[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero If Windows was so terrible, Apple would have more than the 3-5% market share that it currently holds. Windows works just fine for me and for MILLIONS of other PC users. If it was as awful as you make it seem, people would abandon it and just run Linux or switch to Mac+OSX, regardless of the consequences (such as software support).

As a 19 year Windows user and 2 year OS X user, I gotta say "what works" is all about expectations. For example, if you expect your car to break down regularly, it's not a big deal if it does. Seriously, you don't know any better. It's been so refreshing to not have an anti-virus program slowing things down, worry about dll conflicts, have programs fighting for default status, have to reformat every 6 months, have IRQ hardware conflicts, etc. lately. And for an audiophile forum, that should also be about music, I'd be careful about equating what's popular as ‘good enough’. Do you want 24 hours of Britney on every station? How about only Bose headphones?

But to be honest, in 2004 I think a) Windows XP is good enough for most... and b) really irritating if you've experienced better. Believe me I've just started doing ASP programming again so had to use a Windows box once more, and those semi-daily issues are coming back.

 

[MikoLayer]

i agree with the"you don't know any better" statement...

Quote:

It's been so refreshing to not have an anti-virus program slowing things down

so do i, thats why i am not using any active-guarder type of antivirus software. what i do is i go to one of those online virus checkup sites (e.g. viruschaser) and do checkups every once in a while. so far i havnt gotten a single infection in 2years or so. even if i did get anything i wouldnt worry much i ghost stuff regularly. i do use adaware and it doesnt require you to have it on at all times.

Quote:

worry about dll conflicts

if you are into programming i guess this could be an issue... not very common i would say however

Quote:

have programs fighting for default status,

do you mean like web browsers and media player types? maybe its just me, they just ask if you want them to check for default status every time they start and once you untick that box nothing really gets in your way...

Quote:

have to reformat every 6 months

i do more often, like once in every 1-2 month. its a breeze with ghost, all i would have to do is back up OE messages, updated favorites and such..

Quote:

have IRQ hardware conflicts, etc.

depends on the hardware i suppose. my old DSP24 card was notorious for IRQ issues, ever since i ditched it i had zero trouble. for what i know, most IRQ problems stem from less popular proprietary hardware like my old soundcard. at the moment i am using soundstorm+EMU1212m and they work like a charm together.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero If Windows was so terrible, Apple would have more than the 3-5% market share that it currently holds. Windows works just fine for me and for MILLIONS of other PC users. If it was as awful as you make it seem, people would abandon it and just run Linux or switch to Mac+OSX, regardless of the consequences (such as software support). OSX may be great, but Windows has MUCH more available software. Oh, and then there is the added bonus of better performance with a decently built PC. I'm sure the software that is available for a Mac is trendy and pretty just like everything else Apple, but when there are only a few programs available...sorry, that's just not acceptable.

The 3% market share of Mac OS has no relevance to quality. Quality products almost always have less market share. Would you not buy a BMW because you question the low markets share. Market share is a non-topic and has no relevance in this case.

The number of available software for Mac OS X is great. I don't miss any applications and I find this is a non-issue. There are some cases where you may need a specific app and may need to use Windows to run it, but I find that this is rare. Better performance with a PC? Why are supercomputers being built with off the shelf Macs if you think they are so slow. The speed issue is a non issue. I buy about 50 computers a year, 98% Apple Macs, and I don't even worry about speed because I find it a non issue these days. One of the best things about using Mac OS X is that we don't even have to worry about viruses.

You guys should stop being so ignorant about Apple products and just accept that they exist, but that you aren't interested in them. There is no need to propagate mis-information or in some cases information that is just plain wrong because you are talking about something that you don't know well enough.

Apple keep increasing their sales every year, have no debts and 5 billion dollars in the bank. They are one of the top 5 computer companies and that's despite all the mis-information that is out there.

