Why Apple?

[rchunter]

I still think a Hackintosh is a very bad idea for the situation you are describing...

 

Either grit your teeth and buy an Apple computer (if you want to run OSX); or run Windows (or Linux).

 

Eloise

 

We'll see what he's willing to do. If I can find him a decent older mac pro or laptop decked out the way he wants it for the right price we will go that route.

[Paul R]

They sell it and buy a new one!

 

The thing is the majority if people who but Apple computers don't worry about upgrades...

 

I do think Apple with not much design compromise could make it easy to upgrade memory and replace drives and this is a bad trend (IMO). I can accept in laptops; but does 2mm really matter (or even a whole cm) when talking about a machine on the desktop?

 

Eloise

 

And this is a result of two factors - the first is a control on cost and reliability - in a laptop especially, soldering in the RAM makes the device much more reliable. It is also much more cost efficient since stuffing and soldering on the board can be automated, and that results in a higher quality product with less defects and failures.

 

The second is for style reasons. Computers used to be bulky monsters that sat on or under desks. Now they are highly portable, sleek, and stylish. And as noted above, very tough. Dropping a MacBook off a table these days doesn't even trash the hard drive. Usually you just pick it up and keep going. If by some chance, it does break, there is always Applecare, which will fix or replace it for the user.

 

Add in to that that almost no users really need or even want to upgrade the RAM in their machines, and you can see why it makes so much sense to make the machines tough and stylish, and why upgradability is not really much of a factor. Even for me, and I am considered a "power" user, a mid 2012 i7 powered MBP with 8gb is plenty of power to do almost everything I want.

 

-Paul

[Kal Rubinson]

I think this post sums up the original question well ... the MacMini is chosen a lot for a music server because for the form factor it is well priced.

Exactly. As a longstanding WinPC guy, I was so curious about it that I bought a MacMini which I set up as a server. It is, pretty much, doing what I do on much bigger, more expensive PC servers, including FLAC, multichannel and ISOs. It didn't come naturally to me but it is coming along well.

[ringenesherre]

Add in to that that almost no users really need or even want to upgrade the RAM in their machines, and you can see why it makes so much sense to make the machines tough and stylish, and why upgradability is not really much of a factor. Even for me, and I am considered a "power" user, a mid 2012 i7 powered MBP with 8gb is plenty of power to do almost everything I want.

 

Same here. I'm doing most of my work on a mid 2010 i7 powered MBP 15" with 8gb of RAM and 250+750=1000GB of SSD (no stupid slot loader). When that is not enough, chances are that I need to use my Linux computing servers in the 19" rack or an off-site Linux cluster with hundreds of cores ;-)

 

That said, my next notebook (being ordered right now) will be a MBP 13" retina with 16 GB and 1 TB of SSD. More powerful than my 4 year old 15" and weighs half of

[ringenesherre]

• 3.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor
  
• 12GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory
  
• Dual AMD FirePro D300
  with 2GB GDDR5 VRAM each
  
• 256GB PCIe-based flash storage¹
  
• Cost: $2999
  

 

Let's look at the parts cost (EUR incl. VAT) that somehow minimally satisfy your request:

• 249 =:= Intel Xeon E5-1620 quad-core
  
• 153 =:= 3x4GB Transcend DDR3-1866
  
• 753 =:= 2x AMD FirePro 3D V5900, 2GB GDDR5
  
• 219 =:= Plextor M6e 256GB
  

In total EUR 1374 + motherboard + case + power supply.

