see any advantage a Mac should have. If I'm not depended on a Mac only program there is no reason for me to get one. Why should I pay more money for the same or even less quality?
Some people buy them because they think they look nicer or for what ever other reason but for sure not because they desperately need one. I just don't understand how the Mac people can still say that a Mac is better in every aspect. For me, I just can't see that.
As I said earlier, everybody can use what they want to. All I say is, what is the reason for using a Mac when you can have the same quality for less money?
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Good Review
Hey Neo,
Check out this review of Vista, and the story of how a devoted windows user switched to Mac.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17992/page1/
You're right in not believing the "it just works" line from Apple, which would imply that it works all the time. However if you qualify that statement you can get nearer to the truth.
It just works...
...better
...easier
...more reliably
than Windows
All of these have been true of my Mac experience. I switched from Windows not too long ago, and now every-time I have to get in front of a Windows computer, I am confronted again with why I really loath Windows. Sure, no computer is perfect, and yes I have trouble with my Mac from time to time, but I can assure you, it happens a lot less than on a Windows machine.
Re: Good Review
Hi,
I was thinking for a while if I really want to read this "review". Let us be honest here, most Windows user love their OS and everything else is rubbish. The same is true for most Mac guys, and also for most Linux users. Converts are the worst "complainers" in my experience, I guess because they just found something that worked (for them) with their new OS better than with the old one. Everyone says that they don't have trouble and have seen so much trouble with whatever other OS.
But what is also true is, that most ppl never tried another OS than what they are using normally. And even less ppl have used Linux, Mac and Windows like I do.
My conclusion is that every OS has its strength and its weakness. Always depending on what you are doing. BTW, most ppl make a terrible mistake in comparing the systems. They run a Windows, installed since years, probably installed a view games (which is death for Windows stability and performance), then they get a new Mac and say everything is better and faster. Well, it's not that easy.
Just say, I had struggles with all OSs but also enjoyable moments when "it just worked" compared to another system.
There are also a lot of ppl out there who say that Mac is better because it's more logical and then I learn from them that Photoshop shortcuts are easier to use on Macs then on Windows. Oh well, what has Photoshop to do with the OS? It might be that they are right, but most times it's personal preference and not better OS.
All in all, if folks would be honest then most of them could do the exact same stuff with whatever OS. Some things might be specialized for this or that. But honestly, if average Joe is using Audacity on Windows or Linux doesn't make a difference, or building a website on Mac or Windows or reading their emails on Linux or Mac, etc.
Well, this is ywamIT, might be that here you'll find a lower % of average Joe's (whatever the definition of that is, anyways) then somewhere else. But I still believe that most times even for us things are better on this or that OS because we are used to it, we personally prefer it that exact way it works, or simply we like the look & feel better.
I haven't seen anything so far on a Mac that couldn't be done on a Windows.
It's not that I am for or against either Windows or Mac. It's more that I show ppl that the other OS can do the same without me doing some techie, geeky or complicated stuff. However, both of them I show that Linux is also able to do the same stuff, for free. If you are happy Linux or other OpenSource software you always can contribute to the developers and they will be happy, too. But you always have the freedom to just download the program for free. You don't always have to use the programs or even OS that costs a lot of money.
Oh well, no I babbled a lot like always when it comes to this OS discussion. However, my initial comment was more about the hardware and I still think that a Windows/Intel based laptop can do the same like a Apple notebook.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Good point.
You've got a good point, neo. The reality is that each OS has been designed for a particular market niche. Macs went the way of the artists, Windows went the way of business & Linux has been basically something that's a rebellion against the high cost of both. Each has it's own strength & weakness, as you said. The interesting thing is... if you look at the history of each, Linux was the first to base its OS on Unix. Windows & Mac followed suit with XP & OS X. If you study computer history, Unix was the first multi-user OS to exist & it has remained the powerhorse in that area since the 1960's when it was created. What we have now with hardware is pretty much the same in all computers. Macs are no longer special with their Motorola-based systems. Everyone's Intel or x86 based (save the super-special systems like Sun Systems SPARC, etc.). Bottom line, look at the reason that you'll use a computer, compare it with your budget, & choose something & be happy.
Chris Bischoff
YWAM Latvia, Communications
www.ywamlatvia.com
windows based on unix??
Hi,
I never heard that, please tell me more. As far as I know XP and even Vista still is based on the original core from MS. It would be new to me that Windows ever was based on Unix or that it even was planned to do so.
Besides that I don't think that a computer is designed for a market niche. I would say it's the market who decided that this or that computer is better for this or that type of work. Apple and Microsoft just give the ppl what they want to have and tell them what they want to hear. Well, Microsoft's business strategy is definitely the more successful one. They just do what they can easier sell and therefore can make more money. As far as I know video editing requires just like sound editing a lot of floating point operations. For image manipulation I 'm not sure. So, if Apple would be that specialized for artists the first choice CPU would be AMD in the x86 world. The Athlon has a far better floating point performance than Intel. But Intel is kind of what everyone knows and therefore is easier to sell.
Linux btw is not coming out of rebellion. To say it simply, there was a guy who wanted to improve something and at one point realised that he actually was in process to build a OS and got encouraged by others to continue the work.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
just a guess
all i know is that before XP, windows crashed a lot, hung up, & was just basically unreliable... & along came XP which was suddenly super stable & used a similar memory handling to BeOS. go into your XP & get a command prompt & type "help" & see how many Unix commands you find. maybe i'm overreaching in my logic, & perhaps MS was just trying to make their OS a little friendlier to the Unix admin crowd.
anyway, just thoughts.
cheers,
Chris Bischoff
YWAM Latvia, Communications
www.ywamlatvia.com
Re: just a guess
Hi,
I can't confirm that Windows before XP crashed a lot. I had Win95 worked fine, now I have W2k since it came out, runs pretty stable and my Dad had Win98, just the same. OK, he is not a power user or something like that but anyways, he had Win98 installed without problem or re-installation needed untill he bought a new computer with XP SP2 installed. So, I don't know why Windows should not run stable.
Of course it's not as stable as a Unix based system, but I don't want to believe that millions of ppl worked with a unstable, unreliable system for many years until XP came out. I don't think that businesses all over the world had the money for that.
Well, I've you had continuing trouble with Windows before XP then I'm sorry to hear that. But I can not confirm the statment that Windows was an unreliable system.
Also, I don't think that a handful of Unix commands are an indication for XP is based on Unix. For years I had a little gadget on my Windows that gives me basically all the Unix commands in the command shell. But honestly, I don't really work on Windows with the command shell a lot. So, now since the last installs on my machines I don't have it anymore.
I might have it still somewhere sitting on a CD, so if someone is interested I might search for it but no promise that I can find it. I even don't remember the name of that thing anymore.
So, until I'm convinced by official statements that Windows now is Unix based I'll doubt it.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Firewire target mode
Hello Neo,
Here's one thing a mac can do that a windows machine can't. It's called firewire target mode. A co-worker just used it to transfer a large amount of data from one mac to another. I have been wishing for it the last few days while upgrading another co-worker's pc to a new pc.
Basically you connect two macs by firewire, and start up the slave mac while holding down the 't' key. This starts the slave mac up into firewire target mode, and this mac's hard drive appears on the master mac's desktop. You then can easily transfer anything you want at firewire speed. This is a feature that is also invaluable if your screen is ever damaged and you haven't made a backup yet. (Or if the screen quits working for some reason, which yes, does happen to macs, too ;-)
This is one thing that I have often missed on a pc, especially when moving big files like digital video, or when transferring someone's files to a new computer. Are there other alternatives? Sure, you could by an external hard drive and use that to transfer stuff. Admittedly not as fast, and impossible to use in the case I mentioned where the computer's screen is damaged. And this option "just works" right out of the box and the only investment you have to make is to buy a firewire cable.
Re: Firewire target mode
Hi,
you got a point here. This is probably the easiest way to transfer everything you have on your computer to your new one. The beauty is, it transfers all programs and they work without any further adjustments.
