Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52883 > unrolled thread

Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net> - 2013-12-01 04:07 +0000
    Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-30 23:20 -0500
      Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-01 21:06 +1300
        Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-01 18:42 +0000
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-01 15:05 -0500
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Craig Harrison <email@domain.com> - 2013-12-01 20:49 +0000
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-02 12:29 +1300
      Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-12-01 15:22 -0500
    Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-01 04:23 +0000
      Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-30 23:34 -0500
        Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-30 21:30 -0800
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-01 00:37 -0500
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-12-02 15:56 -0800
            Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-03 13:19 +1300
            Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-02 19:35 -0500
      Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Suze <replytome@thenewsgroup.com> - 2013-12-01 18:28 -0500
    Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2013-12-01 12:17 -0700
    Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-02 09:11 +1300
      Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-01 23:04 -0500
        Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-02 18:11 +1300
        Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-02 18:27 +0000
        Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? cosme.marley@gmail.com - 2013-12-02 23:25 -0800
          Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-03 04:39 -0500
            Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-04 09:05 +1300
            Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-12-04 05:55 -0800
              Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-04 18:06 +0000
              Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-05 09:01 +1300
                Re: Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum? rcp27g@gmail.com - 2013-12-06 02:27 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#52883 — Any "sweet spots" in the used Mac spectrum?

The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
one fails the other is scrap.

Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.

It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska


 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#52884

In article <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net>
wrote:

> The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> one fails the other is scrap.
> 
> Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> 
> It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
> Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.

depends what you want need it to do and how much you want to spend. i
can't imagine you are doing much 2d cad on a powerpc mini still.

a used core duo mini will be cheap but it stops at snow leopard. that's
still very useful and a significant step forward over what you have now
but it's already on borrowed time. it will be more than adequate for
web surfing and probably cad though.

a core 2 duo mini will run mavericks so it will have a longer lifespan,
and for not that much more money either. probably worth making this the
absolute minimum. 

ideally, look for a refurbished i5 or i7 mini with thunderbolt. that's
the most future-proof, and the most money too, outside of new.

keep in mind that apple didn't update the mac mini last month, which
means something new could be coming in the next few months, replacing
the existing models which will then be discounted to clear old stock.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52891

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines
> > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > one fails the other is scrap.
> > 
> > Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> > a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> > mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> > the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> > 
> > It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
> > Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.
> 
> depends what you want need it to do and how much you want to spend. i
> can't imagine you are doing much 2d cad on a powerpc mini still.
> 
> a used core duo mini will be cheap but it stops at snow leopard. that's
> still very useful and a significant step forward over what you have now
> but it's already on borrowed time. it will be more than adequate for
> web surfing and probably cad though.
> 
> a core 2 duo mini will run mavericks

Not all of them. The Mid 2007 model (sold until March 2009) is limited
to Lion, because of its low end Intel integrated graphics (GMA 950).

> so it will have a longer lifespan, and for not that much more money
> either. probably worth making this the absolute minimum.
>
> ideally, look for a refurbished i5 or i7 mini with thunderbolt. that's
> the most future-proof, and the most money too, outside of new.

That's the mid 2011 model as a baseline. I'd agree with that being more
future proof.

Simply working on Apple's typical pattern when they drop support for old
models, the Mac Mini has suffered worst in recent cutoffs, with Lion
dropping support for a model discontinued just under 4 years earlier,
and Mountain Lion dropping support for a model discontinued 3 years and
8 months earlier.

Therefore if Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late
2014 release of OS X, the 2009 models (discontinued in mid 2010 or
earlier) would be likely to be dropped.

If Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late 2015 release
of OS X, the mid 2010 model (discontinued mid 2011) would also be at
risk of being dropped. In either case the mid 2011 model is probably
safe as it would have been discontinued only three years earlier.

