Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

[Silverstring]

Thought some people in the market for a computer might be interested....

MacBook Pro

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

iMac

http://www.apple.com/imac/

Intel Commercial(Fans of a certain "hourly" show on Fox might want to watch this for kicks)

http://www.apple.com/intel/ads/

Oh, and all you "overpriced" naysayers? Go to Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Lenonvo, etc. and spec out a computer with these features and come back and say "overpriced". You'll find out two things:

1) you can't
2) Prices are comparable, but with Apple you avoid viruses and spyware, plus you get more robust included digital lifestyle applications(iLife '06) and OSX

Is it still all about "marketing" now?

[Rodster]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Thought some people in the market for a computer might be interested....

MacBook Pro

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

iMac

http://www.apple.com/imac/

Intel Commercial(Fans of a certain "hourly" show on Fox might want to watch this for kicks)

http://www.apple.com/intel/ads/

Oh, and all you "overpriced" naysayers? Go to Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Lenonvo, etc. and spec out a computer with these features and come back and say "overpriced". You'll find out two things:

1) you can't
2) Prices are comparable, but with Apple you avoid viruses and spyware, plus you get more robust included digital lifestyle applications(iLife '06) and OSX

So, now tell me again how its all about "marketing"?

Well I use a Mac in fact i'm typing on my eMac. The Mactel systems do sound sweet and what's even more promising is running Windows Vista and OSX in a dual boot enviroment.

As far as your comment regarding Macs being immune to spyware and viruses even the most zealot Mac user user is no longer buying into that anymore. In fact go to any Mac forum and now you hear talk about routers, firewalls, AV software etc.

The reason you haven't heard much about Spyware and Viruses on Macs is because Macs still don't have the marketshare of say Windows XP and hackers don't want to be bothered with a small percentage of computers. The last figures were like 4% marketshare for Macs. Trust me as Apple increases it's marketshare you'll begin to see Spyware and Viruses show up on Macs.

And while Macs aren't as bad as Windows XP systems I just installed my 9th security patch for Panther.

[Silverstring]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

As far as your comment regarding Macs being immune to spyware and viruses even the most zealot Mac user user is no longer buying into that anymore. In fact go to any Mac forum and now you hear talk about routers, firewalls, AV software etc.

The reason you haven't heard much about Spyware and Viruses on Macs is because Macs still don't have the marketshare of say Windows XP and hackers don't want to be bothered with a small percentage of computers. The last figures were like 4% marketshare for Macs. Trust me as Apple increases it's marketshare you'll begin to see Spyware and Viruses show up on Macs.

And while Macs aren't as bad as Windows XP systems I just installed my 9th security patch for Panther.

I said that you "avoid" viruses and spyware, not that the systems are immune. IN the 5 years that OSX has been out, the ONLY virus/trojan horse written for the system has been by Symantec. Who, conveniently, are the makers of Norton Antivirus for Mac, and only write them to publish reports and drive sales of their own software. Now, again, viruses and Trojan horses are theoretically possible, but they just don't exist right now. You're telling me thats not better than the windows world?

People like to speculate that the lack of such malware on Macs is due to low marketshare. It's just not true. First, there were viruses on OS9, as well as systems 7 and 8, when marketshare was as low(an often lower) for Macs than it is today. Why does it not happen then? The UNIX underpinnings of OSX make it inherently much more difficult.

The reason Windows gets hit is because of the following:

1) Windows applications run as 'system' which makes apps like IM or IE comparable to GOD on Windows. Mac applications do not run with this level of power within the hierachry of services.

2) A Virus on Mac would require the active collaboration of the user to spread. On Windows it has the granted collaboration of Windows. For example, Dialog Boxes prevent spreading address book tampering on the Mac, not so with Windows.

3) Microsoft has added VBScript into EVERYTHING that they ship. Excel, Word, Outlook, IE, etc. The intention of this was good, lets make it easy for people to add macros. The outcome has been bad, as there was no security thought put into it until virii started appearing all over windows.