I'm not going to diss Windows because I think it has it's purpose and seems to be great for a lot of people. I use it when I need it, in the same way that I will evaluate any product on it's merits.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by es2mac So does this thing fits the description of a good computer-as-source machine or not, with/without the digital out and price no objection?

I think the new Imac would make a great source machine. Audio on Mac OS X is top notch and Mac OS X is very popular in the pro audio industry. The new iMac has a very small footprint and is very quiet and these are two reasons why I like it as a source. You could plug a good DAC into it's digital out and you would have a great source.

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 The 3% market share of Mac OS has no relevance to quality. Quality products almost always have less market share. Would you not buy a BMW because you question the low markets share. Market share is a non-topic and has no relevance in this case. The number of available software for Mac OS X is great. I don't miss any applications and I find this is a non-issue. There are some cases where you may need a specific app and may need to use Windows to run it, but I find that this is rare. Better performance with a PC? Why are supercomputers being built with off the shelf Macs if you think they are so slow. The speed issue is a non issue. I buy about 50 computers a year, 98% Apple Macs, and I don't even worry about speed because I find it a non issue these days. One of the best things about using Mac OS X is that we don't even have to worry about viruses. You guys should stop being so ignorant about Apple products and just accept that they exist, but that you aren't interested in them. There is no need to propagate mis-information or in some cases information that is just plain wrong because you are talking about something that you don't know well enough. Apple keep increasing their sales every year, have no debts and 5 billion dollars in the bank. They are one of the top 5 computer companies and that's despite all the mis-information that is out there. I'm not going to diss Windows because I think it has it's purpose and seems to be great for a lot of people. I use it when I need it, in the same way that I will evaluate any product on it's merits.

I'm not denying that Apple products exist. As a matter of fact, I'm glad that they DO exist because I think it's good to have competition because it promotes product development and advancement. It is also nice to have choices...and I have made mine. I don't care about what supercomputers are being built with, I'm talking about the difference between playing Doom3 on an Athlon 64 3400+ machine with 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 6800 GT and playing it on a freakin' iMac with 256 MB of RAM and a GF 5200-series card. Is Doom3 even available for Macs yet?

And the Mac supporters on this thread keep touting the fact that they don't have to worry about viruses...well I just don't find that to be much of a concern. I know that Windows PC's are more succeptible to those attacks, but I'm on broadband and even before I was behind a router, I had no problems with viruses. Just be smart about your downloads and you'll be fine. I'll gladly deal with the possibility of a virus if it means I have more software.

And as far as software availability, I'm not just talking about the sheer number of titles available for PC. Yes, the amount of software available for PC shames what is available for a Mac, but it's also nice to be able to walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and pick up a program. I'm sure what is available for Mac "gets the job done" and is functional, but that's because it HAS to be...there aren't many other choices.

I don't hate Macs. I just prefer using a PC for now and I've had so little trouble with my WinXP machine (and many other configs and OSes) that these disadvantages and hassles you guys are trying to point out simply aren't major issues for me. Some of them don't even exist. DLL and IRQ conflicts? I can't even REMEMBER the last time I had one of those!

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood OK, then lets compare Apples to apples, shall we?

That comparison is missing a few things. Mac's come with a lot of Apps that would cost you extra in the Windows world to get to the same level of app quality? You would have to include Windows Pro version? The integration between hardware and software on the Mac is difficult to cost. I'm not sure whether the compared PC has FireWire. The iMac has a very small footprint, as small as a display. The iMac is very quiet. The iMac runs UNIX as it's default OS which makes it more stable and more powerfull as far as the OS goes.

Why are we caring so much about computer cost while spending $300-3000 on heaadphones, DAC's, headphone amps...

Despite the seemingly aggressive nature of my posts, please don't take these things personally.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero I don't care about what supercomputers are being built with, I'm talking about the difference between playing Doom3 on an Athlon 64 3400+ machine with 1 GB of RAM and a GeForce 6800 GT and playing it on a freakin' iMac with 256 MB of RAM and a GF 5200-series card. Is Doom3 even available for Macs yet?

Good reply.

