Aww, man I want a Mac now, but theyre so expensive.

I feel for you man, I'm now looking at Macs too ...

Lol since i have gotten my mini i wanted a mac mini or some kind of suped mac but there horribly expensive :/ maybe a supped down powerbook :/ prolly just need it for college

Yea get a Mac Mini, then save up for the God of Macs, the PowerMac :D

Originally posted by Blankwire
Plus:
512MB of ram = $75
Monitor = $1000
Keyboard and Mouse = $40

Not so cheap now, huh? True you could use the Mac mini in true BYOKBM fasion, but who wants to use non-matching third party components? :)

I Do Agree With That. (http://ionmac.com/mac-mini-whats-it-all-about.php)

Is this a fashion thing. If the ipod works on the MS option why shell out the dosh for the ,what I must admit is damm cool, Mac OS option. PC's have more to offer the majority of users.

Could do, I was just woundering if it was a case of fashion ,as every one states that they want a mac ,but none stated that they needed one.

Originally posted by Blankwire
Plus:
512MB of ram = $75
Monitor = $1000
Keyboard and Mouse = $40

Not so cheap now, huh? True you could use the Mac mini in true BYOKBM fasion, but who wants to use non-matching third party components? :)

The whole point behind the Mini is to use your existing components. I have not used Apple components with my G4 Tower since I have had it...

If he already has a keyboard/mouse/monitor the extra $75 for RAM is no big deal...

i bought an Imac G5 superdrive, best purchase ever!!!! no regrets on the money spend

Can the mac mini do dual monitors? I use 3 monitors with my PC, but could settle for 2 if the mini could do it.

Originally posted by Blankwire
Plus:
512MB of ram = $75
Monitor = $1000
Keyboard and Mouse = $40

Not so cheap now, huh? True you could use the Mac mini in true BYOKBM fasion, but who wants to use non-matching third party components? :)

Why do you need a $1000 monitor?

Anyways, the OP also thinks it will cost $2000?

At that point, just get an iMac G5. Isn't the 20-inch one under $2k?

Originally posted by Blankwire
Plus:

Monitor = $1000



$1,000? Not quite. I just bought a 19" Viewsonic flat-panel for $350.. I couldn't justify spending an extra $650 for a 20" Apple Cinema Display.

-Dan

just put it on top of your black tower and run it, it would look fine. How good are apple laptops?

Resist the urge. Keep in mind that Macs are ideal for graphics work, digital photo editing, etc. They're great if you're a casual computer user, but if you're into high-end gaming or third-party software, stick to PCs. It depends what your needs are.

The Mac Mini looks like a wonderful piece of minimalistic design and putting it next to a black Dell monitor would "uglify" it. But then again, that shouldn't be an issue if you don't have enough money at the moment (like many people) and don't mind.
Or if you don't have OCD. Yeesh.

Originally posted by VousDew
Resist the urge. Keep in mind that Macs are ideal for graphics work, digital photo editing, etc. They're great if you're a casual computer user, but if you're into high-end gaming or third-party software, stick to PCs. It depends what your needs are.

Or if you don't have OCD. Yeesh.

Not true. There are more and more games being available for the Mac (Doom 3, Football Manager, etc) and do keep in mind, that the GNU library for Mac software already numbers in the thousands. Plus, popular third party software like Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Word, Dreamweaver, etc are all available on Macintosh.

But honestly, I can't justify spending money on a beautiful CPU and putting it next to a fugly monitor...

Originally posted by Blankwire
As Kristiano said, "I can't justify spending money on a beautiful CPU and putting it next to a fugly monitor..." You have to admit, it looks sexy. Putting it next to an old CRT with only VGA, and a cheap keybard and mouse set, would be a sin.

It's not just about size and power, but about cosmetics.


Flat-panel monitor. Meaning it's two inches thick, similar to the Cinema Display. I was also thinking of getting a very nice Samsung which was $450.. I would hardly call either of them "fugly". How you can say "Mac's are so expensive", by agreeing with the OP, and then say you'd need to buy a $1,000 monitor, puzzles me..

-Dan

I can. I'm particularly particular with monitors and stuff. Like Blankwire said, its definitely about the overall user-experience. You just don't get as much kick.

Oh and I agree with Dan though, that the particular brand of monitors that he suggested are decent. They look pretty good. If you don't mind spending (note, I did not say splurging) on a decent screen, then hell yeah it's worth it. With Blankwire, I agree though that a Mac Mini would be even cooler with an Apple keyboard and mouse. Can you imagine using a black Dell keyboard with the Macintosh Mini? :p

Mini wouldn't be for gaming. There are video cards which cost more than the Mini itself.

If you want gaming, get an Xbox 2 or a PS3, both of which should be out in about a year. They will offer more performance than any PC at the time.

Originally posted by wco81
If you want gaming, get an Xbox 2 or a PS3, both of which should be out in about a year. They will offer more performance than any PC at the time.
Off topic: You've got to be kidding me. I agree that the next generation consoles will have better graphics, but they won't be anywhere near the capabilities of a modern computer system.

@ Dan: I never said that other monitors would be "fugly", nor did I say you had to buy an Apple Cinima display (although some people are picky about appearance). But I still think Macs are a tad bit expensive.

Even if you get the $500 model with a third party 512MB stick of ram for $40 and a standard mouse/keyboard set for $15 - $20. That would still be roughly $555 (and that's without a monitor). I think that if you already have a keyboard, mouse, and monitor, the Mac mini would be a cheap way to become introduced with OS X, but isn't at all reasonable compared to today's standards.

Originally posted by VousDew
Resist the urge. Keep in mind that Macs are ideal for graphics work, digital photo editing, etc. They're great if you're a casual computer user, but if you're into high-end gaming or third-party software, stick to PCs. It depends what your needs are.


I would agree about the gaming but disagree about 3rd part software.

What most PC enthusiasts see as a lack of 3rd party software for the Mac is in reality a lack of crap-ware for the Mac. How many different CD burning Apps do I really need to choose from? 2 or 3 is fine, but go shop for one for a PC. As an example, my local CompUSA and BestBuy have a total of 14 different Apps to choose from. Nearly ALL of them had the exact same features and had no other special bells and whistles, only 2 or 3 stood out as maybe really good Apps. You don't need 14 Apps for CD burning for any platform. Odds are at least 7 of the 14 were crappy. None of this takes into account the other 50 or so you can only buy on-line.

More does NOT equal better, especially in the case where every half whit ###### thinks he can write PC software and make a buck off of it...

Just Google around. There are plenty of discussions of patents and what Sony and Microsoft has divulged so far. Sony in February showed a configuration of the Cell which it will use in the PS3 which was capable of 256 Gflops. At GDC, MS claimed the Xbox2 will deliver a teraflop of performance (although people think this is aggregate, when you add the ATI GPU).

The fastest Pentiums and Athlon-64s do not come anywhere near these figures in floating point. Look it up.

When Sony announced they would be using nVidia to develop the GPU, the nVidia called the part they're developing for the PS3 their next-generation GPU, way better than in those $500-plus cards they sell today.

Originally posted by baggss
I would agree about the gaming but disagree about 3rd part software.

What most PC enthusiasts see as a lack of 3rd party software for the Mac is in reality a lack of crap-ware for the Mac. How many different CD burning Apps do I really need to choose from? 2 or 3 is fine, but go shop for one for a PC. As an example, my local CompUSA and BestBuy have a total of 14 different Apps to choose from. Nearly ALL of them had the exact same features and had no other special bells and whistles, only 2 or 3 stood out as maybe really good Apps. You don't need 14 Apps for CD burning for any platform. Odds are at least 7 of the 14 were crappy. None of this takes into account the other 50 or so you can only buy on-line.

More does NOT equal better, especially in the case where every half whit ###### thinks he can write PC software and make a buck off of it...

But that is also why PC Software is generally cheaper than Mac.

Look at Doom III. On buy.com, they charge 49.99$ American. For the PC Version, it is 39.99$, and at best buy it is only 29.99$.

As many other people have added, I also have gotten into the Mac computer fashions. I like the way that they perform and the fact that the OS is so stable. I need the stability of a good OS.

Originally posted by PrintNameHere
Honestly, I don't spend my day infront of a computer, but I use Windows XP and while spyare and that crap does suck, it really isn't that big of a factor to me.

I pity those that use crap computers when there is a $499 gate to heaven just a few clicks away ;)

Anyways, congrats on your iBook mickey!

hmm so mac names its operating systems after the feline species...i know for certain my next laptop will be a mac...2 more years 2 more

Originally posted by skateboarderx24
hmm so mac names its operating systems after the feline species...i know for certain my next laptop will be a mac...2 more years 2 more

Only the OS 10.x series are named after big cats. OS 7, 8 and 9 were named after composers (Gershwin, Copland etc) and some musical terms (Allegro etc)...

Don't know what OS 11.x will be called yet, or if it will be called OS 11 even...

Originally posted by baggss
Only the OS 10.x series are named after big cats. OS 7, 8 and 9 were named after composers (Gershwin, Copland etc) and some musical terms (Allegro etc)...

Don't know what OS 11.x will be called yet, or if it will be called OS 11 even...

That is an interesting point to bring up. I wonder what is going to be seen later on in the Mac industry. I wonder what the next OS is going to be. Also, I wonder if Windows is either going to keep getting worse or they are going to actually try and do something about their horrible OS.

I have nothing against Macs. I first used them in the mid-80s before they went public, and I admired the GUI (invented by Xerox, by the way, not Apple). I own a few shares of AAPL stock. I'm not a gamer (though my kids are and I doubt they'd trade their PCs). Basic office software is just as functional on Macs as on PCs, and serious software like Photoshop and Sibelius runs equally well on both platforms. The Unix-based Mac OSes work pretty well, but so do the "professional" NT-based Windows OSes. Philosophical considerations about the business models of Apple and the Windows/PC multiverse aside, there are really only two reasons why I keep using PCs:

The first is price/performance ratio. Like the OP, I'm no billionaire and price matters to me. (Actually, most of the wealthy people I know are extremely price-conscious in such matters!) Macs simply cost twice as much as equally-performing PCs, at both ends of the spectrum and most points in-between. And Apple's proprietary business model keeps the cost of upgrades high as well. The PC's lower initial cost, greater flexibility, and cost-effective upgradability is a major advantage for working stiffs like me with five computers to support.

The second reason is the increasing marginalization of Apple as a computer maker. Long ago I used Amigas--which, incidentally, used the same Motorola/IBM processers as Apple. (Isn't it wonderfully ironic that Apple once battled with IBM for dominance in the PC market, but now IBM's out of the PC business altogether and Apple's down to a 3% market share--yet Apple Macs are the only PCs still using IBM processors?) Coupled with the dwindling market share of Macs has been an increase in wild-eyed Apple zealotry among the True Believers, whose cultish fanaticism breeds suspicion of the platform among the vast majority of users simply seeking the best tool to meet their needs. More irony, that those most anxiously proselytizing for Macs often put off prospective converts by their own jingoism!

Thus, a little advice for those like Pghmyn: every time you make a statement like I wonder if Windows is either going to keep getting worse or they are going to actually try and do something about their horrible OS, you betray your fanaticism and diminish your credibility with those who are not already True Believers--and thus might actually be hastening the demise of the object of your devotion. As my Mammaw used to say, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar! ;)

Originally posted by Kristiano
I pity those that use crap computers when there is a $499 gate to heaven just a few clicks away ;)


Arn't you 12 years old?

No offense, but at your age I doubt you really need the use of a mac, unless you are doing heavy graphics design, which I doubt.

Originally posted by PrintNameHere
I doubt you really need the use of a mac, unless you are doing heavy graphics design, which I doubt. THAT IS A WICKED EXCUSE! i want a Mac but my mum its 'uve got a laptop and a PC and dont need another'. BUT i do a lot of quark, photoshop and dreamweaver work, and on my laptop its kinda slow espesh when i have to use 2 at the same time, as well as other thinks like the net.

she would still tel me 'u need to start driving lessons'. but she dont see that i aint interested.

LOL!!!!!!! :D

Originally posted by PrintNameHere
Arn't you 12 years old?

No offense, but at your age I doubt you really need the use of a mac, unless you are doing heavy graphics design, which I doubt.