4) OSX comes with a more secure default configuration, with most services "off" by default, which is the weakness of most Unix and Linux systems, since they're usually deployed as servers and have most of their services "on" by default. Users on OSX don't run at even the admin level by default. So if you were to launch a Virus it could ONLY ravage your own home directory.

There are more, but that gives you an idea... while I agree viruses could happen on the mac, it's EXTREMELY unlikely even if Apple had 100% of the market. Apple simply does not ship machines that allow for ACCESS. Even if ACCESS was obtain, "root" is not enabled, so it would require a reboot to get under the system to do any damage.

I think users don't have full grasp of the Windows/Unix/OSX operating environments so they go for the flawed idea that "marketshare" equals vulnerability. Which is NOT the case!!!

[RockyTop1]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

They also introduced a FM tuner/wired remote for the video Ipod. Can't wait to pick up that.

[ObiWanJenkins]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Oh, and all you "overpriced" naysayers? Go to Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Lenonvo, etc. and spec out a computer with these features and come back and say "overpriced". You'll find out two things:

Yes, it is overpriced. I could build a Linux-based PC with those same specs for under $1000. Or I could just load the MacOSx86 floating around the internet, and I'd have that same system in a different box for about $500 less.

[Rodster]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Windows XP is seriously flawed from a security stand point I agree. And yes OSX is better protected from malware and sercurity holes. We can agree to disagree that while OSX has better security than XP I feel that once Apple has better marketshare we'll start seeing some crap float our way from the losers who have no life and like to create problems for others.

Hopefully Microsoft can learn from their past mistakes and make Windows Vista a very secure OS, we'll soon enough.

[Silverstring]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Yes, it is overpriced. I could build a Linux-based PC with those same specs for under $1000. Or I could just load the MacOSx86 floating around the internet, and I'd have that same system in a different box for about $500 less.

Yes, because man-hours have no cost. Just like the vast majority of other computer users, I'd rather spend the hours ordering, assembling, installing and troubleshooting a home-built computer on other matters. This is a non-sequitur argument. Ok, let me rephrase. Mac computers are not "overpriced" compared to other manufactured PCs, or if you want a commercially distributed OS, or if you want any service and support, or if you want quality, non-pirated included software.

I'm sure a skilled carpenter can build a quality wooden chair for $20, but that doesn't make the $40 dollar chairs in a furniture shop "overpriced" relative to other chairs.

Not to mention: you can build a laptop? Really? Or even a computer like the iMac, with its all-in-one design, quiet operation, and built in bluetooth, iSight camera, among other things? I love it when the "I can build it!" crowd ignores these features, even on the PC side of things. Just because you can build a BASE level version of a computer, doesn't make it equivalent. A computer is more than a motherboard, processor, harddrive, RAM and OS.

Another way to look at it: Car A vs. Car B. Car A is $11,000 Car B is $17,000

Car A Has a V6, four wheels, and seats 5. Thats it.

Car B has a V6, four wheels, seats five, has individual climate control, a navigation system, ABS, cruise control, fuel injection, power steering, airbags, power windows and locks, handsfree bluetooth, heated mirrors and seats, leather interior, and has award-winning styling. This car also comes with a 3 year/36,000 mile warranty.


Is Car B really overpriced relative to Car A? Of course not. Features cost money. Specs are just not the BASE level of computer components. You don't care about the "extras" like design or a warranty? Fine, don't buy it. But don't call those "overpriced", and again, this applies to both the PC AND Mac side of things.

[ObiWanJenkins]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Not to mention: you can build a laptop? Really? Or even a computer like the iMac, with its all-in-one design, quiet operation, and built in bluetooth, iSight camera, among other things? I love it when the "I can build it!" crowd ignores these features, even on the PC side of things. Just because you can build a BASE level version of a computer, doesn't make it equivalent. A computer is more than a motherboard, processor, harddrive, RAM and OS.