However (I know you knew that this will come....), in my trouble stirring way (which I'm known for and I do like ;-) ) I have to say, if a screen quits I just plug in another one. I wanna see how you do that with an iMac with what ever old screen you still have under your pillow.
Also, your firewire target mode is useless when the hard drive fails, and yes, even that happens to Macs. If you don't have a backup, oh boy.... The probably worst type of ppl are the ones like me, who know about the possibility of HD failures, have the space for a backup, but don't have one. Bad boy.
Another problem is, what if your system crashes and you don't have another Mac around that you can use to duplicate your HD and you don't have a backup? When you re-install your system all data is lost. At least I've never seen a way to partition a disk and make sure that all data is stored on a seperate partition. I do that always on my Windows. So, I could just re-install the system and all data is untouched.
Well, I must say that I haven't seen as many Macs crashing as I have seen Windows crashing. But there is always the question, what is if....?
One thing is for sure. No matter which OS you have, a good backup is worth more than anything else. So, I hope that I will sort out my backup pretty soon.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Firewire networking
Actually you are wrong, sorry, you can use firewire to network on PCs as well, different way to do it, but that is why your firewire will show up in the network adapters in windows. :) Also lightening fast transfers...
is firewire networking the same?
Hi,
is that really the same stuff? The point with the Macs is that you don't boot up the "old" Mac. You connect the 2 Macs and your new Mac transfers everything over, including programs, user accounts, etc. Simply everything. After completed transfer you have a duplicate of your machine. So, in that sense it's more than just networking. I don't know if you can do the exact same things with Windows.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
File and Settings transfer Wizard
I dont honestly know how well it works, but I know that you can use the "File and settings transfer wizard" to transfer all that kind of stuff, so you could network the 2 computers, and then use the wizard...
Re: File and Settings transfer Wizard
Hi,
well, I never heard of that but sounds interesting.
However, I must say that I don't do something like that anyway. If I (re-)install a computer I always set up a clean system. I know, takes longer than just transferring everything over but I like that more than using the same old cluttered system I already have. By making a clean install and "controlled" copying of the data I have a nice and newly organized computer. But maybe all you guys always organize your computers very well ;-) Or simply, my standards of how a computer should be organized are too high.
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo
Firewire networking
That's true, you can network using firewire, and in my experience, the settings and transfer wizard has worked well for me in XP (although others I know have had some trouble with it).
Don't you have to setup the pc beforehand to use firewire networking? That wouldn't be handy if your computer crashed or if for some reason you couldn't use the screen.
Firewire target mode is completely different to networking. You can use it even if the computer won't boot up normally (whether or not the screen is working) and retrieve your files (unless the hard drive is fried, and then you're in trouble, but even then there are some things you can do).
@neo, As far as iMacs are concerned, the new ones at least (not sure about older ones) have a monitor port (HDI?) so you can hook up an external monitor.
I agree with neo whole-heartedly that a backup is the best way to go. The next version of Mac OS (Leopard) will include something called Time Machine which should make backups easy and almost invisible. You do have to have an external hard drive hooked up all the time which seems like it might be a little inconvenient, but we'll see how it works.
If you have a full backup of your hard drive on a firewire disk (WARNING: doesn't work with usb) then you can even easily boot up from the external hard drive. In that way you could also retrieve stuff from a crashed system (again, the screen and hard drive still have to be intact).
Firewire networking
Hi,
we have 3 fairly new iMacs in the office. I haven't noticed a monitor port but I will check that as soon as I remember to do so.
With the backup. What is the problem with having a external HD connect permanently? How would you do a automated backup? This feature is most likely built for the average home user. I don't think that a lot of them have a backup server at home. So, what else is possible besides using a external HD? DVD most likely is the worst idea. What if you are doing something else, at the moment the backup starts, like watching a movie listening to a CD etc. or what if one DVD is not enough? I guess a external HD is for most ppl the easiest way to do an automated backup.
And honestly, a backup will most times not be done manually by the user. If it's not automated we can consider it as not existing. So, in that sense, for the average user external HD is a pretty good idea for a backup, I guess. Or is there another option that I'm missing right now?
Greetings from the MatriX,
neo