# Why buy a Mac?



## Mrsforeman1 (Dec 10, 2007)

Is there a special benefit to purchasing a Mac? Appearantly, alot of people here own one. I don't get it Should I?


----------



## Peanuts (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes (no questions asked)

No honestly it is your decision.  If you have 100% content with Windows, I would just stick it out.  The change over cost can be big (new PS, buying the programs that are essentially the basics on Windows) the learning curve.

Now that I have done it, I am delighted, but I wanted to defenestrate this laptop when I first purchased it simply because it took me a whole day learning how to scroll and wrap my head around not using Ctrl for everything but command.


----------



## usayit (Dec 10, 2007)

People choose one or the other for personal reasons....Stick with windows if it works for yah.

I personally can't stand windows...


----------



## Alpha (Dec 10, 2007)

There was good reason to purchase a Mac desktop for photo editing when they were still being produced with multi-processor G5's. Now that they're using Intel chipsets, there's no significant distinction in hardware platform. As such, it comes down simply to a question of operating system. Most essentially, if there are programs that you absolutely need that are only made for OS X, then by all means it's an obvious choice. I have yet to see any such programs in the image editing world. Then of course there's the issue of OS stability. It's an age-old question. My personal opinion is that OS X is currently an intrinsically more stable platform since it's based on UNIX. However, any real functional distinctions in terms of stability are pretty minimal to the advanced computer user. I'm of the opinion that a well-maintained and well-protected Windows system (good AV protection, regular spyware checking, defragging, and an understanding of how to customize the OS in order to pare down many of its useless background processes) is nearly equally stable. If you take my word on this, then I believe it simply comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you disagree with me, then I think you know which one to go with.

Hope that helps.


----------



## forceofnature (Dec 10, 2007)

Lets see here OS X is based on Unix? or does it having Unix porting  I used to have Linux/ windows XP system but I am getting tired of all the crap ware within windows.  I have been thinking about making a switch but hate to buy photoshop again.  Maybe I could find an older CS version for less.  

The bonus is if I get a Mac the kids will stay off it since their games are not loaded on it.


----------



## domromer (Dec 10, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> There was good reason to purchase a Mac desktop for photo editing when they were still being produced with multi-processor G5's. Now that they're using Intel chipsets, there's no significant distinction in hardware platform. As such, it comes down simply to a question of operating system. Most essentially, if there are programs that you absolutely need that are only made for OS X, then by all means it's an obvious choice. I have yet to see any such programs in the image editing world. Then of course there's the issue of OS stability. It's an age-old question. My personal opinion is that OS X is currently an intrinsically more stable platform since it's based on UNIX. However, any real functional distinctions in terms of stability are pretty minimal to the advanced computer user. I'm of the opinion that a well-maintained and well-protected Windows system (good AV protection, regular spyware checking, defragging, and an understanding of how to customize the OS in order to pare down many of its useless background processes) is nearly equally stable. If you take my word on this, then I believe it simply comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you disagree with me, then I think you know which one to go with.
> 
> Hope that helps.



I read into this that it takes a lot of work to keep windows stable were a Mac comes that way.  I'm not a MAc fanboy but I do really like the OS. I just switched this year and don't ever plan to go back to windows. I find I'm able to do things faster on my Mac, not in terms of processor speed but in terms of workflow.  It's just very well put together. It also comes free with the the ilife suite which is pretty cool. For the price iphoto is a nice image  storage program. I like how all the apps are intergrated as well. It's easy to send info from one to another. People are always using cars to compare the os Sytems. 

I think windows is like  jeep. You can lift it, do all sorts of mods and it will kick ass off road. When you do all these mods you can expect not everything to work perfectly well. 

Mac OS is like a Land Cruiser.  Very well sorted, not very good to get under the hood and mess with, but will run very well for a long time. 

Both can do the same thing, Windows/pc's are good to modify and tinker with. Macs are good out of the box.

I don't think one is any better than the other. I just prefer the Mac experience. If there is an apple store near you they have them all set up and you can try the different models.

Here is some info that might help you to make up your mind.

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49528


----------



## RyanLilly (Dec 10, 2007)

I agree with with everything you said Max, but I would like to point out that apple moving to Intel was a good choice, IBM was really floundering with their processor development. and It caused the whole Powerbook stagnate with G4 processors long after their prime. and the new 10.5 runs faster on Intel than an PPC

A well maintained XP or OSX system will run smooth and stable. Not sure about vista at this point, but thats Microsoft.

I personally use a Mac, It is mostly subtle organizational thing, that are appealing to me, the way that menus are arranged, or the fact that the menu bar is always on the top of the screen. It just has to work.


----------



## usayit (Dec 10, 2007)

More specifically.. . mac os x is based of BSD (Berkely) UNIX.

I'm a UNIX guy so it fits me well... did I say I hate windows?

Vista is even worse.


----------



## Mrsforeman1 (Dec 10, 2007)

If I change to Mac then I don't loose much...since I don't play games and I can put CS3 on Mac.
I don't have to worry about viruses and I can still use the internet?
And the disadvantages are?


----------



## RyanLilly (Dec 10, 2007)

forceofnature said:


> Lets see here OS X is based on Unix? or does it having Unix porting  I used to have Linux/ windows XP system but I am getting tired of all the crap ware within windows.  I have been thinking about making a switch but hate to buy photoshop again.  Maybe I could find an older CS version for less.
> 
> The bonus is if I get a Mac the kids will stay off it since their games are not loaded on it.



OSX is Unix, It just has a really nice GUI.

I think that there may be a trade in thing with some software companies if you switch platforms, but I not really sure.


----------



## usayit (Dec 10, 2007)

You still should be aware and protect your machine from viruses no matter what platforum.

Some people would find limited support for hardware a limitation of MAC.  I see it the other way around.. the fact that apple doesn't try support the entire world means that what is supported was/is more likely in better shape.   Many people have found that Microsoft Office for MAC actually runs better than the Windows version...


----------



## domromer (Dec 10, 2007)

Mrsforeman1 said:


> If I change to Mac then I don't loose much...since I don't play games and I can put CS3 on Mac.
> I don't have to worry about viruses and I can still use the internet?
> And the disadvantages are?



*Price*. My macbook pro cost 2400. I could get a similar dell for 1800.  Similar in specs not quality. Dell uses a lot of cheap components. The ram they use is like the cheapest ram made. I've got some friends who own a repair shop. It's full of Dells. I know more Dells are sold than anything else but the break like crazy. Also dell customer support is brutally bad. I've dealt with apple support twice. Each time they were fast and efficient. The even refunded me some money when they had reason to at all. It was my fault and I didn't do some research. 

The apple website is a fantastic resource for learning about you computer. Tons of video tutorials, excellent downloads, great support. Buying a mac is buying into something much larger than just an OS and some hardware.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 10, 2007)

I've had this load of XP running for about 3 years now.  If you never clean house then you wind up having to move from time to time.  Being behind a router helps too.  I have yet to have anyone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the Mac is intrinsically better than a PC.

I will have to admit that I have a separate box for editing now but even before it wasn't that much trouble running everything on this old thing.


----------



## usayit (Dec 10, 2007)

domromer said:


> *Price*. My macbook pro cost 2400. I could get a similar dell for 1800.  Similar in specs not quality. Dell uses a lot of cheap components. The ram they use is like the cheapest ram made. I've got some friends who own a repair shop. It's full of Dells. I know more Dells are sold than anything else but the break like crazy. Also dell customer support is brutally bad. I've dealt with apple support twice. Each time they were fast and efficient. The even refunded me some money when they had reason to at all. It was my fault and I didn't do some research.
> 
> The apple website is a fantastic resource for learning about you computer. Tons of video tutorials, excellent downloads, great support. Buying a mac is buying into something much larger than just an OS and some hardware.



People say Macs are expensive...I say that Dells are just plain cheap.

It is how you look at the equation....

I have a totally useable early 2001 G3 ibook running 10.4 Mac OS X and I bet it would have no problems running Leopard.  How many 2001 windows boxes would have absolutely no problem running the bloated Vista release?


----------



## usayit (Dec 10, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> I have yet to have anyone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the Mac is intrinsically better than a PC.



There is absolutely no way to prove either way.... thats like asking to proove instrinsically that a sports car is better than a truck.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 10, 2007)

RyanLilly said:


> I agree with with everything you said Max, but I would like to point out that apple moving to Intel was a good choice, IBM was really floundering with their processor development. and It caused the whole Powerbook stagnate with G4 processors long after their prime. and the new 10.5 runs faster on Intel than an PPC



I never said it was a bad choice. For laptops, you're absolutely correct. If you ever saw the heatsink for the G5, it's no wonder they had a hard time trying to fit the processor into a laptop. All I meant was that since OS X is now running on intel chipsets, there's no longer a functional hardware distinction, whereas before I would have said that a multi-processor G5 desktop was unequivocally better than a PC desktop for image editing.



Mike_E said:


> I have yet to have anyone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the Mac is intrinsically better than a PC.



I never said it was intrinsically better. I said it was intrinsically more stable, which is an empirically demonstrable fact.


----------



## domromer (Dec 10, 2007)

Or red is better than blue.