> keep in mind that apple didn't update the mac mini last month, which
> means something new could be coming in the next few months, replacing
> the existing models which will then be discounted to clear old stock.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52897

In message <1ld7w4d.lzyw92ioueayN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> In article <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
>> > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
>> > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines
>> > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
>> > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
>> > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
>> > one fails the other is scrap.
>> > 
>> > Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
>> > a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
>> > mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
>> > the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
>> > 
>> > It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
>> > Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.
>> 
>> depends what you want need it to do and how much you want to spend. i
>> can't imagine you are doing much 2d cad on a powerpc mini still.
>> 
>> a used core duo mini will be cheap but it stops at snow leopard. that's
>> still very useful and a significant step forward over what you have now
>> but it's already on borrowed time. it will be more than adequate for
>> web surfing and probably cad though.
>> 
>> a core 2 duo mini will run mavericks

> Not all of them. The Mid 2007 model (sold until March 2009) is limited
> to Lion, because of its low end Intel integrated graphics (GMA 950).

>> so it will have a longer lifespan, and for not that much more money
>> either. probably worth making this the absolute minimum.
>>
>> ideally, look for a refurbished i5 or i7 mini with thunderbolt. that's
>> the most future-proof, and the most money too, outside of new.

> That's the mid 2011 model as a baseline. I'd agree with that being more
> future proof.

> Simply working on Apple's typical pattern when they drop support for old
> models, the Mac Mini has suffered worst in recent cutoffs, with Lion
> dropping support for a model discontinued just under 4 years earlier,
> and Mountain Lion dropping support for a model discontinued 3 years and
> 8 months earlier.

Consider though that 10.9 didn't drop support for ANY computers. It is
unlikely that 10.10 will either as the next hardware cutoff is going to
be "computers with Thunderbolt only" and that won't happen before 2015.

At least I can't think of any other hardware cutoff that makes sense.

Although a lot of people assume the hardware dropoffs on supported OS
versions is arbitrary, there are *always* hardware reasons for it. And
if you can get around the hardware reasons (for example, the 2006 Mac
Pro) then the current OS works fine.

But the only way to get 10.9 onto a MacPro is to load the 32bit EFI and
then use that to load a tool like chameleon that will load a 64-bit
kernel. That's never going to be something Apple is going to do (and
with chameleon it requires an extra dedicated boot drive).

> Therefore if Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late
> 2014 release of OS X, the 2009 models (discontinued in mid 2010 or
> earlier) would be likely to be dropped.

I find that very unlikely. The 2009 Mini and the 2011 mini are nearly
identical in hardware terms. They are both 64 bit clean and 64 bit
drivers for the GPUs already exist. They both have MDP ports (though the
second port is either HDMI or mini-DVI), and of course the 2011 has
Thunderbolt.

The only minor difference that could be significant is that the 2009
mini lacks Bluetooth 4.0, and it is obvious that BT 4 is very important
to Apple's future. However, I don't see a way that *that* is significant
enough on a Mac mini to cut off the 2009 models.

> If Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late 2015 release
> of OS X, the mid 2010 model (discontinued mid 2011) would also be at
> risk of being dropped. In either case the mid 2011 model is probably
> safe as it would have been discontinued only three years earlier.

Yes, I would definitely be looking at a thunderbolt machine or later, as
I strongly suspect that will be the next hardware cutoff.

-- 
Demons have existed on the Discworld for at least as long as the gods,
who in many ways they closely resemble. The difference is basically the
same as between terrorists and freedom fighters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52902

In article <slrnl9n0nv.1dn.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The only minor difference that could be significant is that the 2009
> mini lacks Bluetooth 4.0, and it is obvious that BT 4 is very important
> to Apple's future. However, I don't see a way that *that* is significant
> enough on a Mac mini to cut off the 2009 models.

a $20 usb dongle fixes that problem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52905

On 2013-12-01 18:42:08 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <1ld7w4d.lzyw92ioueayN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>
> 
> Consider though that 10.9 didn't drop support for ANY computers. It is
> unlikely that 10.10 will either as the next hardware cutoff is going to
> be "computers with Thunderbolt only" and that won't happen before 2015.
> 
> At least I can't think of any other hardware cutoff that makes sense.
> 

I really hope this does not happen. As the owner of a Hexacore Mid 2012 
MacPro (Which has no Thunderbolt) I'd like to see longer than 3 years 
support of the cutting edge OS on a machine of this calibre.