 

Ah ... won't be significantly cheaper. And definitely not better

[ringenesherre]

If I compare by German prices (not that I'm living there, but they have very nice price comparison engines), for the same money as the entry level Mac Pro, this is the best ready made system I could find:

 

Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3, 4x 3.50GHz, 16GB RAM (2x 8GB), 2TB HDD + 256GB SSD, DVD+/-RW DL, 1x NVIDIA Quadro K4000, 2GB, VGA, DVI-D, DisplayPort, 4x USB 3.0, 6x USB 2.0, Gb LAN, 24in1 Cardreader, SATA 3Gb/s, SATA 6Gb/s, serial, Windows 8 Pro 64bit and Windows 7 Professional 64bit, dimensions, 175x395x419mm, incl. keyboard, 3 years warranty

 

I know what I would take ;-)

[Daudio]

When Bill Gates developed DOS, home computers were in their infancy, and he and he parlayed that genius to become one of the wealthiest men alive. But, for me, I found this programming language incomprehensible. I still, to this day, do not know how to operate a Windows PC. So, I embraced the Mac over twenty years ago. They were even pricier then than now. Yet, Jobs and Wozniak created something even an idiot could master, with their GUI and mouse. And, let's not forget that Windows was copied from the Mac interface.

 

Sometimes the power of myth makes me sad

 

1) Bill Gates did not develop MS-DOS (cash-cow #1), he bought it from SCP. His programming staff modified it somewhat to fit the IBM PC environment. There is still some controversy that the Seattle Computer Products 86-DOS was a ripoff of another earlier OS, Digital Researchs CP/M.

Most of MS most popular products were purchased from original developers and 'integrated' into the MS ecosystem with baling wire and chewing gum. Apple taught MS how to program in a GUI with the contracted out job of coding Word and Excel for the new Macintosh platforms (cash-cow #3)

 

2) Bill gates was not a super-programmer. His big contribution to MS growth and wealth was in the licensing agreements and his understanding of the software business side of the newly developing PC industry(remember his father was a very successful lawyer).

I heard a story of a skilled MS programmer criticizing a particular portion of the Basic compiler code as 'crap' in Bills presence. It turned out that it had been written by Gates. Only the intercession of a key MS manager saved the guys job

The myth of 'Uber Programmer Bill' was useful for Gates both for his ego, and for better controlling all the young, just out of school, males, that made up the bulk of MS programmers (a few chiefs, lots of low paid Indians).

 

3) DOS is not a programming language, it is an Operating System, which runs programs developed in various languages, including BASIC, which is what Microsoft wrote and sold, for various computer systems until they got humungously lucky and were approached by IBM to supply an OS for the new IBM PC then under development.

 

4) MS Windows (cash-cow #2) was not copied from the Mac. Gates wanted to copy it but his lawyers managed to convince him that MS didn't really need that kind of a losing lawsuit. Windows actually came out of a small individuals 'skunk works' project, that got some weak internal support and slowly managed to survive many crappy iterations until version 3.1 worked well enough to go on and sell quite well in the x86 marketplace. They got sued later, but managed to win.

Technically it has always been a kludge, even up to today (IMNSHO).

 

5) (in response to someones else's comment) The MacIntosh OS was not copied from Xerox's PARC Alto system. Steve Jobs had a demo of their system and saw the concepts of the graphical display, mouse etc. He took those basic ideas back to Apple, and drove the development of better and more commercial GUI OS's.

MS later learned about GUIs from the contract with Apple to write Word and Excel for the Mac.

 

More here...

[wwaldmanfan]

@daudio-

Thank you for educating us on the real history behind the development of the home PC's/Mac's that are so integral to our everyday lives. The last thing I want to do as a participant on this terrific website is disseminate B.S., and I will do my due diligence in the future, or simply refrain from commenting on matters on which I am only half-informed.

[Jud]

We'll see what he's willing to do. If I can find him a decent older mac pro or laptop decked out the way he wants it for the right price we will go that route.

 

If you really mean an older Mac Pro, I'd suggest not - if it still works with today's OSs and apps, it won't for much longer, would be my guess.

 

Here are a couple of examples/prices of refurbed stuff on the Apple Store:

 

- 15" MacBook Pro, 256GB SSD, 16GB RAM, 2.6GHz i7 quad core, Retina display, $1829.