Can I build a laptop? Why, yes I can. It's not as easy as desktop, but it can be done.

Bluetooth is completely unsecure, and I would never see a need for an iSight camera, yet I'm forced to pay for these things. Yes, I can build a BASE computer with only the features I want for less than what Apple is selling with features I could care less about.

Please get off your "Apple is better than PC" soapbox. You want to talk about value, but almost 100% of the software on the market runs on Windows. The same cannot be said for Mac OSX. Let's use your car example, shall we? Would you buy Car A that is completely customizeable to your tastes and can use any gasoline in the world for $7,000, or would you buy Car B, loaded with features you neither want nor use, and it will only use Shell gasoline for $11,000. Yes, Car B is overpriced despite the features it may offer.

[ESPNdeportes]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Once you go Mac, you never go back......at least thats true for me. So much easier to use....

[AuburnAlumni]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Once you go Mac, you never go back......at least thats true for me. So much easier to use....

I'm not going to get into the 8 page "techno lingo" that some of you are...

I'll simply agree with ESPNDeportes....

Once you actually TRY a Mac...you will NOT go back to a PC...period.

Apple is easily the most innovative, consumer friendly software and hardware designer on the market.

And if you are smart...you would buy Apple Stock right now after seeing what the company will be doing over the next several years.

[Dealin Rams]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Once you go Mac, you never go back......at least thats true for me. So much easier to use....

Spot on....made the switch last summer, can't believe I wasted so much time and money on Dells and other PCs.

[Silverstring]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Can I build a laptop? Why, yes I can. It's not as easy as desktop, but it can be done.

Bluetooth is completely unsecure, and I would never see a need for an iSight camera, yet I'm forced to pay for these things. Yes, I can build a BASE computer with only the features I want for less than what Apple is selling with features I could care less about.

Please get off your "Apple is better than PC" soapbox. You want to talk about value, but almost 100% of the software on the market runs on Windows. The same cannot be said for Mac OSX. Let's use your car example, shall we? Would you buy Car A that is completely customizeable to your tastes and can use any gasoline in the world for $7,000, or would you buy Car B, loaded with features you neither want nor use, and it will only use Shell gasoline for $11,000. Yes, Car B is overpriced despite the features it may offer.

I'm on a "soapbox", but you are not?!?!? With your "PCs are better than Macs, because I can build something cheap, everything commercially available is overpriced" spiel? Funny.

Well, you may have completely ignored responding to my point about man hours having a cost(you cannot equate something you may do as a hobbyist to a consumer shopping for manufactured PCs and make a one-to-one comparison about value, or ignore associated, non-financial cost).

No one is forcing you to pay for features you don't want. If you don't want them, don't buy them. However, their inclusion, as well as their cost, is not "overpriced" because YOU don't want them. They must be evaluated objectively, relative to other options available in the marketplace, as well as accounting for the needs and wants of the MARKETPLACE, not ONE individual, such as yourself.

Now, your car example is off. I may not want Car B, and I wouldn't purchase it, if it had features I neither wanted nor used. that said, however, I could not make a blanket dogmatic statement saying that this car was "overpriced" for EVERYONE, just because it doesn't suit my preferences. If cars virtually identical to car B was offered in the market place for 7,000, THEN it could be said that Car B is overpriced.

You're windows software example is curious, especially after you suggested that you could build a LINUX box with comparable features. Does windows have more choice in terms of VOLUME of software? Of course. Is 85-90% of that software never installed, nor heard about, nor used by the VAST majority of computer users? Yes. Most computer users do internet, email, document creation, photo organizing and editing, and games on their computers. OSX has enough available software to satisfy these needs(Games, will come with the Intel switch), and then some. Macs are not for EVERYONE(unless you run critical windows-only applications), but they're a valuable option for most people.

