Office Computer

[mikhail]

So here I am again asking you experts for advice on a new computer. However this one is not for gaming and it is not for me. I got a call from my parents a couple days ago asking for help with buying a new computer for their office. In return for my help I will be getting the old computer which I think that I can fix up for cheap.

Anyways I was wondering what I should do for a office build. I do not feel comfortable enough to build my own PC so I was thinking about going with Cyberpower or someone similar. Maybe even... a Mac?

They do not need it to do much. Basically what they want is a computer for emails, files, ect.. Office stuff...

They also said they wanted a computer that cannot get viruses which is why I I was thinking the Mac maybe the way to go. They are very lazy when it comes to maintaining the computer so I know that they will have a new load of viruses on the new PC shortly after getting it.

So what do you guys recommend? A cheap office PC made by _____? Or a Mac? They would like to stay below $700.

[minus-sign]

No computer is immune to malware. That said, most viruses do tend to target windows operating systems.

You can get inexpensive PCs (comfortably below 700) from Dell and HP with Linux operating systems pre-installed. I'd suggest you start your search there (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs).

If you're set on a Mac, they're fine computers. But in my experience, you won't get a very good one for 700, if you can find a new one at that price at all. the decent ones tend to be in the 2k range; the notebooks start on their site at 1k. Since its for office work only, you may not care if its decent (by my standards ;)) or not so long as it works.

[mikhail]

Is Linux the operating system used in Macs?

I was hoping to stay away from Dell or those big name companies because I have hear a few negative things about them. But I'll give them a search through once I get back from work today.

I was thinking about getting one "custom built" from Cyberpower for around $700. But I think I will be over paying for a office computer from them. I'll get some specs up later tonight.

[nuz]

Macs have their own operating system called originally enough Mac OS. While they are virus resistant compared to Mr. Gates' offerings, like minus-sign says they're also far too expensive for a basic office pc.
Hp and Dell do have their problems, mostly with their own software they install onto the HDD. I once tried updating an hp desktop running XP to SP2, which kept failing. I went over to their site and found that you need to install a patch in order to upgrade. So I d/l the patch and install it... .................and it wiped out the User profiles, all of them, including any documents and email saved on the HD.
My advice would be to get a Dell running Linux then get rid of any unnecessary s/w they put on it before you do any work on it. (If you haven't guessed, I'm somewhat biased against hp)

[pangea33]

I heard that Mac OSX is FreeBSD.

[classicsoftware]

First of all, it is culture shock to go from Windows to Unix/Linnux or MAC OS. This is even more so for older people.

Second, the idea that the Mac OS is more secure than Windows is nothing but conventional wisdom, spouted by people who know very very very little about computer security. The fact is that since the release of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, the Windows environment itself is very secure, in fact it is as secure as a MAC. Vista has improved security even more. The major source of malware infections are through NON-OS applications like browsers and PDF readers. That's why Adobe Acrobat Reader is the most attacked program in the world. It's on every machine and it's hardly updated. At the recent CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver they have a "Pwn2Own" contest sponsored by 3COM's Tipping Point. The MAC OS was the clear loser as reported by Brian Krebs, author of the Security Fix Column (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/03/mac_os_x_top_target_in_browser.html) in the Washington Post. To quote the winner of the contest:
"It's quite easy to write an exploit for Firefox on OS X compared to Firefox on Vista."

Finally as what your parents need, you need to look at the applications they have running now. Do they have the install disks for the programs or do they need to buy new versions? Do they have a backup plan if this is for an office? Will they need support? Once you answer those basic questions we can steer you in the right direction as to the best source of a system for them.

[Paul Komski]

The simple word security is often bandied around without enough thought to the specifics. There are differences between being secure against viruses and against spyware/trojans and against physical hacking (directly or via a LAN or via the internet).

Malware can infect a computer from a number of portals. Such infections commonly gain access by disks that are inserted, by shared downloads, by email attachments and by drive-by downloads; (the latter from simply "going on line" or by being on a LAN).

I can't accept that the Windows Environment has somehow now become very secure when nearly all the infected machines (in fact every infected machine) that I see are Windows PCs packed full of spyware. That most of the users to whom this happens are largely to blame by indiscriminate file sharing or by running unpatched and non-updated software or other bad practices is I think missing the point.

I agree that it is foolish to imagine that Macs and Linux are immune from attack - and they are certainly hardly any more secure from hacking than Windows, when much hacking is done by cracking or otherwise by-passing passwords.

I am not familiar enough with Macs to comment on them other than that they do have their afficianados but are expensive compared to the PC world. The idea that one would be as secure running any version of Windows than a modern Linux distro such as Ubuntu doesn't add up in my book. The only real downsides (for those that want a simple SOHO machine) are to do with unfamiliarity but the dangers of getting infected would be very much reduced if that is the real concern.

If a pre-installed Ubuntu box from an OEM is used on a wired connection then I would say that setting it up and using it will be a pretty painless experience - and that even a bottom of the range box bought these days for a SOHO type environment will have all the capacity and more that is necessary. If it doesn't work out one can always install Windows in its place or if other MS software is mandadatory and incapable of being made to work under WINE within the Linux distro.

It goes without saying that MS has been and remains the main vector for attack for all sorts of historical reasons. Most, if not all, botnets currently affect those with MS OSes. It remains to be seen whether that situation changes in the future.

[classicsoftware]

I can't accept that the Windows Environment has somehow now become very secure when nearly all the infected machines (in fact every infected machine) that I see are Windows PCs packed full of spyware. That most of the users to whom this happens are largely to blame by indiscriminate file sharing or by running unpatched and non-updated software or other bad practices is I think missing the point.


I fundamentally disagree. Most malware/spyware infections are not direct attacks on the OS like Conficker. There are some and MS is certainly slower at patching than I would like. But if you read enough about this you will come to the conclusion that NON-OS factors are now a greater contributor to these infections than the OS itself. The article at the Post pointed it out clearly that it was easier to hack into a the MAC OS via FireFox or Safari than it was to hack into a Vista PC.

I also think the MAC OS would look exactly the same as Windows if it had 85% of the desktop market.

[mjc]

I also think the MAC OS would look exactly the same as Windows if it had 85% of the desktop market.

Since its early days, Mac OS has had access to the 'inner workings' restricted/buried under layers of other stuff that made hard to find/work with and, that, most Mac users count this as a 'good thing', I think it would be much worse than Windows ever was, if the low-lifes start concentrating on it...

[minus-sign]

Is Linux the operating system used in Macs?I heard that Mac OSX is FreeBSD.Linux is both a simple and complex subject. Linux is an Operating System based on UNIX kernel. As i understand it, Panther used some BSD and leopard is a hybrid, closed source OS with UNIX 03 in its base. OSX is POSIX compliant so its considerably easier to get linux apps to run on it.
I was hoping to stay away from Dell or those big name companies because I have hear a few negative things about them. But I'll give them a search through once I get back from work today.the bigger the dogs and all that. i'm not a fan of Dell, but I have had good experience with HP. Others would say the opposite. Or they might say that both suck.

If you can get Cyberpower to build you a system for $700 then go for it. An office PC doesn't need anywhere near the processing power of a gamer or even a media PC. You can build one for considerably less than 700.

As for the security argument, all i know is what I've been taught and what I've experienced. Windows is targeted because 1) it has more users than anyone else 2) many of those users do not know anything about PC security and don't want to 3) it has loads of preexisting malware that script kiddies can get their hands on, modify, and think they are 1337("leet").

Classic, I know you love Vista but my experience is similar to Paul's. The only way to make a system completely secure (Windows, Linux, Mac, or anything you can think of) is to yank out the power supply. there ya go; now nobody can screw it up.

I disagree that there would be significant culture shock differences when moving from a Windows platform to a new Windows over moving to a linux or Mac distro. not for most users. Power users, people who constantly tweek their system and spend as much time in the terminal as they do running the apps will see considerable changes. the average user turns it on, runs applications, saves files and then shuts it down. In that light, its no different for users to switch from Win98 to XP/Vista than it would be for that same user to move from Win98 to Ubuntu. Which is to say, there will be an adjustment period with both.

This, too, is based on previous experience. Though my mother ultimately refused to accept a Linux OS in her x-mas gift, I used dear old dad as my guinne pig. Once the OS was configured, he had no complaints about Linux and actually got hooked on OpenOffice as a result (I do confess a certain love for converting people to that suite).

[Paul Komski]

Most malware/spyware infections are not direct attacks on the OS like Conficker.I seriously don't see the significance of this. What is the difference to a user if an attack is direct or indirect if the system actually breaks down and becomes unusable. Nor do I really understand in what specific way the conficker worm is radically different from other malware, such as CWS and a host of associated software, that gum-up a system and attempt to prevent inherent security from functioning - other than it has got progressively elaborate and "well-designed".

My main "argument" is an empirical one. I see PCs running Windows every week gummed up with garbage - be it conficker or anything else. There is a whole "business" (and one that is actively pursued on this and other forums) surrounding malware on Windows.

Embedded systems are probably going to be the only ones that can have their OSes made virtually immune.

I have made no specific references to the security of a MAC and though Linux may well be more of a target in the future - the record to date of both "infections" and the rate at which vulnerabilities are patched is very good from that community.

PS
I now regularly install a Linux and Windows (including fully up to date Vista) dual boot after the kids have reinfected their parents machines so that mum or dad can still get on line and do other work. Odd isn't it that the Linux side of things never gets reinfected.

[mikhail]

Thank you guys for all of the replies.

I am thinking that I am going to go with ether Dell or HP for their compute and use Windows Vista. My parents would not be able to re-adjust to a new operating system (it took me 2 hours to teach my dad how to copy and paste... No joke). I am just going to have to tell them how important it is to update the drivers and regularly scan the computer. I am sure they will do it for a couple months but after that I don't know.

I can get a good office PC from Dell for under $500 so they will like that.

Thanks again for all of the help guys.

[classicsoftware]

I suggest you get them a PC with Windows XP. They will never cotton to Vista....

Also you are a candidate for Logmein.com. You can set it up so you can provide most maintenance remotely.

[Paul Komski]

I have setup loads of Dell Vostros (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=brcwazp&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&kc=productdetails~desktop-vostro-220mt) for SOHO users over the past twelve months as good basic systems with no frills (and not stuffed with proprietary software if so desired) in the $330-440 range for the US. If you get Vista then grab at least 2gig of RAM. If you want WinXP you can get it for an extra $99 pre-installed (or not) as a downgrade option along with Vista Business. I think Dell have improved their act out of recognition from a couple of years ago and the only complaints I have had over the past year is that the delivery date can be three days or three weeks - so if you want a PC for sure in the next few days go to a retail outlet and don't purchase on-line.

[saphalline]

In defense of the Mac...


I think I'm the only one here who has extensive experience with Mac's. (I am typing this right now on a MacBook 3,1.) So I'll chime in here just in case my knowledge is useful to this thread.

First of all, yes, Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. A heavily modified version of FreeBSD! That's the kernel. The shell/GUI/whatever is Mac OS X. That's just what it's called. And yes, the FreeBSD underbelly is POSIX, if you use the Terminal app to get at the command line. Mac OS X, however, is not really POSIX. The GUI has limitations vs Terminal, and they don't always get along. This is why there's a strange button in the Disk Utility app called "Repair Permissions", which performs different routines depending on the version of OS X you're running. Leopard seems to have made some drastic changes to the way this was done in Tiger, although Snow Leopard should be similar/identical to Leopard in this respect. Discussing this subject further is beyond the scope of this thread, however.

Secondly, Mac's can be had for far less than $2K USD!! Mac Mini's, for instance, are basically laptops in a different shape and go for around $400-600 USD. You have to add your own keyboard, mouse, and monitor, but this is one of the amazingly cool things about Mac's! :cool: Any USB keyboard and mouse will work with a Mac, one of the advantages of Apple going all-USB/Firewire about... oh... a decade ago! (The Windows key is mapped to the Option/Command key if using a non-Apple keyboard.) And the ability to use any VGA or DVI-I monitor? Sounds a lot like a PC with a dedicated vid card, doesn't it? And the ability to go dual-monitor with mini-DisplayPort on the new Mac Mini? Ok, so DP isn't quite abundant, but can you find a comparably-priced PC that can do this in less than 90 cubic inches?? My point is that Mac's don't have to cost $2K to be respectable systems. Mac Mini's are a niche product, but they are really cool. (I'm not a big fan of iMac's, though. Mac Pro's are by far more desireable, even if more expensive.)

Thirdly, the security thing? Yeah, an Apple system lost first in the last two "Pwn2Own" contests. The details? A security expert (who is also a Mac user!) exploited Safari by having the judges intentionally click on a URL of his choosing which loaded a website that contained code that he had written beforehand. The rub? Tipping Point owns the exploit and keeps everything a secret, meaning that the security expert (Miller) and Tipping Point and Apple are the only parties in the world who know how it was done. Each and every time, Apple has fixed the exploits. There are numerous other details that get missed if you just read the headlines. How about the fact that all operating systems tested could not be hacked by hammering on them from the outside with no user intervention? How about the fact that the whole "judges click on a URL that contains code" thing brought down all operating systems within minutes of each other? How about the fact that several exploits investigated at every CanSecWest involve multi-platform applications, like Adobe Reader and Flash and Java? And how about the fact that turning off automatic updates in a Mac can't be done like it can on a Windows system infected with Conficker? (Sometimes the iron fist of Apple can be a good thing!)

I could go on and on! Mac's may not be the right tool for every job, but what computer is? And in fact, I'd say that Mac's are not the right tool for very many jobs, but that doesn't negate their usefulness in certain areas. For instance...

Apple offers something called Apple Care on most of their products, which is essentially a $300 USD warranty extension for 3 years. Except it's an Apple warranty extension which, for all the bad press about low-quality iPod batteries, is actually an add-on for which I would be willing to pay! It breaks, they fix it. And we're not talking your standard Geek Squad "fix it", either! Apple's black-box approach to their systems gives them an incredible edge when it comes to service and support. Not ideal for tinkerers, I'll admit, but you have to admire what they can do for grandma when her email stops working! Those Genius Bar people inside Apple stores? Yeah, they know Mac's! Inside and out, they've seen it all and are actually able to communicate with non-techies. (Their secret is having "customer service" techies at the counters with hidden "silicon" techies in the back room.)

Mac's are always configured properly out-of-the-box. What I mean by that is if you buy a Mac with, say, Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) on it, the hardware in that Mac will be completely adequate for the OS and most programs you wish to run. So you simply cannot buy a Mac with too little RAM, for instance, or a graphics card that can't run the 3D GUI in Vista. :p Etc. You may still benefit from upgrades if you run huge programs, like say CS4, but a Mac with Leopard that came with 1GB of RAM can easily run Mail and Safari and iCal at once with room to spare. The same cannot be said for Vista on 1GB of RAM! I mean, hey, if we're comparing the latest operating systems... And speaking of which, have you ever had to clear out the "gunk" and "junk" from an OEM Windows system? Yeah, that doesn't exist in Apple's world. You pay more, but there is no junk. I've always wondered why there is no direct equivalent to this in the world of PC's. There is no "PC Store" like an "Apple Store".

Apple also offers tips and tricks that no one else can; or at least no one else has. Like the ability to easily transfer entire user accounts across the gaping hole of a CPU architecture change combined with an OS update or two. Bringing all of someone's contact info, emails, etc into his/her shiny new Penryn-based 10.5 iMac from a PPC G4 700 MHz 10.3 eMac? I've seen it done right before my eyes. Doing the same thing for someone who used Outlook Express on Win98 to their new Outlook 2007 on Vista? I could wipe a Mac, reload the OS, and transfer 3 user accounts to it before that Outlook user would be able to find everything again. When it comes to providing a good clean environment for non-techies, out-of-the-box, plug in some cables and turn it on to begin surfing the web, Apple wins hands-down. When it comes to continuing to serve those same non-techies, there is nothing that even comes close to what Apple can do. Even for those Windows users who know a thing or two and can solve most problems on their own, there are Mac equivalent users who are infinitely more happy with their computing experience. As long as your needs are basic and non-Windows-oriented, Apple can deliver.


Now, lest I am kicked out of here for what I have just typed :p let me say that I'm still an open-standards PC user, through and through. But I felt I had something to say about Mac's - to clear up a few things, to elaborate, to plug the platform for what it is. Mac's are great systems, if you can afford them and if you need that kind of support. There's no shame in admitting it given the state of computers these days, to say nothing of the black hole called "security"! And even if you don't need to admit it, even if you know more than enough to keep yourself running in this digital age, having a Mac around is not a bad idea. I know a few techies that use one, for various reasons. Mostly it's for the content stuff, like iPhoto or Garage Band or the built-in camera for podcasting through iTunes, but sometimes it's for tinkering or modding or just having fun. For myself, experiencing Apple computers first hand has given me a much wider concept of personal computing, and complements my knowledge of computers nicely. I think too many techies get stuck in a rut of "Windows only" or "linux only" or "Mac only". I don't like to limit myself. I like being open-minded and having a wider base of information from which to draw. Using Mac's has greatly helped me in this respect. Anyway... this is getting long. I'm done for now.

[PrntRhd]

But Saphalline,
The OP posted it is for office applications. A Mac can be used but the price of the application software ports for Mac is generally higher than that for Windows PCs.

Nothing here against using Macs if you can afford it.

[saphalline]

Price? What price?? (http://www.neooffice.org/)

[minus-sign]

They would like to stay below $700.That price.

saphalline, the price the OP seemed most concerned with was $700. If you can post a good new mac in that price range, please do. I would personally like to see one. All I found anywhere near that price range were their minis or refurbished/used.

[saphalline]

Ok, wait, I must be missing something here. New Mac Mini's start at $600 USD, which I'm sure you've seen if you've visited Apple's site at all. So what's the hold-up here?

Are we talking about a "new office system" in the sense of a monitor, mouse, and keyboard, too?? Because if so, I never include those things when I use the word "system"! Heck, I don't even include the OS or any other software! The "system" to me is the box and the hardware inside. That's it. I've learned over the years never to assume anything so I don't. If we're talking about a new office system AND mouse and keyboard and monitor, then that's fine - I just need to know. All these peripherals and extras are highly dependent upon what one owns and personal preferences (such as choice of OS!) and I've learned not to get involved with other peoples' personal preferences! :p Best to spell things out as verbosely as possible to avoid any confusion.

Alright then, less than $700 USD (<- another thing that I never assume!) for a new Mac office system, new mouse, new keyboard, and new monitor. Mouse and keyboard are personal preference - again, because I will not be the one using them! - so I'll just budget $20 USD for each. Plenty, IMHO, for a cheap new system. Monitor? Oh heck, a Mac Mini can use just about any monitor, so how about a decent 19" LCD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009151) from Acer? That's $120 USD w/free shipping. To leave us some wiggle room on the new office system, I say use a previous gen Mac Mini (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB138LL/A?mco=Mjk1NDIxOQ) for $500 USD ($499 technically) w/free shipping. So that's $500 USD for the system, $120 USD for the monitor, and $20 USD each for the mouse and keyboard. That comes in at $660 USD (plus tax if applicable).

There. Done. I'm not saying it's the absolute best way to go, of course, I just wanted to prove that it could be done. ;)

[minus-sign]

thank you for the clarification. As previously stated, I eschewed the minis. This was not a personal bias but because--after reading their specs--I considered them inferior to a PC of similar price for the OPs requested office computer. We may simply disagree on this, or I may be wrong: would the mini you link run better than a similarly priced minitower/box?

I'm not busting mac either here. The ones I have seen and worked with (nothing under the hood, just running apps and playing around with a macbook pro and an iMac. I have to say, having only one mouse button took some getting used to. As Classic might put it there was some considerable "culture shock" the first time) have impressed me. Cramming a computer that powerful into a the thin space behind and around a monitor would impress anyone who has built a PC or worked inside a laptop, methinks. Keep in mind that the macs i have worked in were all midrange or better when bought, and all have been purchased within the last year and a half.

The problem I have with them is usually price/performance ratio and (for my personal needs) expandability. From what I can tell, just bumping the least expensive current gen mini to near the specs of the Ubuntu Dell i linked previously would crank the price to over $800 US. Without monitor. The previous gen you link has a RAM cap of 2 gigs and an...unimpressive FSB. I do confess that I did not find the previous gen minis on my foray into the Apple site. Had i...my position would have remained the same; that a mac at these price ranges is a waste of money.

I do tend to assume (even knowing what that makes out of you and me) a monitor is required in a build request for this forum when not specified otherwise. I consider it a truism when people ask for a prebuilt "system" as the OP did.

[mikhail]

Thank you all again for all of this information!

I decided to go with a Dell for them. The whole thing shipped was a little over $700 but that came with the Microsoft office package that they needed since they wanted to go with Vista instead of XP.

The system arrived today and I am about to head over to their house right now to hook it up for them.

I was wondering if I should do anything else besides take it out of the box and install some anti-virus and spy-ware programs. If you guys wouldn't mind taking the time to tell me anything I should do I would greatly appreciate it.

[classicsoftware]

Remove the Dell crapware.
Run Windows Update.
Run Microsoft Update.
Uninstall Acrobat Reader.
Install Foxit Reader
Install Spyware Blaster
Install Avast AV
go to www.logmenin.com and setup an account so you can perform mtc remotely....

[jlreich]

Whatever you do if it comes with a free trial of Norton do not install it. ;)

Look for extraneous programs Dell installed running in the background at start up. There will probably be a handful that you can shut off that will help improve performance right off.

If the system did not come with a windows install disk and you need to make a restore disk, instruct them to do it as soon as you leave, or get it started for them before you go and tell them to swap in a blank DVD if prompted. I always ask for the windows disk if possible so I don't know how Dell does their restore thing.

I usually change power settings so the CPU doesn't get throttled down, but that's my preference. With vista look through the custom power settings carefully to make sure they are set how the customer wants them.

EDIT- Yeah, what Classic said. :p

[Paul Komski]

My recent experiences with Dell have shown them including less and less bloatware on initial setup - particularly on business machines. If an a/v is included the system has usually prompted one to include or remove it on the first reboot. I haven't known a Dell in years that has not shipped with an installation CD/DVD.

With Vista, the backup/restoration options will vary with the exact version (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/backup.aspx) that was obtained. Some have a restore partition but many use Vista's own managment to create both restore points and complete backups. Total and incremental "imaging-type" backups can consume (along with all the restore points) prodigious amounts of space because they may be configured to be hidden away inside the normally inaccessible System Information folders. (I "cleaned up" a Vista system last week that had consumed nearly 50gig of its total 120gig in this manner in a 6-month period; approx 18gig (15%) was restore points and the rest was as these hidden backups.

Personally I would ensure that any auto backup was turned off and do backups manually or when prompted. Depending on the system that was pre-installed you may be able to do this using Vista's own software or else use third party software. I have never been a system restore fan but would not turn it off totally; just reduce the maximum it can consume.

[minus-sign]

Install Firefox and set as default browser too;) Don't want them running around the interwebz in a dirty IE.

[saphalline]

Ok, finally getting back to this...


My recent experiences with Dell have shown them including less and less bloatware on initial setup - particularly on business machines. If an a/v is included the system has usually prompted one to include or remove it on the first reboot. I haven't known a Dell in years that has not shipped with an installation CD/DVD.Agreed. It may come with cr@pware on it, but at least a Dell can be reinstalled with a fresh copy of the OS as soon as you take it out of the box! HP is on my hit list lately in this regard. Even HP's low-end business machines are now coming with cr@pware! :eek: WTF!?


would the mini you link run better than a similarly priced minitower/box?From what I have seen of PC's in that price range, they all run like cr@p! :p But seriously, the one nice thing about a Mac is that it requires faaaaar less RAM than a PC. Leopard, for instance, is the latest version of Mac OS X and was released 6+ months after Vista, yet it runs fine on 1GB of RAM! In fact, with a decent Intel-based Mac, Leopard runs better on 512MB of RAM than Vista SP1 does on 1GB (given a standard off-the-shelf PC in that price range). With 1GB of RAM, Leopard runs about as well as Vista SP1 with 1.5GB of RAM and all cr@pware removed. They start to even out at 2GB of RAM, as that seems to be plenty for both. Now all that being said, RAM is still RAM. Leopard won't run Photoshop with tons of speed at 1GB of RAM. It's based on FreeBSD but it isn't magical!

As for the rest of the system, a Mac Mini performs as well as a similarly spec'ed MacBook, because the internals of both are basically mobile-class. A Mac Mini is pretty much just a laptop in a different shape (which is why it can get away with a 110W external PSU!) but it does have the advantage of not needing to aggressively power-down CPU cores and such. So it's like a laptop that is plugged in with all power-saving features turned off. And we're talking a modern laptop here, so for office applications and really everything that most home users would require a Mac Mini is more than powerful enough. And unlike Vista, Leopard only requires DX9/SM2.0 to take advantage of everything the GUI has to offer, so the GMA 950 in the last-gen Mac Mini can push desktop visuals easily. The 2.5" HDD won't win any contests, of course, but it's at least SATA and it can keep pace with just about any 3.5" HDD in a cheap PC when it comes to home user apps.

Would a power-user notice slow-down on a stock last-gen Mac Mini? Yes, of course. Is it still blazingly fast compared to most old home PC's that I've seen recently (or not)? Yes, of course. It's tiny, it includes relatively modern hardware (how many people do you know that are still using 32-bit single-core CPU's??), you can pick your own peripherals, and it's cheap for what you get. It won't fulfill everyone's needs - obvious since I don't see people rushing out to buy them in large quantities! - but it isn't an automatic no, either.

[...]and (for my personal needs) expandability.Ah! You hit the nail on the head there! ;)

Yes, Mac's have no expandability. That is one thing that sucks about them worse than anything. So great, yet so limited. Yeah... there's no getting around this. You buy a Mac and that's pretty much it. Oh sure, technically there are things you can upgrade, like the RAM and HDD and... wait, that's it. But of course, that's a lot like a pre-built PC as far as I've seen. Two RAM slots where there should be four, two SATA ports when I know the chipset has six, two 3.5" bays total in the case that are already used, a mobo & case combo that is proprietary and cannot be upgraded individually, a PSU that is so under-powered I dare not upgrade the RAM and add a second HDD at the same time... need I go on? I mean, if we're comparing cheap pre-built OEM's...

a mac at these price ranges is a waste of money.I wonder if maybe you believe a Mac at any price is a waste of money? At what point would it become a "good deal"?

From my perspective, it isn't about just the hardware. Apple provides an all-encompassing vision, whether you like the view or not. What about the Dell Vostro? Do you think Dell would trouble-shoot a problem installing the Windows driver of an HP printer over the phone? (Well, they probably will once, but in general no.) Now you and I don't need that kind of simplistic tech support, but if you do then a Mac by definition cannot be automatically considered a waste of money. That's the way I see it, anyway. What is your definition?

I do tend to assume (even knowing what that makes out of you and me) a monitor is required in a build request for this forum when not specified otherwise. I consider it a truism when people ask for a prebuilt "system" as the OP did.Then we are thinking the same way, but with different definitions of "system".

One definition of "system" as it relates to computers is: "a working combination of hardware, software, and data communications devices" (from Dictionary.com). To me, this means the box, because the box contains the hardware and data communications devices (NIC, modem, etc) and has the software installed on it. The "system" is the computer, which can stand alone. The peripherals exist for the sole purpose of allowing external users to interact with that system. See the difference? Computers are just fine without users. Not very useful, but still a "system" by definition. I don't take the stance that computers are some sort of pure being that are only corrupted by the acts of human users or any such cr@p as that, I merely use words as they are defined. And by definition, there is nothing in the word "system" that denotes any sort of connotation of being a personal computer sitting in someone's home used for email and office apps. Just as that definition would be unsuitable for an enterprise server, where peripherals such as a monitor have no place. "System" could be used to describe either one, so I take the meaning with the least requirements. Computer systems are just the box for me. Nothing else.

[minus-sign]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up saphalline; I learned quite a bit so far. I do want to hit on a couple points though.

For me, no, most macs wouldn't be that useful for the exact reason I said and you quoted: expandability. I know thats me and not the majority of computer users in the world, but if there was a certain tinge of bias toward them in my post, it was subconscious.

But (and theres that "but") I'd love to get my hands on one of their macbook pros. What I've seen of OS X was excellent. its clean, unconfusing (cept for that darn mouse) and with Fusion can even run Vista when you need it (gaaaaaming on dx10 and thats pretty much it! which is not relevant for this thread but I think we've walked away from mikhail a little now :)). This is because expandability really drops out of the equation on notebooks. Thats my personal view on the subject.

For my view as a system builder for others...

You said something in the amd vs intel thread that also "hits the nail on the head" (hope you don't mind me pulling the quote): I don't usually care for the "wars" for this brand or that. I believe in truth and fact. I've admitted it many the time; I am a fan of intel; darn near fanboy proportions. But I don't ignore AMD and for a lot of the budget build requests I have been trying more and more to suggest their processors as alternatives because when I look at the literature, the new Phenom II core builds (I mean mobo, vcard, processor and RAM) give you more for the money.

My point with this whole spiel is that I try to work the way you suggest; put personal views aside and build toward the customer's needs (needs first; wants second. In my admittedly limited experience I try to build toward what they need and fit as much of what they want in as they can afford, or else leave room for them to get what they want as they can afford it). When I linked the dell site my first time in here, it was with a certain level of confidence that I was giving mikhail the best (or near the best) choice for the pricerange he requested. I stand by the recommendation that I made.

That does not mean that I am incalcitrant on the issue, but rather curious. You were the first person to give me advice on this forum. And, as I remember from that post, what I wanted at the time was nowhere near what I needed nor what I got;) So, what would you have done were you in my shoes? I'm curious what you would recommend had yours been post #2.

Thanks in advance.

[saphalline]

For me, no, most macs wouldn't be that useful for the exact reason I said and you quoted: expandability. I know thats me and not the majority of computer users in the worldYou keep side-stepping this question, and I don't know why.

I am not asking you if you would buy a Mac. You have already stated that you wouldn't - what more can be gained by me continually asking it? The question has always been in the spirit of the OP, the entire reason for existence of this thread. I have tried to make it more broad, but you keep making it personal. The question is whether or not you think a Mac is a good deal for anyone?

I have stated my reasons for believing that Mac's are a good idea for some people; and I have described those people. One could infer that there is some redeeming quality in Mac's in your eyes by your repeated use of the word "impressed" when talking about them, but that is not the same as answering the question I posed. One can be immensely impressed with something and yet still never recommend it. (Beta vs VHS)

and with Fusion can even run Vista when you need it (gaaaaaming on dx10 and thats pretty much it! [...]There is no virtualization technology yet that can consistently or reliably allow modern 3D API acceleration on any platform. DX10 and OpenGL 3.0 are still host-only at this point. Parallels and VMware are getting closer, but there is no silver bullet yet. :(

I'm still waiting on that silver bullet. I have a werewolf to slay...

[...] for a lot of the budget build requests I have been trying more and more to suggest their processors as alternatives because when I look at the literature, the new Phenom II core builds (I mean mobo, vcard, processor and RAM) give you more for the money.Yes, of course. What does it matter to gamers if Core i7 beats Phenom II X4 by 40% when only 30% of your gaming performance comes from the CPU? At that point, a vid card that gives 20% more performance than another is worth more for your frame rate. Gaming is big, and GPU's reign supreme right now.

My point with this whole spiel is that I try to work the way you suggest; put personal views aside and build toward the customer's needs [..] I stand by the recommendation that I made.Your recommendation is a good one, and probably the right choice for the OP. But in my view, completely ignoring the other pay-for OS and its platform can be limiting in and of itself. Things will be missed that are not ideal for everyone but can really be perfect for just one person.

It's sort of like being a travel agent and always booking planes for everyone, where ever they go, despite the fact that traveling by ship or train could also be a very good option for someone. There's more to computers than just Windows and Linux.

I'm curious what you would recommend had yours been post #2.Just as you stand by your recommendation, I stand by mine. What need do I have to offer Windows-based systems or Linux boxes when so many other knowledgeable members do so (and far more often than I lately)? I'm the one with Mac experience - the only one. I offer the chance to consider something else. I know it's a long-shot and probably won't be chosen, but I can't ignore Mac's if they may in fact fit the requirements. And realistically, I know I don't have the time to hammer out the details or finish threads anymore (as was amply displayed by this one :p). So I offer the long-shot, the underdog, simply to put it on the table and allow it to be eliminated for the simple fact that people deserve all the options available to them. If or when the Mac idea is culled from the list, I know it's because it wasn't the ideal solution, NOT because it wasn't even considered!


A lot of my reasons for what I say/write around here stem from what I see and hear every single time I walk into a Best Buy or whatever. I know for a fact that there are more people out there who would benefit greatly from moving to a Mac. For instance, the people who buy OEM's in brick-and-mortar stores based on the recommendations of the employees who work there. :rolleyes: I have seen people get piled into things that are so outrageous that I can tell they are drowning by the time they get to the register! Ok ok, picture this:

A couple at the register in a Best Buy. The employee who has been helping them is still fast-talking some jargon into their ears while simultaneously helping the cashier ring up the massive order. The couple's eyes are as wide as saucers and glazed over like a holiday ham. In their cart I see a $500 USD off-the-shelf HP OEM system and a litany of "extras" - a new 19" widescreen LCD monitor (also HP), two boxes of security software (one A/V and one anti-spyware), a box of photo editing software (for their existing digital camera, so the employee says), a new surge protector, a new UPS, a RAM upgrade for the system (because it came w/Vista & 1GB of RAM :rolleyes:), and the all-important "extended warranty" variant (whatever it may be). Total for all this? ~$1350 before tax.

Now the problem I have with all of this is that the brick-and-mortar experience for "PC's" is so horrible that buying a $500 USD computer for $1400 is considered normal!! It's kind of daunting and even nonsensical for the type of people who do this. I mean, $500 USD = $1400 in the world of computers? WTF!?

It's the extras that really bug me. The stuff that is useful or even necessary but is still considered an add-on for some insane reason. But at an Apple store... things are different...

Ok, so the baseline iMac is a 20" all-in-one that costs $1200 USD. It comes with 2GB of RAM plus dedicated graphics, so no need for the RAM upgrade. Mac OS X is FreeBSD-based and has a low install base, so security software is not technically required (I don't use any) but let's assume responsibility here and include it anyway. The monitor is built-in, so no need for a separate monitor. The basic photo editing software included with Mac OS X is just as useful for home uses as most $50 USD photo editing packs for Windows, so rarely a need for extra photo editing software. The surge protector + UPS is inherently a bad idea for computers, so no need for both of those, just one (I have never witnessed an Apple store employee try to sell both to a customer). The "extended warranty" variant in Apple's case is Apple Care, which is $170 USD for three years.

Not that the Apple people won't try to up-sell you like everyone else, but it seems to me that the customer experience would be better if you took a $1200 USD computer and added only $400 to it vs the "PC" OEM experience of taking a $500 USD computer and adding $850 to it. Sure, you pay more for the Apple way of doing things, but the fact that the Windows OEM system needs extras that cost 170% of the price of the computer really says something. By contrast, the $400 USD add-ons for the iMac account for only 33%. And in reality, the cost difference could become nill by starting with a $700 USD HP system and working up from there.

My point is that those people who buy their computers from Best Buy or whatever based on what the employees suggest have a good chance of being better served on the Apple side of the pond. For everyone else, Apple is a significantly less worthy opponent.

[Paul Komski]

Before we get too carried away can I just point out that these are the PCGuide forums.

I'm the one with Mac experience - the only one.
Hmmmmmmmmmm - no comment is probably best.

[kos]

go to www.logmein.com and setup an account so you can perform mtc remotely....

Hi, great discussion here... I'm certainly learning a lot between Macs, Unix and Windows...

Just a slight correction on the site for "logmein.com" if that's what you were referring to. I use that as well... great tool for remote control.:)

[saphalline]

Before we get too carried away [..]Ummmm... :p

[..] can I just point out that these are the PCGuide forums.That's a bit of a loaded acronym, though. I mean, PC just stands for "personal computer", which is more of a function than a specific type of computer. Technically, Mac's are PC's, just like "PC" in terms of what most people think of. The only reason "PC vs Mac" is even remotely considered a valid phrase is because IBM decided to call their first personal computer the "PC" (which is kind of silly when you think about it). But how valid is any of that today? IBM left the world of personal computers forever when it spun-off Lenovo, and it has been decades since PC-AT and PC Jr! So even using the phrase "IBM PC vs Mac" or "IBM PC clone vs Mac" doesn't work anymore.

In order to differentiate between the two, I've been using the phrase "open standards PC" to talk about non-Mac personal computers, but even this falls apart with all the proprietary designs of OEM's like Dell and HP. However, they are still slightly less proprietary than Apple, and especially when it comes to OS choice (though I've seen a few OEM systems that don't play well with non-Windows operating systems). Therefore, I put an emphasis on the system as a whole being "open standards", from hardware to software. That covers the bases as far as less-proprietary hardware and OS choice, but look at how much exposition this requires!

I see "PC" as a failing term when stacked against Apple's Mac's. Might as well say "CPU vs AMD" while you're at it...

Hmmmmmmmmmm - no comment is probably best.Call me what you want. I can take it. ;)

[Paul Komski]

The semantics of what PC might or might not stand for is one thing but in the "real world" PC v Mac (http://www.switched.com/2008/08/06/mac-vs-pc/) has been used (like "forever") to distinguish between two basic camps and using CPU v AMD makes no sense to me as a poor and imprecise analogy - and particularly when one of the distinguishing features of Mac Processors was the use of big-endian Motorollas - in complete contrast to both Intel and AMD.

We all have our personal fads and one of the perennial dangers of using abbreviations, acronyms, etc is that they mean different things to different people. CPU means Central Processing Unit to most but simply means Computer to others. I agree that Macs are generally 'Personal Computers' but the PC abbreviation (some do call it an acronym even though it is not, in the generally accepted sense, a word in its own right) has taken on a life of its own.

If the meaning of what is said or written is understood that is surely the main thing. It seems that my light-hearted use of PC was not misunderstood at all but instead triggered a finicky/pedantic response.

I don't think I've name-called at all but I couldn't help some response to the pomposity of the "the only one" comment about Mac experience particularly on a PC Guide 'soapbox'. Without that comment I wouldn't have posted at all. Pomposity and hypocrisy are two close brethren that produce so much good fodder for satire.

[saphalline]

PC v Mac has been used (like "forever") to distinguish between two basic campsYes, I agree. I was simply making the statement that it is an outdated concept now. Too much has happened just since 2000 that has turned "PC vs Mac" on its end.

using CPU v AMD makes no sense to me as a poor and imprecise analogyIt was a quickly made analogy, but I wouldn't have used it if I didn't think it was appropriate. What makes it poor and imprecise in your opinion? Or do you simply mean big-endian vs little-endian?

We all have our personal fads and one of the perennial dangers of using abbreviations, acronyms, etc is that they mean different things to different people.That's why Wikipedia has disambiguation links all over the place! :p But I don't see why supposedly defined concepts have to be so fluid that communication utterly breaks down. Opinion, interpretation, connotation and such all have their place - we are only human after all. But does meaning at any level have no meaning at all? This is the idea with which I have struggled in this thread. It may be that no agreement can even be made as far as definitions are concerned. That is what I'm exploring.

It seems that my light-hearted use of PC was not misunderstood at all but instead triggered a finicky/pedantic response.Your interpretation is certainly understandable. That's what I'm trying to discern here. What is the interpretation of all this "PC" stuff? If everyone here says that "PC vs Mac" is still valid, then I'm out-voted. End of story. That's how language works.

I don't think I've name-called at all but I couldn't help some response to the pomposity of the "the only one" comment about Mac experience particularly on a PC Guide 'soapbox'. Without that comment I wouldn't have posted at all. Pomposity and hypocrisy are two close brethren that produce so much good fodder for satire.I don't understand. I certainly am not intending to be pompous or hypocritical - I have only a vague sense of why you might see it that way at first glance. What was it about the "the only one" comment that instigated such an opinion? (I'd like to avoid such confusion in the future.)

[Paul Komski]

Brevity is often best.

I'm the one with Mac experience - the only one.Res ipsa loquitur.

What makes it poor and imprecise in your opinion?You used CPU v AMD; would you have used CPU v Intel? AMD and Intel do both make CPUs. Motor Car v Ford would be another analogy.