General discussionIf you aren't sure which forum your post would be best housed in, post it here. Some posts and threads may eventually be moved to other forums.
Your Macs don't have i-series Intel CPUs? like Core i3 or i5?
Ian
No I predate that my iiMac is late 2009 the MacBook 2010
My iMac is the 21.5 inch 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, my MacBook a 13 inch 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo.
Both with RAM upgrades to 8 gig.
For anyone reading this the iMac will be for sale soon, I am changing to the 27 inch intel i5 quad core with a SSD. I am just waiting for the new generation to be lunched (rumour is mid to the end of June), with the new intel quad CPU's the new OS system Mountain Lion and it's said touch screen. If the regular pattern is shown the higher spec wil be at current prices.
Ian what are your views on the hybrid drives with both SSD & H/D in the one unit. These are also offered my Apple.
I think it's a must in a desktop model to have a conventional large capacity drive alongside an SSD so you can store all your data on the slower drive and benefit from the OS and application execution acceleration of the SSD. Not having an additional drive in a laptop is an acceptable compromise in order to preserve portability. For a non-portable computer not having large capacity storage in addition to an SSD would be unacceptable.
I think it's a must in a desktop model to have a conventional large capacity drive alongside an SSD so you can store all your data on the slower drive and benefit from the OS and application execution acceleration of the SSD. Not having an additional drive in a laptop is an acceptable compromise in order to preserve portability. For a non-portable computer not having large capacity storage in addition to an SSD would be unacceptable.
Ian
Yes that was my position, but in preparation for the new computer I have put all my images on a FireWire external H/D, with a view when prices are more reasonable of haveing a Thunderbolt external drive. Thundebolt data transfer speed is faster than a conventional H/D is capable off so all that I have seen to date are external SSD which at one TB capacity are to say the least an arm & leg
In my experience external drives are not a match for internal drives. I have a 2TB Samsung drive installed in my desktop tower PC and an identical drive connected via a docking station connected to the PC via esata, which on paper should be as fast as sata, which connects the internal drive. But the external drive is detectably slower than the internal one.
In my experience external drives are not a match for internal drives. I have a 2TB Samsung drive installed in my desktop tower PC and an identical drive connected via a docking station connected to the PC via esata, which on paper should be as fast as sata, which connects the internal drive. But the external drive is detectably slower than the internal one.
Ian
Undoubtedly your are right as things go with USB, firewire and even eSata, but Thunderbird is a whole new ball game on speed.
When they finally start to produce and ship Windows machines with Thunderbird and Thunderbird cards for towers the market will be substantially larger and prices of external drives will start to drop.
The reasons I am led to believe why conventional drives are not offered and will not be offered with Thunderbolt is that the full potential of the system cannot be achieved and SSD are the only way forward to get the full value of the speed.
Intel the Apple partner in Thunderbird will want to see and I should think has it in the agreement that at some point Windows based machines will get Thunderbolt, it would be a waste not to. It leap frogs USB3, in fact one posting on I think it was MacWorld said it makes USB3 redundant before its even got going.
Time will tell
Patrick
Undoubtedly your are right as things go with USB, firewire and even eSata, but Thunderbird is a whole new ball game on speed.
When they finally start to produce and ship Windows machines with Thunderbird and Thunderbird cards for towers the market will be substantially larger and prices of external drives will start to drop.
The reasons I am led to believe why conventional drives are not offered and will not be offered with Thunderbolt is that the full potential of the system cannot be achieved and SSD are the only way forward to get the full value of the speed.
Intel the Apple partner in Thunderbird will want to see and I should think has it in the agreement that at some point Windows based machines will get Thunderbolt, it would be a waste not to. It leap frogs USB3, in fact one posting on I think it was MacWorld said it makes USB3 redundant before its even got going.
Time will tell
Patrick
With the best will in the world, MacWorld is bound to be sceptical about USB3 in favour of Apple's choice. But with USB3 devices being plug compatible with standard USB, it's not going to go away and there is precious little evidence that Thunderbolt has a significant future with platforms outside of the Mac. It was the same when FireWire was adopted by Apple, Mac fans said USB was dead. Look what happened.
Apple does not support USB3. What's really sad and so typical of Apple is that it is denying its users access to the burgeoning range of USB3 devices which are great value as well as high performance. On paper Thunderbolt is twice as fast and has a range of functionalities that goes beyond storage connectivity (like video transmission, etc.). But 99% of connected storage devices can't get anywhere near the speed limit of USB3 let alone Thunderbolt. There is no denying that Thunderbolt, which is actually an Intel product, is technically impressive. But its applications are, and for the foreseeable future, limited to niche uses. Apple's refusal to support USB3 is inexcusable and smacks of their historical policy of limiting users to what they think they should be using rather than providing them with a democratic choice. Ultimately, Apple will probably have to introduce USB3 just as they had to introduce USB despite being anti to start with.
