Phytotron's stupid computer blog

[Phytotron]

If I were to buy one new, it would be the current bottom-of-the-line iMac. With respect to the gap of which you speak, I found this page (a couple years dated), which comes to these conclusions:

The 'mid 2010' iMac Core i7, is as much as 45% faster than the Core i5 for 10% more cost.
The Core i7 is as much as 104% faster (twice as fast) as the Core i3 for 29% more cost.
The Core i5 is as much as 41% faster than the Core i3 for 18% more cost.

That's kind of remarkable. That would suggest that if one had the dough, the higher-end would be the way to go. Even if you're not doing really intensive processes, it's obviously the better bang for buck. And presumably the higher-end would last longer, in terms of future-proofing. But, I don't have that kind of dough.

So yeah, the main thing I'm trying to figure is just what you mentioned: the current low-end versus an older high-end. Would the savings from buying used (the better core 2 duos go for around $500, a savings of about $700) be exceeded by the performance and lifespan of a new one, or what. I mean, I got that top-of-the-line eMac for $125 in 2009 when it was, what, 3-4 years old and used it up until a week ago. Sure, I had to use older versions of some software, and you've seen me complain about busy websites being awfully sluggish and so forth, but it was more-or-less satisfactory most of the time. Do I really need to come up all that much further? Another thing is, even just a step above the core 2 duo, they jump to around $800-900. Resale on Macs is ridiculous.

I dunno. It's all about the value, looking for that deal.... TBC

[ppotter]

I got my (Early 2008 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo) iMac second hand for £300 when it was less than 2 years old, which is what, $450? And it's performed perfectly for what I've used it for (Arma, general browing, a little bit of Photoshop), which I gather is pretty much how you use yours yourself. Only recently did I expand the RAM from 2 to 4GB, due to discovering a game that was a little more intensive than Arma

Not sure how prices are second hand right now (particularly in the U.S.), but you shouldn't need to be spending a fortune to get something perfectly usable.

[Jonathan]

Keep in mind that you won't notice much of a difference during light use. When booting or starting applications the hard disk is what slows you down. With basic actions, you'll find they're all pretty much equally instantly done. That's what I was arguing for earlier. You'll also find that much of the performance comes from having more cores or hyper-threading. The difference isn't as dramatic if programs are bottlenecked by a single thread, like many games. The GPU that Apple has paired with it will often make up for it, though.

But enough of that. The i7 does look like an excellent deal. And there's a lot of software that can put those cores to work. You probably won't find yourself complaining about the i3, especially coming from an eMac. But the i7 should be more future-proof and will bring joy if you ever manage to take advantage of it.

How would it stack up against the idea that hardware gets faster/cheaper all the time? If you save 20% now but sacrifice 50% of the speed, you'll get to replace it sooner. But by that time performance/cost will be higher. It's possible you'll get more bang for the buck overall that way, especially if you aren't that demanding. Your hardware would be less likely to be obsolete but more likely to be underpowered. Still, in this instance the i7 looks excellent, and the anti-consumerist must agree.

Perhaps just finding a good deal is most important if you don't feel you must have the i7.

[Phytotron]

I got my (Early 2008 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo) iMac second hand for £300 when it was less than 2 years old, which is what, $450? And it's performed perfectly for what I've used it for (Arma, general browing, a little bit of Photoshop), which I gather is pretty much how you use yours yourself. Only recently did I expand the RAM from 2 to 4GB, due to discovering a game that was a little more intensive than Arma

Not sure how prices are second hand right now (particularly in the U.S.), but you shouldn't need to be spending a fortune to get something perfectly usable.

Yeah, I would be inclined in that direction, but damn, those models are still going for around $500 give or take, and some up around $700. What the hell? It seems resale prices have frozen the last few years. Some more recent ones are still selling at 70% or more of retail, which is just stupid. Stupid Apple fashion mystique is all I can figure. Can you believe that people are buying iMac boxes on ebay for $50-75? Cardboard friggin' boxes! Why?


I just can't afford the i7. Can't do it. Not new, especially. Used it looks like they're going anywhere from $2500, still way too much, but down to as "little" as $1100 for ones a couple years old. That's about the same as a current bottom o' the line i5 is new, so maybe that's something to consider, but it's also ebay and still my queasy upper limit.

Hey, by the way, you mentioned the glass pane over the displays--do those prevent the kind of scuffs and crap I see on a lot of people's older LCD's? Those drive me nuts.

[TaZ]

btw, I found a pretty good deal on a core duo mac mini for $299. http://www.megamacs.com/index.php?actio ... =404430842

[Jonathan]

Something that may not be so obvious: it's not a Core 2.

[TaZ]

Something that may not be so obvious: it's not a Core 2.

True, but he said he's not a "geek or tinkerer nor a gamer". He would be able to run Snow Leopard with the core duo, but he would not be able to upgrade to Lion using standard procedures. I personally feel that he doesn't need more than that.