I don't play computer games so I don't even think about these things. If what you are saying is important to you then you seem to have made the right choice for your purposes.

I use my Mac with still and video cameras and find the integration works very well. I also like how I can work in the GUI then go straight into UNIX when I want.

This is what I'm trying to get across, that there is a need and a place for different products.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Apple innovates all of the time and is one of the main reasons why they are doing so well. I have been using wireless since 1999 because of AirPort being put into Apple computers,

Wireless Networking is not an Apple invention, contrary to your beliefs. Apple Airport is Apple's version of 802.11b, a protocol of an already existing standard. The original standard IEEE 802.11 was defined as a standard in 1997 followed by IEEE 802.11a and IEEE 802.11b in September of 1999. Ever heard of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers?
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/8/802_11.html
In fact a group of researchers in 1971 at the University of Hawaii to create the first packet based radio communications network. ALOHNET, as it was named, was essentially the very first wireless local area network (WLAN). This occured far before Apple computers even existed.
So by "innovation", you mean take an older, proven technology, slap some pretty plastic on it, and give it a different name?

Quote:

a great number of innovations combined with fast adoption of new technology

But not as fast as technology that was already in use in other products.

Quote:

combined with great industrial design, useability, great integration between the hardware and software make a lot of Apple products unbeatable for many people. Innovation is what keeps driving Apple forward.

Innovation in Industrial Design, yes. Technology, no. I've already stated this earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 Get your ignorant head out of your arse and think about what you're writing.

Take some of your own advice, buddy.

-Ed

 

[ixeo]

this is going nowhere.

visual/looks wise
spanking new PC + EMU Card < all-new iMac
iMac = 1, PC = 0

$$$ wise
spanking new PC + EMU card > all-new iMac
iMac = 1, PC = 1

SQ wise
spanking new PC + EMU Card >>> all-new iMac
iMac = 1, PC = 2

for a computer platform - all in one solution, no external DACs and crap, just the computer, the PC w/ EMU beats the iMac in terms and SQ and value for your money.

verdict = PC wins.
and if you're one of the people who think that good looks = sounds better, then get the iMac. there you have it, stop the endless debate.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Wireless Networking is not an Apple invention,

I know 802.11b is not an Apple invention and there is no need to pick on one thing like that. Apple were the first company to put it into their products, in 1999. That's what I was saying. Apple even implemented 802.11g before it was ratified so I don't understand what you're getting at.

Your statement about Apple not innovating is just wrong. They are a major innovator so I don't understand where you're getting this from. If they weren't an innovator you wouldn't have the current situation of MPEG4 being based on QuickTime and QuickTime in most cameras, as well as IEEE 1394 in all DV camcorders, just to show a couple of examples.

I just want to state to you and everyone else that I'm not holding any grudges due to this disagreement.

All I did was start a thread because I like the new iMac and I end up with a thread dissing Macs, and feeling like I need to defend Apple even though I don't care about the company.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixeo for a computer platform - all in one solution, no external DACs and crap, just the computer, the PC w/ EMU beats the iMac in terms and SQ and value for your money. verdict = PC wins. and if you're one of the people who think that good looks = sounds better, then get the iMac. there you have it, stop the endless debate.

Looks has nothing to do with this. You're not getting it and I don't know if you will. My verdict is...Mac wins...and my point is that there is a different headphone for different tastes. You're basing your PC plus EMU suggestion on what you read here, but head-fi doesn't know everything about every product. There are a small number of members here that set the tone of this site and it may not always be accurate.

 

[MikoLayer]

wow, this one maybe break a record for the longest thread in the computer sources forums!

Quote:

All I did was start a thread because I like the new iMac and I end up with a thread dissing Macs, and feeling like I need to defend Apple even though I don't care about the company.

sorry it turned out ugly, but you really should have posted in the members lounge if you didnt have any technical infomation we might be unaware of / you wanted to share with us. when i post stuff in non-offtopic forums, i think twice about what possible responses i may get; its only expected to get a fair share of opposing opinions, so i dont post if i dont want to deal with arguing.

