131–140 of 157 posts
>1.4 GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor with Turbo Boost Speeds up to 2.7 GHz, Intel HD 5000 graphics, 8GB of memory and a 500GB hard drive. Eh.. I got similar specs in laptop form for about half the price on black Friday last year. I'd like to get something like this for a desktop but I'm afraid my Ubuntu might have some issues on the hardware. I'll wait until I find it slightly used for half the cost. On a side…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to say, I can get a really nice laptop at Costco with better specs for about 30-40% less and better specs all around, and a touch screen. In fact, I can get an all in one with much better specs for less. http://www.costco.com/.product.100115209.html?cm_sp=RichRele... Other than the crap specs, it's really hard to buy into the idea that this is "entry level" when it's selling at a mid-level price. This sho…
Geeks tend to forget that there is more to a computer than raw numbers. Design, noise, materials, software (try getting that inspiron with apps like garageband, imove, pages and numbers for less than $1099), support (walk into the apple store and someone's there to help) and general ecosystem (time machine, app store, UNIX foundation (no real viruses)).
> Geeks tend to forget that there is more to a
> computer than raw numbers.
It's like... come on, people. You make software for a living. Way to devalue your own craft!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.4ghz core speed and no SSD? For me, and most people, this isn't closing any gap. Edit: Core speed is actually 0.3ghz lower than I thought...
The Turbo Boost clock speed is only around 15% lower than the other iMacs, though (2.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). It looks like the same processor as the MacBook Air. The bigger problem is probably memory--only 8GB, soldered to the board, and no option for more, even at time of purchase. Could be worse, though. With Mavericks, 8GB is about the minimum configuration for "normal people" tasks.
Can I replace the disk with an SSD easily? Probably not! :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already have 3 SSDs floating around that I know are good (Samsung 840 Pro). I wouldn't want to kick out for another 256Gb SSD when I already have one. Not only that, those fusion drives are terribly unreliable from experience. Regardless of that, that process is HELL compared to another machine. The thing I'm typing this on now (Lenovo T400) requires any old screwdriver you have lying around and 2 mins. 1960s point…
I wouldn't want to kick out for another 256Gb SSD when I already have one. All current Macs[1] currently use PCIe SSD drives, which are not interchangeable with SATA SSD drives. They are, however, around 10x faster than SATA SSD drives, which is something people never seem to mention when comparing 'specs'. [1] with the exception of the 13-inch non-Retina MBP, which is presumably being phased out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, and that transition happened last decade, not this one... Perhaps I was too specific with the 1080p mention.
There was certainly a transition from 5:4 to widescreen displays in the 2000s, with nearly everyone but Apple opting for 16:9. I don't recall any mass adoption of 16:10 followed by a mass migration to 16:9 in the last decade, which is what you're stating happened. If Apple is moving from 16:10 to 16:9, then that would indeed be a very recent development. If this is the case, it would be kind of sad to me (I prefer a…
I don't quite agree with what you're stating I'm stating. (I realize that this has gone on way longer than the original reply warranted, but...)
User teh_klev said that they were sad that 1080p "was becoming" the norm on medium sized panels, and that 1920x1200 wasn't becoming the norm, instead.
I replied that the transition to 1080p had already occurred, some time ago. I don't believe that either teh_klev or I implied that there was mass adoption of 1920x1200 (16:10), only that teh_klev would have preferred that there have been such a mass adoption, and I was suggesting that that preference (which I share, though I didn't mention it[1]) became moot last decade.
[1] though it turns out that if the screen is large enough and the resolution high enough, I no longer care about the precise aspect ratio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't want to kick out for another 256Gb SSD when I already have one. All current Macs[1] currently use PCIe SSD drives, which are not interchangeable with SATA SSD drives. They are, however, around 10x faster than SATA SSD drives, which is something people never seem to mention when comparing 'specs'. [1] with the exception of the 13-inch non-Retina MBP, which is presumably being phased out.
It doesn't make any difference for me. Getting crap into RAM the first time is all I care about rather than sustained transfer.
There's a reason that Macbook Air reviews report that it's shocking fast and snappy for such a (relatively) underpowered machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience of looking for an all-in-one: if you want apple-quality but from any other manufacturer, be prepared to actually spend more money than you would on an iMac. Obviously with an iMac you are not getting a touchscreen that is standard on every other AiO,but I can't say I would use such feature.
Could you elaborate a little on why you're looking for an AiO computer? I've always seen them as overpriced, underpowered computers for people who don't really want a computer. I don't know why anyone on HN would be in the market for one.
having just bought the $1299 model last year, glad to see they're trying to offer a cheaper model. Lowest used to be $1199 a few years back - another $100 to $1299 (essentially $1400 with tax) was a big hit to take. Yes, $200 is just $200 - these new $1099 ones aren't free , but... this may make the difference between someone getting a new one vs not. 1.4ghz seems awfully slow, but... I suspect for a lot of what many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling something illegal is usually reserved for things that are in the criminal code. There is no law against running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers. No one will be going to jail. Nothing will happen. You don't even have to feel bad. Apple would have to sue in civil court and would have to prove damages. They would not be able to prove damages.
It would make more sense if you said "calling something a crime is...". I disagree with this comment due to the level of colloquial discussion. Illegal is (colloquially) whatever you can't do because of the law. (Just about the only exception is a contract, which you might be forced to follow because of the law, but we don't view as part of the law in a colloquial sense.) Regarding "nothing will happen, you don't eve…
In the case of running Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer, Apple is not wronged. Where are the damages? What has Apple lost? Apple has lost nothing.
Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware damages Apple as much as putting on a Harry Potter puppet show at a children's library damages JK Rowling. Zero. It just makes people more interested in Apple hardware and JK Rowling books and movies respectively.
If Apple can find you, they can send you a cease and desist letter. That is the most action they can take. Likewise for JK Rowling shutting down a puppet show using characters she created.