Phytotron's stupid computer blog

[Phytotron]

Not a spelling "fail."

"Welp" is a colloquialism, fool.

Even if it weren't, one would have assumed it a typo, not a misspelling. There is no phonetic P in the word "well," so why would one misspell it with a P?

[Word]

because it belongs to your idiosyncratic believe that you have to correct me and you wrote something to cause this moment. must be satifying.

[Phytotron]

What the hell are you talking about? Go try to start up one of your little internet "flame" games with else, kiddo. Better yet, get a life—and a vocabulary—off the web.

[Word]

you reply to old topics which have been discussed long enough. you don't even read what people have written there. or think about the reason why they wrote it (yes, the hall of fame. i spend a lot of time on that. your comment was just dumb and yes, i feel offended because of it ). on the other side, you take it too serious. writing 3 sentences for that spelling mistake is ridiculous. who cares.

[nsh22]

and you two are still arguing (i guess i am too now...) about it.

[Phytotron]

who cares.

I didn't ask you to come make a comment and try to start shit in this thread, did I? Don't try to turn it back on me.

I check in here only every, say, 3-6 months. I already explained to your denseness that this time it had been since March. I don't look at the dates, or care how old they are. What the hell does it matter if I decide to comment on something older? I take it from your vocabulary and attitudes that you live on the web and perhaps go by some silly web mores, but I don't. "Resurrecting old topics" does not bother me. Deal with it. And yes, I do read them before posting.

And by the way, this is my own damn topic! Hello.

[Word]

you could have thought about that before posting in "my" topic, it doesn't seem as if you've read it otherwise you wouldn't have called it like that.

[Z-Man]

Word, remember when your father told you that there are times to fight, and times to just walk away? This is one of the times where you walk away.

[Phytotron]

Bumpity.

Welp, I'm in the market once again. As I mentioned in a couple other recent posts, methinks our home might've got struck by 1.21 jigawatts of atmospheric electrical discharge, or a power surge, or something. It fried our modem, and unless it's coincidental, killed the CRT in my eMac. The computer still BINGS and powers up, and sounds like it starts up, hard drive spinning/grinding, so I'm hopinghopinghoping that the disk drive can be salvaged like before--haven't yet taken it in to the professional geeks.

In any case, now I gotsed to get a new one. No, I'm not going over to Linux yet. I'm not ready! So don't get pushy!

So, while I intend to do some readin' and whatnot, I thought I'd elicit the thoughts and advice of some of the geekier Mac fellers 'round here again. My criteria are mostly the same as on the previous page, only this time around I think I'm going to go ahead and up the budget and get something more recent. In fact, while my natural inclination is always to buy used when it comes to these things (retail is for suckers! and I don't really want to directly support Apple), at the moment I'm contemplating buying new. Would the Apple Care deal be worth it?

With respect to the type of system, I'm leaning toward an iMac, as one might expect. The Mac Pros are way too costly; and while the Mac Mini is cheaper itself, the additional cost of a display would surpass the iMac. Of course, there's the benefit of carrying forward the display, but...eh.... (By the way, why are the stand-alone Apple displays huge? The minimum seems to be 27"--what the fook? What average user needs that? It's like those huge TVs all these freaks are getting now. Bah.) So, more than likely an iMac.

So what do you guys know? Anything in particular to look out for or avoid in recent models? Like, for example, polycarbonate versus aluminum versus unibody. And please be specific. I'm all confused now that they moved away from the G# series; I don't know what anything is anymore, heh. Core this and that. Penryn, Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge, huh? Do I even need to know those terms?

Hep me please, would be appreciated.

[TaZ]

Are you sure you don't want a macbook pro?

[Mecca]

The computer still BINGS and powers up, and sounds like it starts up, hard drive spinning/grinding, so I'm hopinghopinghoping that the disk drive can be salvaged like before--haven't yet taken it in to the professional geeks.

Whatever you end up getting, I would highly recommend getting an external hard drive for backups. It can be a life saver when unexpected things happen to your internal drive.

[Jonathan]

The computer still BINGS and powers up, and sounds like it starts up, hard drive spinning/grinding, so I'm hopinghopinghoping that the disk drive can be salvaged like before--haven't yet taken it in to the professional geeks.

If it sounds normal it's probably fine. You could even use it if you're proficient at using computers when you can't see anything. Not to get real work done, hopefully, but perhaps as an aid in recovery.

I'm all confused now that they moved away from the G# series; I don't know what anything is anymore, heh. Core this and that. Penryn, Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge, huh? Do I even need to know those terms?

Considering you've been using an antique eMac, probably not. You'll want at least a Core 2 for 64-bit, should you still consider what is ancient now. It should be a vast improvement over the eMac. If you want to do something more intensive for a change, yes, newer stuff is faster. But we've reached a point where it doesn't matter as much for basic use as it used to.

An iMac sounds good. Keep in mind the potential glare, but then a CRT couldn't have been much better.

Others may want to fill in some things; I haven't looked at the advancements in ages.

[Phytotron]

Are you sure you don't want a macbook pro?

Yes. For one, as I mentioned on page one, my wife already has a Mac laptop. There's also less value in those, less bang for more buck. And I/we simply don't need another one. We don't live our lives through a screen.

Whatever you end up getting, I would highly recommend getting an external hard drive for backups. It can be a life saver when unexpected things happen to your internal drive.

Yep, it was my intention to use the previous extracted drive as a backup, but I never got around to it. This time around for sure.

If it sounds normal it's probably fine. You could even use it if you're proficient at using computers when you can't see anything.

Um, that would be a no, heh.

An iMac sounds good. Keep in mind the potential glare, but then a CRT couldn't have been much better.

Yeah, even with the CRT I couldn't play Arma until after sunset, heh. Black floors, you know. I would prefer a CRT, but they don't exist anymore. And it's better to be green(er). I suppose I can deal with the visual quality.

I'm finally begrudgingly acquiescing to digital photography, too, although that's less to do with anything technical. Almost no one develops B&W anymore, and fewer print directly to paper, as I've recently discovered--but I can develop and print my own film, so that's not really the issue. And I still believe film/slides and photographic paper to be superior to digital. The issue is the gelatin. But I digress.

But we've reached a point where it doesn't matter as much for basic use as it used to.

You think that might mean that a newer one might last me that much longer (assuming no breakdown)? Of course, I'm expecting you to predict the future of computing and system requirement years down the line.

Others may want to fill in some things....

Hope so. Dlh?

[TaZ]

Are you sure you don't want a macbook pro?

Yes. For one, as I mentioned on page one, my wife already has a Mac laptop. There's also less value in those, less bang for more buck. And I/we simply don't need another one. We don't live our lives through a screen.

I see, well a used mac mini with a core 2 duo should do just fine for you. Could you explain what you mean by "We don't live our lives through a screen"?

[Jonathan]

An iMac sounds good. Keep in mind the potential glare, but then a CRT couldn't have been much better.

Yeah, even with the CRT I couldn't play Arma until after sunset, heh. Black floors, you know. I would prefer a CRT, but they don't exist anymore. And it's better to be green(er). I suppose I can deal with the visual quality.

A good LCD isn't really something to complain about. LCDs can have very minimal glare, and you can push a lot of light through them nowadays. The issue is that many LCDs are made shiny on purpose. And then Apple dwarfs that by putting a glass plate in front. The end result is that I'm not sure how it compares to a CRT (haven't seen either in a while), when it could be so much better.

As for other qualities, what would happen if the world was full of good LCDs, and then one day the CRT was invented and started taking over the world? Would you really appreciate the change? I don't know. Pixels would become blurry spots superimposed on another grid. There would be deformations, possibly showing moire patterns. Some other things that don't come to mind right now. Not to mention they're literally the elephant in the room. Sure, there are some advantages (not even that large today, if you don't compare to a cheapo LCD), but nobody would have grown attached to them yet. See where I'm going with this?

I'm finally begrudgingly acquiescing to digital photography, too, although that's less to do with anything technical. Almost no one develops B&W anymore, and fewer print directly to paper, as I've recently discovered--but I can develop and print my own film, so that's not really the issue. And I still believe film/slides and photographic paper to be superior to digital. The issue is the gelatin. But I digress.

Heh. It's funny you should mention this. I'm sure some of the above applies here as well. But what do I know? I haven't been into even digital photography very much, although lately I find myself shooting various things with my phone. And cursing at said phone for offering next to no control, failing to capture much light, etc. It's already into noisy 15th-second exposures when my eyes still work optimally. You probably don't want to see actual darkness like my avatar (still not as dark as it looks on the picture) without downscaling. But I outdo you by digressing on multiple levels.

I do like the aesthetic value of film, though. I'm partly playing devil's advocate, more so than against CRTs. You just can't argue with art.

But we've reached a point where it doesn't matter as much for basic use as it used to.

You think that might mean that a newer one might last me that much longer (assuming no breakdown)? Of course, I'm expecting you to predict the future of computing and system requirement years down the line.

I assume you mean the opposite? Well, I find that hardware doesn't feel sluggish as quickly as it did in the past. PCs are simply "fast enough" for most purposes. There's a growing gap between the high end and the low end. The high end is becoming more for enthusiasts and "specialist" uses, with the low end working well for most less demanding users.

I wonder what would be better: the old high end, or the new low end. I'll hypothesize that for current software, the old high end will perform well. But as software adapts to the features of more modern hardware, the new low end will gain an edge. Older software doesn't scale as well as when it was still all about megahertz and gigahertz.

I'll repeat that I haven't had a close look at trends in a while. It's very possible I'm off on some things. And I don't really feel entitled to become less abstract.

Could you explain what you mean by "We don't live our lives through a screen"?

It's possible to live your life not staring at some kind of computer wherever you are.