I'm going to buy a Mac

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 8 2006, 07:13 AM) [snapback]316306[/snapback]</div>

It's really, really ugly. Feels like a Windows box. Blecch. I'm biased, I guess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DavidTO @ Sep 8 2006, 10:41 AM) [snapback]316322[/snapback]</div>

it gets the job done for Daniel and that's all that matters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 8 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]316306[/snapback]</div>

You are right about the more memory slots, I think. And the clock speed is that as well. BUT, I guess the fact that Apple is not too close to me (I live between two locations, and with the traffic in South Florida, more of a pain then you can imagine to drive to, even with a Prius), also factors into my decision, to no go back and get a upgrade. I think.

Dang it. The more I think about this, the more I'm not sure what to do. It's like I have two angels on my shoulders, you know, like in the old cartoons. One is saying that I should go back to Apple, and upgrade, while the other is saying, be happy with what you have...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 8 2006, 09:23 PM) [snapback]316737[/snapback]</div>

You will be. I know I am speninfg hours getting the right 'feel' to the Mac. So far, I love the way the fonts llok in the forums. And the graphics look so sharp!

As to my back and forth on returning this Mac and getting the 24 inch one, I can't. I called Apple, and they told me I could return it, if I have the box. I don't have the box anymore (no space to store it), and really, I'm quite happy with this machine.

Maybe in a year or so...not now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 6 2006, 11:47 PM) [snapback]315575[/snapback]</div>

Daniel: The new iMacs still only have 2 SODIMM slots for memory, even though the top 3 models apparently have support for up to 3 GB, the configuration for 3 GB seems to be 1x2GB SODIMM + 1x1GB SODIMM according to the Apple Store config. If you ordered 2 GB, they will install 2 1 GB chips, but there will be no more room for another.

I suspect this is the case because the 2 GB SODIMMS are larger, and only one of the two SODIMM slots in the iMac are large enough accommodate the larger SODIMM... so... no 3rd slot, sorry.

As for your decision to buy Apple memory, in terms of price, the Apple BTO option isn't horrible... at $175 additional for 2 GB, the price only inflated a little bit...

But the other issue is, however, the BTO time. By BTO'ing your system for RAM, you probably added an additional 3 to 4 days before ship time...

The RAM used in the iMac is the same as the RAM in the Mac mini, the MacBook Pro, or the MacBook, which I have... it is DDR2 RAM at 667 MHz PC2-5300 in an SODIMM. I was able to go to Fry's and pick up 2 SODIMMS for about $80 a piece that work fine in my MacBook and probably would work fine in your new iMac.

PS... I am actually out in the Seattle area (your neck of the woods i think) for business... *waves*

 

Hello,
This reply may be to late, but I will add my two cents anyway in case another soul is looking.

Being in the computer support and service business, we always recommend to people that they should put as much memory into a computer at the time of purcase as their budget will allow. With that said, it is not always cost-effective to buy the memory from the computer maker you are looking to buy from. We buy all of our memory from Crucial -- though as of late, Apple has had pretty decent prices on memory upgrades.

Any computer - Mac or Windows - will be MUCH happier with as much RAM as your budget can allow. At least 1GB should allow you do to just about anything without issue.

I saw a comment on a Mac Pro being a gamer machine -- close, but not quite. It was designed with a professional photographer or graphics/video editor in mind. Keep in mind that a gamer machine today will define what your business machine of tomorrow will do. Give gamers more credit!

If you have any questions regarding Mac computers - having dealt with them since their inception and being an authorized seller and service provider, please feel free to drop me a line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 22 2006, 12:32 AM) [snapback]323245[/snapback]</div>

I like you Daniel. You may not see eye to eye with me on other things, but I like your style.

And yeah, I am glad that you are getting used to the Mac. It's a really well built machine, at least I think so.

 

Nooooo! Don't buy it!

(PC lover here). But buy what you want - Apple's laptops especially are great machines.

You won't need more than a gig of RAM unless you make use of Apple's "Widgets" which will come standard on your version of OSX. Those things suck up RAM, bad. Plan to disable them completely, or to have a whole pile of RAM.

I've noticed a lot of Mac buyers think they need a better graphics card because they'll be doing a lot of Photoshop work. This is intuitive but, incorrect. Any graphics card from ATI or nVidia since 2000 will do Photoshop flawlessly - even one worth $10. It's the 3D games that are affected by lesser or worser graphics cards - and by the way, upgrading usually means more power usage, which means less battery life on a laptop - buyer beware.

Oh... and on viruses for the Mac: The more smug Mac users get about being virus free, the more they're asking for it. It's truly only a matter of time. All it takes is one 13 year old script kiddie to think you're being too smug, and "virus free" is gone. Buying a Mac is not a way to secure your machine. It's a way to buy something that's not a target... yet.

 

There is certainly a kernel of truth in this, but it ignores architectural differences in the OS that are real and make OS X more secure than Windows.

First, OS X is built on BSD, which has been a multi-user OS from day 1, and naturally segregates people, programs, processes, and permissions into self-contained areas, unlike Windows which defaults into a single user machine mode.

Second, Apple has yet to embrace MS's notion of the consumer as a marketing unit, and the OS as an advertising vector with free access, or as a control device for DRM. You should read the MS EULA. It says that MS reserves the right to remove illegal content. I don't know of any case that this has been done, but it does expose the corporate hooks MS leaves in their OS which are security flaws from the user perspective.