Let's be honest here the new MacPro is a wonderfull machine, but it is 
not something that interests me (or other traditional MacPro buyers) as 
I require internal expansion and not a desk full of wires and expansion 
boxes, but this is going off topic here

Craig

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52908

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1ld7w4d.lzyw92ioueayN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
>   David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > That's the mid 2011 model as a baseline. I'd agree with that being more
> > future proof.
> 
> > Simply working on Apple's typical pattern when they drop support for old
> > models, the Mac Mini has suffered worst in recent cutoffs, with Lion
> > dropping support for a model discontinued just under 4 years earlier,
> > and Mountain Lion dropping support for a model discontinued 3 years and
> > 8 months earlier.
> 
> Consider though that 10.9 didn't drop support for ANY computers. It is
> unlikely that 10.10 will either as the next hardware cutoff is going to
> be "computers with Thunderbolt only" and that won't happen before 2015.
> 
> At least I can't think of any other hardware cutoff that makes sense.
> 
> Although a lot of people assume the hardware dropoffs on supported OS
> versions is arbitrary, there are *always* hardware reasons for it. And
> if you can get around the hardware reasons (for example, the 2006 Mac
> Pro) then the current OS works fine.

I agree that there is usually a hardware reason for cutting off support
for old models (10.4's requirement of Firewire is the only case which
seems to be an arbitrary decision), but that doesn't change my point
about the timeline.

In the last decade Apple has not dropped support for a model
discontinued less than three years prior to the release of the new
version of OS X. (There is one exception - the last Xserve G5, but it
hardly counts due to low volume, the writing being on the wall, and its
replacement being late.)

Therefore if you are buying an older Mac model and pick one which was
discontinued no more than a year earlier, you can be almost certain that
it will be supported by new OS X releases in the next two years, even if
Apple does another hardware cutoff.

Models up to a year older than that (discontinued up to four years prior
to the release of the new version of OS X) are a relatively safe bet, as
long as you avoid the models with the lowest specifications in areas
such as CPU, GPU and non-upgradeable memory.

In OS X versions where Apple did a minor cull of support for old models,
very few models discontinued less than four years earlier were dropped.
10.3 and 10.4 had no such models, 10.5 had one model (slowest iBook G4),
10.7 had one generation of one family (the last Mac Mini with a 32-bit
processor).

The risk in this age bracket is that Apple might decide to do another
major cull, like they did with 10.6 (dropping all PowerPC models) or
10.8 (dropping all models with 32-bit EFI and older GPUs). These
resulted in a bigger list of 3-4 year old models becoming unsupported.

> > Therefore if Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late
> > 2014 release of OS X, the 2009 models (discontinued in mid 2010 or
> > earlier) would be likely to be dropped.
> 
> I find that very unlikely.

I agree - I worded that paragraph badly. I should have said those models
were the ones at greatest risk of being dropped in either a late 2014 or
late 2015 release of OS X.

> The 2009 Mini and the 2011 mini are nearly identical in hardware terms.
> They are both 64 bit clean and 64 bit drivers for the GPUs already exist.
> They both have MDP ports (though the second port is either HDMI or
> mini-DVI), and of course the 2011 has Thunderbolt.
> 
> The only minor difference that could be significant is that the 2009
> mini lacks Bluetooth 4.0, and it is obvious that BT 4 is very important
> to Apple's future. However, I don't see a way that *that* is significant
> enough on a Mac mini to cut off the 2009 models.

The cutoff which I'm expecting to see at some point is an increase in
the minimum memory requirement from 2 GB to 4 GB.

This wouldn't affect the Mac Mini, but would drop support for all models
which had 2 GB memory and no way to upgrade, notably the entry
configuration of the 11-inch MacBook Air sold until mid 2012. Given the
historic pattern, I'd expect that model to still be supported in a late
2014 release of OS X, but late 2015 seems a likely cutoff point. (I
think one of the reasons for the inactive memory compression mechanism
in 10.9 is to avoid having to cut off support for models like that one
too soon.)

Apple could pull another arbitrary "required hardware feature" so they
no longer have to support components used in older models.

For example, they could arbitrarily drop support for all Core 2 Duo
processors, requiring a Core i3/i5/i7 or Xeon. That would set the
minimum Mac Mini at the mid 2011 series.

Given the apparent "must support older models for at least three years
after they were discontinued" rule, the earliest possible time for that
cutoff would be late 2014 (there was also an education-only Core 2 Duo
iMac sold until August 2011), but late 2015 is starting to get more
likely.

There could be hardware reasons for such a cutoff, e.g. it could mean a
certain minimum level of support for SSE instructions or other
architectural features.

Another step up in minimum GPU requirements seems a possibility but I'm
not familiar enough with their capabilities to make an educated guess at
what might be a reasonable break. Requiring OpenCL support, perhaps, or
are we there already? Lack of GPU driver support from the manufacturers
is a possible excuse.

From a quick glance at the list of supported GPU models which haven't
been used since 2011 (or earlier), the ones most at risk seem to be:

ATI Radeon 2xxx series: 2007-2008 iMac models, one 2008 Mac Pro card.

NVIDIA GeForce 8xxx series: 2007-2008 MacBook Pro models, one 2008 Mac
Pro card, 2008 iMac.

Probably safe for a bit longer:

ATI Radeon 4xxx series: 2009-2010 iMac models, one 2009 Mac Pro card.

NVIDIA integrated graphics (9400M, 320M): many models until July or
August 2011. The NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT (MacBook Pros until April 2010)
probably falls into the same camp due to being paired with the NVIDIA
9400M.

> > If Apple was to drop support for older Mac Minis in a late 2015 release
> > of OS X, the mid 2010 model (discontinued mid 2011) would also be at
> > risk of being dropped. In either case the mid 2011 model is probably
> > safe as it would have been discontinued only three years earlier.
> 
> Yes, I would definitely be looking at a thunderbolt machine or later, as
> I strongly suspect that will be the next hardware cutoff.

Apple can't require or assume built-in Thunderbolt, Bluetooth 4.0 or USB
3.0 until at least late 2016, because of a minimum three year support
window for 2012 Mac Pros which don't have those features.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52904

On 11/30/13, 11:20 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
>> but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
>> is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines
>> and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
>> offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
>> of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
>> one fails the other is scrap.
>>
>> Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
>> a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
>> mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
>> the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
>>
>> It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
>> Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.
>
> depends what you want need it to do and how much you want to spend. i
> can't imagine you are doing much 2d cad on a powerpc mini still.
>
> a used core duo mini will be cheap but it stops at snow leopard. that's
> still very useful and a significant step forward over what you have now
> but it's already on borrowed time. it will be more than adequate for
> web surfing and probably cad though.
>
> a core 2 duo mini will run mavericks so it will have a longer lifespan,
> and for not that much more money either. probably worth making this the
> absolute minimum.
>
> ideally, look for a refurbished i5 or i7 mini with thunderbolt. that's
> the most future-proof, and the most money too, outside of new.
>
> keep in mind that apple didn't update the mac mini last month, which
> means something new could be coming in the next few months, replacing
> the existing models which will then be discounted to clear old stock.
>
Second that on a refurb.  Apple refurbs have the same warranties as new 
machines.  I've gotten a couple and they've worked out fine.  (Had to 
have a couple of iPod refurbs replaced and that was no problem.)  Check out
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac .

Saw a couple of MacMinis:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini .

They'll either ship 'em or you can opt to pick up at the Apple Store of 
your choice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52885

In message <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net> 
  User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net> wrote:
> The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> one fails the other is scrap.

The second tier mini is an excellent machine. I would wait, if at all
possible, until Mid January as new models of the mini are expected. Of
course, this assumes you have a *good* external screen. If not, then the
iMac is the way to go as you get a beefier machine and an excellent
screen.

Most people with "plenty of screens" have plenty or relatively lousy
screens.

> Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.

There are very few cases in which it is worth while to buy a used Mac.
They hold their value very well, and you give up a lot for not much
saving.

> It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
> Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.

Don't know what you mean. My 2009 mini can drive dual 1080p screens
without even thinking about it.

-- 
'What shall we do?' said Twoflower.  'Panic?' said Rincewind hopefully.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52886

In article <slrnl9ledd.50c.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > one fails the other is scrap.
> 
> The second tier mini is an excellent machine. I would wait, if at all
> possible, until Mid January as new models of the mini are expected. 

there is no specific time when they are expected, other than at some
point in the future. apple has gone quite a while without upgrading
some systems. mac pro anyone?

it is also unlikely they'll announce anything in mid-january. they'll
probably wait until feb/mar time frame for hardware. 

they are also planning to launch entirely new product categories, so
it's also possible that the mini might not be upgraded at all as they
focus their attention on that new product lineup.

however, it would be very odd to not upgrade it to haswell. it will
probably be a quiet update, with the new products going live one
tuesday morning. it might even happen alongside the mac pro this month.

in other words, nobody knows when it will be upgraded.

> Of course, this assumes you have a *good* external screen. If not, 
> then the iMac is the way to go as you get a beefier machine and an 
> excellent screen.
> 
> Most people with "plenty of screens" have plenty or relatively lousy
> screens.

generalization.

> > Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> > a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> > mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> > the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> 
> There are very few cases in which it is worth while to buy a used Mac.

actually quite a few cases, with many deals to be had.

if nothing else, get a refurb.

> They hold their value very well, and you give up a lot for not much
> saving.

sometimes the savings are quite a bit, and if someone doesn't need the
latest and greatest, it can be a very wise choice.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52887

In article <301120132334083881%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnl9ledd.50c.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> > > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > > one fails the other is scrap.
> > 
> > The second tier mini is an excellent machine. I would wait, if at all
> > possible, until Mid January as new models of the mini are expected. 
> 
> there is no specific time when they are expected, other than at some
> point in the future. apple has gone quite a while without upgrading
> some systems. mac pro anyone?
> 
> it is also unlikely they'll announce anything in mid-january. they'll
> probably wait until feb/mar time frame for hardware. 
> 
> they are also planning to launch entirely new product categories, so
> it's also possible that the mini might not be upgraded at all as they
> focus their attention on that new product lineup.
> 
> however, it would be very odd to not upgrade it to haswell. it will
> probably be a quiet update, with the new products going live one
> tuesday morning. it might even happen alongside the mac pro this month.
> 
> in other words, nobody knows when it will be upgraded.
> 
> > Of course, this assumes you have a *good* external screen. If not, 
> > then the iMac is the way to go as you get a beefier machine and an 
> > excellent screen.
> > 
> > Most people with "plenty of screens" have plenty or relatively lousy
> > screens.
> 
> generalization.
> 
> > > Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> > > a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> > > mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> > > the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> > 
> > There are very few cases in which it is worth while to buy a used Mac.
> 
> actually quite a few cases, with many deals to be had.
> 
> if nothing else, get a refurb.
> 
> > They hold their value very well, and you give up a lot for not much
> > saving.
> 
> sometimes the savings are quite a bit, and if someone doesn't need the
> latest and greatest, it can be a very wise choice.

Also consider that your PPC software won't run on the Intel box if you 
run anything after 10.6 (Snow Leopard).  Classic stops at 10.4 and your 
PPC can still run those applications.

Have you done a *FULL* audit of all the software installed on the 
machine, including licenses and install media (if any)?  Now would be as 
good a time as any to find out what exactly you have on your hard drive, 
toss what's junk, and list everything out.  If you do a migration, lots 
of kruft may follow you to your new system that's useless.  You'll also 
be able to decide what you'll need to upgrade.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52888

In article <vilain-1BFFAA.21300030112013@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> Also consider that your PPC software won't run on the Intel box if you 
> run anything after 10.6 (Snow Leopard).  Classic stops at 10.4 and your 
> PPC can still run those applications.

there are likely universal versions, or he held off on upgrading
because the upgrade is intel only, thus his motivation to upgrade. 

> Have you done a *FULL* audit of all the software installed on the 
> machine, including licenses and install media (if any)?  Now would be as 
> good a time as any to find out what exactly you have on your hard drive, 
> toss what's junk, and list everything out. 

always a good idea

> If you do a migration, lots 
> of kruft may follow you to your new system that's useless. 

delete what doesn't work. 

> You'll also 
> be able to decide what you'll need to upgrade.

true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52923

In article <vilain-1BFFAA.21300030112013@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <301120132334083881%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnl9ledd.50c.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > 
> > > > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > > > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > > > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> > > > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > > > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > > > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > > > one fails the other is scrap.


> 
> Also consider that your PPC software won't run on the Intel box if you 
> run anything after 10.6 (Snow Leopard).  Classic stops at 10.4 and your 
> PPC can still run those applications.
> 
> Have you done a *FULL* audit of all the software installed on the 
> machine, including licenses and install media (if any)?  Now would be as 
> good a time as any to find out what exactly you have on your hard drive, 
> toss what's junk, and list everything out.  If you do a migration, lots 
> of kruft may follow you to your new system that's useless.  You'll also 
> be able to decide what you'll need to upgrade.

I would recommend not migrating PPC applications to any new Intel mac.

I did a full migration of my wife's PPC Mini to a new 20" Intel iMac
two years ago, and the new iMac would not wake from sleep. You had to
do a power off-on reboot to get it going if it went to sleep.

I took the iMac back to the Apple store and described the problem. They
offered to work on the machine or just give me a new one. I took the
new one and migrated only user files this time, not applications. I had
to reinstall all of the applications, but the machine ran fine after it
was done.

-- 
Jim Gibson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52924

In article <021220131556299872%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
<jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <vilain-1BFFAA.21300030112013@news.individual.net>, Michael
> Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > In article <301120132334083881%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnl9ledd.50c.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> > > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > > > > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > > > > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel
> > > > > machines 
> > > > > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > > > > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > > > > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > > > > one fails the other is scrap.
> > 
> > Also consider that your PPC software won't run on the Intel box if you 
> > run anything after 10.6 (Snow Leopard).  Classic stops at 10.4 and your 
> > PPC can still run those applications.
> > 
> > Have you done a *FULL* audit of all the software installed on the 
> > machine, including licenses and install media (if any)?  Now would be as 
> > good a time as any to find out what exactly you have on your hard drive, 
> > toss what's junk, and list everything out.  If you do a migration, lots 
> > of kruft may follow you to your new system that's useless.  You'll also 
> > be able to decide what you'll need to upgrade.
> 
> I would recommend not migrating PPC applications to any new Intel mac.
> 
> I did a full migration of my wife's PPC Mini to a new 20" Intel iMac
> two years ago, and the new iMac would not wake from sleep. You had to
> do a power off-on reboot to get it going if it went to sleep.
> 
> I took the iMac back to the Apple store and described the problem. They
> offered to work on the machine or just give me a new one. I took the
> new one and migrated only user files this time, not applications. I had
> to reinstall all of the applications, but the machine ran fine after it
> was done.

Personally I'd never "migrate" anything at all. 

It's much better to install all the applications from fresh and either
put the old hard drive into an external case or copy your own documents
onto a Flash drive / CDs and copt them onto the new Mac as you need
them ... any documents not copied across in, for example, six months
are probably never going to be needed again (but you could keep the
external copies just in case).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52925

In article <021220131556299872%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
<jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would recommend not migrating PPC applications to any new Intel mac.

doesn't matter. delete them once they get there. it's a lot easier than
doing it the hard way. 

> I did a full migration of my wife's PPC Mini to a new 20" Intel iMac
> two years ago, and the new iMac would not wake from sleep. You had to
> do a power off-on reboot to get it going if it went to sleep.

that was unrelated to the migration. it was defective. 

> I took the iMac back to the Apple store and described the problem. They
> offered to work on the machine or just give me a new one. I took the
> new one and migrated only user files this time, not applications. I had
> to reinstall all of the applications, but the machine ran fine after it
> was done.

that doesn't mean migration was the cause. the old one was defective.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52909

In article <slrnl9ledd.50c.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net> 
>   User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net> wrote:
> > The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> > but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> > is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> > and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> > offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> > of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> > one fails the other is scrap.
> 
> The second tier mini is an excellent machine. I would wait, if at all
> possible, until Mid January as new models of the mini are expected. Of
> course, this assumes you have a *good* external screen. If not, then the
> iMac is the way to go as you get a beefier machine and an excellent
> screen.
> 
> Most people with "plenty of screens" have plenty or relatively lousy
> screens.
> 
> > Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> > a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> > mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> > the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> 
> There are very few cases in which it is worth while to buy a used Mac.
> They hold their value very well, and you give up a lot for not much
> saving.
> 
> > It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
> > Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.
> 
> Don't know what you mean. My 2009 mini can drive dual 1080p screens
> without even thinking about it.

Second that. My 2009 Mini running SL is driving two 1200x1920 res 24-in 
HP monitors with no probs.
-- 
Good judgment results from experience, and experience results from bad judgment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52899

User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net> wrote:

> The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines
> and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> one fails the other is scrap.
> 
> Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.

The only way to be moderately sure of getting a Mac with "at least a
couple more OS generations in it" is to buy one that's not more than
about two years old. That's especially true for the mini, whose Mid 2007
model was orphaned after a mere 3.4 years. The good news is that the
computer obsolescence train seems to be slowing down: Mavericks left no
Mountain Lion machines behind and runs on any Mac introduced in the last
five years. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52903

In article <l7ecla$hmh$1@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <bp@www.zefox.net>
wrote:

> The screws are slowly tightening on my old G4 mini. It still works,
> but essentially no current software exists for it. The obvious choice
> is to buy an Intel mini, but Apple sells a lot of other Intel machines 
> and I wondered if there might be an under-appreciated machine that
> offers more bang for the buck. iMacs are nice, but I've got plenty
> of screens and it seems folly to buy the two locked together, so if
> one fails the other is scrap.
> 
> Doesn't have to be new, but I'd like to get something with at least
> a couple more OS generations in it. Performance requirements are modest,
> mostly Web surfing and running a little 2d CAD. From recent experience
> the hardware isn't an issue but software lifetime is very much so.
> 
> It appears that video subsystem limits were a big issue in recent
> Mac OS X upgrades, if anybody's got a crystal ball please speak up.
> 
> Thanks for reading,

The sweet spot is a brand new top-end Mac Pro with four 4K displays ...
that's defintely "sweet" ;-) , but hideously expensive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52910

On 13-12-01 15:11, Your Name wrote:

> The sweet spot is a brand new top-end Mac Pro with four 4K displays ...
> that's defintely "sweet" ;-) , but hideously expensive.

MacPro is not ready for prime time.  Diskless high end workstation may
be something for the future, but not for today. Apple need to produce a
second enclosure for disks, optical and other peripherals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52911

In article <529c06be$0$8114$c3e8da3$3304c218@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-12-01 15:11, Your Name wrote:
> 
> > The sweet spot is a brand new top-end Mac Pro with four 4K displays ...
> > that's defintely "sweet" ;-) , but hideously expensive.
> 
> MacPro is not ready for prime time.  Diskless high end workstation may
> be something for the future, but not for today. Apple need to produce a
> second enclosure for disks, optical and other peripherals.

Somebody else already makes an eclosure along those lines which plugs
into the Thunderbolt port.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web