Quote:

You guys should stop being so ignorant about Apple products and just accept that they exist, but that you aren't interested in them. There is no need to propagate mis-information or in some cases information that is just plain wrong because you are talking about something that you don't know well enough.

we arent propogating any misinformation. the only things i remembered being mentioned is MACs are less cost-effective, lacking in speed and number of titles and the fact that better looks is a subjective argument, which are all true. you are right about us not being interested in macs, i dont think anyone denied of their existence however.

Quote:

Why are we caring so much about computer cost while spending $300-3000 on heaadphones, DAC's, headphone amps...

cuz not everyone uses the same gear. if i had $3000 to spend on computers AND headphones i would get me a $400 computer that performs very well and use the remainder for something NICE like a R-10 and an accompanying amp. now, if you went the mac route you would be severely underbudgeted. its not like we all have enough money for high end gear and still chose to use CMOYs and metas. (in case you havnt noticed, there are many users on head-fi who cant afford $500+ headphones)

Quote:

I don't play computer games so I don't even think about these things. If what you are saying is important to you then you seem to have made the right choice for your purposes. I use my Mac with still and video cameras and find the integration works very well. I also like how I can work in the GUI then go straight into UNIX when I want. This is what I'm trying to get across, that there is a need and a place for different products.

that brings us back to square one. it is your choice to go with something you want, no one is pointing finger at you. the problem is you claim imacs are attractive for EVERYONE and preferrable over a PC. you may have not said it explicitly but thats what you impled, or the impression i got from reading what you typed. please do realize maybe there is a reason why mac are a minority when they are so great as you want us to believe.for the price of a mac, you could easily get 2 higher performing PCs and use one for GUI another for UNIX. maybe inconvinient in some sense, but much better performance and less money spent. face it, how much processing power do you need for a typical computer user unless he is into gaming? even a lowly duron 1ghz would suffice for non-3d intensive works, just slap on 512mb ram and a nice video card/monitor and you would be far better served. you might see something subtle that appeals to you a lot, but keep in mind most dont see it the same way as you do.

Quote:

That comparison is missing a few things. Mac's come with a lot of Apps that would cost you extra in the Windows world to get to the same level of app quality? You would have to include Windows Pro version? The integration between hardware and software on the Mac is difficult to cost. I'm not sure whether the compared PC has FireWire. The iMac has a very small footprint, as small as a display. The iMac is very quiet. The iMac runs UNIX as it's default OS which makes it more stable and more powerfull as far as the OS goes.

some of best pc appliactions are absolutely free - foobar2k, dscaler, mpc/zoomplayer and list just goes on and on. otherwise much of the stuff comes as a bundle when you buy hardware or you could get used/OEM stuff cheap. last time i checked most newest mobos come with firewire as standard feature (my aging nforce2 does for one) and so does EMU-1212M. you could get MUCH smaller epia based machines SFF if you never play 3d games. better yet, check out the other thread about buidling passive cooled, underclocked mobile bartons - they are quiter than any mac in existence. OSX should be something real special as you be very fond of it. i have no idea how it is, i will give you that. but how different can it be? please list some specific advantages i am missing out on my piss poor winXP sp2. on a side note, pls provide more details on how good macs are in comparison to PCs, so far we heard you saying 'integration is better', 'they use macs as supercomputers', which i found very vague and not very convincing. pls post something task-oriented and specific like being able to play doom3 in all its glory at high rez with acceptable frame rates.

Quote:

And the Mac supporters on this thread keep touting the fact that they don't have to worry about viruses...well I just don't find that to be much of a concern. I know that Windows PC's are more succeptible to those attacks, but I'm on broadband and even before I was behind a router, I had no problems with viruses. Just be smart about your downloads and you'll be fine. I'll gladly deal with the possibility of a virus if it means I have more software.

i know, i havnt had single virus infection in past 4 years. makes me wonder about admin skills... maybe they are downloading some vile **** all day all nite

even if i had an infection, worst i would have to do is just ghost my drive again. big whoop!