Continuing with the car examples.... It's much more accurate to say that Car A, the windows Car, can use any gasoline in the US, but Car B, the OSX car, can use Shell, Amaco/bp, Chevron, Mobil, Texaco, 76, and any other "major" gas provider in the US, which most car drivers are close to and use anyway. Sure they may be some family-run gas stations in rural areas that the OSX car can't use, but most drivers don't care, nor have the occasion to use them anyway.

[Beantown]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Lmao...

2K vs EA is meeting it's match in PC Vs Mac.

Wooo. -ding ding ding-

[ObiWanJenkins]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

I'm on a "soapbox", but you are not?!?!? With your "PCs are better than Macs, because I can build something cheap, everything commercially available is overpriced" spiel? Funny.

Well, you may have completely ignored responding to my point about man hours having a cost(you cannot equate something you may do as a hobbyist to a consumer shopping for manufactured PCs and make a one-to-one comparison about value, or ignore associated, non-financial cost).

No one is forcing you to pay for features you don't want. If you don't want them, don't buy them. However, their inclusion, as well as their cost, is not "overpriced" because YOU don't want them. They must be evaluated objectively, relative to other options available in the marketplace, as well as accounting for the needs and wants of the MARKETPLACE, not ONE individual, such as yourself.

Now, your car example is off. I may not want Car B, and I wouldn't purchase it, if it had features I neither wanted nor used. that said, however, I could not make a blanket dogmatic statement saying that this car was "overpriced" for EVERYONE, just because it doesn't suit my preferences. If cars virtually identical to car B was offered in the market place for 7,000, THEN it could be said that Car B is overpriced.

You're windows software example is curious, especially after you suggested that you could build a LINUX box with comparable features. Does windows have more choice in terms of VOLUME of software? Of course. Is 85-90% of that software never installed, nor heard about, nor used by the VAST majority of computer users? Yes. Most computer users do internet, email, document creation, photo organizing and editing, and games on their computers. OSX has enough available software to satisfy these needs(Games, will come with the Intel switch), and then some. Macs are not for EVERYONE(unless you run critical windows-only applications), but they're a valuable option for most people.

Continuing with the car examples.... It's much more accurate to say that Car A, the windows Car, can use any gasoline in the US, but Car B, the OSX car, can use Shell, Amaco/bp, Chevron, Mobil, Texaco, 76, and any other "major" gas provider in the US, which most car drivers are close to and use anyway. Sure they may be some family-run gas stations in rural areas that the OSX car can't use, but most drivers don't care, nor have the occasion to use them anyway.

Man hours? It takes a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon to build a PC and install the OS. There really isn't any cost involved.

"Internet, email, document creation, photo organizing and editing, and games"

A Dell PC will run you around $1000 for a PC that does all of those. A user-built Linux PC will run you around $600 for a PC that does all of those. A Mac will run you about $1200 for the same thing. Equal specs and equal software, but more expensive. How is it not overpriced?

[Rodster]

Re: Apple Computers now with latest Intel Processors

Man hours? It takes a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon to build a PC and install the OS. There really isn't any cost involved.

"Internet, email, document creation, photo organizing and editing, and games"

A Dell PC will run you around $1000 for a PC that does all of those. A user-built Linux PC will run you around $600 for a PC that does all of those. A Mac will run you about $1200 for the same thing. Equal specs and equal software, but more expensive. How is it not overpriced?

Because I use a mac and PC and don't think the mac is the end all. I can objectively answer that. If you were to buy a 17" imac it's really not a bad deal. You get a pretty good assortment of free software. This time around Apple has decided to just offer a 30 day trail for iwork06. I believe last time around they were giving it away for free with the purchase of a new system. You also get an intregrated All in One flat panel system that's pretty sweet looking in all white.

But it all boils down to what you want the system for. Remember it's always a preference thing. Both OS's have their plus and minus.