With the best will in the world, MacWorld is bound to be sceptical about USB3 in favour of Apple's choice. But with USB3 devices being plug compatible with standard USB, it's not going to go away and there is precious little evidence that Thunderbolt has a significant future with platforms outside of the Mac. It was the same when FireWire was adopted by Apple, Mac fans said USB was dead. Look what happened.
Apple does not support USB3. What's really sad and so typical of Apple is that it is denying its users access to the burgeoning range of USB3 devices which are great value as well as high performance. On paper Thunderbolt is twice as fast and has a range of functionalities that goes beyond storage connectivity (like video transmission, etc.). But 99% of connected storage devices can't get anywhere near the speed limit of USB3 let alone Thunderbolt. There is no denying that Thunderbolt, which is actually an Intel product, is technically impressive. But its applications are, and for the foreseeable future, limited to niche uses. Apple's refusal to support USB3 is inexcusable and smacks of their historical policy of limiting users to what they think they should be using rather than providing them with a democratic choice. Ultimately, Apple will probably have to introduce USB3 just as they had to introduce USB despite being anti to start with.
Ian
Hi ian
I must agree with you on USB3 I can see no good reason why Mac should not adopt it, let's see what the new generation of iMacs brings.
I have to dispute your comment of apples reluctance to adopt USB the very first iMac back in 1998 made full use of USB 1.1. USB was first introduced in 1996 as USB 1. It was USB 1.1 introduced the same year as the first iMac that was the first universally accepted version of USB and thus widely adopted.
I could never understand why FireWire was never better used as it was always faster than USB in practice. I had a FireWire card in my Dell before going Mac, and always found the firewire external drive faster than USB 2 external Drives.
Computer historians are divided on this PCs and Windows had USB well before Apple. I remember seeing it presented at the launch of Windows 95 in late 1995 and PCs soon started to include the hardware even though Windows didn't yet have built-in OS support.
Windows 95 support for USB was introduced in August 1996. It was only two years later that Apple produced its first Mac that featured USB ports.
And can you believe it that Mac fans will tell you that (ignoring the fact that Apple was over two years late to the USB party) that Apple legitimised and boosted the take up of USB. Amazing, considering Macs have always had a very small percentage of the overall PC market.
And look at iPods, iPhones and iPads - they are USB-connected devices but Apple chose a completely non-standard port and connector. And that became incompatible with later Apple implementations. Apple is now, I believe, the only smartphone manufacturer not to have voluntarily adopted the global standard for Micro USB ports and connectors. Why does Apple do this?
Computer historians are divided on this PCs and Windows had USB well before Apple. I remember seeing it presented at the launch of Windows 95 in late 1995 and PCs soon started to include the hardware even though Windows didn't yet have built-in OS support.
Windows 95 support for USB was introduced in August 1996. It was only two years later that Apple produced its first Mac that featured USB ports.
And can you believe it that Mac fans will tell you that (ignoring the fact that Apple was over two years late to the USB party) that Apple legitimised and boosted the take up of USB. Amazing, considering Macs have always had a very small percentage of the overall PC market.
And look at iPods, iPhones and iPads - they are USB-connected devices but Apple chose a completely non-standard port and connector. And that became incompatible with later Apple implementations. Apple is now, I believe, the only smartphone manufacturer not to have voluntarily adopted the global standard for Micro USB ports and connectors. Why does Apple do this?
Ian
The early version USB 1 in 96 was a little flaky, it was version 1.1 in 98 that sorted things out. The first iMac was USB dependant no alternative connections for keyboard or mouse, at the time PC's had alternative connections, and continued to do so for a long time. It made sense for Apple to be sure of what they were doing. Apples history up to that point was patchy to say the least, the iMac was a new start make or break for the company. The New machine had to be reliable and in that sense it showed USB viable, so it could be argued that Mac did legitamise USB. That first iMac went on to be the most popular consumer machine in the US thus creating the platform for the regeneration of the ailing company.
For my part I always thought that early iMac an awful machine, as was that silly articulated iMac, but then I was at the time a confirmed Windows user.
Apples history has been one of do it my way, that early iMac a case in point, no one else had used USB exclusively at that time.
Their thinking has proved to work, consumers love their products they go from strength to strength now the worlds most valuable company, 2.4 times more valuable than Microsoft and tiped to become the first Trillion doller corporation.
Unfortunately, I have to take issue with you again (but in the friendliest possible way of course )
People were using early USB devices on PCs with Windows 95 even before official support was provided by Microsoft. You simply had to run software supplied with the USB peripheral and it probably wouldn't work with anything else.
Certainly by 1998 most PCs were being produced with USB ports. You have to remember that there was a historical influence from the previous generation of peripheral connection hardware, namely the parallel port, mainly for printers, and the serial port for modems and other comms-related devices. There were also dedicated ports for keyboards and mice. These worked well enough and PC users had lots of printers and other hardware that would only work on these so of course there was good reason to preserve compatibility. Apple, on the other hand didn't think like that with the iMac.
Did the iMac legitimise USB? No it did not; USB was already firmly established by Windows PCs for two years prior. Of course what the iMac did was force its users to adopt USB - whether they wanted to or not. Windows and the PC gave you a choice. Yes, USB 1.1, which came out at roughly the same time as the iMac, fixed some bugs, but lots of USB products were already widely used by that time. Apple has never had a big share of the PC market anyway so I don't buy the suggestion that the iMac made all the difference.
The iMac may indeed have been the single most popular PC-category model at some point, but that doesn't alter the fact that Windows PCs out-sold Macs by a massive margin. It's the same today. I read one Mac publication headline recently declaring that Apple was now the number one mobile PC brand. Of course they had included iPads in the figures. Today HP, Dell, Acer, and Lenovo all have notebook PC market shares larger than Apple and the miscellaneous other Windows PC notebook brands are cumulatively larger than Apple's share several times over.
And let's look at the Apple fortune. Doesn't that make you wonder? If, as you say, Apple is worth 2.4x more than Microsoft but serves just a fraction of the number of users - (probably less than 10%) - does that not ask you why Apple is so rich? Does it not ask you why Apple charges so much of a premium for their products?
I'm not suggesting that you chose to go for Macs for anything other than well-considered reasons but how many people bought a Mac simply because of the style and trendiness of the Mac brand, without regard for value and in many cases functionality. My brother in law, who is not short of a penny or two, bought a Mac to replace his PC. Within a year he had sold it and returned to a PC because he could not get on with it. Not everyone can afford that luxury to start with, let alone abandon it.
So yes, Apple's corpulent financial situation simply reconfirms my opinion that if you buy a Mac you are likely to be paying over the odds. Even if I accepted that Macs are somehow superior to PCs, the exorbitant pricing of Macs excludes them from people with tight budgets. That could be called discriminatory.
Anyway, the good news is that you don't HAVE to have a Mac as there are plenty of excellent Windows PCs (or you can run Linux) out there with great choice and value, as well as power and style. I wouldn't want Macs to disappear, but I just hope that people who have decided to buy a Mac really know what they're doing.
Unfortunately, I have to take issue with you again (but in the friendliest possible way of course )
People were using early USB devices on PCs with Windows 95 even before official support was provided by Microsoft. You simply had to run software supplied with the USB peripheral and it probably wouldn't work with anything else.
Certainly by 1998 most PCs were being produced with USB ports. You have to remember that there was a historical influence from the previous generation of peripheral connection hardware, namely the parallel port, mainly for printers, and the serial port for modems and other comms-related devices. There were also dedicated ports for keyboards and mice. These worked well enough and PC users had lots of printers and other hardware that would only work on these so of course there was good reason to preserve compatibility. Apple, on the other hand didn't think like that with the iMac.
Did the iMac legitimise USB? No it did not; USB was already firmly established by Windows PCs for two years prior. Of course what the iMac did was force its users to adopt USB - whether they wanted to or not. Windows and the PC gave you a choice. Yes, USB 1.1, which came out at roughly the same time as the iMac, fixed some bugs, but lots of USB products were already widely used by that time. Apple has never had a big share of the PC market anyway so I don't buy the suggestion that the iMac made all the difference.
The iMac may indeed have been the single most popular PC-category model at some point, but that doesn't alter the fact that Windows PCs out-sold Macs by a massive margin. It's the same today. I read one Mac publication headline recently declaring that Apple was now the number one mobile PC brand. Of course they had included iPads in the figures. Today HP, Dell, Acer, and Lenovo all have notebook PC market shares larger than Apple and the miscellaneous other Windows PC notebook brands are cumulatively larger than Apple's share several times over.
And let's look at the Apple fortune. Doesn't that make you wonder? If, as you say, Apple is worth 2.4x more than Microsoft but serves just a fraction of the number of users - (probably less than 10%) - does that not ask you why Apple is so rich? Does it not ask you why Apple charges so much of a premium for their products?
I'm not suggesting that you chose to go for Macs for anything other than well-considered reasons but how many people bought a Mac simply because of the style and trendiness of the Mac brand, without regard for value and in many cases functionality. My brother in law, who is not short of a penny or two, bought a Mac to replace his PC. Within a year he had sold it and returned to a PC because he could not get on with it. Not everyone can afford that luxury to start with, let alone abandon it.