Third, BSD is continually vetted against the expert eyes of open source, while windows must only pass internal corporate marketing muster.

and Fourth, in order to maintain market advantage over competitors, MS adds layers and inter-dependencies to the OS and between it's own programs such as Internet Explorer and email/word processor that become the stuff of exploits for years to come, rather than leave them as stand-alone programs where security concepts outlined in (1) can contain flaws.

OS X will (and does) have a steady stream of security vulnerabilities, but they are technical gaffes in nature, not marketing tactics gone right or wrong.

 

There is certainly a kernel of truth in this, but it ignores architectural differences in the OS that are real and make OS X more secure than Windows.

First, OS X is built on BSD, which has been a multi-user OS from day 1, and naturally segregates people, programs, processes, and permissions into self-contained areas, unlike Windows which defaults into a single user machine mode.

Second, Apple has yet to embrace MS's notion of the consumer as a marketing unit, and the OS as an advertising vector with free access, or as a control device for DRM. You should read the MS EULA. It says that MS reserves the right to remove illegal content. I don't know of any case that this has been done, but it does expose the corporate hooks MS leaves in their OS which are security flaws from the user perspective.

Third, BSD is continually vetted against the expert eyes of open source, while windows must only pass internal corporate marketing muster.

and Fourth, in order to maintain market advantage over competitors, MS adds layers and inter-dependencies to the OS and between it's own programs such as Internet Explorer and email/word processor that become the stuff of exploits for years to come, rather than leave them as stand-alone programs where security concepts outlined in (1) can contain flaws.

OS X will (and does) have a steady stream of security vulnerabilities, but they are technical gaffes in nature, not marketing tactics gone right or wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 23 2006, 12:46 AM) [snapback]323769[/snapback]</div>

Good question.

Must be a PC problem... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 22 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]323339[/snapback]</div>

And none of those architectural differences you listed will stop a Buffer Overrun, which is how almost every virus ever to smash Windows has ever worked. OSX is vulnerable to them just the same. And it's those "technical gaffes" you talk about that leave them open - in every single piece of software you install. Windows or OSX could use checked buffers at every level of the OS, but just one third-party driver or third-party application with one unchecked buffer, and a virus can get in and do everything it needs to do.

Remember that although an OSX worm hasn't made it around, web servers based on BSD and OSX alike are hacked regularly - hacks that could easily be packaged into a worm and sent around the Web. The only thing stopping that is lack of interest, not impossibility. For the time being it's worth more to a hacker to keep those in their private bag of tricks to steal credit cards from databases and show off.

 

You're right, and you're wrong! How fun. What you're right about is that in your example, DOS was a single-user OS, offering full permissions to all software - including your software with the nasty bug in it. BSD is a multi-user OS, and you must have run your program as a normal permissions user (typical), rather than root. Your program was stopped from doing whatever nasty thing it tried to do by the permissions in BSD.

Where you're partly right is in transferring that from DOS to Windows; technically, Windows is not a single-user OS anymore, it's multi-user - just like BSD. However I have to admit for most users, that doesn't matter - because the user they use by default (because they don't know any better) is an Administrator group user. Not THE Administrator user at least, but what they use instead is barely, barely better.

Now that point is one I have trouble with. Technically speaking you could blame the user, since, if the user knew better, they could create a lesser-rights user, then use Run As... to run software that needs Admin rights. You could also blame software makers, because nearly every piece of software for Windows requires Admin rights... you'd be using Run As... all the time, which would get very tedious. Either of these seem sensible comparing to BSD, because BSD users tend to be experts and configure their machines this way out of their own volition. Neither are sensible comparing to OSX, because OSX sets you up as a reduced-permissions user by default, and Mac software (mostly) works this way (though when it doesn't... talk about a confused user).

Where you're not right is the assumption that the only attack vector available to hackers is through excessive User rights. That's just one attack vector of many, and so, yes it is cool that BSD thought of this from the start while Microsoft poopoo'd it in favor of simplicity, and yes a lot of Linux geeks like to yell that in frustration... but it's still just one way in.

Consider this flip of roles: While Windows machines tend to be composed of varying hardware configurations, Apple machines tend to have very little variation in configuration. If a hacker were to find a Buffer Overrun in say a Hard Drive driver, their impact on Windows would be more limited because it would only work on a subset of Windows users. Apple users would be more widely hacked - and that hard drive driver has access to that entire hard drive, regardless of what the OS has protected user wise. Hacker overruns HD driver, hacker inserts virus on hard drive attached to any executable run at boot, hacker wins.

I'm not really up for defending Microsoft themselves, but I really don't think the "Microsoft doesn't care" argument flies. They've got teams working around the clock on security and frankly, the market has made it clear that security's a major PR issue for them. Even if you assume they're a cold-hearted business that only cares about money (debatable), money at this point is very much tied to how many people think Microsoft doesn't take security seriously. They take it seriously. Have they made an invincible OS? Probably not. But, I can tell you I haven't gotten a virus on my Windows XP machine in the 2 years I've had it. It's basically a matter of having Service Pack 2 and Windows Defender - the 2 will auto-update themselves and take it from there.