----------



## Patrice (Dec 10, 2007)

This is starting to resemble a Nikon/Canon debate. I'll wait for the outcome with bated breath all the while getting something done using my Mac.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 10, 2007)

I used to be a big defender of Microsoft in these kinds of conversations. I just bought a machine with Vista though, and I absolutely dislike it.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 10, 2007)

My opinion.  I have no real problems running vista on my PC laptop. I feel that there are a LOT more choices in PCs as far as configurations and colors and styles and options, than there are for Macs.  I agree, vista could be a heck of a lot faster. I'm running it on a core 2 duo processor with 2 gb of memory and its running about the same speed as my XP computer ran with a single core and 1gb memory. I like the look of vista (say what you want about how they copied apple) , I dont really ever have hardware compatabilitiy issues, I use solidworks (3d cad modeling program) wich only runs on windows right now, so i kind of have no choice in that aspect. I like being able to right-click on things and i'm very used to how windows is laid out. There are things i like about macs, such as their sleek looks, and pleasing user interface, but for ME, i find a lot of little things that bug me about the mac os, so whenever i'm done using one, i just find myself wanting one less. I also dont like how owning a mac has almost become some sort of status booster or something, kind of like only the rich artsy people can have macs, because they're smarter than everyone else or something. This fire is fueled by the constant commercials aired depicting PCs in a bad light. Who will defend the PC? nobody. Nobody OWNS the PC. Sure, Microsoft could make an ad bashing Macs, but instead they try and highlight the features of vista and their programs rather than out the competitor. Sorry for the tangent, they just kind of annoy me sometimes...  Anyway, My laptop has a built in webcam, altech lansing speakers, built in microphone, and some quickplay touch buttons. Mac doesnt include a lot of those things for the sake of making thier computer look as simple as possible. I have always felt like they may sacrifice too much in this quest for simplicity. I've yet to see a macbook with a built in card reader. But like everyone says, this is basically the canon vs. nikon debate, because theres really no winner, its just whatever YOU personally like more. So dont let anyone make up your mind for you, just take it all in, and make an educated decision.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 10, 2007)

Windows XP is a STELLAR operating system.

It will work on hundreds of thousands of different system configurations with little to no problems. All of the problems I have personally seen with other peoples systems was user error related. 90% is just people practicing bad internet habits (aka. downloading porn from sketchy websites). 

I have been using XP for about 4 years now and have not had a single issue with it that was not related to user error. 

XP is compatible with more software than any other OS. 

the only OS that comes close to the quality of XP is Windows 2000 in a close 2nd. I still think 2000 one of the best OS's for networking. Plug a cable in or connect to a wi-fi network, join the workgroup and that's it. It just works.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 10, 2007)

I download from some very very sketchy sites on occasion, though I'm very careful about it.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 10, 2007)

haha... ok max. valuable contribution... ;-)


----------



## DSLR noob (Dec 10, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> I like being able to right-click on things and i'm very used to how windows is laid out. .............  Anyway, My laptop has a built in webcam, altech lansing speakers, built in microphone, and some quickplay touch buttons. Mac doesnt include a lot of those things for the sake of making thier computer look as simple as possible. I have always felt like they may sacrifice too much in this quest for simplicity.



Above is the incorrect misinformed information on Macs, the rest of your post was pure opinion. First of all, all macs can right click. On laptops if you hit "command" and click it is a right click, or you can put 2 fingers on the track pad and click it works. On desktops, you can do it the keyboard way, or buy an apple mighty mouse which acts as a 4 button mouse (left click, right click, left side squeeze, right side squeeze, and a scroller ball for up down and left right) as for the other thing. All mac laptops have a built in camera, microphone, speakers, and a better usage of the F keys to act as one touch buttons as well a Expose, a program that can pre-assign functions to taking the mouse cursor off of the 4 corners of the screen(each corner having a function). It helps to go into an argument when you know both sides. I actually have a Windows computer, soon I will have a Mac computer. See the thing is, most Windows owners who bash a Mac either have never used one, or only used it for a few minutes before giving it up just because it's different, for most Mac owners that bash windows, they've actually owned both systems before. I think one has every right to trash talk an object when they've used both first hand, however pure fanboyism that trashtalks when you've only used one is immature. So don't let it piss you off that PC is bashed so much, most people who bash them were tormented by their screwy antics themselves.


----------



## Stranger (Dec 11, 2007)

i went from a windows user my whole life (19 years old) and just bought my first mac. I can say the OS is so much smoother and quicker to navigate. instead of going to "my computer then cdrive then my name then my documents to get to music" i just hit "finder > music" I didnt own vista this is straight from xp... Just so much more user friendly i think.

Only problem is lack of software for somethings


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 11, 2007)

yes dslrnoob , that WAS my opinion. I dont consider pushing more than one button right clicking. i like being able to RIGHT CLICK, its intuitive and every apple mouse i've used either has that feature turned off, or doesnt include it. i'm not saying those are reasons not to buy a mac, i'm just saying i have more reasons to keep my PC. but yes, its mostly opinion, just like i can say that every mac user holds the opinion that their computer is better than a pc, whatever, they are entitled to think that, i'm not claiming pc's are better or worse, but all the mac users just seem WAY too over zealous about their computers... 



whatever, this isnt worth arguing. i still uphold the statement that you shouldnt let other people tell you what kind of computer to buy though. You need to make your own informed decisions by actually reading up on it, and going out and trying them out. because people, will screw you over if you let them.


----------



## DSLR noob (Dec 11, 2007)

oh I agree with that, when I get my Mac I'm not going to go around telling others "buy a Mac, blah blah blah" just what you said that was your opinion I left you to, no worries there, it seemed that the other things were tended to be factual and didn't align with the reality of things. I think what operating system you have doesn't matter. As for the "most PC user who bash Macs haven't tried it thing" that goes towards your specific words "Sorry for the tangent, they just kind of annoy me sometimes..." in that a lot of Mac vs PC are fueled with some Pc owners saying a generic misinformed comment like "Macs are gay, owning a Mac makes you gay" that contains no value, I say that Mac owners, who usually have experience in both fields, have a right to step in, as does anyone in any argument where they've seen both sides. I don't thin kanyone should just start an OS fight for no reason though.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 11, 2007)

i'm not required to like macs. I dont think owning one makes you gay . I just dont know if i personally would want one. I'm comfortable with a windows based PC, so thats what i'm going to keep using. You can get a killer PC for the same price as just an ok mac, and i dont think thats fair to the consumer.


----------



## DSLR noob (Dec 11, 2007)

As for the price difference, Macs are on the pricy side for the same thing  when hardware is compared, but the tradeoff is worth it for some who love OSX or the iLife suite, I've personally just been given too much trouble from my Dell, mostly user error though, my software sources are questionable, I still used the computer for a few months after my firewall expired, and I leave it on all the time. For clumsy people like me, a Mac just seems to be lower matenance, and I too love the OS feel and layout, even if some Windows actions are programmed into my brain from years of use.


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 11, 2007)

And for those of you REALLY into customizing your operating system there is LINUX!!!!!!  Yey penguins!!!!!  I'll have to say most Linux's are not for everybody Ubuntu is getting there but not yet.  It has a lot of the same problems as MAC (software compatibility) but everything is YOUR choice if you want it to act a certain way you just need to be able to tell it how to and it will.  Sorry but in a thread having to do with operating systems I figured the Linux crowd had to chime in.


----------



## RyanLilly (Dec 11, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I never said it was a bad choice. For laptops, you're absolutely correct. If you ever saw the heatsink for the G5, it's no wonder they had a hard time trying to fit the processor into a laptop. All I meant was that since OS X is now running on intel chipsets, there's no longer a functional hardware distinction, whereas before I would have said that a multi-processor G5 desktop was unequivocally better than a PC desktop for image editing.



True, Max, thank you for the clarification, I lusted over a dual G5 when they were just released, but now a can lust for a 8-core 3.0GHz intel 

yeah the heat issues of the G5 were ridiculous, apple advertised "liquid cooled" as if it were a cool added feature, where in reality it was to keep your computer from bursting into flames.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 11, 2007)

Stranger said:


> i went from a windows user my whole life (19 years old) and just bought my first mac. I can say the OS is so much smoother and quicker to navigate. instead of going to "my computer then cdrive then my name then my documents to get to music" i just hit "finder > music" I didnt own vista this is straight from xp... Just so much more user friendly i think.
> 
> Only problem is lack of software for somethings


LOL, that means I bought my first Windows Laptop when you were 6 - in 1994.


----------



## Atropine (Dec 11, 2007)

As long as you don't adapt the quite oppressive sarcastic attitude a lot of mac users tend to have, a mac might be a good choice. Being such a small group they sure make a lot of noise.

I've been working in win, dos, unix and mac environment in my profession and there are surely pros and cons with all os's. If you don't need the outstanding versatility offered by the worlds most spread os (xp, vista) I can see no problems buying a mac. Though I usually work in xp these days I have been considering an imac for home use, but every time I am about to buy one, I always stumble over a pc that offers more bang for the bucks.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 11, 2007)

monkeykoder said:


> And for those of you REALLY into customizing your operating system there is LINUX!!!!!!  Yey penguins!!!!!  I'll have to say most Linux's are not for everybody Ubuntu is getting there but not yet.  It has a lot of the same problems as MAC (software compatibility) but everything is YOUR choice if you want it to act a certain way you just need to be able to tell it how to and it will.  Sorry but in a thread having to do with operating systems I figured the Linux crowd had to chime in.



You fail to mention the obvious problem that wine doesn't emulate photoshop or lightroom yet! Now I like linux, but it has it's place, and that's not on the desk of anyone who likes photography.

Mac users generally cry about their stability and all that, but in reality they are just like windows. Windows would be very secure if 95% of the world didn't use it. The fact is mac, linux, beos, etc has just as many problems it is just that the army of people out to make a massive botnet to take down servers and spam emails would rather write hacks that affect 95% of computers, not tiny mac or linux fanbase. Macs would need just as much fine tuning with AV software and firewalls if there were viruses for it.

So really it's just a personal and financial choice (macs come with the Apple tax applied to them because white paint is more expensive than beige).


----------



## Amitay (Dec 11, 2007)

Mac is worth its money.
Every time I get impressed again when they bring some new product to the market.
Must Have!


----------



## photogmatt (Dec 11, 2007)

Support Windows all day, come home to my macs at night. It's a beautiful thing knowing your computer will just work. 

If you want a fast machine, that's not too pricey, get a new Macbook. The upgrade to 2 or 4gb of ram, and a 250gb drive is easy enough to do yourself (or have them do it) and cheap when you buy the parts on your own. Grab a 24" external monitor, and you have a nice desktop as well as portable.

That's just my take on it. Just don't use Vista, which is crap.


----------



## usayit (Dec 11, 2007)

Garbz.. from my experience... Mac OS X is way more stable than Windows of any release.  

But yeh... I mentioned up there that you have to protect your machine from virus no matter what platform you choose for the exact reasons you posted.

BUT there are a lot of UNIX'ism aspects that help MAC OS X 

How many Windows users out there are running on an Administrator level account on a daily basis?

How many Mac OS X users are logging in as "root" on a daily basis?



Funny... the windows support at work is slowly becoming more Linux oriented with Mac users sprinkled in...


----------



## Alpha (Dec 11, 2007)

RyanLilly said:


> True, Max, thank you for the clarification, I lusted over a dual G5 when they were just released, but now a can lust for a 8-core 3.0GHz intel
> 
> yeah the heat issues of the G5 were ridiculous, apple advertised "liquid cooled" as if it were a cool added feature, where in reality it was to keep your computer from bursting into flames.



I'm fortunate to be able to currently work on a quad-processor G5 with 2 gigs of ram on each processor. I've post-processed images upwards of 10 gigs


----------



## Reel1 (Dec 11, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> yes dslrnoob , that WAS my opinion. I dont consider pushing more than one button right clicking. i like being able to RIGHT CLICK, its intuitive and every apple mouse i've used either has that feature turned off, or doesnt include it.



I have been using macs for about a year now. The right click button works perfectly, and no there is no need for pushing any extra buttons.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 11, 2007)

macs remind me of communism...  in soviet russia, you dont OWN the mac, mac owns YOU!


----------



## Allsmiles7282 (Dec 11, 2007)

When my hubby and I got married, his PC had crapped out on him, while my mac of 5 years was still going strong.  About a month after we got married he dropped my iBook and cracked the screen.  So when deciding on a new computer there was much debate.  My hubby plays games online that are on PC and all my photography programs and my very way of life was on a Mac.  What to do?  We bought an iMac partioned part of our hard drive off for windows and left the rest for mac.   We can run both OS and they both run smoothly.  I really feel like it is the best of both worlds.  

However, I must mention that my hubby now only goes on the PC side for games and for no other reason and we have since bought a PowerBook because we both love Mac so much.  

Plus they never crash. ever.

MAC ALL THE WAY!


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 11, 2007)

Garbz said:


> You fail to mention the obvious problem that wine doesn't emulate photoshop or lightroom yet! Now I like linux, but it has it's place, and that's not on the desk of anyone who likes photography.
> 
> Mac users generally cry about their stability and all that, but in reality they are just like windows. Windows would be very secure if 95% of the world didn't use it. The fact is mac, linux, beos, etc has just as many problems it is just that the army of people out to make a massive botnet to take down servers and spam emails would rather write hacks that affect 95% of computers, not tiny mac or linux fanbase. Macs would need just as much fine tuning with AV software and firewalls if there were viruses for it.
> 
> So really it's just a personal and financial choice (macs come with the Apple tax applied to them because white paint is more expensive than beige).




I have two things to say to this 
1)  GIMP may not be quite as good as Photoshop but it does everything an amateur would want it to and more.
2)  While 95% of the desktop market is Windows based operating systems over 50% of of the server market is *nix based operating systems.  Most people want to hack servers not someones desktop computer (at least the ones that can really hack).  (my numbers might be off by a tad Apache doesn't only run on Linux) but Windows based servers have about a 36% market share and Apache has about 50%)


----------



## domromer (Dec 11, 2007)

Garbz said:


> You fail to mention the obvious problem that wine doesn't emulate photoshop or lightroom yet! Now I like linux, but it has it's place, and that's not on the desk of anyone who likes photography.
> 
> Mac users generally cry about their stability and all that, but in reality they are just like windows. Windows would be very secure if 95% of the world didn't use it. The fact is mac, linux, beos, etc has just as many problems it is just that the army of people out to make a massive botnet to take down servers and spam emails would rather write hacks that affect 95% of computers, not tiny mac or linux fanbase. Macs would need just as much fine tuning with AV software and firewalls if there were viruses for it.
> 
> So really it's just a personal and financial choice (macs come with the Apple tax applied to them because white paint is more expensive than beige).




Wine works fine for photoshop. I running it right now with Gutsy Gibbon.


----------



## RyanLilly (Dec 11, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I'm fortunate to be able to currently work on a quad-processor G5 with 2 gigs of ram on each processor. I've post-processed images upwards of 10 gigs



Nice!

I was very happy to see Mac come out with a quad processor mac with the G5, the last quad before it was a Motorola 603, or 604, now that I think about it, Im not sure that It was even Apple, I think It was a clone, DayStar, or something.


----------



## usayit (Dec 11, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> macs remind me of communism...  in soviet russia, you dont OWN the mac, mac owns YOU!



Um... if anything Windows is less forgiving less flexible than Mac... In a mix UNIX and Windows production environment, Mac plays better in the sand box right out of the box.


----------



## Zatodragon (Dec 11, 2007)

That's always a tough debate.  I've always like to think of it as mac is a simplified machine.  Your not gonna tweak a mac very much, just kinda use it as it's given to you.

For me, i didn't like the mac so much since i'm very fluent in XP and have a crash maybe....once a year?  And it's because i did something out of it's capabilities.  But i build my own pc's up.  

For a lot of other people, mac does well for them.  For me, i can do way more work on a PC than a mac.


----------



## forceofnature (Dec 11, 2007)

If Mac has gone Unix I may just get one. There may be hope for mac afterall. Only problem is they are the minority especially in big business.

I just like building my own PC so that may become an issue. When I can get better components and install them myself for about 3K less than the mac pro its a little bit of a hard spot.

I priced up a mac pro with my requirements and it was over 5K. A PC with the best video card, memory, quad processor, and mother board was below 2K.

Now all I need is for the family PC to die which it already is doing. The capacitors are leaking and it has become unstable.

I still have always wanted a mac since heck 1989.  I was also impressed with the amiga at that time.  Its too bad that amiga died, that computer had promise, even more so than a mac.  

I am crossing my fingers that the PC dies a hard death soon.  I already backed up my photos and documents. LOL  Maybe I can help it on its way.... dont tell the wife....


----------



## domromer (Dec 11, 2007)

forceofnature said:


> If Mac has gone Unix I may just get one. There may be hope for mac afterall. Only problem is they are the minority especially in big business.
> 
> I just like building my own PC so that may become an issue. When I can get better components and install them myself for about 3K less than the mac pro its a little bit of a hard spot.
> 
> ...



I still have my Amiga 128 and my commodore 64!


----------



## SnakeVnzl (Dec 11, 2007)

well, mac's and X OS it's awesome.  really.  it may be weird at the begining, but's awesome.

however, your pc things won't work with mac things.  so you'll have to buy them again for mac.  or install windows in a mac (i hate this, it's stupid unless you NEED to use one thing or two (and only one thing or two, if you need to use more than that use PC).

and learn to use it.  

anyway, if you like mac pc's and mac os and want to pay like 2k more to have it.  why not?


----------



## forceofnature (Dec 11, 2007)

domromer said:


> I still have my Amiga 128 and my commodore 64!


 
Nice!  Do you still have some of the Amiga games?  I sold the commodore 64s and Timex Sinclairs when they first came out

I heard they used Amiga computers on babylon 5.


----------



## acekreations (Dec 11, 2007)

The simplicity of mac and the easy workflo make it worth the extra money.


http://acekreations.com/


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 11, 2007)

Zatodragon said:


> That's always a tough debate.  I've always like to think of it as mac is a simplified machine.  Your not gonna tweak a mac very much, just kinda use it as it's given to you.
> 
> For me, i didn't like the mac so much since i'm very fluent in XP and have a crash maybe....once a year?  And it's because i did something out of it's capabilities.  But i build my own pc's up.
> 
> For a lot of other people, mac does well for them.  For me, i can do way more work on a PC than a mac.


ditto.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 12, 2007)

usayit said:


> How many Windows users out there are running on an Administrator level account on a daily basis?
> How many Mac OS X users are logging in as "root" on a daily basis?



That is a good point. Mac and Windows can be equally stable, and secure if the user is knowledgeable, but mac clearly has an advantage from out of the box configuration.

Windows tried more out of the box security privileges in Vista and we all know how that ended up, enless messages asking for admin permissions so annoying that the user turns them off and you're back at square one.

That's the basis for my statement, ultimately there really is little difference between a well setup system of both types and the result is personal preference. Now you can swear green and blue that this isn't the case, but unlike your experiences my sister's Macbook is currently suffering all sorts of weird startup problems and my copy of windows 2003 hasn't suffered a blue screen since I put it on at the beginning of the year. So it only comes back to if the user is competent they can keep their system running, and admittedly this is easier on a mac.


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

for every O/s, I could name an example of a machine that is not behaving properly and perhaps dieing.  BUT I"m talking about properly managed healthy machines... I'm talking about basic design.. 


Given Application A defied as 
while (true) {
malloc() /* allocate a block of memory */
}

How many Windows machines will die under such condition?  

How many Mac OS X machines will die under such condition (assuming some idiot didn't set ulimit to infinity)?


OT: double edged sword.. this has historically been one of the reasons why game development prefer windows...


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

Given a mixed environment of Windows and UNIX servers...

How many NFS shares can a windows (out of the box) workstation mount?

How many NFS AND Window Shares can a MAC OS X workstation mount?


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

How many keyboard O/S devices are protected under Windows? (keyboard loggers)

How many keyboard O/S devices are ~not~ owned by root thus protected (at least a little) under MAC OS X?


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

Hardware wise...

I work in a Disaster Recovery site that is absolutely HUGE... HUGE... I tell yah!!!  We beat the piss out of these machines... nothing gets setup and left alone like in production.  We build and destroy thousands upon thousands a year.  

Of all the frequently failing hardware... DELL is absolutely the worst.  The Least to fail.. (I think) have been IBM AIX hardware but they are so damn expensive.  You get what you pay for.

Too bad we don't have tons of Macs around.. I'd like to see how this hardware holds up in our environment.  


Honestly.. I like Linux the best.. BUT their GUI is just so awful.  Apple should be worried if a Linux born company creates a wonderful interface that competes.

Gates is brilliant... I wish I could learn a little from him.  Years ago... he managed to sell thousands of users the Brooklyn Bridge.  Keep in mind that he got Windows ontop when there was more competition in the market: Next Step, Apple, OS2 Warp.  Each are arguably better than Windows 3.1 by leaps and bounds.


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

Given a slow (small bandwidth) connection from remote... (9600 baud modem for example)

Can a windows admin remotely and completely administer a series of windows servers?

Can a Mac OS X (UNIX, Linux) admin completely administer a series of machines (think: ssh, telnet, ftp)?



Given a Server and Laptop of the same processor type

Can a windows admin boot the Server's boot disk on the laptop?

Can a Mac OSX admin boot (even recover) the MAC OS X server's internal disk on the laptop?



I've got a whole book of these.... but I'm just uping my post count at this point...  There was a time that Windows was viewed as more flexible and oriented towards the power user.  Mac was seen as the beginner's computer that was inflexible but easy to learn.  Since MAC OS has embraced its UNIX background and opened it to all users, I think that is beginning to change.


In the end.. it is still personal preference...  If Windows works for yah.. all the more power.  I still have windows boxes to work on as well as at home.  I think 99% of the users out there will NOT care about ulimit,DR, etc...


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

Just figured i'd throw this up to illustrate some of what i was talking about... dont let this fuel any further arguement or anything, just good for a chuckle. its a little NSFW (language) 
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 12, 2007)

I've been using Macs since 1989 and been accessing the internet with them since about '95. In all that time I have only suffered one virus - and that was a Windows one that hooked into MS Office and didn't cause me any problems. I've never had any spyware problems either.
Friends who use PC's seem to have regular traumas with the things.
Hackers just don't seem to bother with Macs. I think it's MS and Gates they don't like. Can't think why


----------



## Helen B (Dec 12, 2007)

I'm not sure what Microsoft telephone customer support for Windows is like because I haven't had to phone them for at least ten years, but I can say for sure that Apple telephone support is good. Only last weekend I spent four hours on the phone to them about problems with a brand new Macbook running Leopard. They didn't solve any of the three problems but they did try hard, and I look forward to having another little chat with them in the very near future. They are really friendly guys. Useless, but cool. Thank goodness my Macbook runs Windows fairly well.

Best,
Helen


----------



## patrickt (Dec 12, 2007)

"Useless, but cool. "

What a fantastic quote.


----------



## domromer (Dec 12, 2007)

Mac users are just cooler than windows users, you want to hang with the cool people right?


----------



## usayit (Dec 12, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> Just figured i'd throw this up to illustrate some of what i was talking about... dont let this fuel any further arguement or anything, just good for a chuckle. its a little NSFW (language)
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant



yup.... ^^just plain useless....^^


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

you gotta admit though.... it DOES pretty much hit the nail on the head...


----------



## domromer (Dec 12, 2007)

I guess since I don't watch tv I'm not subjected to these anti pc mac ads. I just bought one because they are the only computer used in the multimedia department at my college. I figured they must be good if thats all they use. I bought mine and couldn't be happier. The whole anti mac/pc thing is pretty lame. There both computers. They do the same thing. I don't see how anyone could hate one and love another.


----------



## Stranger (Dec 12, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, that means I bought my first Windows Laptop when you were 6 - in 1994.



LOL, that doesnt make me feel any older


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

for me, its more of a jealousy thing... I can afford a pc with the features i want. i cant afford a mac with those same specs. so i just bought a HP laptop, and its really great. If someone wanted to give  me a mac, i wouldnt refuse it, i think overall i'm happier with my pc just because I personally can justify what i spent on it, where with a mac, i think i'd feel a little guilty about paying about twice as much for a computer that was the same as mine, but with a different OS.... and i've never had a problem with my PC "just working"


----------



## domromer (Dec 12, 2007)

Yeah the price difference is rough. I managed to pay for mine with financial aid. I don't think I would have bought it if I wasn't able to offset the price. I could have got a comparable dell or hp for $500 less. Although now I like it so much I think my next desktop will be a Mac as well.

Also I'm not  big techie and I find it's easier for me to maintain and navigate the OS then in Windows. I get a lot more out of my Mac than I did my dell. I think it's because the OS is more transparent? Easier to understand where all the files are stored and how things are set up. But hey thats me.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

yeah, i feel the opposite right now. I've been a windows user ever since we got our first computer so I know it so well that i can usually do most things without thinking. I dont know how everyone else is, but i would consider myself proficient at computers so when something does go wrong, i usually figure it out myself. I dont know if macs are more geared towards people who lack that level of proficiency or not, but i feel like at least at the level I'm at, it cant really get much easier to do things with my computer....


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 12, 2007)

I still build and upgrade my own machines, can't do that with a Mac. If OS X were ported to the PC, I might would use it. OTOH, our Win2000Pro server has run flawlessly for 8 years, our 2000, & XP machines do as well. I can't say I care for Vista at all. Seems like a memory hog and is buggy. If the new laptop had not come with it installed, I'd be a much happier camper.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

i agree , vista is slow and takes a lot of memory, but i'd still take it over XP just because i like the new visual style of it. I dont do a lot of hard core computing anyway so usually its not really a problem


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 12, 2007)

On the Vista laptop I found all the bells and whistles a distraction. I like a plain black wallpaper without the zooming windows and crap. So I've turned all that off. I just want a machine that does what I want it to, and they all do but Vista. But to be honest, I delayed going to xp about 3 years so Mr. Softy could iron the bugs away. Should have done the same with this laptop.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

to each his own....


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 12, 2007)

if someone needs to ask why..I would have to say...
You don't need one.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 12, 2007)

i would agree with that statement


----------



## curtiswheat (Dec 12, 2007)

If your going to do allot of Post work I would recommend a mac.  IMO


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 12, 2007)

Too each his/her own. It all depends on what you are used to and are proficient with. I do a lot of post and prefer my systems.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 13, 2007)

Helen B said:


> I'm not sure what Microsoft telephone customer support for Windows is like because I haven't had to phone them for at least ten years, but I can say for sure that Apple telephone support is good. Only last weekend I spent four hours on the phone to them about problems with a brand new Macbook running Leopard. They didn't solve any of the three problems but they did try hard, and I look forward to having another little chat with them in the very near future. They are really friendly guys. Useless, but cool. Thank goodness my Macbook runs Windows fairly well.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


That was the perfect level of humor to start my bi-weekly trudge from Berlin to Amsterdam and back. Thanks Helen, you made me laugh out loud.


----------



## usayit (Dec 13, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> for me, its more of a jealousy thing... I can afford a pc with the features i want. i cant afford a mac with those same specs.
> .....
> 
> vista is slow and takes a lot of memory, but i'd still take it over XP just because i like the new visual style of it. I dont do a lot of hard core computing anyway so usually its not really a problem



Did you ever think that the whole "I must have a lot of memory and processor" attitude is driven by the bloated MS Windows releases of past to now?  Did you ever think about how much Microsoft makes every year from "planned obsolescence"?  MS makes huge profits each year by convincing thousands of people that a new computer is needed every year... Dell and Intel also stands to profit.  There is zero incentive for streamlining the OS when all it does is drive hardware sales.....  

You can do a just as much as a windows box with less Mac hardware... it is a problem with basic O/S design. 

Shorty admits not being a hard core user.....  I bet he'll need a new machine to run Vista.  Me... I'll be running just Leopard just fine on my old G4... and i classify myself as a hard core user.  I bet that Shorty has spent less money on computers over the past 8 years than I have on Mac.



btw... Old Macs are upgradable in terms of memory, disk, and even processor....  and for reasonable prices..  www.macsales.com


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 13, 2007)

i already have a computer that runs vista. It was my choice to upgrade though. My computer was getting old so i bought a new one. and yeah, i probably HAVE spent less money on computers than you have.  but why would you care about what OS i'm using? its not my fault that microsoft made vista a memory hog and all that. I'm a pc user so i use a pc. theres just something about that company that i dont like. why must everything they sell be made of white plastic and cost more than its pc counterpart? The mac's wireless mighty mouse is $69.99 on amazon, a microsoft wireless mouse is $27.99.  why do all their stores look like fashion boutiques? why wont they make an original commercial anymore?   i just always feel like apple is this huge company that is trying to overtake the world with expensive shiny things and brainwashing all its users with a sense of superiority .... and its that attitude that will probalby prevent me from ever buying  a mac. The pc environment feels more welcoming to me. but whatever, i'm sick of this thread. this is going to be my last post on here. just remember OP, its your decision, not ours


----------



## usayit (Dec 13, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> i already have a computer that runs vista. It was my choice to upgrade though. My computer was getting old so i bought a new one. and yeah, i probably HAVE spent less money on computers than you have.



Doubt it... I haven't purchased a computer in 6 years....




> but why would you care about what OS i'm using? its not my fault that microsoft made vista a memory hog and all that.



Nope not your fault... its Microsofts fault.  Never said anything differently.  I simply addressed my opinion regarding people complaining that Mac is so expensive... it is not...  Mac Mini starting at $599 will satisfy most users out there who haven't been programmed into thinking that they need X amount of memory and Y processor(s). 



> I'm a pc user so i use a pc. theres just something about that company that i dont like. why must everything they sell be made of white plastic and cost more than its pc counterpart?



Again.. I don't think it costs more than the PC counterpart.  And the "Look".. well... it does sell (ipods for example) and HP, Sony, Acer etc.. have all tried many times to establish their "own" look.  They all failed... even Alienware has their own "look"  No complaints against them eh?



> The mac's wireless mighty mouse is $69.99 on amazon, a microsoft wireless mouse is $27.99.



Yo... Apples to apple comparison just to be fair.  Microsoft Wireless Laser mouse 8000 sells for $90 bucks and is more inline with mighty mouse.  You aren't forced to use Apple Keyboard and mouse.. in fact, I use MS natural keyboard and Kensington Wireless mouse (two buttons btw).  My choice as they are comfortable.  Microsoft's Natural keyboard is PERFECT!



> why do all their stores look like fashion boutiques? why wont they make an original commercial anymore?   i just always feel like apple is this huge company that is trying to overtake the world with expensive shiny things and brainwashing all its users with a sense of superiority .... and its that attitude that will probalby prevent me from ever buying  a mac.



All the same reasons why you won't catch me in a BMW or Mercedes... all expensive shiny things and brainwashing all tis users with a sense of superiority.  << Sound familiar?  All internalized reasons with no substance... even I'll admit it in regards to BMW and Mercs.. nothing wrong with the products themselves.

Don't see why you take everything personally.. simply debunking a lot of the stuff that is thrown against Macs as not necessarily true.  Almost every time I post to these threads it often is reduced to Mac users stating why they prefer Apple (and talking specifics) and one or two windows users throwing up their arms with not so true statements.   

I'm not forcing anyone as you eluded... I even stated that you should stick to whatever you are comfortable with....

Remember ... Shorty... you are the one that posted the Mac STFU link and compared Apple's high end mouse to MS low cost wireless mouse.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 13, 2007)

aw crap.... i knew you were gonna do that. Now i need to respond. Seriously this thread is pissing me off though. You say that all these threads always go the same way with mac users giving a bunch of "facts" and windows users giving not so true info. I completely disagree. Us windows users cant use YOUR arguements though. but for the sake of arguement, i might as well give MY reasons for using a PC. - It just works (yeah, i said it and i stand by it) , 
- Easy to use and navigate the OS.
- More options for personalization of hardware
- Better prices
- More program compatablility

there are some facts for everyone, and instead of picking apart MY reasons for buying a PC, just give your own list of facts. and i'll try my hardest if everyone else here does... lets please try to keep this civil and not attack each other anymore


----------



## usayit (Dec 13, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> please try to keep this civil and not attack each other anymore



Hehhe lol... you do remember posting the MAC STFU link don't yah?


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 13, 2007)

thats why i said i'll try as well! but i DID add the disclaimer that i didnt want it to fuel any further arguement... wich apparently everyone ignored. I just thought it was funny and somewhat relevent to the topic. lets just be glad this isnt a REAL controversal topic...


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 13, 2007)

> vista is slow and takes a lot of memory


Vista was slow on the standard 512MB that came with my laptop, but it wasn't screaming to move.  With a cheap 2GIG memory stick (and Vista caching up all my programs I use), Vista runs like a champ.


> MS makes huge profits each year by convincing thousands of people that a new computer is needed every year... Dell and Intel also stands to profit. There is zero incentive for streamlining the OS when all it does is drive hardware sales.....


Trying to figure out this statement.  MS makes its money through liscencing of Windows - they have not a whole lot to do with tech companies (IMB, AMD, eVGA, NVIDIA, SAMSUNG etc) pushing the latest CPUS/Video Cards/Hard Drive tech on the general public.  


> I bet he'll need a new machine to run Vista.


About the only thing someone needs to run Vista is 1GIG of ram and a fairly "newish" computer (nothing that struggled to run Windows 2000).


> Mac Mini starting at $599 will satisfy most users out there who haven't been programmed into thinking that they need X amount of memory and Y processor(s).


If someone just needs to use email and write a paper and watch youtube - 599 can get them a sick PC with more bells and whistles than they could ever need (and often will get a monitor thrown in).  Hell the eeePC (if you can find one) would probably be a cheaper, and cost-lessier option.
The Maddox link pretty much summed up my opinion of most Mac users.  And I'll put the sleek business design of my Thinkpad against a Mac users MacBook anyday.
PS - I don't hate Macs.  I MIGHT use one if the option to get a black Mac didnt costmore money (on an already overpriced piece of hardware).


----------



## Mrsforeman1 (Dec 14, 2007)

Thanks people.
I think that I get it. I love Windows. But, I hate windows, you know?
It's kinda like growing up in chaos, you love it because that's all you know. Until you take your first vacation. 
I have a desktop and a laptop (both windows).
Sometimes, I have to get on the desktop just so that I won't throw my laptop out of the window (and vice-versa). 
As I stated before, all I need is CS3 and internet access (and lightroom, and the bridge, and all things adobe) 
So, if I buy a mac next, it may just be a good move.:thumbup:


----------



## Helen B (Dec 14, 2007)

As a Macbook owner, I would not recommend the Macbook for image editing unless you get a good external monitor.

Best,
Helen


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

I would not recommend any laptop display for image editing....

Spend the bucks and get a good external monitor.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 14, 2007)

Neither would I, but the Macbook is particularly bad in this respect. Some laptop displays are usable for some image editing purposes, thank goodness. One of the advantages of Windows-based laptops is that you have a much wider choice of screens.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 14, 2007)

And just in case no-one has mentioned them (because I can't be bothered to wade through this thread) the two best arguments for having a Mac are:

This little baby -
http://www.lemkesoft.com/
Will convert virtually any picture type to any other - it will even handle Atari and Amiga graphics. I know of nothing like this for PC.

And then there is _subscribe_ and _publish_.
Want to open a QuarkXpress file in Office?
Use the 'publish' menu in Quark and then 'subscribe' to the file in Office.
Simple.
And it's been implemented in most Mac programs for years.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 14, 2007)

my brother typed something on the mac version of microsoft office word yesterday and tried to open it on his PC laptop and said that it wouldnt open because the mac saved it as a .doc file wich apparently the pc version wont open... is there a way around that, or is that another issue with macs?


----------



## domromer (Dec 14, 2007)

Isnt .Doc a native word format? Sounds like it may be a pc problem again


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

hehehehe... another reason for MAC

World of Warcraft for Mac has video capture built right in.


My main workstation and all of the documents were done in Office for Mac.  The entire corporation is full of Windows users.  This includes all sorts of word, excel, and powerpoint.  No problems at all.

Try saving as an *.rtf like most non-office people do and trying opening it again.


----------



## domromer (Dec 14, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> my brother typed something on the mac version of microsoft office word yesterday and tried to open it on his PC laptop and said that it wouldnt open because the mac saved it as a .doc file wich apparently the pc version wont open... is there a way around that, or is that another issue with macs?




Actually that happened to me When I first got my Mac and was sending a lot of files back and forth to my PC. It turned out that my pc's version of windows was older than my MAcs and the .doc files has gone through some changes. 
I think there is like a .doc97 .doc2002 , something like that. So I had to download a patch for my pc's version of windows. it works fine now. 

If you scroll below you can see how many version of .doc there is. 



By domromer


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 14, 2007)

hm, i'll let him know about that, I wasnt there with him. He's in high school, i'm at college, but he just came online last night saying "i hate macs!" and i'm thinking... well thats a funny coincidence, haha, but yeah, he explained that to me and my first thought was to download some sort of converter patch or something but he said he couldnt find one. He acted like it wasnt a big deal though so i'm guessing either its not due very soon or he didnt have a lot to retype


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 14, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> my brother typed something on the mac version of microsoft office word yesterday and tried to open it on his PC laptop and said that it wouldnt open because the mac saved it as a .doc file wich apparently the pc version wont open... is there a way around that, or is that another issue with macs?



Every new version of Word has saved to a different format from previous versions. There have always been compatibility problems between versions even on the same platform.
You do have a choice of 'Save As' types and something like Rich Text format or just Text will solve things as a last ditch.
I seem to remember downloading compatibility patches from Microsoft. They may still do such things (extends the 'Save As' range). Or you might get a third party one.


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 14, 2007)

> I know of nothing like this for PC.


They exist.


> And then there is subscribe and publish.
> Want to open a QuarkXpress file in Office?
> Use the 'publish' menu in Quark and then 'subscribe' to the file in Office.


Sounds like "Open With>Use The Following Program To Open all X Files" which assigns a file type to open in a different program that it is compatible with.


> Every new version of Word has saved to a different format from previous versions.


I'm pretty sure thats not true for recent versions of Windows and the doc file format.  For a few the issue has been going from new to old - but its not impossible.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 14, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, that means I bought my first Windows Laptop when you were 6 - in 1994.


 
I was in computers way before he was born.. lol.. wait, thats not too funny, but it is true.

People from "my generation" call MACs computers with training wheels. They have always been overpriced and the software was never even close to being competitive except in the graphics area.

Nowadays, they are basically no faster, no better than Intel based computers, but they are on average 20% more expensive, and their screens are on average 50% more expensive for no increase in resolution or quality.

People who think that there are no such things as viruses for MACs need to come spend a day with me dealing with these bug-infested computers.  I make good money cleaning them for the few of my clients that use them (I even get to charge them more for dealing with MACs than intel based units!)

Vista?  IMHO that is Microsoft's greatest failure ever.  XP rules, all else drools... lol.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 14, 2007)

Helen B said:


> Neither would I, but the Macbook is particularly bad in this respect. Some laptop displays are usable for some image editing purposes, thank goodness. One of the advantages of Windows-based laptops is that you have a much wider choice of screens.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



I agree.  A nice 20" widescreen helps a lot...and an external mouse as well.  Doing editing on a touchpad is hell.

That's one of the reasons I never understood why art schools sometimes require you to have a Mac laptop.  What the hell am I gonna do with a laptop unless I go home and attach my monitor and mouse?  So...why not just say an iMac? lol...I dono...just a thing I have...


----------



## domromer (Dec 14, 2007)

Speaking of the price of Macs, I thnk people forget to figure in supply and demand. Macs make up 8% of all desktop sales and 17% of laptops. Would it not make sense for a product with such a small market share to be more expensive than say a dell?

You can do a google search to find the latest figures.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 14, 2007)

ANDS! said:


> Sounds like "Open With>Use The Following Program To Open all X Files" which assigns a file type to open in a different program that it is compatible with.



Then it's a recent MS innovation. Macs have been able to do it for 15 years or so.
One more example of PC's trying to copy Macs 


BTW Did you know that Bill Gates programmed the first Apple OS that utilised the concept of the Desktop? 
And it was Apple Corp that invented the mouse?
Makes you think.


----------



## patrickt (Dec 14, 2007)

"And it was Apple Corp that invented the mouse?
Makes you think."

Makes me wonder why it took them so long to comprehend mouse buttons. Oh, wait, they didn't invent the mouse. Another of the myths, I suppose.

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa081898.htm


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

patrickt said:


> "And it was Apple Corp that invented the mouse?
> Makes you think."
> 
> Makes me wonder why it took them so long to comprehend mouse buttons.



They had many innovations that focused on simplicity.... most of their products have user interfaces that are specifically designed in such a manner.  Out of tens of products, they made an incorrect assessment and made the mouse TOO SIMPLE.....  i think I can forgive Apple.. 

How many products incorrect assessments has Microsoft made and continue to make throughout history?

Makes me wonder why it is taking Microsoft so long to make a solid O/S?


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

domromer said:


> Speaking of the price of Macs, I thnk people forget to figure in supply and demand. Macs make up 8% of all desktop sales and 17% of laptops. Would it not make sense for a product with such a small market share to be more expensive than say a dell?
> 
> You can do a google search to find the latest figures.




General Motors is the largest manufacturer of cars and Toyota is second.  Each making between   8-9 million vehicles.   BMW delivered 1.3 million.   Typical BMW is more expensive than a typical GM or Toy.


----------



## domromer (Dec 14, 2007)

Doesn't that illustrate my point? Although you can hardly compare these auto makers. You comparing a luxury manufacture against cars like the Echo and Neon. Try apples to apples.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 14, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Then it's a recent MS innovation. Macs have been able to do it for 15 years or so.
> One more example of PC's trying to copy Macs
> 
> 
> ...



Microsoft could "open with" since 95...maybe even before, but that's too long to remember.

Also, Apple never invented the mouse.  Nice try though.
Xerox invented the mouse, AND the point and click desktop environment.
Bill Gates did not program the Apple OS...I don't know where you heard that from.


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

domromer said:


> Doesn't that illustrate my point? Although you can hardly compare these auto makers. You comparing a luxury manufacture against cars like the Echo and Neon. Try apples to apples.



Yes it does..  Apple can be equated to a luxury manufacturer.  Apple has never passed off their products as "value" buy.  

Dell and Apple can both pretty much accomplish the same tasks.
Neon and BMW can both take me from point A to B.


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> Microsoft could "open with" since 95...maybe even before, but that's too long to remember.
> 
> Also, Apple never invented the mouse.  Nice try though.
> Xerox invented the mouse, AND the point and click desktop environment.
> Bill Gates did not program the Apple OS...I don't know where you heard that from.



Technically.... you are both wrong...   Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse.  Xerox and Apple leveraged it .. the later actually licensing it from him.

IIRC, Apple and WIndows both "borrowed" the idea of a trash can from xerox... perhaps the GUI as well.. no idea.


----------



## Atropine (Dec 14, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Then it's a recent MS innovation. Macs have been able to do it for 15 years or so.
> One more example of PC's trying to copy Macs
> 
> 
> ...


This post contains so much rubbish I simply can't keep quiet... 

File type association has been a natural feature in the windows os's i've been using (win3.11, win95, win98se, win2k, winxp, vista). But in XP and Vista it has become even easier for normal users to manage. MS were way ahead of Apple using file extensions making it a lot easier for users to actually see what kind of files they had in their computers without having to click them. I remember the pre osx era when you got files from a mac. There was no way of telling if the files were .eps, .jpg, .tif or any other file type for that matter. Stupid!

The computer mouse was NOT invented by Apple as someone already mentioned. Douglas Engelbart invented it in the mid sixties and the first company to use his patent was a company called Computer Displays. That mouse actually had three buttons so I have no idea which genious at Apple, several years later when they introduced their first computers, decided that there should be only one.

And now you got me started about mouse design. Apple is actually one of the companies that has designed some of the most retarded mouse designs ever. Round mouse anyone? Very bright indeed. You never knew which way the cursor would move, suspense every time you used that piece of crap. Yeah, let's make the whole top of the mouse one big button and leave two tiny spots as the only place you can grip the mouse without clicking it... Genious, not. Yeah, lets make the mouse cord in the exact same thickness as the play beneath the shell of the mentioned giant button mouse making it impossible to depress that precious giant button every time the cable came near the mouse. Sigh... Inventors you say... I am actually laughing now!


----------



## usayit (Dec 14, 2007)

Atropine said:


> File type association has been a natural feature in the windows os's i've been using (win3.11, win95, win98se, win2k, winxp, vista). But in XP and Vista it has become even easier for normal users to manage. MS were way ahead of Apple using file extensions making it a lot easier for users to actually see what kind of files they had in their computers without having to click them. I remember the pre osx era when you got files from a mac. There was no way of telling if the files were .eps, .jpg, .tif or any other file type for that matter. Stupid!



Actually file extensions were used because of the limitations in the original FAT file system used by DOS.  In other words... it had nothing to do with making it easier for users.  In fact, Windows by default hides the file extensions..  So yes.. there is rubbish in there but you are spreading it as well.  Unix (MAC OS X based on) was already using "magic" numbers that were embedded into the file itself to determine file type.  This was a far superior method for assigning file types.  Lets not forget the ol'crappy limitation of the 8.3 filename structure.  

You wanna go farther... wth is up with batch files?  Microsoft is more than capable of implementing a decent procedural based scripting language but they are still stuck with the old batch.  Oh even better... why is that most windows applications cannot/or do not take in command line arguments.  Even tiny little notepad.exe takes at least a file name. 

Do you want to continue to process management... how about provide a seperate protected user space for processes to protect the rest of the machine?  Linux, UNIX, OS2 Warp established that a decade ago...

As I said.. got a whole book full.




> That mouse actually had three buttons so I have no idea which genious at Apple, several years later when they introduced their first computers, decided that there should be only one.



Looks like it had 1 button too.... 
http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/Archive/patent/Mouse.html


Sheesh dude.. it is a mouse.... you wanna keep going about the deficiencies of various Microsoft design.. Drop it already.   If that is Apple's worst.. then they aren't doing too bad.  How much of vista's interface was inspired by Mac OS X?   ( I actually like Microsoft's keyboard the best)


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 15, 2007)

In the beginning the Mac was designed for designers - which is why simplicity was so important. Creatives just want to be able to use the things.
PC's took a different path, being aimed at the technical end - engineers, scientists and software developers. These folk have traditionally modified their stuff to do what they need and so PC's developed that way. Hobbyists and nerds had their say too and PC's became a sort of do-it-yourself kit that could be endlessly modified and tinkered with.
Macs were more of a concept. Designers are image concious so the look is important - as well as having something that you can use without understanding.
(And in terms of image, I still remember the IBM computer ad that had the CEO of IBM promoting his computers - but he had a Mac on his desk!)
You can see this image at work - virtually every computer seen in a film in the past 10 or 15 years has been a Mac. And computers in the Simpsons always start with the Mac chime.
PC's by comparison were for a long time just dull beige boxes. Not at all sexy. They started to change with introduction of the i-Mac - which has had a far-reaching effect on design as a whole. And finally PC manufacturers learned to be image conscious. Now you can get a Dell Inspiron laptop in a choice of colours.
But with Macs going down the UNIX route and having to make their computers more and more compatible with PC's, and PC manufacturers (and Microsoft) recognising that the Mac use of image and simplicity is a good way to make sales there is now very little to choose between the two. It's more down to personal taste - and deciding whether you want a computer that looks good and is designed for idiots, or one that you can modify and upgrade (although the pro Mac desktops have always been fairly modifiable - it's just that you have less choice of units to plug in).

The design ethic can clearly be seen in the second-hand computer market. You can still buy Macs that are over 25 years old. They are collectors items and still work. PC's of that age are generally in skips/dumpsters


----------



## usayit (Dec 15, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> In the beginning the Mac was designed for designers - which is why simplicity was so important.
> 
> .....
> 
> The design ethic can clearly be seen in the second-hand computer market. You can still buy Macs that are over 25 years old. They are collectors items and still work. PC's of that age are generally in skips/dumpsters



Honestly.. I didn't like mac for much of their history.  Very little tinkering and using a mac meant doing things their way without much flexibility.  I was very much the build it yourself PC mentality... I enjoyed it.  The combination of recent design (for designers you say), their embrace of a UNIX core, my fustrations supporting Windows, and the limitations of Linux, made me switch about 8 years ago.   I've got better things to do now-a-days... I needed something that works for me... 

Btw.. collector items.. yeh.. this fellow went over board.  But it is interesting what he has created:  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soyburger/


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 15, 2007)

Oh but the Mac Classic was the first true desktop computer - and it was so cute. They still sell for about £250 and they will work. I think they can only run OS9 and have limited memory but are fine if you just want to word pro. The i-Mac was an attempt to recreate this design icon.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 15, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> Just figured i'd throw this up to illustrate some of what i was talking about... dont let this fuel any further arguement or anything, just good for a chuckle. its a little NSFW (language)
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant



Sidebar:

Craig, did you see DJ Q-Bert in that video? WTF?


----------



## Helen B (Dec 15, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Oh but the Mac Classic was the first true desktop computer...



You've been drinking too much Apple Revisionist Hype Kool-Aid. The Commodore PET (1977) and 64 (1982), and IBM PC XT (1983) predated the original Macintosh, surely. The Commodore 64 was the first desktop I used, followed closely by the PC XT as soon as it came out in '83.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Joves (Dec 15, 2007)

usayit said:


> Makes me wonder why it is taking Microsoft so long to make a solid O/S?


 
I find XP to be extremely stable. The only time I have formatted a disk was when I was moving my OS to a larger hard drive. I have had this system running since XP came out and, had this machine on for a year solid without a single probelm. Another thing are you MACies still getting charged for updates? Also you guys pay through the nose for alot of programs that are standard with Windows OSes. Another thing I like about Windows is I can walk in any software store and, grab a program that works with it and, all the games too. Im no fan of Vista though. So when I do my next build it will be XP again.
 Mac and Crack sound to close to me, plus their users are genrerally foaming at the mouth for their next iFix.


----------



## usayit (Dec 15, 2007)

Joves said:


> I find XP to be extremely stable. The only time I have formatted a disk was when I was moving my OS to a larger hard drive. I have had this system running since XP came out and, had this machine on for a year solid without a single probelm.



And I swore that my uncle's pinto ran for years without any issues.  

So one desktop on your desk that runs your web browser means that XP is stable.. do you remember me saying up there somewhere that my main beef with windows is basic O/S design.  We already established that it is possible to find one example of a dyeing Mac OS X box AND windows as well as good examples of both.. whats your point?  Again.. are you login into that box as Administrator.. that in of itself is a problem.  I work in an environment of a few billion USD in various UNIX, Windows, AS/400, and Mainframe boxes where we beat the crap out of  boxes.  By far the worst is windows and dell hardware BUT that doesn't prove anything.. different environment... thats my 1st job 3 days a week.  My other job is spent beating on software and fixing them... Window boxes are a pain to maintain.  

Try recovering a window's block level image on another window's hardware of different hardware... you can't do it easily until you go through that convoluted procedure to take care of dissimilar hardware.  UNIX, Mac OSX, and to some extent Linux do not have any issues with dissimilar hardware. 



> Another thing are you MACies still getting charged for updates?



"MACies" do not get charged for updates... 



> Also you guys pay through the nose for alot of programs that are standard with Windows OSes.



Look again buster.. there's more built into MAC OS X by default.   How about ftpd?  ssh?  There was a time you could ~not~ burn a CD on windows without Nero or something similar.  MAC OS X had it from its first release.  



> Another thing I like about Windows is I can walk in any software store and, grab a program that works with it and, all the games too.



There was a time that all/most software had several builds on store shelves depending on the O/S of choice.  Microsoft leveraged and won many years ago to "push" software vendors to only release Microsoft versions of various products.  Thats just the tip.. as a business Microsoft has always been the bully on the block..  remember the browser wars that left Netscape in shambles and web developers dealing with incompatibilities.  Lets not forget Sun Microsystems and their Java interpreter that gained so much developer support.  A little while later Microsoft tries to bully Sun and release Visual Java which introduced mucho problems in the Java development community.  (MS lost and is discontinuing the MS java JRE).  

Yes... GAMES have always been superior on PCs  Why?  Because many of the fail safes that prevented processes from "abusing" the system in UNIX (and MAC OS X) do not exist on Windows.  Games have full access to the entire machine... to run the graphics and engine in the game.  This same design that helps games opens up Windows to a lot of problems... 

I don't know about you but crack sounds more like Windows.. there are a lot of Windows people out there fustrated but feel like they have no choice... kinda like a crack junkie.


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 15, 2007)

Another early personal computer.

In 1979 I had a Radio Shack TRS-80 model III (short for "trash-80) Used a Cassette Tape for data storage, 4 _*K  f*_or data storage, expandable to 16_* K *_mono green screen monitor all in one case. Sort of like the I-Mac or Classic. It would do word processing crude spreadsheets, decent database work. And who could forget those advanced character-based graphics? For it's day, a decent "desktop" computer. It competed well with early Apples at a fraction of the price until the IIc came out.


----------



## usayit (Dec 15, 2007)

Helen B said:


> You've been drinking too much Apple Revisionist Hype Kool-Aid. The Commodore PET (1977) and 64 (1982), and IBM PC XT (1983) predated the original Macintosh, surely. The Commodore 64 was the first desktop I used, followed closely by the PC XT as soon as it came out in '83.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



the term "True Desktop Computer" is such a bogus loose term... HP under this loose term was the first (programable calculators).  In a more familiar definition of the desktop computer, Tandy, Apple II, and Commodore PET were all released the same year.  So it is difficult to mark a clear winner.  If my memory serves me correctly.. the Apple beat out the commodore in sales by a long shot.  

There were more traditional "PCs" that predated the PC XT.

Off topic: A few years ago I read an article about a well known journalist relying on a Tandy T-100 for their work away from office.  Small size.. simple design.. tough casing and keys (mechanical ones!).. powered by regular AA's.. no worry about theft.. were all points this journalist liked...  Now that is cool!  My coworker has a cheaper build version of that "laptop" on display (T-102??)... I wanna steal it everytime I walk by.


----------



## usayit (Dec 15, 2007)

Oh yeh.. who here remembers slamming old Apples on the table to get them working again?  Heat issues would loosen chips inside and slamming them on the table would "reseat" them... heheh lol .. the memories...


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 15, 2007)

No, the Com 64 has the record for the sales record for a single model. The Apple II had a few variants to spread the figures around on. 

And yes, the original PC came out in Sept 1983, I had one in October. It had a 4.77 Mhz 8088 processor (the XT I think had a 8 Mhz. processor), one H.H. Teac 360K floppy, 64 K ram, AST 6-pack card, Epson FX-80 printer, IBM color graphics card, and a 14" Princeton Graphics color monitor. $5695.00. I was building clones by Christmas and still do.  

EDIT: The PC has 5 expansion slots, the XT had 8 and a slightly larger power supply. That and the processor speed were the only differences between the 2.


----------



## usayit (Dec 15, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> No, the Com 64 has the record for the sales record for a single model. The Apple II had a few variants to spread the figures around on.



no no no... Com 64 was released in the early 80s and the original Apple II was release in 77. IIRC Apple II beat out the Com of 1977 that year but to kick back hard with the Com 64.  



> And yes, the original PC came out in Sept 1983, I had one in October. It had a 4.77 Mhz 8088 processor (the XT I think had a 8 Mhz. processor), one H.H. Teac 360K floppy, 64 K ram, AST 6-pack card, Epson FX-80 printer, IBM color graphics card, and a 14" Princeton Graphics color monitor. $5695.00. I was building clones by Christmas and still do.



Read my post "There were more traditional "PCs" that predated the PC XT".  Meaning the PC you mentioned as opposed to the 8Mhz version.  No clue the year but that you supplied (we are getting to the edge of my memory)


But whats the point except for a nice history lesson in computers?


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 15, 2007)

No point, and I was not arguing. The com 64 numbers I was refering to was total sales, no year to year. But it dosent matter. PC/Mac - Nikon/Canon - Ford/Chevy - Merc/BMW. Whatever. I like my Nikon/PC/Ford, you like what you like. Neither of us are going to change the others mind. If I had my druthers, I would run a PC with no windowZ and just DOS or Sco-Unix. But photo editing would be a little difficult. I like what I like, you like what you like, and I don't care. Nuff said.


----------



## Helen B (Dec 15, 2007)

usayit said:


> the term "True Desktop Computer" is such a bogus loose term...



Yes, I agree - which is why I didn't use the term. Herz was trying to claim that the original Macintosh (not the Apple or Lisa) was the first TDC, and you would have to define 'a true desktop computer' as being nothing other than a Mac for that to be correct.

Does anyone remember the ICL 'Oneper' OPD (One Per Desk). An idea before its time.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Atropine (Dec 16, 2007)

usayit said:


> Actually file extensions were used because of the limitations in the original FAT file system used by DOS.  In other words... it had nothing to do with making it easier for users.  In fact, Windows by default hides the file extensions..  So yes.. there is rubbish in there but you are spreading it as well.  Unix (MAC OS X based on) was already using "magic" numbers that were embedded into the file itself to determine file type.  This was a far superior method for assigning file types.  Lets not forget the ol'crappy limitation of the 8.3 filename structure.
> 
> You wanna go farther... wth is up with batch files?  Microsoft is more than capable of implementing a decent procedural based scripting language but they are still stuck with the old batch.  Oh even better... why is that most windows applications cannot/or do not take in command line arguments.  Even tiny little notepad.exe takes at least a file name.
> 
> ...


Well that "flaw" is at least an actual beneit to the ui that took Apple ages to adapt. For some weird reason MS chose to make them hidden by default in XP and Vista, but it's easily fixed.

Command line arguments? I really don't think there are a lot of people out there feeling comfortable using them, especially not the presumptive Mac buyers, so why bother making applications using it at all?

And regarding the mouse you linked to. That is not the production mouse used by Computer Displays. That clumsy wooden box is an early prototype made by the inventor. You seem to be an intelligent guy and you should be smart enough to realize that.


----------



## usayit (Dec 17, 2007)

Atropine said:


> Well that "flaw" is at least an actual beneit to the ui that took Apple ages to adapt. For some weird reason MS chose to make them hidden by default in XP and Vista, but it's easily fixed.



Hehehe... one man's garbage...  

It is still a "flaw" in Windows (current releases)... a flaw that Apple chose to address with the release of MAC OS X (2001 I believe.. same year as XP)

Back then, Apple's complete focus was simplicity and simplistic UI... I personally didn't like it back then (lack of full user control) but several years ago they solved a lot of my grievances by adopting a BSD core. 

You can pick each and everyone of my posts all you want (More than happy to discuss) but just don't pick and choose to your liking.... address all of them.  Starting with Adminstrator versus User rights (the lack of) and Processes space/management...



> Command line arguments? I really don't think there are a lot of people out there feeling comfortable using them, especially not the presumptive Mac buyers, so why bother making applications using it at all?



No one uses it because it hasn't be a good practice on PCs since the days of DOS.  

So let me get this straight.. you are actually proposing that the lack of features is a good thing in Windows?



> And regarding the mouse you linked to. That is not the production mouse used by Computer Displays. That clumsy wooden box is an early prototype made by the inventor. You seem to be an intelligent guy and you should be smart enough to realize that.



I had to look it up (mouse history?? sheesh) but wikipedia stated that Engelbart worked for SRI and they were the first to implement the mouse with NLS.  Later, Apple actually licensed it.  Macintosh was released in 1984 with a MOUSE and keyboard.  Windows wasn't even released until 1992 (also from wikipedia. Don't hate me i'm bad with dates).  The company Computer Displays was ~not~ even mentioned.....  Wikipedia also mentioned that Apple experimented with 4 button mice but opted to stay with the single one a few years after Macintosh was released.  

So yeh... I misread your post but at least I was smart enough to look it up.   Forgive me.. for referencing wikipedia.  My mouse history is lacking.. (except for the guys name) I had better things to do..

it is a mouse.... big deal...


----------



## doobs (Dec 30, 2007)

Here's the benefit: One expensive calculator. And it does a bad job at that too.

Stick to PC's. You can custom build a PC double the speed; perhaps triple the speed of a Mac. At this point in the computer age, you're paying for the pretty case, the logo and the OS.

PS, the OS sucks.


----------



## usayit (Dec 30, 2007)

OMG.. of all the postings... that was the most brilliant.







MS Corp 52-week range: 26.60 - 37.50
Apple Inc 52 week range: 79.65 - 201.56


----------



## domromer (Dec 30, 2007)

doobs said:


> Here's the benefit: One expensive calculator. And it does a bad job at that too.
> 
> Stick to PC's. You can custom build a PC double the speed; perhaps triple the speed of a Mac. At this point in the computer age, you're paying for the pretty case, the logo and the OS.
> 
> PS, the OS sucks.




Yeah vista is so much better! I think someone once said speed isn't everything. All the ram in the world doesn't means s&%t if it's always crashing or getting viruses.


----------



## shorty6049 (Dec 30, 2007)

hey guys, dont you remember when this thread died about a week ago??
give it up already


----------



## usayit (Dec 30, 2007)

yeh.. for you it ended at this point:



shorty6049 said:


> Just figured i'd throw this up to illustrate some of what i was talking about... dont let this fuel any further arguement or anything, just good for a chuckle. its a little NSFW (language)
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant



hehehe lol


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 30, 2007)

Well, my feelings were that before MACs went Intel, they had some *minor* advantange in terms of performance but that was offset by lack of software choices and vast prices differences.

Now that they are Intel based... I see them as another version of Windows... lol.

They still are terribly overpriced, though and software choices are still severely limited compared to the Windows platform.

I am Windows and Intel all the way. In terms of stability, I have an XP workstation that I installed 4 years ago that is running JUST as fast today as it did the day I installed it. I have all the service packs and perhaps 120 or more software installed on it. I have not seen a BSOD, virus, spyware nor crash in 4 years. It is used as my main play compuer, email, picture and video editing and music computer. There are 3 people (myself, my 16 year old niece and father) that often use it. I also access it remotely when at work.

This computer has run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a touch over 4 years now and is manually rebooted "just becuase" perhaps once every 6 months.

Reliability is more a function of user knowledge and regular maintenance than base OS stability (my 12 station basement network that has been functional for 3 years, supports this).

Vista? Well, thats a whole other ball of wax. Use it with MS only products and it is excellent in terms of stability... however use anything custom, well, all bets are off. It is just not ready.

If you are a PC user, getting a MAC offers NO advantages over Intel.  It does make you pay more for hardware and software, though.


----------



## usayit (Dec 30, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> Reliability is more a function of user knowledge and regular maintenance than base OS stability (my 12 station basement network that has been functional for 3 years, supports this).



Over a decade of experience in production and software development within UNIX, Windows, Linux environments would change your viewpoint very easily.  The interesting thing is that the majority of people I know using MACs were and still are heavily involved in Windows environments.  They simply switched for their personal use.  Some went from Windows to Linux but needed a better interface.  Mac was a perfect medium... BSD core with a well designed UI.  I will admit, most of the people I work with are UNIX guys during work hours (UNIX core production supported by Windows servers) so there might be an easier transition between Linux, UNIX and Mac.  The people so quickly to dismiss Mac usually have limited experience with Mac or are pulling from a bad experience from over a decade ago.


BTW.. saying that there is absolutely NO advantage on MAC over PC (or other product) is a very BOLD statement.  Care to scroll back and answer the questions I posted above and tell me how Windows handles them????  Lets start with simply getting a WIndows PC out of the box with updates mount an NFS share.


But to each there own....


----------