I do page-layouts and web design on a semi-professional level. I started it on a Macintosh and there's no way I'm going back to Windows to doing that.

You make it sound like a Macintosh is only for graphic design and simply put, that isn't true.

Emma Watson is her name. I think shes an actor/singer. Baggss told me about her once ;).

(Im guessing she is only popular in china).

Originally posted by Kristiano
Here we go again. All Americans think that Singapore is in China -.-

So this already happened? That's hilarious!

Oh, and Apple notebooks aren't that expensive. they're about the same price as PC notebooks.

Originally posted by Tomo_kun
Emma Watson is her name. I think shes an actor/singer. Baggss told me about her once ;).

(Im guessing she is only popular in china).

She plays Hermione in the Harry Potter films

Originally posted by provboy
So this already happened? That's hilarious!

Oh, and Apple notebooks aren't that expensive. they're about the same price as PC notebooks. i wish i could say that for UK but we got tax added. powerbooks are a HELLA expensive!

Originally posted by PrintNameHere
Arn't you 12 years old?

No offense, but at your age I doubt you really need the use of a mac, unless you are doing heavy graphics design, which I doubt.

that's an unfortunate way of thinking... the beauty of it is the bundled software included in all macs allows ANYONE to instantly become a "pro" at photo editing, including slideshow production far better than any power point presentation, writing and producing music, editing movies then burning a dvd of a movie you made, using a soundtrack you produced. all you have to supply is your imagination.....and a camera.

check out the ilife '05 tutorials at http://www.mac.com/1/learningcenter/

In other words, duh.

Originally posted by Snowy28
When I was 12 I created my own 11 minute Video Presentation for an assignment I was given ...

Then do a better job next time before you send me a dark video of your room on iChat! ;)

Exactly. I see your point. If they are using that as an excuse to purchase the system, when most of them actually have no clue as to what to do with it.

I understand and agree with you totally.

I got my iBook from my dad for college/Christmas, so I didn't really have much choice in the matter. Of course, I'd wanted a Mac for a long time because PCs and me? Do not get along. So I found the switch remarkably easy. And because I'm in a graphic design course, it was a no-brainer.

Originally posted by sword
Hi

I'm 13 last year I made a I did the whole tutorial on the Unreal tournament 2004 bonus DVD used maya and everything. After I kept on using Maya and I made characters and vehicles and all that ####. I also was familiar with photoshop last year when I was 12

There are obviously isolated cases. Generalisation is unfair and but that's the way it is. *shrugs

Anyway, back on topic. I feel that the Macintosh can virtually be used by any age group comfortably with the keyword being comfortably. I used Windows 95 in the past and I still remember all the weird error messages I got.

Originally posted by sword
Like he said back on topic I personally want a ibook 14 inch but I live in down under and there 2 grand i think *Shock*

Its not US$2000 there. It's around AU$2000 for a 14" iBook Down Under. It's called currency conversion...

I bought mac 2 years ago and love it.

I wanted a machine that just worked (OSX)
I could edit home video's to burn them onto DVD (iMovie, iDvd)
Photo library management and simple editing (iPhoto)
Music library (iTunes)
Play around with music (Garage band)
Surf the internet
write e-mail
and type stuff up.

I didn't find the mac was expensive after I started adding up how much it would cost to buy the software for a PC to do everything I wanted. The software for what I wanted to do was already included on the mac in iLife. I really like how all the programs were integrated. At the time I couldn't find PC software that was as integrated.

Also I've had to restart my iMac two times in the last 2 years. Both times were after I loaded new software into the computer. In the end it was worth the cash.

1) They're expensive for what I want
2) They lack and software support
3) Lack of customization

1) What exactly do you want to do that is so expensive? You mentioned that you "customized" one yourself, where did you do it?
2) Unless you are gaming (which you said you are) that is pretty much not true.
3) By customization, I assume you mean choose between processors, video cards, sound cards and all the other crap you have to worry about with a PC, right?

PCs are gaining more software for doing graphics editing etc, but more does not equal better. Most of the Mac based Apps for graphics and sound etc are still easier than their PC counterparts and actually work better. Ease of use is a big factor here.

Yes, you can put a MacOS X like interface on your PC and still have all those perks. Perks like Spyware, viruses and god knows what else.