[Phytotron]

If that "1.25/ 80" is referring to the RAM and HD size, that price is high, going by ebay's completed listings. And remember, you have to figure the cost of a display on top of it. Plus some of the other drawbacks associated with the mini. Yadda yadda.

I need to amend some of the figures in my previous post. Get this baloney: higher-end Core 2 Duos with 3GHz processor and 4MB RAM are reselling for as much as the current lowest-end model iMacs, around $900. I don't get it. And I think my low number on the i7's was too low; not sure how I got that.

Hey, by the way, you mentioned the glass pane over the displays--do those prevent the kind of scuffs and crap I see on a lot of people's older LCD's? Those drive me nuts.

Also, I read something about how beginning with Snow Leopard it can no longer write to HFS+ hard drives? So that would make my newly-extracted eMac drive useless as a backup drive?

Also, apparently Apple is going to stop selling the OS on disc?

[TaZ]

If that "1.25/ 80" is referring to the RAM and HD size, that price is high, going by ebay's completed listings. And remember, you have to figure the cost of a display on top of it. Plus some of the other drawbacks associated with the mini. Yadda yadda.

I need to amend some of the figures in my previous post. Get this baloney: higher-end Core 2 Duos with 3GHz processor and 4MB RAM are reselling for as much as the current lowest-end model iMacs, around $900. I don't get it. And I think my low number on the i7's was too low; not sure how I got that.

Hey, by the way, you mentioned the glass pane over the displays--do those prevent the kind of scuffs and crap I see on a lot of people's older LCD's? Those drive me nuts.

Also, I read something about how beginning with Snow Leopard it can no longer write to HFS+ hard drives? So that would make my newly-extracted eMac drive useless as a backup drive?

Also, apparently Apple is going to stop selling the OS on disc?

Forgot all about that. I used a program called 'MacFUSE' to help with that. One website that I really like for decently priced macs is Gainsaver.com. This one is a C2D iMac http://www.gainsaver.com/Catalog/Detail ... ode=104285 , so it fixes your display problem. Also, you can add a warranty for up to 3 years.

[Jonathan]

Without at least a Core 2 you're locking yourself in. Apple has already made anything older obsolete with their own software. I wouldn't be surprised if they also dropped 32-bit support from Xcode sometime soon. Any developer moving along would be forced to drop it that way, if they won't do it gratuitously. And that's assuming they won't rely on the latest and greatest OS (which itself has needs) as they often do. Core '1' doesn't have a future, if it even has that much life today. On the other hand, Core 2 would be hard to drop without also dropping the current generation.

Edit: They did find a way: Confirmed: Mountain Lion sends some 64-bit Macs gently into that good night

That's one of the things I hate about Apple (which isn't to say that others are saints). It's great that they can focus on new experiences by obsoleting stuff, but in the process they leave no choice but to go all the way or be left hopelessly behind.

Hey, by the way, you mentioned the glass pane over the displays--do those prevent the kind of scuffs and crap I see on a lot of people's older LCD's? Those drive me nuts.

Forgot about that. I'm not sure. It's probably just different. A 24" iMac I've seen had a sort of smudgy look, with oily-looking colored reflections. I don't know if it's inherent or because of something the owner did, but it clearly isn't immune.

Also, I read something about how beginning with Snow Leopard it can no longer write to HFS+ hard drives? So that would make my newly-extracted eMac drive useless as a backup drive?

Wait, what? Apparently Lion won't let you format as HFS+ without journaling (Snow Leopard will). That's all. Nothing I found suggests that you can't use it. What's your source?

Also, formatting isn't inherent to the drive. You can always reformat (which will generally destroy your data, mind you). Apple would even let you enable/disable journaling live at some point. You can probably find that option in 10.4's Disk Utility. It exists in 10.6, but it doesn't ever seem to enable itself.

Also, apparently Apple is going to stop selling the OS on disc?

Progress!

[Phytotron]

Wait, what?

Yeah, I realised I was mistaken over the weekend. They dropped writing to regular HFS, not HFS+. Shows you how much I know, that I didn't originally notice the distinction. I read this on lowendmac.com, where they're really into retrocomputing.

But, what's this about journaling? I read the wikipedia page on "journaling file system," but as usual my eyes and brain glazed over. Can you give me an example of its use, and whether I even need to be concerned with it?

Also, apparently Apple is going to stop selling the OS on disc?

Progress!

Lies! What I read, if I understood it correctly, is how they won't even release a full OS, just a downloadable update/upgrade from one to the next, as it is already, I believe, with Snow Leopard to Lion, and will be with Mountain Lion. Unless I'm again mistaken.


Now, something that is true, as I'm sure you know, is that Intel Macs won't really run PPC applications. There's Rosetta for Snow Leopard, but I've read a bit that's not so hot. And Lion drops that completely. Bah. I guess at some point I'm going to end up getting another eMac or something that I can put, what, 10.3 or 10.4--the most recent that allows you to boot directly into 9.2--just to run some old software.

