- #1
Dagenais
- 290
- 4
The http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=iMac is finally out after a very long wait from Apple Computer enthusiasts!
All new look too!
All new look too!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Apple design team was obviously held to this design by edict, since the result is hardly jazzy or interesting. What's worse, the engineering required that all of the USB, audio, Ethernet and modem connectors (10 of them, not including the power line) are awkwardly and inconveniently placed on the back of the bulky monitor-computer. With all these wires running off the back of this top-heavy machine, there's a good possibility that one will get tripped over. I suspect the iMac will go flying. This lash-up just does not look stable.
Moonbear said:Dagenais, apparently that critique didn't come from someone forced to work in a cubicle! I just took a look at it and that design would be perfect for the cramped spaces of our students' cubicles in the lab. We have two old G3 iMacs that are getting ready for retirement (they take up probably a 1/4 of the desk and these are pretty old...the gray ones that came out right after the first fruit-flavored ones). Having all the cords come out the back would be perfect, then they could all head straight down through the little hole at the back of the desk made for cords. The only complaint I've ever had with iMacs is the cord from the computer to the keyboard is always too short, so you need to buy an extension to run it down the back of the desk and under to a keyboard tray. Considering most people use keyboard trays in offices (all those ergonomic police running around), it would be nice if they'd make a longer cord standard. Afterall, with these space-saving designs, what's the point of a smaller footprint if you still need to pull the computer toward the front of the desk to reach the keyboard? The only hesitation I have about buying the new iMacs for our lab is that then my students would have faster computers than I do!
Dagenais said:Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).
Dagenais said:I rarely hear or see of people that purchase expensive, all-in-one's for students. It's not very cost efficient nor do they have a very long life (you can't upgrade easily).
Most of the computers I've seen in schools, including post-secondary, are towers.
Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).
Dagenais said:Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).
modmans2ndcoming said:Macs last quite a long time actually. my cousins school is still using the original iMacs. that is a very long time to use a computer without needing an upgrade. all in ones are not bad things at all, especially in schools.
How could two artifacts from the same technology category obsolesce at different rates? Could you give an example of a specific Macintosh and a specific x86 PC obsolescing at different rates?Moonbear said:A lot of reasons for running Macs. They don't become obsolete as quickly as PCs, so actually are pretty cost-efficient (even our G3's are still running current software, while PCs of the same generation are completely obsolete).
For 2+ years I have owned one particular Dell Inspiron 4100 laptop running Windows XP SP1. I have used this computer for ~8,000 total hours and have never experienced on it an operating system crash. Do you have some PC vs Mac crash statistics?They are far more stable, as in, they don't crash twice daily like PCs.
Ditto for XP.And with OSX, even if one program shuts down, you don't lose everything that's open.
This software is not ported to XP? What brand/model microscope cameras do you use?Our biggest reason for using Macs, though, is we do a lot of image analysis (a lot of microscopy...the software for our microscope cameras runs on Macs too).
PC solutions come in many different form factors. If you don't like towers you can have your students build lanboys or pizza boxes instead. You might even want to get rid of the lab computers and instead hook up the microscope cameras to servers and let the students download the images wirelessly to their laptops. (And if they forgot to grab all the images, leaving them on the server would allow the sudents to download them while they are walking down the street, in a coffeeshop, in another class, etc.)Plus, towers take up a lot of space and sit on the floor
A typical modern PC can be built by your students for around $200-$300 in parts.the all-in-ones aren't that expensive at all.
Would you write a virus for an operating system hardly anyone uses? The Mac security model is security through obscurity, not rock solid security.Macs don't catch viruses as easily.
What obscurity?The Mac security model is security through obscurity, not rock solid security.
what do you mean by that ?you could conclude that a Windows or UNIX box would be MORE secure, as vunerabilities are well known (in security circles) unlike Mac's vunerabilities.
Uhm?Anttech said:Mac's are "thought" of as more secure becuase nobody has bothered a great deal to find vunerabilities, thus they are deemed "secure through obscurity" by people who know about security
http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/security through obscurity
Windows UNIX and Linux vunerabilities are documented and are well know... so you can patch up against attacks, thus your system will have a better security index (in the long run)
Anttech said:OSX kernal is based on BSD .. AFAIK...
I think what he means by "security model is security through obscurity" is that nobody has written virus for Mac's but this does not mean they are more secure ...
To add to that people also have not proded and tested Mac security to the extent they have UNIX or Windows, thus you could conclude that a Windows or UNIX box would be MORE secure, as vunerabilities are well known (in security circles) unlike Mac's vunerabilities. Thus they are "secure through obscurity"... Not becuase the OS is written with security in mind...
You don't seem to know to much about BSD.no, it is not mute, as you said BSD has not been probbed as much as other flavours of UNIX / Linux / Windows... Thus the "security through obscurity" of OSx still holds.
Yes I can, I just don't use it in this new context. And, even if I did, I wouldn't agree with you.You obviuosly can't comprehend the meaning of "security through obsecurtiy"
That was not the question. The question was: Would you say that Linux is more used than the *BSD's and OS X combined?Yes I would say that Linux is in use more than FreeBSD...
They haven't? How do you know this?But it is only though of as secure becuase nobody has bothered there arse to try and r00t Mac boxes...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/The way you are talking about OSX is that it is just *bsd... It doesn't even have an X-windows interface... The Microkernal may be based on BSD (totally diluted no doubt)..
What is *nix if it doesn't include *BSD?And yes I would say *nix is used more than BSD and OSx combined, way more!
Dr-NiKoN said:http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/
The Microkernel is Mach3.
What is *nix if it doesn't include *BSD?
Nevermind, this is getting pointless.
I think you misunderstand. "Better documented" means there are more people out there poking and proding looking for weaknesses so we have a better idea of what the weaknesses are. That's a fact.Dr-NiKoN said:Also, Windows is not better documented than OS X. That's a silly statement. What's better documentation than the source-code?
No, that is really not a fact.I think you misunderstand. "Better documented" means there are more people out there poking and proding looking for weaknesses so we have a better idea of what the weaknesses are. That's a fact.
Yes, this I can relate to.its just simple probability that if 90% of the people who write viruses are PC users, 90% of the viruses out there will be PC viruses.
Anttech said:I still don't think you get the ideal of "security through obsecurity"
"no matter how much you educate him"
I am not being educated here... lol... thanks for your input anyway computergeek
I didn't say anything about Linux. My point was simply Windows vs everything else.Dr-NiKoN said:Yes, this I can relate to.
But, this is also true for Linux. Who makes email-viruses for Linux?
I can appreciate the fact that 90% of the world uses Windows, thus anything not Windows has security trough obscurity. I think it's a pretty strange statement, but I can see how someone might assert this.
BUT, when you try to put Linux in the same group as Windows, leaving out the BSD's and OS X, you would be way of base IMO.
Anttech said:OSX does not have any where near the amount of security documentation than LINUX (yes I said it) and Windows...
OSX is NOT Linux it is NOT BSD... It may have components of BSD at lower levels, HOWEVER viruses/Worms/Vulnerabilities/Trojans etc etc are NOT always written at that lower level are they? OSX IS just as vulnerable as the next to buffer overflow problems.
Anttech said:Well Just because the kernel is BSD.. Does not mean that it cannt have OTHER security vulnerabilities that BSD does not have, for example between the GUI and the kernel layer, or the User layer and the Kernel layer… whatever!
Anttech said:Now... I will come to the point of "Security through obscurity" OSX as we all know is not a default target for crackers... It has not been completely tested, we do not know enough about all the nooks and crannies of this complete OS... Do we? So 'in theory' it is there could be many holes, and to add to this Apple do NOT like to talk about security... Apple do NOT make it an objective of there’s to educate users regarding possible, theoretical or not, security vulnerabilities...
Anttech said:Tell me this, why don't the 3 letter agencies and governments of the world host there Mission critical applications and confidential Data on OSX?
Anttech said:a serious cracker (not just a script kiddie with some tools)could find vulnerabilities in the OS (possibly easily.. We just don't know), and exploit the system, at what ever layer you want...
Anttech said:I would say until it has been tested enough as its entirety and apple start (or keen Mac users, and we all know how zealous some Mac users are don’t we :-D ) creating documentation on OSX security it is "secured through obscurity" IMHO
The new design of the Apple iMac G5 includes a sleek, all-in-one design with a thinner profile and a larger display. It also features a built-in iSight camera, improved speakers, and a new keyboard and mouse.
Yes, the Apple iMac G5 is more powerful than previous models. It features a faster processor, improved graphics, and more storage options, making it a great choice for both personal and professional use.
No, the components of the Apple iMac G5 are not user-upgradeable. However, the iMac G5 is designed to be powerful enough to meet most users' needs without the need for upgrades.
Yes, the Apple iMac G5 comes with the latest version of macOS, as well as a suite of Apple's own software including iMovie, GarageBand, and Pages. It also includes a one-year subscription to Apple's iCloud service.
The Apple iMac G5 has a variety of connectivity options, including USB ports, Thunderbolt ports, and an Ethernet port. It also has built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth capabilities for wireless connectivity.