In your opinion, how has the Intel transition gone? - Page 2

**fryke** · #9 November 7th, 2006, 05:37 PM

i guess this really _is_ the wrong thread for it. short answers would lead to long discussions. why not use a thread _about_ office replacements? you'd find them in Mac OS X System & Software.

ebykm · #10 January 2nd, 2007, 02:54 AM

PPC, Intel, AMD or SPARC I wish apple paid attention to the build quality of hardware and OS like they did in those beige era. I had more hardware problems with el cheapo new world hardware than old word.

Also the frequent software/security updates are annoying.

Lt Major Burns · #11 January 2nd, 2007, 04:48 AM

Old World had far more problems than new world (a 15-year old OS more than just prone to crashing, and a business model inspired by Hari-Kiri), and on the whole, new macs are just about the best-made computers in the world. put a mac tower, crafted out of precision metals, next to a dell and it's immediately clear which one is made better. same goes for the notebooks.

frequent software updates are one of the reasons i love macs - 10.4.8 made everything noticably faster, and also tweaked the fans on my g5 to run more quietly, while also adding support for my new printer and the mobile phone i'm getting next month.

ebykm · #12 January 2nd, 2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

a 15-year old OS more than just prone to crashing,

i'm not talking about old OS, but build quality of hardware esp the SCSI based Mac's, we still have several of em running well without hardware problems. All i want is super hardware without issues.

as for new world macs we had logicboard, storage drive even display card problems.

Quote:

put a mac tower, crafted out of precision metals, next to a dell and it's immediately clear which one is made better.

You consider Dell's build quality state of the art ?

Quote:

frequent software updates are one of the reasons i love macs - 10.4.8

well adding new features, support for new devices and performance tweeks are always welcome as loong as it won't break certain functions. But frequent Security patches indicate not so secure OS, much like winduus. Just my personal opinion.

**fryke** · #13 January 2nd, 2007, 04:00 PM

First: Please don't actively misunderstand people. You know well he meant that Apple's hardware was state of the art, not Dell's. I agree, though, we're far from the build quality of a PowerMac 7600 today. On the other hand, it's much easier to get at things on a Mac Pro than on a PowerMac 8100/8200/8500 etc. Times have changed. A PowerMac 8500 set you back about three times the price of a Mac Pro. SCSI was expensive. And yes it _was_ better quality, but on first glance, it just didn't make much sense anymore, because people out there didn't _know_ it was far better. IDE worked "as well" and was fast enough, too.

Second: If you think frequent security updates point to a not-so-secure OS, then stay with beige Macs and OS 8.6.1. It's the best.

(Unimplemented trap.) Times change, though. To think that your software is inherently safe would be a wrong assumption, simpy put. All software has bugs. I'm glad Apple's not afraid of things like this Month Of Apple Bugs and rather invites people to tell them about the bugs. And then Apple fixes them. I'd say that's what I want.

**chevy** · #14 January 2nd, 2007, 05:18 PM

The transition was just perfect.

ebykm · #15 January 4th, 2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryke

I agree, though, we're far from the build quality of a PowerMac 7600 today. ........ SCSI was expensive. And yes it _was_ better quality, but on first glance, it just didn't make much sense anymore, because people out there didn't _know_ it was far better.

They better put all those superior things, when you charge twice the price. In US, mac's are cheaper, elsewhere they cost twice the price of kick ass system. And elseware people often ask why mac's are expensive, those beige days we could answer, SCSI, PPC processor, state of the art hardware, multiple displays, etc..... also when you put SCSI cards and drives, PC's would cost more than a mac.

But now ?, OS X, sexy looking design and nothing more........ well some folks reply they're running it on their $400 PC.

Quote:

then stay with beige Macs and OS 8.6.1. It's the best.

no System 7.5.5

**fryke** · #16 January 4th, 2007, 05:09 AM

"twice the price of kick ass system" ...? I wouldn't know about that. While I think the Mac Pro is not exactly the cheapest on the block, I _also_ think that that hardware is actually nice. Easily upgradable, perfectly done. And the cheaper stuff _is_ less expensive as well. I haven't seen a better AIO than the iMac for a similar price, the MacBooks are doing great (although _there_ Apple _should_ put quality checks first...) and the Mac mini could do with a 100 dollar rebate, but still isn't that expensive for a nicely done, rather mini, computer.