I used a program called 'MacFUSE' to help with that.

What are you responding to here? Help with what? I read the MacFUSE webpage and, again, glazing. May as well be in Greek.


I'm reading a lot of reports that a launch of the new line of iMacs is imminent. MacRumors says Don't Buy! an iMac now. And just today they did launch new MacBooks and Mac Pro. But since they didn't mention iMacs today, you think that's it or will there be more to come?

[Jonathan]

But, what's this about journaling? I read the wikipedia page on "journaling file system," but as usual my eyes and brain glazed over. Can you give me an example of its use, and whether I even need to be concerned with it?

Short answer: just use it. Long answer: it will prevent file system corruption if the system didn't shut down cleanly. Instead of performing a lengthy file system check and possibly failing, it just replays the journal. File contents that were recently modified could still be corrupted (and would be without journaling as well), but it mitigates everything else. I doubt you'll notice the small impact on write performance maintaining the journal has.

What I read, if I understood it correctly, is how they won't even release a full OS, just a downloadable update/upgrade from one to the next, as it is already, I believe, with Snow Leopard to Lion, and will be with Mountain Lion. Unless I'm again mistaken.

It isn't actually an incremental update. I gather Lion refuses to install on a drive containing an old OS X version, but it will install on an empty drive. Also, Apple says you will be able to jump straight from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion:

If you are running Snow Leopard (10.6.x), update to the latest version of OS X Snow Leopard before you purchase OS X Mountain Lion from the Mac App Store. Click the Apple icon and choose Software Update to install Snow Leopard v10.6.8, the latest version.

Now, something that is true, as I'm sure you know, is that Intel Macs won't really run PPC applications. There's Rosetta for Snow Leopard, but I've read a bit that's not so hot. And Lion drops that completely. Bah. I guess at some point I'm going to end up getting another eMac or something that I can put, what, 10.3 or 10.4--the most recent that allows you to boot directly into 9.2--just to run some old software.

I haven't personally had much trouble with Rosetta. I've found it's often faster than an actual G4. But it depends on your software. I don't have a whole lot of PPC software that I care about. I suppose it could break or be slow if you're less lucky.

I used a program called 'MacFUSE' to help with that.

What are you responding to here? Help with what? I read the MacFUSE webpage and, again, glazing. May as well be in Greek.

That would be to write to ancient HFS in Lion, which turns out to be entirely irrelevant.

I'm reading a lot of reports that a launch of the new line of iMacs is imminent. MacRumors says Don't Buy! an iMac now. And just today they did launch new MacBooks and Mac Pro. But since they didn't mention iMacs today, you think that's it or will there be more to come?

I haven't been into this for a while. I'm tempted to think there will still be a launch 'soon', but don't take my word for it.

[Phytotron]

I just read a couple little reports saying that Apple may release new iMacs in 2013 (along with some suggestion they may be moving away from desktops altogether, wtf), but apparently no sooner. Annoying, as I/we were leaning toward going ahead and buying one new (or used from within the last year, so as to still get AppleCare). There were also rumors that the next iteration will have a new display that will deal with the glare. Grumble grumble.

Of course, the incessant merry-go-round of planned obsolescence and new releases of the latest-greatest in computer tech and software development is something that bothers me immensely. But still, annoying that I happened to fall in the in-between period.

[PokeMaster]

<tangent>

I just read a couple little reports saying that Apple may release new iMacs in 2013 (along with some suggestion they may be moving away from desktops altogether, wtf), but apparently no sooner

Apple is pretty darn focused on pushing towards post-PC devices (iPad/tablet, iPhone/smarthpone, hell probably even Apple TV). The way I see it, those types of devices will serve the needs of most on the market, and offer huge improvements in mobility, functionality, and ease of use. Nevertheless, Apple continues to hold a large stake in the pro markets with its higher end computers, desktop or laptop, and I find it hard to imagine a complete demise to the desktop workstation as it applies to professionals deeply immersed in their work. The desktops may begin to fade away, but I bet it's a while before Apple would completely discontinue making them. (Though that might just mean that the ones remaining are very high-end and pricey.)
</tangent>

[Phytotron]

That's disappointing. I hate using laptops. I can't stand the track pad, both use and location. I don't particularly enjoy having the heels of my hands getting burned as I type. Function keys are annoying, to say the least. The screens suck.

The touch-screen devices are even worse. Likewise, I don't see the appeal in that "magic track pad" or "magic mouse." Bah.

No, I'm not going over to Linux yet. I'm not ready!

I'm beginning to reconsider this. Not strongly, mind you, and with great trepidation, but considering all the same—at least as a temporary stop-gap until the next iMac release or a drop in second-hand prices. For basic use, this Ubuntu thang doesn't require any command line stuff, is that right?

But, I know nothing of PC hardware or Linux, and frankly don't feel like sitting around reading a bunch of user manuals for the latter.

Would Linux even be able to read my external hard drives (former internal Mac drives), anyway?

Sigh.