Yes, it is easy to avoid and not over difficult to get ride of. You shouldn't HAVE to worry about dealing with or getting rid of it at all. If the OS is built with security in mind in the first place (unlike Windows), most of the problems go away. MS's firewall in SP2 is a good step in the right direction, but that should have shipped with Win95. Instead they left all the ports open and left millions if not billions of machines vulnerable. Sure, the firewall was there in earlier versions of XP, but the average computer user had no idea that it was or how to use it.

1) What exactly do you want to do that is so expensive? You mentioned that you "customized" one yourself, where did you do it?
2) Unless you are gaming (which you said you are) that is pretty much not true.
3) By customization, I assume you mean choose between processors, video cards, sound cards and all the other crap you have to worry about with a PC, right?

PCs are gaining more software for doing graphics editing etc, but more does not equal better. Most of the Mac based Apps for graphics and sound etc are still easier than their PC counterparts and actually work better. Ease of use is a big factor here.

Yes, you can put a MacOS X like interface on your PC and still have all those perks. Perks like Spyware, viruses and god knows what else. [/B]

I don't want to get into a debate, but 1) I did it at Apple's site. 2) I game all the time, and I program (IMO it's just easier for me to program on Windows than any other one). 3) Yes.

I didn't mean more and more programs (for video editing), I meant that the software available is gaining support and demand, so the quality is going up. Depends on the program, I agree that there a more user-friendly progs on Mac, than PC, but that too is changing. Spyware now is declining in the people it affects.

But PC is more for a person who wants to do things themselves. PC is like a person giving you the keys to the car. You might not know how to drive, but you're going to take the risk of teaching yourself. You could end up learning just fine, no problems, or you could get in a wreck and crash your car. Mac is like a person giving you a car and giving you driving lessons. It teaches you how to do things their way, which might be to drive 10 under the speed limit. When other people are blasting by you, you're wondering why they're going so fast, because you were taught to drive under the limit. IMO it's limiting what you can do.

That's my little analogy. I hope that's not considered fanboyism or whatnot, as I like Macs too for certain things, I just prefer PC.

Originally posted by Krit

That's my little analogy. I hope that's not considered fanboyism or whatnot, as I like Macs too for certain things, I just prefer PC.

Sorry, that was a lame analogy. You'd rather run into the wall than learn how to drive and then be able go 100Mph? So PCs are like a like driving without a licence, and Macs are like driving with one? Are you implying that MAcs would be the cars that can't go 100Mph? I have news for you, with the exception of Games, you full of ####.

Actually, it does make some sort of sense. PCs were designed to be a cheaper alternative to Macs, and as such, they're more customizable than Macs. Most useful upgrades such as RAM and whatnot can be done on Macs, of course, but Macs are a fully integrated system where PCs are a free-for-all - you can mix and match products from different manufacturers as much as you want. (Getting those products to work without problems, however, is rarely so simple.)

So basically, yes, PCs do give you more control. But to go with the car analogy: Macs are the Lexus dealership, PCs are Jim's Used Car Lot down the road. ;)

Originally posted by VousDew
PCs were designed to be a cheaper alternative to Macs

Actually, it was the other way around. The MacIntosh was the cut-rate personal computer--$2500 in 1984, when PCs were about $5000. But the great innovation of the Mac didn't stop at price. The graphical user interface--taken from Xerox--really brought computing to the masses because it eliminated the need to learn commands.

Macs were not a "Cut Rate" computer. the Mac was intended to be an easier and more attractive alternative to the all pervasive and unintuitive command line (DOS) interface. As "The Computer for the rest of us" it was intended to make using a computer easy and more friendly for the average user.

Originally posted by VousDew
Are you sure? Every computer geek I've talked to - including my dad, who's done computer programming since the early '80s - says the exact opposite. Yeah, Apple (or Xerox, or whoever) invented the GUI, but the price was still prohibitive.

If Apple could introduce Lisas for $10,000 and still sell them (although not well) just months before the introduction of Macintosh, imagine the reaction when you get a computer incorporating most of Lisa's features, add on a few cool ones for around a quarter of that price.

It truly was insanely great.

Originally posted by LazyiPoder
i want to eventually get either an eMac G5 or iBook G4. which would you guys suggest for a first time Mac buyer switching from a PC. I like the iBook G4 because it's a clean design, portable, and has a lot of customizable features when you purchase it. I like the eMac G5 because first, it's a G5, an all-in-one Mac, and relatively small. is the iBook G5 coming out soon? Although, G5 run a little hot don't they? If so, will the eMac over heat? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks everybody!
The eMac is an educational computer, and is still at the G4 processor, I'm assuming that you mean the iMac (www.apple.com/imac/). It is a great machine, and does not have any heat issues. The G5 chip is not hot, it's only too hot to be implemented into laptops, the iMacs cooling is superb.

It will not heat over.

The iBook G5 is at the very least a year away, more likely 18 months.

Go for the iMac I say, with the latest updates it is a brilliant buy.

depends on portability and they differ hugely in price! and yep both with tiger :D

but if just for home use, id go with new emac :D

hows performance on eMac vs. iMac and vice versa? Also, does the eMac overheat? Is the eMac G5 coming out anytime? Thanks for your help guys!

Originally posted by LazyiPoder
hows performance on eMac vs. iMac and vice versa? Also, does the eMac overheat? Is the eMac G5 coming out anytime? Thanks for your help guys!

The eMacs just got updated a few days ago, so honestly, I can't see an eMac G5 coming out within this year definitely.

Also, the eMac got voted "ugliest computer of the year" last year. :p

Originally posted by Kristiano
Also, the eMac got voted "ugliest computer of the year" last year. :p

lol they are kind of ugly. ;) i just want good performance.

Originally posted by Kristiano
For that kind of price, you might as well get an iBook.

i already have a laptop. even though it's windows :rolleyes: i kind of want a desktop, as the only computer i have access to now is my windows laptop. also with iBooks you can't go too far with the customizing. like i know you can go to over 1 GB of RAM but I heard they are slow. also, they have pretty crappy video cards. no offense. everyone has their own preference. i am just looking for a mac i can sit at my desk and use. i'm also getting sick of the whole laptop way of life.:o :p lol

thanks for the suggestions. any others? :)

My dad and I are looking for a mac to buy. We're looking at both an iBook (probably the mid $1300) and an iMac (low end $1300). I kind of want an iBook because of it's protabality but the iMac will be more powerful. How is the power and speed $1,300 iBook? What would you recommend? If we choose the iBook, should we wait for the next upgrade?

iMac would be more bang for the buck. If you buy the $1500 iMac, not only do you get a faster processor, you get a dual-layer DVD burner. Plus the 17-inch screen will have much more resolution.

Of course iBook you can take around anywhere in the house, take it to school or work, take it to Starbucks, take in on trips, etc. It has a dedicated GPU, unlike most PC notebooks under $1500.

But the iMac is going to be better for graphics and multimedia with the power it has over the iBook.

Originally posted by Kristiano
The eMacs just got updated a few days ago, so honestly, I can't see an eMac G5 coming out within this year definitely.

Also, the eMac got voted "ugliest computer of the year" last year. :p
Compare eMac to PCs, and we have a clear winner.. :)

That eMac is darn beautiful! :D

Originally posted by LazyiPoder
lol they are kind of ugly. ;) in comparson to a CRT and CPU combo??

rubbish!

Bigger screen (higher resolution), slightly faster bus, bigger hard drives, lighted keyboards.

But iBooks are suppose to have better battery life.

Maybe 2 and 1/2 hours for PB, maybe 4 to 4.5 for iBook?

Depends what you're doing, your energy saver settings, whether you're using wireless, etc.

YMMV.

I get 3.5-4 hours with wireless on, and decent brightness settings on my iBook.

Originally posted by iBimbo
is the iBook screen good resolution? are images destorted at all? what about picture viewing? are the pictures distorted? thanks for the replies..

The 12" and 14" iBooks have screen resolutions of 1024x768. In the earlier iBooks, there were some problems with the logic card, which caused screen distortion, but these have been addressed long ago.

The pictures look as good as on any computer (note that Mac and Windows have different color schemes). There is a reason why graphic designers choose Macintosh you know :p

Originally posted by iBimbo
do the iBooks freeze up? I mean, can they take running a couple programs at once. also, gaming isn't too great on iBooks is it? what video card does it come with? thanks!

1) This depends on the amount of RAM you get with the iBook more than anything. I'd suggest upgrading to at least 512MBs. I usually have Adium X, Safari, iTunes, VLC Media Player open and it runs very smoothly. I found with the stock 256MBs I could only run Safari and iTunes simultaneously and even that wasn't the smoothest.

2)The iBook is definitely not for gaming. It comes with a 32MB ATI Radeon 9200, and they don't give an option of upgrading to 64MBs or 128MBs. If you want to play graphic-intensive games I'd stay clear of the iBook. If you still want a portable, then the 15" PowerBook with the 128MB ATI card will be better. I rarely play any games, but the games I do play (Civilization III) run fine.

-Dan

i would only want to play one game. so i think it would work ok. but my other question is can you hook up an apple cinema display to iBooks? thanks so much for everyone's help. sorry for all the questions. i'm just new to macs and am excited that i actually have the money to spend on one know (finally) :p

well is there an adapter you can buy that would let you attach one to the ibook?

how many of you added Apple Protection Plan on a Mac portable? Is it worth money? Thanks.

would this work on an iBook?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14909&item=5773078400&rd=1

could you put the VGA part into the iBook VGA port and then connect the DVI part to the DVI connector of the Apple 20-inch Cinema Display? Thanks for your help!

Originally posted by wco81
I believe that works going from DVI to VGA but not the other way around. I think the iBook GPU only supports mirroring, not dual spanning. IOW, even if you could hook it up, what's on the external display will be the same as what you have on the iBook screen.

what's mirroring and dual spanning? :p I'm not too computer savvy

also, isn't seeing what is on the laptop screen on the big screen the reason for an external display?

Mirroring means it's just the same desktop 1024x768.

On a 15-inch PowerBook, you get a 1280x854 desktop. If you hook up a Cinema Display via DVI, you get that 1280x854 PLUS the 1680x1050 desktop on the 20-inch Cinema Display. So you have two desktops instead of one. You could open a bunch of windows and lay them out over the two screens.

Even if you can hook up an iBook to the Cinema Display, you'd only get the same 1024x768 image.

DVI is the only way to hook the video. The USB and Firewire are just ports on the monitor so that you don't have to reach down to the Power Mac to hook up the iPod or a Firewire video camera.

I'm pretty sure it won't because these are meant to go from DVI to VGA but not the other way.

You can go to an Apple Store and ask them.

Best thing may be to buy just a PowerBook now and then get a Cinema Display later when you have more money.

I thought getting a mac would be cool to after getting an iPod but i think they look kinda retarted, like the mini is ok.. a lil box but the emac look dumb i thought. Then again the ibooks look sweet, small and thin but they are way to expensive for what ur getting. I could get a PC desktop for 1000$ with extreme performace that looks awesome. www.ncix.com oyu could customize a way better PC there for cheaper than any mac...so i thought i'd stick to PC

IMO, if you are looking for a "low end mac", the iMacG5 is the best. Although pricy (DAMN WORTH THE PRICE) somewhat (not too bad, we usually spend two grand on computers), they are worth it. The iBook G4 will be great for someone who isn't sure they want a mac, and if they want a laptop. I personally whent with the iMacG5 as my first mac, because
1. The overall value of the 2GHZ 20" compaired to the PowerMac with 20" monitor. (although I think this changed, this was true however with the 1.8GHZ model)
2. The fact that I like desktops.
3. I have obsessed over macs and I knew what I was getting.
4. Architectually, this computer is amazing, especially since everything is user-replaceable.

I would go with the iBook if you are a first time buyer, and arn't too sure about the Macintosh.

well the mac mini i would want would be only like 1000 dollars. i'm not sure i want to spend 2000 bucks on a high end mac if it is my first one. As Tomo_kun said i should do, i did previously look into iBooks, but I really would perfer a desktop right now. Maybe i'll get a laptop later on but I really wouldn't use it enough off of my desk to spend the extra money for portability.

And obviously, the design as well. It fits in really well and looks very minimalistic. Just look at the setup's thread.