derelict koan wrote on Feb 1, 2010, 20:49:
People who hang out to throw money at company who specialize in stamping a picture of an apple on existing things...surprisingly lucrative...I still have people explaining to me how "Mac is better for graphics," though I can never been able to obtain the logic required to arrive at said iKingdom.
I think the "graphics" thing is just a left-over opinion from the "old days." An art guy told me back in the day the suite of graphics/art software on the Apple OS's were better than their PC counterparts between their User Interface, feature-set, and performance on the PowerPCs compared to Intel chips at the time. IE, some render/filter operations were highly optimized for the PowerPc arch.
Now-a-days I imagine that's no longer the case, though some of the iLife apps are decent and cheap (such as making DVDs and such). However a relative attending art school was told to get an Apple for the software they were using.
Price-wise, it's only worth getting a Mac once it's newly released. At that point the price is
semi-competitive to PC brands with similar specs. However in a few weeks/months the PC companies have cheaper AND faster models while Apple is still selling the same old model for the same old price.
The new iMacs are nice *IN THEORY*, however with all of the issues they're having I'm gonna wait to get one.
A super-fast GPU isn't on my list of wants, but a nice all-in-one Quad-Core that can run both OSX and Windows7 is something I'd like. Less desk clutter than my old setups, nice screen real estate, and decent power for programming.
As for the PSU, I find that surprising. On the other hand, the iMacs used to use more mobile/laptop versions of components (2.5" HD and such). However this time I think they went with more Desktop versions of components.
This comment was edited on Feb 2, 2010, 09:23.
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama