I have made up my mind regarding Apple PCs

After some time debating what my next PC would be, whether Apple or not, I have come to the conclusion that my biggest problems with Apple PCs are with their laptops. They really aren't for me Things like keyboard layout (lack of dedicated delete, page up/down, home/end, etc. keys, placement of ctrl, cmd, fn, etc.), lack of matte screen options on many models, lack of 12 and 14 inch sizes, flashy silver case instead of a more discrete black, lack of 16:9 screens, lack of ports in general, etc.

Regarding the OS, right now I have Windows 8 on one of my laptops and various rotating Linuxes on the other (mostly Debian/Debian based), I enjoyed the various times I've fiddled with Mac OS X, I'd have to relearn pretty much all of the keyboard shortcuts, but that's pretty much it, I feel pretty much at home. I've been using Linux more and more, I almost have no real reason to stay with Windows. Since OS X is rather similar to Linux (UNIX-like environment, centralized software center, open-source connections, etc.) with a layer of gloss on top and less customizability, I wouldn't mind making it my main OS.

So I think that the right thing to do is to get an Apple desktop PC: the iMac or MacMini. The MacPro is too much power/money, can't really justify it. I'll probably wait until next year's models, I'm not in a hurry

Anyone else share my feelings?

 

Depends on what you want to do with it. iMac starts off over $1200+, so you're not talking a whole lot of $$$ differences between it and a Macbook Pro 13. I'm sure you're not going to feel a whole lot of awkwardness choosing a 13" laptop screen over a 12" or 14" laptop screen. Mac mini is WAY cheaper and sleek and compact, we have a couple at work in our lab testing center. Also, it's duo-core vs quad-core, which is it you want? Again, depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to do because both iMac and Mac mini are different beasts, tech spec-wise.

 

I have the exact opposite conclusion.

I wouldn't get an apple desktop, but I would (and do) use their laptops.

16:10 is better. Their desktops are also 16:10. You want a 12" OR 14", but definitely not 13"? Keep in mind that 13" 16:10 is not the same size as 13" 16:9. The 13" is pretty small, about as wide as 12" in 16:9 format.

If you want a matte screen you have to get the 15" (which is really more like 14" in 16:9 land)

As far as the keyboard, they do sacrifice some dedicated function keys and the num pad, but the keyboard is full size and very nice in general. The port options are just decent, I agree. If you don't like the colors, you could get a hard case, or just get a different laptop. Sounds fine.

 

I don't see why anyone would prefer a 16:9 screen over a 16:10...

 

I would, when I code I prefer to have 2 docs open next to each other, which is kind of pushing when you are using a 16:10

 

Me too. I work with two documents next to each other a lot, so for a given amount of screen acreage, 16:9 is better for me than 16:10 is.

Also, 16:9 is better for watching movies and playing games.

 

you should get that strange blink checked by a doctor

 

I probably should

Just to clarify, I don't dislike the 13 inch screen size, I just would prefer to have more options available. And I know that a matte screen is available in the 15 inch model, but again, I would love it on the 13 inch model. And the desktop models (iMac and Thunderbolt display) are definitely 16:9. I know I could get a hard case, but would really be more interested in having more options from the start. I really don't like the feeling of the keyboard, especially the shallower Air one. The keys don't really grip your fingers, and the layout is very different from normal non-Apple keyboards (in Portugal, that is. I imagine that the US layout would be more similar to regular non-Apple keyboards).

The MacMini server is quadcore and has 2 HDDs, but no GPU. The iMacs all have quadcores and GPUs (why are the GPUs mobile versions?), and are configurable to 2 HDDs.

How upgradeable are these? I assume I can upgrade RAM at will, but how possible is it to upgrade the HDD? Or add a second one?

 

The chiclet island style keys of Apple's keyboards aren't designed to grip fingers while you are typing. In fact, there aren't any chiclet style keyboards that are designed to do that. Instead the keys are designed to have ample spacing between themselves. You either like this or you prefer more traditional keyboards found on desktops or the somewhat concave ones from older notebooks. Either way, if you don't like Apple's keyboard, odds are high that you won't like anyone else's chiclet keyboard either.

The Mac Mini server offers up Intel's HD 3000 graphics which are on par with Nvidia's 320m in most areas and even pulls ahead in others (the Nvidia is ahead in programs that work with Cuda and Nvidia's architecture). So it doesn't really need a dedicated GPU especially since it was designed to sit there and act as a server. You can find other home server solutions from other companies, particularly HP, and they will use an Atom processor and even lower end graphics.

Apple puts mobile GPUs in the iMacs because they often consume less power, produce less heat, were designed for working in small spaces, and take up less space. A full on desktop high end GPU would cook the insides of an iMac. I think the only thing that you can upgrade in the new iMacs is the RAM. You could also upgrade the hard drives in the older ones but I believe that has been blocked for some reason with the 2011 iMac models.

 

Lenovo's chiclet keyboards are grippy, and they are a pleasure to type in. I do prefer traditional style keyboards, and I love a nice, clicky, deep-travel desktop keyboard.

So when you get a Mac Mini you are essentially getting a laptop's hardware (CPU and GPU) and when you get an iMac you get something in between traditional desktop and laptop (desktop CPU and mobile GPU)? The only full-on desktop product from Apple is the MacPro?

Can you upgrade the HDD on a Mac Mini? Or only RAM too?

 

How did you get Windows 8? Are you in some developer's program?

 

The link to Windows 8 is somewhere in this thread, I think.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/windows-os-software/582992-windows-8-thread.html

 

I like Apple Laptops but in regards of desktops I would rather build my own to be honest, the whole advantage of a desktop is the upgradability. I would rather not get a desktop I can't upgrade myself, in that case I would prefer a laptop.

 

Last time I checked, by the way most screens are churned out, you don't lose any horizontal space by going with a 16:10 aspect ratio. Rather, you lose a bit of vertical space with 16:9 screens.

1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200
1600x900 vs. 1680x1050
1366x768 vs. 1440x900

Hmmm...

 

You DO lose horizontal space if you're comparing screens of similar cost (i.e., similar total area and total number of pixels). For a given cost, if you have fewer rows of pixels, you can have more columns of pixels. It's not like a 1600x900 screen adn a 1600x1050 screen cost the same amount.

 

1600*900 vs. 1440*900
1366*768 vs. 1280*800

you should also take a look at the wiki article about aspect ratio, there is a rather interesting pic that overlaps different aspect ratios there.

 

16:10 is the best because it is closest to the golden ratio.

 

I'll remember that next time I'm using my laptop to scrutinize da Vinci's The Last Supper instead chilling out with Pineapple Express...

 

I also prefer two windows side by side for coding. But that depends on the horizontal resolution, not the aspect ratio. You need a certain minimum horizontal resolution to go side by side, but beyond that more vertical space is welcome.

1280x800 is better than 1366x768 because the extra horizontal resolution isn't enough to put two docs side by side. Even though you're only gaining 32 pixels vertically, they're still more usable than 86 extra horizontal pixels. 1440x900 is better than either of the above because you get more real estate in both dimensions, but it's still pushing it for side by side documents. Once you get to 1600x900, I'm comfortable coding with two windows side by side. Moving up from there, I'd rather have 1600x1200 than 1920x1080, because the extra 120 lines of vertical resolution are more usable than the extra 320 lines of horizontal resolution.

 

I find it interestingly irrelevant when people comment on the preferences of others. And yes its a matter of preferences

 

I like Full HD. Don't argue with me.

 

I just dont feel at home whenever i am using windows ><
everything else doesnt matter

 

you just cant, nobody is supposed to like FHD

 

So, a 16:10 screen is bigger than a 16:9 screen? That is all I got from the screen size flame war, so I guess time to head to some useful threads...

 

No, not entirely. There's an objective, functional advantage to having more usable screen real estate. If you can tolerate the high dot pitch, 1600x900 is functionally the best option for a 13" display. If not, then 1440x900.

 

Still a matter of preference. Just like how some prefer design over functionality.

Whatever floats yer boat.

 

yeah yeah, another thing that you have to remember is availability.

I wanted to buy the Z21, but when my previous laptop bit the dust, it wasnt released. So yeah would I like a higher res on my 13'', hell yeah! Was it available or has any kind of meaningful offerings? nope.

I would also like that with a thunderbolt display, that I can connect my egpu thunderbolt powered, and that the pcie lanes available on this mbp would be re routed so that I could have 2 thunderbolt outputs

I would also want that the mbp to be lighter and had a better EFI system, that allowed me to not buy a DVD to burn the various distro of linux and windows that I install

Add to that list a higher res display on this mbp, and a quad core for when Im running VMs.

I would also wanted to it to be without a ODD, and instead raise the battery life with the added space and to top that another fan so that the TDP could be raised.

I would also want to have a Ivy bridge

I would also like to have a larger sized SSD in it, larger than the 600gb that the intel 320 is capable of, at a price ratio of $0.5 to 1gb.

I would also want more people to invest in stocks, options, derivatives... so that I could make more money.

i think you get the drift

 

Here here!!

EDIT: I thought you meant Microsoft Windows.

 

Now, I grant you that this also holds true...



Most screen manufacturers do tend to pack in more pixels in 16:10 monitors than their 16:9 counterparts. You have a point about 1280x800 vs. 1366x768, but even there, 1440x900 is replacing 1280x800. We can go around in circles.

Nonetheless, you're missing the crucial point. Footprint. Let's say you're placing your laptop on a small desk. A 16:10 monitor will give your more practical screen estate than a 16:9 monitor, simply because in most real life situations, horizontal space is always at a premium.

Another example is if you're going for an eyefinity setup on a desk that can accommodate exactly three monitors. Going with 16:10 monitors will give you more screen estate than 16:9 monitors, as their sizes will be limited by their horizontal footprint.

Whatever. Since I've derailed the conversation once more, I'll ban myself from this thread.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist showing off my impressive artistic skills.

 

Dunno what you are arguing about — 16:9 is more vertical space while 16:10 is more gorizontal granted both have same diagonal. It looks clearly like personal preference.

 

How much room you have horizontally and vertically is NOT determined by the aspect ratio... look at the exact number of pixels on the screen. I don't get the argument here, and all those weird pictures are very misleading to the truth.

 

Yeah, there's not one aspect ratio that consistently gives more pixels. At the low resolution for each, 16:9 gives more pixels (1366x768 versus 1280x800). At the intermediate resolution for each, 16:9 gives more pixels (1600x900 versus 1440x900). But at the top resolution for each, 16:10 gives more pixels (1920x1080 versus 1920x1200).

This is based on what is currently offered in laptops. Sure, you can find other examples in desktop monitors like 1680x1050, etc, but if you're buying a laptop in 2011, there's really only three available resolutions for each aspect ratio.

 

I only wish the MBP13 had matte, and maybe a higher res. Though the extra vertical space offered by 1280x800 is better than 1366x768, IMO. But the MBA13 has a 1440x900 display...

I dunno, I'm more for extra pixels, vert (priority) then horz (second priority), since at 1440 and above horz, side by side is rather do-able, at least in Win7. But I've seen the MBP13 screen before, and it sure is pretty... not just talking about my reflection, either. (kidding! )

In the end, I sold my soul to Sony, the company I hate. Whatever, if I think about it too much, I'll end up with a MBP in my room, too.

 

A 16:10 screen will code better then a comparable 16:9 because it will have the same left to right pixels but more top to bottom. As for movies well I guess if youre allergic to black bars being ~10% bigger but the picture being the same I can see why you would hate to have less pixels...

 

Side-by-side is doable at 1440x900, but I would be a LOT more comfortable with an extra 160 columns of pixels.

My next machine, to be here in a week or so, will be my first real experience with 1920x1080. I suspect in terms of pixels, there will be "plenty" vertical and "plenty" horizontal, and the real question will just be whether I like the overall shape of 16:9 better than 16:10. Given my tendency to stick the dock or taskbar on the right, and to have two documents open at once, and to watch a lot of movies, I suspect I'll like the 16:9 shape better. Personal preference.

 

Ah, I'm spoiled by 2560x1440 at home I eventually got the 1600x900 SA over the MBP13, mainly because of matte + 160 pixel width (16:10 or not, 1600x900 had more pixels no matter how I cut it). Otherwise, a TB external GPU did sound nice... (not the mention the MBP13's screen quality overall is better).

 

I'll remember that next time I'm coding. I've never coded, myself, but I've seen it on ER, and I think it involves someone's heart stopping?

 

it does! I love the ping machine, the best investment anyone can get is the ping machine!

heh gotta love monty python

 

What I learned from this thread is that what we really need are 16:11 screens. I mean, they're one better!

"These go to eleven" - YouTube

 

16:11 is just "one more," away from being a proper 4:3 ratio

 

If you're going for a desktop get the mac mini. Having to replace the display when you replace the computer is silly. Best to get a nice display, "windows" keyboard, and install linux from there.

The mac mini's are great machines. Plus should you want to, you can Triple boot it and use REFIT as the boot loader. So you won't lose your ability to fiddle and tinker with all sorts of operating systems. I Triple boot my favorite flavor of linux as well as windows and then use virtualbox to play with more distros.

 

Being as I have coded many applications on 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 I will say for coding its 4:3>16:10>16:9. More vertical pixels = MUCH easier to navigate through code.

As for the "medical" reference cool story bro.

 

As for the coding, cool story bro. So what you're saying is that an aspect ratio that's not available on 99% of laptop models is the best option for an activity that 99% of laptop purchasers don't do?

 

Good lord this thread is more persistent than the big foot....