 

- 27" iMac with 8GB RAM (Apple wants a lot of money for 16 or especially 32 - you can get it cheaper 3rd party, I think) and 1TB HDD (same as the RAM - you want a 3rd party SSD) is $1699 for either a late 2012 3.4GHz i7, or a late 2013 3.4GHz i5. Then you'd add cost of RAM and SSD, say $320 for 4 8GB RAM sticks and $200 or less for a 256GB SSD (you don't even have to remove the 1TB HDD, the iMac has a slot for an SSD), and your uncle would have an iMac with 256GB SSD and 32GB of RAM for a little over $2200.

[Miska]

To bad though that it does not have a wired Ethernet connection. A C.A.P.S. to me would seem the better solution.

 

You can add that using a small USB dongle, but I don't know why would you want to have wired?

[Miska]

(grin) You have never gotten so frustrated with Windows? It used to be a bit of a joke how many Windows machines were physically damaged by their users. As long as I remember, only one user ever tossed a Mac in the trash... And he was a mainframer!

 

I have to say from developer point of view, Apple's arrogance is the most infuriating thing...

 

Best documentation:

1) Windows

2) Linux

3) OS X

 

Best feature set:

1) Linux

2) Windows

3) OS X

 

Possibility to see the source code and freedom to customize any part of the OS:

1) Linux

1000) OS X

1000000) Windows

 

 

If you ask me, from developer point of view, Linux is the winner. No doubt.

[Jud]

I have to say from developer point of view, Apple's arrogance is the most infuriating thing...

 

Best documentation:

1) Windows

2) Linux

3) OS X

 

Best feature set:

1) Linux

2) Windows

3) OS X

 

Possibility to see the source code and freedom to customize any part of the OS:

1) Linux

1000) OS X

1000000) Windows

 

 

If you ask me, from developer point of view, Linux is the winner. No doubt.

 

Source and customization I definitely agree, of course. Documentation, I think I could see OS X docs being better than those of many Linux distros; Ubuntu and variants are pretty good, though. Feature set, that depends. Could be you want to run particular apps, say Photoshop instead of a Linux app, or you want to play games.... So there I think it's extremely variable depending on what kind of customer you are. If you are a developer, that still depends: Yes, obviously Linux has great free development tools, but what if you want MS Visual C++ or are accustomed to using XCode?

[Miska]

Documentation, I think I could see OS X docs being better than those of many Linux distros; Ubuntu and variants are pretty good, though.

 

I mean developer documentation. That doesn't depend on Linux distro, more about documentation of the various subsystems. Developing OS X version of HQPlayer has been the most hostile experience so far. Apple randomly changing things in new releases without proper API lifetime management doesn't really help either.

 

Feature set, that depends.

 

I look primarily from audio player development perspective.

 

Could be you want to run particular apps, say Photoshop instead of a Linux app, or you want to play games....

 

Of course you can always find an application that is only available on one particular platform. For games, Linux is a good platform and becoming even more so with SteamOS. Adding two top-notch nVidia GPUs through SLI or two top-notch AMD GPUs via CrossFire is not a problem on Windows or Linux but not even doable with current Apple hardware.

 

So there I think it's extremely variable depending on what kind of customer you are.

 

In this context I look only from perspective of developing my player application for all three platforms.

 

If you are a developer, that still depends: Yes, obviously Linux has great free development tools, but what if you want MS Visual C++ or are accustomed to using XCode?

 

HQPlayer has been written entirely using vim as editor and running compiler and debugger from command line...

 

What if you want KDevelop or Anjuta?

[rchunter]

If you really mean an older Mac Pro, I'd suggest not - if it still works with today's OSs and apps, it won't for much longer, would be my guess.

 

Here are a couple of examples/prices of refurbed stuff on the Apple Store:

 

- 15" MacBook Pro, 256GB SSD, 16GB RAM, 2.6GHz i7 quad core, Retina display, $1829.

 

- 27" iMac with 8GB RAM (Apple wants a lot of money for 16 or especially 32 - you can get it cheaper 3rd party, I think) and 1TB HDD (same as the RAM - you want a 3rd party SSD) is $1699 for either a late 2012 3.4GHz i7, or a late 2013 3.4GHz i5. Then you'd add cost of RAM and SSD, say $320 for 4 8GB RAM sticks and $200 or less for a 256GB SSD (you don't even have to remove the 1TB HDD, the iMac has a slot for an SSD), and your uncle would have an iMac with 256GB SSD and 32GB of RAM for a little over $2200.

 

Yeah, I was looking over the refurb store and they don't even have them listed. They must be too old. Thanks for your help jud. I would have never even known about that refurb page. That 15" macbook pro looks alright. They even have the 13" version for under a $1000.

[wgscott]

HQPlayer has been written entirely using vim as editor and running compiler and debugger from command line...

 

Excellent.

 

I even use vi(m) key bindings in my unix shell (zsh).

[Skeptic]

It depends, once you add in a moderately attractive small form factor case I have always found the components add up to as much or more than buying a MacMini.

Yes, but you end up with modern hardware. The Mac Mini is two-and-a-half generations behind now, using the old Ivy Bridge CPUs.

 

iPhone, iPad, Mac Buyer's Guide: Know When to Buy

 

Again ... that was shown to be untrue; buying similar level components to the new MacPro will cost you as much as buying the MacPro.

That really depends on what people consider to be "similar" components.

Apple fans would have you believe that the Mac Pro has a FirePro GPU in there, but it's just a pair of consumer-grade cards masquerading as pro cards. (no ECC memory for example)

 

Apple has a significant mark-up on the CPU prices.

The 12-core upgrade is $3500, $900 more than Intel's price and the cost of the quad-core it replaces is $300.

So that is a $1200 mark-up, and you know that Apple will be getting a big discount on them.

There is nothing special or custom about the CPUs in the Mac Pro, that's pure greed.

 

And it depends on what you mean by "similar" hardware.

If you're building a PC, you are not limited to the small size of the Mac Pro and could opt for a pair of quad-core or hex-core CPUs which is significantly cheaper than buying a single 8-core or 12-core CPU. It should also be faster.

 

For that matter, unless you are using highly multithreaded applications, a consumer-grade 4790K will outperform the Xeons.

With Apple, you only have access to the Haswell desktop CPUs in an iMac, which means that it's paired with a mobile GPU.

If you're building a PC, you can pick whatever GPU you want to go with that.

 

When you consider the total cost of owning a Mac Pro, such as having to buy expensive Thunderbolt enclosures (e.g. a Promise Pegasus) to add storage, things start getting considerably more expensive.

 

The Mac Pro is a very nice machine if you need a computer with that sort of hardware in a small form-factor - you won't find a PC close to that size with that sort of hardware, since they use modular components and server-grade boards are typically not built in smaller sizes. (there are a handful of mATX boards, but nothing smaller)

 

One the negative side a Hackintosh (unless components are selected very careful) is a complete pain in the posteria when it comes to updates, bug fixes and security updates. In addition you have absolutely zero support outside of geeks and the forums they inhabit!

I agree that they are generally too much hassle. If you want to use OSX, you're usually better off just buying a Mac unless you have a lot of free time to spend on getting it working.

 

The choice between FLAC and ALAC is not about proprietary vs open source as both formats are (as of late 2011) open. If you use iTunes, yes FLAC is not supported but there are a lot of other music playback apps which do support FLAC. If you did want to run iTunes it will take the computer time to do the conversion, but for the user its a case of clicking a few times and then walking away.

I believe FLAC has file integrity checks that ALAC is lacking, so FLAC is objectively the better format to use.

ALAC is a lot more convenient if you own iOS devices though.

 

I am not sure if this is really fair, a in most cases you cannot fix a Mac for a reasonable cost due to the proprietary boards. Recently I have had top retire 4 Macs because of issues. # of the four would have been reparable for under $100 if they were traditional PC products. With that said, I get better sound out of Windows but I prefer the Mac interface(although that might be changed now that HQPlayer is ported to Mac).

It goes both ways really. I have been able to keep a couple of older MacBooks running with second-hand parts purchased off eBay at a reasonable price.

With a PC notebook, I would not have been able to source parts to repair the computer this far from its release.

While it is frustrating that Apple refuses to repair systems over a certain age, the notebooks are generally repairable.

 

On the other-hand, with a desktop PC everything inside the case is modular, and you will be able to replace the broken components with new parts which are faster than the old ones.

 

Not really. But he does a lot of photoshop so it would be nice. He'd have room for a bunch of ram 16GB, 32 would be nice, and at least enough room for a 256GB SSD and a 4TB HDD.

Keep in mind that unless he has an Adobe CC subscription, the older versions of Photoshop really only handle four cores at most and would perform better with a quad-core Haswell CPU than a Xeon.

 

I think upgrading memory in an iMac has always been considered difficult...

There used to just be a cover on the bottom of the machine you removed with a single screw, and had easy access to the RAM. That was it though - you couldn't access anything else inside the iMacs easily.

 

And this is a result of two factors - the first is a control on cost and reliability - in a laptop especially, soldering in the RAM makes the device much more reliable. It is also much more cost efficient since stuffing and soldering on the board can be automated, and that results in a higher quality product with less defects and failures.

I don't know, I've had RAM go bad in a couple of MacBooks now. It's cheap and easy to replace when that happens.

I'm not convinced that being soldered on the board would prevent this, and if it does happen, you are out of luck.

 

If by some chance, it does break, there is always Applecare, which will fix or replace it for the user.

Applecare is an extended warranty, not insurance. Damage is not covered.

[Jud]

Yeah, I was looking over the refurb store and they don't even have them listed. They must be too old. Thanks for your help jud. I would have never even known about that refurb page. That 15" macbook pro looks alright. They even have the 13" version for under a $1000.

 

I figured if your uncle does photography work he'd like the 15" Retina screen.

[rchunter]

I figured if your uncle does photography work he'd like the 15" Retina screen.

 

Yeah, he would. I'll have to see how much he's willing to spend.

[wgscott]

editor and running compiler and debugger from command line...

 

As a command-line junkie m'self, may I humbly suggest three things, any one of which could change your life:

 

1. zsh (free)

 

2. Textmate (v. 2.0 is free)

 

3. iTerm (free)

[Jud]

Excellent.

 

I even use vi(m) key bindings in my unix shell (zsh).

 

Back when the world was young I used emacs as browser, editor, mail and news reader.... Never got into vi(m). Bill Joy, its inventor, didn't seem that proud of it.

 

Good, let's have a vi vs. emacs argument!

[wgscott]

emacs is for girls who listen to 96kbps mp3s of Justin BuyBeer.

[wgscott]

How can anyone take an editor seriously that has a built-in shrink function and a huge library of Zippy the Pinhead quotes?

[Jud]

As a command-line junkie m'self, may I humbly suggest three things, any one of which could change your life:

 

1. zsh (free)

 

2. Textmate (v. 2.0 is free)

 

3. iTerm (free)

 

I've always liked the terminal that comes with XFCE, called, wittily, Terminal. I'll have a look at iTerm and Textmate. zsh is already my preferred shell.

[Jud]

emacs is for girls who listen to 96kbps mp3s of Justin BuyBeer.

 

And Tim Berners-Lee.

[Jud]

How can anyone take an editor seriously that has a built-in shrink function and a huge library of Zippy the Pinhead quotes?

 

I would've preferred panels from Checkered Demon strips myself.