So yes, Apple's corpulent financial situation simply reconfirms my opinion that if you buy a Mac you are likely to be paying over the odds. Even if I accepted that Macs are somehow superior to PCs, the exorbitant pricing of Macs excludes them from people with tight budgets. That could be called discriminatory.
Anyway, the good news is that you don't HAVE to have a Mac as there are plenty of excellent Windows PCs (or you can run Linux) out there with great choice and value, as well as power and style. I wouldn't want Macs to disappear, but I just hope that people who have decided to buy a Mac really know what they're doing.
Ian
I can see we won't ever agree, the fact your brother in law didn't t get on with a Mac is another matter, I also know the odd person not to get on with them, but the vast majority that have moved over take to them like a fish to water. Over the past two years members of the photo club that have replaced ageing machines have bought Mac, we now have a third of members using Mac if you include iPad over half and growing. It's a similar story at my other club.
It's something of an insult to say that people are buying grossly overpriced products. We live in an age where value for money is paramount buyers must feel they are getting want they want for their money, the cheapest is not always the best value.
Second hand values of Macs hold their price better than PC, another factore to take into account.
Mac are not the only premium price products in the computer world, after our discussion on screens a few weeks ago, I was in John Lewis Computer department so I was able to compare side by side similar spec screens on all in ones working, the Mac had all but one beat hands down for clarity vibrance and viewing angle, a Sony all in one the price £1500.
Thankfully we do live in a world where we can choose. 90% of PCs offer you the choice of style, price, and a wide variety of features. Naturally, some PCs will be better than others. If Macs were the perfect solution then surely we'd all be using them? I completely respect the choice of those who buy a Mac because it's best for their needs. They have a choice. Once in the Mac ecosystem, though, choices are cut right down. That wouldn't work for me, it clearly isn't a problem for you and that's fine.
If you are also content that a lot of money is being made through your Mac purchase, that's fine too! It's not for me, not just because I'm suspicious of the profit margin Apple is clearly able to extract from its customers, but because I know I can get better value from PCs.
The better resale value argument is trumpeted all the time, but second hand PC values can also be very high. I considered buying a used example of the later version of my HP laptop recently. For a three year old example the eBay prices were around 60% of the price when new. Too high, indeed, for me to justify that strategy!
Anyway, Patrick - let's not fall out over this. The main thing is to be happy with one's choices and you certainly seem to be. That's the most important thing. As I say all the time - research your planned purchase and ensure your knowledge is up to date and then you should be able to make the perfect choice, be it Mac or PC.
Thankfully we do live in a world where we can choose. 90% of PCs offer you the choice of style, price, and a wide variety of features. Naturally, some PCs will be better than others. If Macs were the perfect solution then surely we'd all be using them? I completely respect the choice of those who buy a Mac because it's best for their needs. They have a choice. Once in the Mac ecosystem, though, choices are cut right down. That wouldn't work for me, it clearly isn't a problem for you and that's fine.
If you are also content that a lot of money is being made through your Mac purchase, that's fine too! It's not for me, not just because I'm suspicious of the profit margin Apple is clearly able to extract from its customers, but because I know I can get better value from PCs.
The better resale value argument is trumpeted all the time, but second hand PC values can also be very high. I considered buying a used example of the later version of my HP laptop recently. For a three year old example the eBay prices were around 60% of the price when new. Too high, indeed, for me to justify that strategy!
Anyway, Patrick - let's not fall out over this. The main thing is to be happy with one's choices and you certainly seem to be. That's the most important thing. As I say all the time - research your planned purchase and ensure your knowledge is up to date and then you should be able to make the perfect choice, be it Mac or PC.
Ian
No falling out Ian I enjoy a good debate.
Back to the actual upgrade, the MacBook is now so responsive and quick I am getting impatient with the iMac even though in reality it is not a slow machine.
I would recommend SSD to anyone upgrading an existing machine or buying a new one, be it Windows or Mac they make such an amazing difference.
Yes, the laptop I upgraded last year has had a new lease of life. OS and programs load nice and fast, and disk intensive activities are very responsive. Julia's laptop has a CPU 50% faster than my laptop, but hers feels more sluggish. It's only when doing CPU-intensive things like video rendering or Lightroom that you feel the laptop struggling.
PCs and Windows had USB well before Apple. I remember seeing it presented at the launch of Windows 95 in late 1995 and PCs soon started to include the hardware even though Windows didn't yet have built-in OS support.
Re: SSD Upgrade
they make such an amazing difference. 
Linear Mode
