Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1.    #1  
    I have an off topic question that'll get the great 'screen protectors' and 'test' threads off the top of the list...

    I have a friend who is switching from Windows to Mac in the near future and he was asking if there was a website or book that existed that might facilitate the switch. IE: how to handle all those windows files when transfering them to your mac. sorta thing.

    Does anybody know of a site or book that i could recommend? I've searched around alittle (still am) and thought the vast array of people on this site might be able to help.

    I vaguely remember a website that had tutorials on various things from tying a specific knot to using your visor! I can't find the site..but would they have something like this?

    Thanks in advance.
  2. #2  
    Try http://www.applelinks.com/

    Conversions from Windows Office products:
    http://www.microsoft.com/Mac/Office2000/default.asp


    [This message has been edited by BudPritchard (edited 07-11-2000).]
  3. #3  
    Try:

    MacOS 9, the Missing Manual:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565928571/ref=sim_books/104-0765282-9215934

    As for transferring PC file to the Mac...that's pretty simple...just burn some CDs and move them over.

    Cross-plarform file formats will work fine (DOC, EPS, BMP, AVI, MOV, XLS, etc...). PC-only files will not, unless, of course you go buy Virtual PC (somthing like $60)...which will let you run ALL of your PC software.
  4. #4  
    I have to admit....I've been toying with the idea of getting a Mac as well. Of course, I could never move away from the PC, but I would like to own Mac based system if, for no other reason, than to gain experience with the platform. One of my primary reasons for not moving to the Mac is cost. The price/performance ratio is very bad! The current iMac offerings a total joke, and the G4 is horribly over-priced.

    I'll be keeping my eye on MWNY next week. Who knows, maybe Jobs will pull another rabbit out of his hat!
  5. #5  
    You typically pay a a few hundred more dollars for a Mac than a PC for a comparable system if you are looking at the G4 systems. The iMacs typically equal or exceed comparable PCs for the same price, though you loose the expandability.

    The G4s are great machines, though. Well worth the price if you are a Mac user. Windows is running better on my G4 than it was on my Compaq 180mhz laptop!
  6. #6  
    I recently had the great pleasure of setting up an iMac and teaching my Uncle how to use the Mac OS. That little machine is the most amazing thing I have come across in the computer world. After pulling it out of the box,by its handle, I placed it face down on the table. I quickly installed the extra 128 MB of RAM he had bought, flipped the iMac right side up, plugged it in and turned it on. The whole process took no more than five minutes. Over the weekend we explored various programs and how they worked. We watched DVD movies, edited home videos and surfed the internet. Between 6:00 PM Saturday and 10:00 PM Sunday I was able to setup and explain how to use a computer to a man that had never touched one in his entire life. By the time I left on Sunday, he could send e-mail, print pictures, navigate through the HD, play DVD's, back-up files on zip disks, and use just about every program that came with the computer. If that iMac had been a PC I may have spent all of that time setting it up and trying to get the different components to work together.

    I'm not quite sure which part of that you find so funny foo fighter, but in my opinion the iMac combines the power and simplicity (not to mention elegance) of computing that couldn't be touched upon by a wintel machine at any price. If you need more expansion options then you shouldn't mind paying a bit extra for the G4. The iMac is a great deal for an Apple product, especially since it brings the price down to the range of a PC with comparable specifications. You can go and spend as much money on a PC as you like, but it won't become any more reliable or be any less of a hassle to use.

    All of the current Mac's are wonderful machines. You get your money's worth and in the case of the iMac you get a lot more than your money's worth.
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by lennonhead:
    I recently had the great pleasure of setting up an iMac and teaching my Uncle how to use the Mac OS. That little machine is the most amazing thing I have come across in the computer world. After pulling it out of the box,by its handle, I placed it face down on the table. I quickly installed the extra 128 MB of RAM he had bought, flipped the iMac right side up, plugged it in and turned it on. The whole process took no more than five minutes. Over the weekend we explored various programs and how they worked. We watched DVD movies, edited home videos and surfed the internet. Between 6:00 PM Saturday and 10:00 PM Sunday I was able to setup and explain how to use a computer to a man that had never touched one in his entire life. By the time I left on Sunday, he could send e-mail, print pictures, navigate through the HD, play DVD's, back-up files on zip disks, and use just about every program that came with the computer. If that iMac had been a PC I may have spent all of that time setting it up and trying to get the different components to work together.

    I'm not quite sure which part of that you find so funny foo fighter, but in my opinion the iMac combines the power and simplicity (not to mention elegance) of computing that couldn't be touched upon by a wintel machine at any price. If you need more expansion options then you shouldn't mind paying a bit extra for the G4. The iMac is a great deal for an Apple product, especially since it brings the price down to the range of a PC with comparable specifications. You can go and spend as much money on a PC as you like, but it won't become any more reliable or be any less of a hassle to use.

    All of the current Mac's are wonderful machines. You get your money's worth and in the case of the iMac you get a lot more than your money's worth.
    Agree MACs are made to plug in and go. But so are PC's configured by DELL, etc. Then there are the WEBPC's. Not to mention the appliance PC's using Windows CE.
    Apple made a huge mistake in the late eighties using a closed system. IBM PC wasn't and that is the reason the Wintel platform is so entrenched in business today. I have had many people at work buy PC's for home since they use PC applications at work.




    [This message has been edited by BudPritchard (edited 07-12-2000).]
  8. #8  
    Apple made a huge mistake in the late eighties using a closed system. IBM PC wasn't and that is the reason the Wintel platform is so entrenched in business today.
    It should be noted that the 'open system' of IBM's machines really only helped Intel and Microsoft...who don't make machines. IBM didn't gain much at all in the long term. You can't compare "Wintel" to Apple. You can only compare Apple, who's core focus is the manufacturering of computer hardware, to other hardware companies such as IBM, Dell, Gateway, etc...

    You CAN compare Apple to Windows in the OS side of things, but that's really a different situation.

    And, of course, you can run "Wintel" software on a Mac anyways.
  9. #9  
    It should be noted that the 'open system' of IBM's machines really only helped Intel and Microsoft...who don't make machines. IBM didn't gain much at all in the long term. You can't compare "Wintel" to Apple.
    Well, I can. "Open" is a relative term. Windows isn't as open as many Unix-based OS's, but it runs on a hardware that's open to any number of manufacturers and hobbyists. Even in terms of the processor, x86 increasingly means Intel or AMD, so at lease there's some competition. Soon, Transmeta may make a name for itself with an entirely different, protean instruction set. IBM didn't try to make an open system. They assembled the PC with off-the-shelf hardware to get a product to market quickly. When Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS, IBM tried to make a proprietary platform with PS/2. But Compaq's computers had a math co-processor and outperformed the PS/2 at a much lower price. The rest is history.

    Conversely, the key to Apple's technical excellence lies in the fact the Mac has an even more intimate relationship between its hardware and its OS than Wintel. A large part of the reason that Windows sucks is that it has to bend over backwards to accommodate an enormous number of hardware configurations which aren't known to Microsoft in advance. Mac OS, on the other hand, is specifically designed for the hardware it ships with, which accounts for the elegance of the Mac user experience. That's the main reason why Apple, despite the world telling them otherwise, refused to port the OS over to Intel: most of the OS' advantages would've disappeared. Even Be, which started out on the Mac, took years to successfully pull off an Intel port of BeOS. A good analogy would be the Pocket PC's kludginess vs. the Palm OS's elegance. Windows wasn't designed for StrongARM. The fit had to be forced, and it shows.

    [This message has been edited by Gameboy70 (edited 07-13-2000).]
  10. #10  
    Just to update this thread, Apple has just decided to make it's 450 and 500 G4's dual processors at the same price point...certainly putting these machines on-par, if not exceeding, comparable wintel systems in terms of raw processor power.
  11. #11  
    The same price point? Are the new Macs going to be under $600, like 450MHz eMachines? (Incidentally, I paid $425 for my 400MHz Presario)
  12. #12  
    So far, I've been sorely disappointed with the new product announcements! Apple did not lower the price points on the G4 systems. And even more puzzling, the Cube costs $1800, and yet...it's a "mid-range" system? On a PC, $1000 is mid-range.

    Also, what happened to the 17" iMacs?

    *By the way, my web site is now open, if anyone is interested, check it out:
    www.palmfactory.com
  13. #13  
    The most fun you'll ever have in your hand!
    Is that a fact?
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by foo fighter:
    So far, I've been sorely disappointed with the new product announcements! Apple did not lower the price points on the G4 systems. And even more puzzling, the Cube costs $1800, and yet...it's a "mid-range" system? On a PC, $1000 is mid-range.
    *NOD* I haven't been too impressed with the products announced either .. Atleast they finally got with the program and kinda put together a good keyboard/mouse combo -- I'll be interested to see how well that mouse actually works (seems like having the entire mouse acting as a button wouldn't work all that great.. I'd think accidental clicks would occur frequently with it..)

    I don't understand the cube.. Its way too much for the intended midrange system. . granted, the case is cool given the size -- but coupled with the cost of the monitor (I am assuming it requires one of those new monitors with the ADC connection), its between $2300 for the basic model to $11,200 for the decked out model..

    Other than that, you get iMac's with different colors -- hurrah.. and dual processor G4's that may speed up Photoshop some but will basically be a huge waste of money as the second processor won't get a lot of use until the NeXT OS is out next year .. *yawn* ..

    I predict that within one year the mouse will be revamped (to include a traditional button) and the cube will be refocused as a monitor-less iMAC design...

    Joe

    BTW -- nice start on yer site .. looks good
  15. #15  
    The same price point? Are the new Macs going to be under $600, like 450MHz eMachines? (Incidentally, I paid $425 for my 400MHz Presario)
    I meant that the new dual processor G4s cost the same as the old single-processor G4s. Secondly, how do you compare an eMachine to ANYTHING? Not even in the same league as your presario (which isn't really comparable to a new G4 anyways...)

    So far, I've been sorely disappointed with the new product announcements! Apple did not lower the price points on the G4 systems. And even more puzzling, the Cube costs $1800, and yet...it's a "mid-range" system? On a PC, $1000 is mid-range.
    Well, they didn't lower the price points on the G4s because they added a second processor...a fair trade, IMO. The Cube is a "mid-range" Mac. People keep assuming Apple is trying to compete with companies like Gateway and Dell. It's not...its core consumer is much different than theirs.

    I think the cube is a luxury item. Not a replacement for a G4. It's small and fanless...two compelling features for those that want them.

    Other than that, you get iMac's with different colors
    The iMacs had a few updates...they all are iMac DVs now (DVD, firewire) with the exception of the entry-level one, which had a price drop.

    The biggest thing, imo, is that they finally conceded to the fact that the round mice suck and that optical is the way to go.

  16. #16  
    Another thing I think some people are missing: 500Mhz Wintel does NOT equal 500Mhz G4/G3. The RISC core of the Motorolla processors is MUCH different then the CISC core of INtel/AMD Processors. While apple claims that the processors used in their systems are 'twice as fast', they aren't, but they are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the competition. I would say more like 2/3. A 500Mhz G4 holds it own against a 1Ghz Athlon in photoshop. MEGAHERTZ ARE NOT EVERYTHING!!! That cannot be stressed enough.
  17. #17  
    Having just returned from MWNY I have first hand experience with the new mouse. Not having a button doesn't bother me, to be honest I couldn't really tell the difference between using my "Apple Desktop Bus Mouse II" and the new optical mouse. They are quite similar in form factor except for the button. The really good thing about the mouse is that it is optical. No more cleaning mouse balls!!!! Also it works on any surface.

    The Cube can support normal VGA displays as well as the new Apple single cord displays. There are two separate connectors on the bottom of the Cube.

    I have to agree about the multiprocessor G4's being a waste of money if you aren't a professional user. So what do you do if you are a "prosumer" that needs expandability????? Guess you settle for the Cube and a USB -> SCSI connector or you go for the very low end single processor G4.

    Luckily the graphics card in the cube uses a normal AGP slot. Although it is a small form factor card it is still possible that other companies will make their cards that fit in the Cube. Hint hint VooDoo 4 (VooDoo 5's are too big). Although this may not happen for a little while (due to the fact that nobody knows what Apple is going to come out with before hand), at least it will be an option at some point.

    The lack of PCI slots almost ruins the Cube. However the AGP slot somewhat makes up for this. Entrega makes a USB to SCSI adapter if you have any SCSI devices (first PCI card I would have gotten for a new G4 would have been a SCSI). Other than the lack of ability to upgrade (via PCI) to USB 2 or FireWire 2 in the future, I can't think of any other PCI cards I would want.

    The keynote was very exciting and even though us overflow room viewers didn't get a free optical mouse, I still very much enjoyed watching it. The sage iMac commercial was the best!
  18. #18  
    Lemmonhead:

    How doed the new moust work for clicking? I can understand tapping on it for a "click" but how does it understand a click and drag? Is it like the touchpads on the Powerbook?
  19. #19  
    It goes without saying that Pentiums and G4 with the same clock speed aren't equivalent, but for most intents and purposes, the difference isn't relevant. If raw processing power is the primary consideration, you'd be better off buying a SPARC workstation. I, on the other hand, think there's something to be said for affordable computing, which is why I don't own a Pocket PC or a G4.

    For web design and post-production houses, Macs are the way to go. When you're running Photoshop, Flash and GoLive simultaneously, it's a much smoother experience on the G4. Video editing goes way faster on a Mac with Final Cut Pro than on a PC with Premiere, I don't care what speed of Pentium it's running.

    Now we come to the average household, where Joe E. User uses a computer for three things: word processing, games and the internet. In that realm, affordability is more important than power. Email on my lowly P-400 at home is no different than email on my iMac at work.

    No offense to Mac users, but I think the main reason that home users tend to go for PCs is that even though they're getting less power, they can use the money they save to buy more peripherals. A $700 P-650 isn't in the same league at a $1500 G4, but most people want CD burners, scanners, webcams, etc. It's about quantity rather than quality (try convincing even a PC user to go with SCSI hardware rather than IDE, for instance).

    Whether we like it or not, hamburgers will always sell better than steaks.
  20. #20  
    Its pretty simple, you could spend 2500 dollars and get a fully loaded 800-1000 megahertz athlon, or you could get a stripped down G4, which would you choose?

    And you can't build your own apple machine. Im about to build my own athlon based computer.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions