A question for the Mac buffs

[bigjimbishop]

Finally jumped ship and gone Apple.

I just blew all my ill-gotten gains on a Mac Pro.

Where do I buy more memory as it's very pricey from Apple and Crucial always seem to be out of stock?

DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • Fully Buffered • ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V • 128Meg x 72

[Mystery tramp]

Ahh - the sweet smell of a new Apple computer fresh from the box!!  You could try ComputerWarehouse.co.uk - they usually have integral modules in stock.  I have also found Jigsaw24 good for Apple products.

[bigjimbishop]

Thanks

I am so excited, I'm gonna stuff it full of ram upto 8Gb and audio samplers and push it until it pops.

Jim

[Dick Smith]

So long as its the right sort you can use whatever you want - I have used Crucial and Apple, no issues with either. But why stop at 8Mb? The latest model goes to 16 I believe (for $5700 extra), and as much as 1 Terrabyte of hard drive space...

They're gorgeous beasts, aren't they?

[powerdesal]

Another traitor, you do realise I'm down to my last few zillions

Bill Gates

[geek]

[bigjimbishop]

I don't really need the whole 16Gb, but I'm certainly going to install 10,000rpm SATA drives.

My orchestral libraries are very speed hungry once 200 instruments are loaded all firing at 96Khz in 5.1 surround.

mmmmm POWER Huh!

Shame most software is not ready yet but for now I'm going to use Bootcamp and Windoze.

There are only 6 computers in my commune, I have 5 and they are the fastest in the department and still no ADSL! Keeps me off the streets/forums I suppose.

[Deimos]

If you've just purchased a new Mac Book then be careful. It now contains even more tetrabromobisphenol than previous models (i.e. Apple, despite being aware of its toxicity and despite claiming to be looking for alternatives have instead just increased the levels they use !! Apple are currently rated the 4th worst computer manufacturer from an environmental perspective (hence the new nickname "Poison apple").

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Oh Ian, you just can't resist, can you?

This is crap (what a surprise given the source). There are at least 3 major computer manufacturers who are worse.  And where do you get this new 'nickname' from?

I quote Apple's statement on materials use:

Brominated Flame Retardants: Flame retardants are

added to improve safety. Apple is committed to introducing halogen-free

printed circuit board laminates and is actively researching materials

with better environmental features to replace tetrabromobisphenol A

(TBBA). Our printed circuit boards do not contain polybrominated

biphenyls (PBB), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), or chlorinated

paraffin flame retardants. Apple does not allow the use of antimony

trioxide or any brominated flame retardant in plastic parts weighing

more than 25 grams. Many Apple products have enclosures made of

inherently flame retardant aluminum and polycarbonate plastic, reducing

the need for added flame retardants.

• Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): Apple
  has eliminated PVC in all plastic parts weighing more than 25 grams,
  with the exception of cable enclosures, which is standard across the
  industry. Apple is committed to phasing out the use of PVC altogether
  and is actively investigating alternative materials that are more
  enviornmentally friendly.

Apple and RoHS

Apple

products are compliant with the European Directive on the Restriction

of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic

Equipment, also known as the RoHS directive. Examples of materials

restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,

and PBB and PBDE flame retardants. As a result of our precautionary

approach to substances, Apple was able to meet many of the RoHS

restrictions long before the July 2006 deadline.

Now, how about you cite your source?

[Mystery tramp]

[quote user="Deimos"]Apple are currently rated the 4th worst computer manufacturer from an environmental perspective (hence the new nickname "Poison apple").

Ian[/quote]

Who are the first, second and third worst manufacturers?   How do the best manufacturers stop their computers from catching fire.

[Dick Smith]

Maybe that's why all those Dell laptops were catching fire? Oh no, sorry, they were Sony batteries. Hmm, Sony batteries overheat in Dell and Apple laptops but not in Vaios. I wonder...

[Salty Sam]

No Dick, the batteries in Vaios just stop working altogether! Are Sony quick to help? No way, once they've sold a machine their customer service is the worst I've ever come across.

 

[Deimos]

Worst is Lenovo, then Motorola, next Acer then Apple.

Dick I said 4th worst so your calculation that there are 3 who are worse does not suggest I was hiding anything. The particular problem with Apple is that despite their claims for seeking alternatives (as Apple claim on their web site), it has now been discovered that instead of switching to alternatives they have instead increased the levels of tetrabromobisphenol. It is using far higher levels that other manufacturers. Of course Apple claim to be seeking alternatives - but what matters is reducing use of toxins and NOT increasing them. Other manufacturers manage.

And I quote: "For a company that claims to lead on product design, Apple scores badly on almost all criteria. The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride(PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.

Apple has made only open "is investigating" type statements whereas many other computer manufacturers have made fixed commitments. For example, Dell has committed to phasing out all PVC by 2009. Same with BFR's. New Nokia models (start of 2006 onwards) are already PVC free. Sony Ericsson new models since start of 2006 are already BFR free (yet Apple are still increasing the levels of such compounds with "investigating" type statements), etc. Others can do it.

And as far as Dick's "Oh Ian, you just can't resist, can you?" - well it was a thread about Apple, not Lenovo, Acer or Motorola. I'm afraid toxins and the environment concern me. We need to try to get corporations to stop acting irresponsibly - not just dishing out grand words. I'm afraid just because some people (e.g. yourself) think they look pretty is not a good excuse for allowing use of toxic substances and particularly not allowing increased use rather than reducing their use. Maybe you don't care about the environment. However, I do and will go on posting such information. If you don't like it tough

Ian

[Dick Smith]

No Ian, someone says they like something, and so you have to rain on their parade. It's what you do!

[Deimos]

Dick commented: "No Ian, someone says they like something, and so you have to rain on their parade. It's what you do!"

You could not be more wrong. But its a good argument to allow continued use of toxic substances, to ignore environmental considerations, etc. Sometimes people like to consider such issues when making a purchasing choice. But throw your insults at he 'cos I really don't care.

I just raised a related issue (related to the original thread being about Macs)- it was not personal, it was not insulting, not directed at anybody. You seemed to start wanting to throw the insults and being nasty. Fine.

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Oh please...

[Mystery tramp]

Isn't this all a bit silly when there is little evidence of tetrabromobisphenol being a problem.  Just because it has got a long name does not make it harmful.  To quote the conclusions of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment in their COT statement on tetrabromobisphenol A - Review of toxicological data in July 2004:

Conclusions

32.  The available data on TBBPA do not raise specific toxicological concerns. There is a lack of long term or carcinogenicity studies, but this is not considered essential to the evaluation in view of the absence of relevant effects in the available studies.

33.  No clear adverse effects were observed at doses up to 1000 mg/kg bw/day, the highest dose tested in a 90-day study and in a two-generation reproductive toxicity study. This dose level may be used as the basis for deriving a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI).

34.  An uncertainty factor of 100 is applied to allow for inter- and intra-species variation. An additional factor of 10 is required because of the absence of chronic toxicity studies.  The Committee therefore recommended a TDI of 1mg/kg bw/day.

COT statement 2004/02

July 2004

There are many other multi-national companies that deserve criticism before Apple which, after all, is only a comparatively small company with a very small market share (even if they do make a far superior product to any of the others!).

[Deimos]

An

environmental campaign that seems to be starting (e-mail campaign).

I'm sure there are some here who will not be taking part.

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

Ian

[Dick Smith]

Some people need to get out more.

[Salty Sam]

I'm sorry Ian, but I'm confused. On one hand you're going on about how Apple is not an environmentally friendly company - on the next you're extolling the virtues of the iPod, also an Apple product.

Now with regard to Greenpeace, I don't suppose for one minute they have rid themselves of all those nasty Macs - unless they've been rebadged as 'GeenApple', nor have they banned their worldwide workforce from using iPods, nor are they using a solar/wind powered fleet, nor have they stopped using some of the most fuel inefficient fast craft.

No doubt in the interests of the environment, you will soon stop using things electrical. Thank goodness an abacus can't do emailing!

[Dick Smith]

But semaphore is always a possibility, or smoke signals (using wood from renewable resources, of course).

[Deimos]

Salty Sam wrote: "I'm sorry Ian, but I'm confused. On one hand you're going on about how Apple is not an environmentally friendly company - on the next you're extolling the virtues of the iPod, also an Apple product."

One has to do the best one can with the information and resources available at any time. That was actually the main reason I posted the information. People can only make decisions based on what information they have. Many manufacturers to not publish their intention to introduce worse practices, etc. in advance. Knowing what I know now I would probably select a device other than an iPod. It is a good device, but its manufacturer does not take a responsible attitude so I would not normally purchase something from them.

I was also extolling the virtues of IBM PC (I have one of those as well) and have not been keen on Dell for many years.. Since the recent report and availability of information, I would no longer purchase an IBM PC (nor laptop) and would almost certainly go for a Dell.

Salty Sam wrote: "Greenpeace, I don't suppose for one minute they have rid themselves of all those nasty Macs "

As far as getting rid of existing equipment - then to be honest that is more than daft. All equipment manufacture introduces toxins and causes some environmental problems. To throw out old stuff because its manufacturer has now started increasing toxin levels and then replace it with new stuff would make everything even worse !! The idea of this is to improve the environment (or rather do it less harm) not do daft things to make things worse. What has been done has been done. We need to improve things - we cannot change history.

Salty Sam wrote: "No doubt in the interests of the environment, you will soon stop using things electrical"

Exactly, Now you are getting the idea. Unfortunately these days it is very difficult and impractical for many to stop using electricity entirely. However, we (myself included) should all be cutting back with electricity use (all energy use). This is proposed by many governments, you can get financial assistance for helping with this. At last somebody has made a sensible suggestion rather than just leaping to the defence of a manufacturer who is increasing use of toxins that most are phasing out.

Ian

[Mystery tramp]

Does anyone know where I can find a baby seal - after reading the tosh written by Deimos and looking again at the information provided by Greenpeace I feel the only sensible thing to do is to go out and club one to death!

It seems that Apple's main crime was not that their products contain toxins but they did not provide Greenpeace with the information they, in their words, demanded.  (I will leave aside the discussion on who has given Greenpeace the right to demand anything).  Their information is riddled with inaccuracies and arrogance.  An example is where Greenpeace compare, unfavourably, Apple with Nokia.  I thought that one of the basics of a comparative judgement was the necessity of comparing like with like.  The fact that both use on/off switches, have a screen and make beeping noises at inappropriate times does not make them identical or even similar.  Furthermore, even if Apple computers have twice the quantity of toxins when compared to Nokia mobile phones the fact that there are probably ten times more Nokias in existence implies that the planet would be saved more quickly if we disposed of our mobiles rather than our computers.

Finally, why waste energy on Apple? They are only the fourth worst offender in Greenpeace terms.  Why not start a campaign against Acer, the third worst? Why, on a recent thread, where someone asked advice after buying an Acer computer, were they not admonished by the Green Taliban for damaging the environment the way bigjimbishop was when he bought an Apple?  Is a mass e-mailing campaign directed against Steve Jobs really going to change anything?

Now, where is my culling club!!

 

[Dick Smith]

Sensible post, MT.

 

Love the Bobness reference, too.

[Quillan]

Acer are or were the largest manufacturer of computers and printers its just they made the insides for other companies. Brother printers, IBM desk and laptops to name but a few all the clever bits were/are made by Acer.

As for Greenpeace well they only read the bits they want to read and like a tabloid newspaper print rubbish to get them noticed. If they had their way we I am sure we would all be living in caves.

[Mystery tramp]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

Love the Bobness reference, too.

[/quote]

I've been rumbled!

Thought I might be when I read the Apple I pod help please thread this morning.