 

[Skarecrow]

I wonder what exactly some of you do to your windows computers that cause all these problems. It isn't windows itself anymore. Windows takes a lot of blame for stuff that isn't really it's fault.

I grudgingly put viruscan on one of my systems after annother system on the local network (my father's computer) turned up a few viruses, but i personally havn't had a virus on any of my systems in like 5 years, with the exception of the blaster worm, but that was again likely the result of someone else on the network doing stupid stuff, not me.

I don't even know what a DLL conflict error LOOKS like. I've never seen one.

I have one unidentified crash (meaning something i didn't cause myself by overclocking too far, or something of the like) between these two machines in the past year (i.e. recent memory). One machine has been running XP since last june, the other has been running win2k since july of 2002. having worked with unix a bit in the past, I know how stable it is (and I also know that despite claims to the contrary, you CAN crash it), however I think that for a home or work machine, 0.5 crashes per year is pretty damn good. These computers are on 24/7, and my uptime record is somewhere around 2.5 - 3 months, which was ended not by a crash, but by instalation of new hardware and/or trips to lan parties and the like.

I am a firm believer at this point that the current winNT kernal, while maybe not the equal of unix yet, is pretty damn close to completely stable under normal usage. I submit that it is substandard hardware and configuration, as well as negligent care in activities on that computer, that is the problem. All my hardware is top notch, and I have no crashes... despite being overclocked. Why is that?

To use an analogy someone else brought up earlier, If I bought that BMW, never changed the oil, never got new tires, never got a brake job, etc. etc. and then drove it off road and through road with potholes the size of bowling balls regularly, etc... would you really blame BMW for any problems that might develop in the car?

 

[ixeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 You're not getting it and I don't know if you will.

i get it, you're trying to tell everybody that the iMac rocks. sadly thats not the case. i'm only talking about the SQ of the mac, and personally i doubt it rocks, nor does it come close to rocking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 My verdict is...Mac wins...and my point is that there is a different headphone for different tastes. You're basing your PC plus EMU suggestion on what you read here, but head-fi doesn't know everything about every product. There are a small number of members here that set the tone of this site and it may not always be accurate.

Mac wins? in terms of WHAT? prove to me that the iMac beats a PC with EMU soundcard, then we can start talking.

now you're talking about sound for different tastes? iMac is a source not a headphone. if the source sucks it sucks, no matter what headphones you use.

if the Macs are SO GOOD in the SQ department, why then are there so many people with Macs looking for external sound cards? the echo indigo, the m-audio transit, sonicas and audiophiles. emu makes the the top soundcards in the computer market, it may not be the best..but its sure good enough.

trying to convince me that an iMac, with the SOUND, added in as a CONVENIENCE for the MASS MARKET, will beat a dedicated E-MU soundcard designed solely for audio quality? hah i wonder how you convinced yourself in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 There are a small number of members here that set the tone of this site and it may not always be accurate.

seems to me you are trying to be one of them.

PERSONALLY, i would agree if you said that Mac OS X is good, cause yeah, its good, it may not fit everybody's tastes but its a good piece of software.

if you said the iMac is a very good looking piece of hardware, i'd agree as well.
if you said the iMac is a very good machine for doing graphic work, videos etc, i'd agree too.

NOW

if you said the iMac is a very good machine for playing games i'd disagree
if you said the iMac ROCKS in a forum called Computer-as-Source Components, i'll disagree.

do YOU understand? and yes the iMac G5's sound is ON BOARD sound. INTEGRATED SOUND. its FREE, and most of the time free things just work, they dont work great.

stop dreaming and wake up, seems to me you don't get it and you're just arguing anyway you can. integrated audio will not sound better than a dedicated sound card, not anytime soon & personally i believe that will NEVER happen.

 

[proglife]

So would this discussion be deemed objective or subjective, being that the product doesn't really even exist yet?