FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

No ads, no mods, Frankly Anonymous (you can join w/fake name/email, are not tracked)!
It is currently 31 Mar 2020, 19:21

All times are UTC

Forum rules

Same rules as in other guest/member forums.

Post a reply
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 999999 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
What makes least sense, most of the time?:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

Topic review - Re: Macs are up to $543 cheaper than PCs, claims IBM
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Re: Macs are up to $543 cheaper than PCs, claims IBM  Reply with quote
I own a non-Apple PowerPC 970 machine; It runs (on average) at 41C with a heatsink that's very small. That's much cooler than a Pentium 4 of the equivalent era, and the PowerPC is more advanced than NetBurst. The Pentium 4s typically had a TDP of 95 watts, whereas I would estimate the TDP of the one running in my system at something like 50-60 watts.

While the PowerPC 970 was by no means the coolest CPU around, it's not at all hot by any standards. If you take a look at some of Intel's CPUs they'll put the PPC 970 to shame reaching between 105 through 135 watts! Take a look at the QX6800: ... 66-MHz-FSB

That thing was starting to become thermonuclear after Windows 7 was trying to run updates in the background :grin:. I didn't find it to be very good performance upgrade either... it literally just ran hotter. They're still pricey CPUs to this day since they were never all that common.

The heat issues are typically found in the fan-less or compact all-in-one systems (I forget the model of the famous early fanless Macintosh, but 3rd party fan add-ons were released to keep them cool). The G4 cube is another good example, those need to be ran in a cool environment. The core duo intel Macs had a firmware release to make the fans spin faster because the CPU would run too hot--BUT I had an intel core duo laptop that reached critical temperatures and fried itself-- and that laptop had very good cooling. So really, Intel needed to work on the Core Duo some more before they released it. Heck, they "forgot" to add 64-bit capabilities in the first release, AND WHEN THEY FINALLY GOT TO IT, they made the 64-bit capable chips *even hotter*.

You're right, Rossmann can be a bit like that / but I DO wish OEMs would make modding and repairs more community friendly. Modding UEFI for instance has become more difficult than traditional BIOS mods due to the security checks--meaning if the image is modified it won't flash. SO, you have to physically flash a chip and solder it in. This is not an Apple-specific problem.
Post Posted: 22 Oct 2016, 20:18
  Post subject:  Re: Re: Macs are up to $543 cheaper than PCs, claims IBM  Reply with quote
The old G5 was a great CPU however they did run Hot. In some cases VERY HOT. That been said I have a PowerMac G5 running OS X 10.4.11 and still as good as the day it was new.

The Unibody non-Retina MacBook Pro is incredibly easy to service. I can carry out a full rebuild in around 8 hours something that obviously cannot be done with the Retina variant. Besides the most common cause of MacBook Pro failure is not heat but liquid spillage which pretty much kills the Logic Board in many cases.

I have followed Louis Rossmann on YouTube for some time 'colourful language and all' He makes some valid points but Louis Rossmann is somewhat of a contradictory in terms in that He clearly has strong views regarding Apple after sales service but yet He specialises in repairing Apple products and generates profit from doing so. Surely therefore He has no reason to complain ?
Post Posted: 22 Oct 2016, 09:16
  Post subject:  Re: Re: Macs are up to $543 cheaper than PCs, claims IBM  Reply with quote
Any electronics engineer will tell you the *majority* of Apple's systems use good quality components (some of the older macs such as the G5 PSUs occasionally used low quality TEAPOs for the primaries in the passive PSUs but that's an historical anecdote) / it's the design choices with some of the engineering that causes problems with heat dissipation and making it difficult to take apart, most notoriously on the MacBooks.

Because OS X is UNIX 03 certified, it probably saves IBM money for application ports as going from AIX to OS X is going to be *a lot* easier than going from AIX to Windows, right. At least that's the case with AIX Tools for Linux.

If a business can integrate OS X with Apple's hardware in their environment, it will definitely save money / however that's a fairly big 'IF'. Places where you need active directory will cause absolute havoc. To tackle that problem Google actually invested money on building their own custom AD structure to manage OS X clients. Of course not everyone has that luxury.

How would OS X save money for a business or individual?
#1 there is a lot less malware because not as many are interested in writing it for HFS+ / mac file types. Unix is also more secure as long as you're not running under root.
#2 the (Apple hardware) is built specifically for the OS / much like every modern Unix OS: leaving driver failures minimized. In the Windows world the hardware manufacturer is responsible for the drivers which can often be programmed poorly.
#3 User interface is easier for people to use due to the blood of NeXTSTEP

Microsoft has really screwed themselves: they keep alienating their low-level users by changing the interface every release causing them to panic / and irritating the power users when they restrict things. Whereas in the land of Unix things are... you know... consistent. Bottom line, I see more and more people switching to Apple hardware and OS X on a daily basis--for their personal machines.

When a hardware or software failure does occur with Apple hardware, that actually can be fairly costly to get fixed for a private individual. And often Apple just replaces your device requiring a fee to do so / not to mention you LOSE all of your data. Due to HFS+ it compounds the issue if you want to get your data off, too. It doesn't help that Apple has made it illegal to distribute hardware schematics which are necessary for diagnosing tiny resistors / capacitors and ICs. Louis Rossmann has a plethora of videos explaining about how Apple makes it difficult for electronic engineers and how they utterly rip you off with "repairing" devices.
Post Posted: 21 Oct 2016, 20:44
  Post subject:  Re: Macs are up to $543 cheaper than PCs, claims IBM  Reply with quote ... laims-ibm/

Another ZDNet article doing its very best to dumb down a positive claim regarding the Mac. The claim is indeed a positive one but the fact the source was from IBM it has largely made it mute. Or has it ?

It is well known by now all high end Laptops and Desktops are on par price wise or more expensive than that of a Mac. The truth is to copy Apple quality it is impossible to produce a budget machine. After all most manufacturers have tried at one time or another.

Along with the IBM claim much noise has been made on ZDNet regarding the frequency of Apple refreshing the Mac range. The critics more often than not forget the Mac in many cases is a superior longer lasting machine with many Mac users still using machines in excess of nine years old.

In short. If it works don't fix it.
Post Posted: 21 Oct 2016, 15:35

All times are UTC

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited