New Computer Suggestions Please?

Hang on, I've got a better idea -- and it's free to try out.

I have to use a 1.35GHz PC at work and it struggles to run Windows XP. So I downloaded Ubuntu Linux and burned it onto a CD (it's a so-called "Live" CD because you can boot from it and play with Ubuntu without having to change anything on your hard disk). So anyway, I booted from this CD and I was blown away by (a) how quick it responded, even though it was running from the CD drive and (b) how modern, advanced and useful it was, even though it costs nothing.

So unless your PC runs at 400MHz or something, it won't cost anything to try Ubuntu or Linux Mint.....
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/910features
http://www.linuxmint.com/index.php

750px-Linux_Mint_4.0.png
 
JohnH":2h8mggml said:
drcarlos":2h8mggml said:
Mac mini is really basic hardware...
Ummm, I don't know about that. I'm on my second Mac Mini and it is easily capable of full-frame video editing on iMovie across two 20" monitors....

4026947358_23f64f8c87_o.jpg


LeeDevelopment, if you just want a Mac that lets you watch music vids while you browse the net, a Mac Mini will be more than enough for you -- even a 1.66GHz Mini will manage that (that was my first Mini).

Yes it may do that but it is basic hardware and is marketed as such. Nearly £500 (for the lowest spec box, 2.26 C2D, 2GB and 160GB disk) is a lot ot pay IMO for a box with no monitor, keyboard or mouse. However if you must have a Mac you are indeed stuck.
If you are happy with the way the PC works you can get a better spec for your cash that will work in the same way just a hell of a lot faster than the current one.

Carl.
 
drcarlos":18tq3unm said:
Yes it may do that but it is basic hardware and is marketed as such. Nearly £500 (for the lowest spec box, 2.26 C2D, 2GB and 160GB disk) is a lot ot pay IMO for a box with no monitor, keyboard or mouse. However if you must have a Mac you are indeed stuck.
If you are happy with the way the PC works you can get a better spec for your cash that will work in the same way just a hell of a lot faster than the current one.
Okay Carl, I see your point and I can't disagree. :)

I got off the PC/Windows upgrade hamster-wheel in 2004 when I switched to Macs after 13 years of PC use. Nowadays, I really don't care how fast my processor is, how big my HDD is or how many polygons per second my GPU can process. I just care about whether my machine is reliable, secure and (above all) capable of doing what I ask of it. You are correct in pointing out that Macs are more expensive, but because of what they offer, that's a premium that I'm prepared to pay.

If more of the apps that I use were available for Linux, I might be tempted to jump ship again. But for the foreseeable future, I'm happy with the "basic hardware" in my Mini. ;) :D
 
The basic hardware of the Mac mini can be had in a Laptop for cheaper.. Comes with screen keyboard etc and the one I bought for a family member about a year ago came with a BluRay drive as well*, even better said laptop has a Nvidia 9200 Go video chipset so Flash is now accelerated and HD iPlayer is wonderful on it. My similar spec laptop but without that is not so good.


It works, does what is asked of it and faster than any of my computers (which can all 'photoshop', multi-task web browse, I still type just as quick ;) though only the Core2Duo laptop I have is of any ease of use for video editing)
The rest are single core all the way back to Althon 64 3500+ era and work fine for photo editing and everything else. Just not video editing as it becomes a chore and irritating to just seek and crop up a video (from MPEG2 to DVD being it's main task). My ageing 'best' laptop is similar to SF Klein's Mac Mini I guess.


Lee, your not really giving is much input yet we are trying to give you some. Yes we no your stuff is slow for you (though not what it is) we don't know how much you have to spend still
:roll:

The only reason I say go for something more is anything old technology like this now would be 'stop-gap' stuff again.
 
Back
Top