The G5 iMac is finally out after a very long wait from Apple Computer enthusiasts!
All new look too!
I'm undecided as of yet. I may get a new iMac for my wife, but I'll hold off until Tiger is released. By then a 2G iMac should be available.
 Removed commentary about 5200 chipset.
Dvorak comments on new iMac
Wow, he's pretty harsh on the new iMac. Putting the computer in the back of the monitor isn't a new thing. Gateway and Sony has done it before.
He also says that Apple is concentrating too much on its line of MP3 players and that you can't "change monitors" with the iMac.
Why would you even buy an iMac if you wanted to change monitors?
I wonder when benchmarks are going to come out for the iMac.
You could mount the imac on the wall
then just have the wires already connected and get a usb hub
and your up and running
its just so elegant looking
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!
Best thing about the new iMac
is that you can spend a faw more dollars and get it totally wireless, except for the power.
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).
One reason I can think of is that PCs (particularly those running Windows) cannot compare to Macs in stability and reliability. If his students are also lucky enough to have access to programs such as Wolfram's amazing Mathematica, they probably appreciate this greatly. If you have the $$$ to spend on it, go for it. I am buying an iMac G5 in a year (hopefully the one-step up model).
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 with out needing an upgrade. all in ones are not bad things at all, especially in schools.
Does anyone have the percentage of college campus for macs vs pc? Since most campuses have both I mean like what percentage per campus.
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). They are far more stable, as in, they don't crash twice daily like PCs. And with OSX, even if one program shuts down, you don't lose everything that's open. 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). Plus, towers take up a lot of space and sit on the floor where the janitor can destroy them with the mop (don't ask), and the all-in-ones aren't that expensive at all. And the best part, when the students open every attachment they receive in email, Macs don't catch viruses as easily.
The lab I did my postdoc in is still using Mac Pluses...at least they were a few years ago. We had ancient custom software that would only run on those that was essential for our data analysis. It was quite traumatic to my post-doc mentor when we finally convinced him we needed to upgrade for Y2K, but he still clings to one last Mac Plus. They were painfully slow, but still running (we put a sign up over it, something like, "I'm slow and stupid, please be patient with me.") But, you know what? That thing could be left on for months and wouldn't crash or freeze or anything. I miss the days when computers were that stable!
Mac flexibility vs PC flexibility
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?
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?
Ditto for XP.
This software is not ported to XP? What brand/model microscope cameras do you use?
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.)
Here are some all in one PCs. Here are some PCs you can wear. Here is a PC the size of a paperback book.
A typical modern PC can be built by your students for around $200-$300 in parts.
Would you write a virus for an operating system hardly anyone uses? The Mac security model is security through obscurity, not rock solid security.
You are aware that the various security implementation details of "OS X" both in kernel-space and user-space is open-sourced?
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....
what do you mean by that ?
can you paraphrase it again ?
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)
Let me see if I can get this straight.
Darwin, which is 100% open-sourced, and probably consists of 90% code that also is in other Operating Systems is less secure than those operating systems because it's Mac OS?
Let me ask one question, is OpenBSD more secure than OS X? Let me remind you that there are fewer users of OpenBSD and more security auditing done of OS X code than OpenBSD. OpenBSD has a bigger amount of security trough obscurity than OS X, so OS X has a better "security index" than OpenBSD?
OS X is not less secure just because people are finding fewer security holes in it as compared to Windows, or other operating systems. On the contrary.
If you find a security hole in OS X that only applies to OS X it is either very high-level in the user-interface or very low-level in the Mach3 micro-kernel. All other holes would probably also be applicable to the *BSD's, thus your point about obscurity is kind of mute.
Also, Windows is not better documented than OS X. That's a silly statement. What's better documentation than the source-code?
"If you find a security hole in OS X that only applies to OS X it is either very high-level in the user-interface or very low-level in the Mach3 micro-kernel. All other holes would probably also be applicable to the *BSD's, thus your point about obscurity is kind of mute."
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....
Mark or dont mark my words, but a lot of top security sepicalists views on Mac security is changing... and for the worse...
I am not an OS bigget at all, I just aggree with the fact that OSx is secured through obsecurity.... only time will tell... This does not mean that it isnt a very secure OS (currently)...
What I do find interesting is that Mac users are very aggresive towards any critism...This was not directed to you or anyone on this board, but from reading othere boards out there in the WWW
OS X is as secure (design wise) as BSD is, and BSD has a great security record
Separate names with a comma.