• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

imac - $ to £ this sucks..

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    imac - $ to £ this sucks..

    I’m seriously thinking of buying one of these imac’s 24” screen 2.16GHz looks the business and I don’t play games so do not need demanding graphics, just a reliable machine that does not have to download a new patch every time I switch it on. Really tired of windows now need a change.

    So I’m all ready to make a purchase but why does the same machine in the in the US cost £350 less?!!

    Sucks…
    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

    #2
    Welcome to Apple - the monopolist supplier of Apple hardware that is now based on commodity Intel processors: at least they had brains to move over to superior x86 architecture.

    A good programmer can create excellent things on bugger all hardware - if you need fast processor then maybe your programming style is just inefficient, so you might be better off buying some low-end model in order to learn how to program well: if you do design then remember that Leonardo da Vinchi did not have a computer, yet his work is still amazing.

    HTH

    Comment


      #3
      I wouldn't buy an iMac simply because of the built in screen. I wish they'd come out with sort of headless iMac or a souped-up mac Mini (even if the form factor was bit bigger).

      Originally posted by AtW
      at least they had brains to move over to superior x86 architecture.
      I presume that was a joke. x86 a superior architecture to PPC?

      The Intel chips may be superior to PPCs in some ways, but never in terms of a clean architecture.

      You've come right out the other side of the forest of irony and ended up in the desert of wrong.

      Comment


        #4
        x86 is superior because it survived the test of time and far more successful in terms of usage than PowerPC ever was and ever will be for that matter - it is superior because it survived and took dominance, not because some purists think that some design time decisions were bad - some sure were, but overall advantages far outweighted disadvantages.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by AtW
          x86 is superior because it survived the test of time and far more successful in terms of usage than PowerPC ever was and ever will be for that matter - it is superior because it survived and took dominance, not because some purists think that some design time decisions were bad - some sure were, but overall advantages far outweighted disadvantages.
          Maybe, but you said superior architecture.

          In what way is x86 superior in terms of CPU architecture?

          You've come right out the other side of the forest of irony and ended up in the desert of wrong.

          Comment


            #6
            It's superior because it survived and PowerPC is as good as dead: think about it in terms of evolution - the test of time, not tactical design decisions.

            Say in terms of design Itanic has got superior than x86 archictecture - however it is as good as dead, despire this supposed "superiority": it just shows that technical people have next to zero big picture view and understanding how things work out in a long run: x86 is a success, and PowerPC (and previous Motorola stuff) is a failure (in terms of powering Personal Computers), it's as simple as this and the fact that Apple moved to x86 just illustrates this point.

            Comment


              #7
              The x86 architecture became dominant because it was used in the original IBM PC. Had the 68K got to market at the same time or earlier we would now be praising the 68K. I agree with BM PowerPC is a superior architecture (having worked on x86, 68K, PowerPC).

              Comment


                #8
                Ask yourself - if it is superior why Apple switched to inferior one? Surely they would know better?

                There were lots of creatures on this planet with advanced superior features, yet the only ones that survived over millions of years are crocks, turtles and some more: fairly simple creatures when you compare to their more advanced species.

                Comment


                  #9
                  cost!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Addanc
                    cost!
                    And low cost is not a superior advantage of architecture?

                    And what about backwards compatibility (without software emulation)?

                    And the fact that x86 has been advanced much faster than PowerPC or any other architecture for that matter?

                    And a lot bigger software library written for x86 is not an advantage?

                    It might be possiblet to argue of degree of the above advantages of x86 that made most difference, but the simple fact is this: x86 has proven to be a superior architecture because it survived and others are dieing out.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X