for what its worth, i just got a big order on carts in various flavors. So far i have tried 3, watermelon, coffee, cowboy and all went dry really quick. Hope the other 7 flavors are not the same. Wierd because my first order a month ago were great. Anyway i am sure they will find the problem and take care of it. Going to try grape now.
Mac Vs PC...Whatcha think????
- Thread starter Luma
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Now if you started out with a mac you would be saying the same thing about windows. Its just something your not use to. I dont see myself ever buying a mac just for the fact that I build my own and I will never buy a store bought computer again. Well and they are way over priced.
I've had a few drier carts, no big deal, I understand that it's bound to happen.
This is a rant, I didn't plan it to be, but I just kept typing away....
As for the whole Mac vs. PC deal, wow, I've had that conversation too many times. I use Vista at work as a web designer/developer and truly despise Microsoft-anything. I don't feel Windows has ever been a great operating system and don't think it ever will be. Also, for the record I hated OS 9 and did not enjoy using a Mac until OS X came out - which in my opinion redefined the way a computer can and should be used. It set a standard that Windows will never come close to.
Now, OS X has and hopefully will always be the most stable operating system for day-to-day use on the market. The claims about certain software not being cross-platform are valid, however you can get pretty much any program for a Mac that you can for a PC. Now, they may not carry the same name - for example, Office Vs. iWork, or several other accounting/administrative/general business software applications but you can, generally, achieve the same things on either operating system. This is far more true today than ever before - largely because Macs are becoming more and more popular.
I can effectively perform my day-to-day design/production tasks relatively easy on either Mac or PC but it's far more frustrating in a Windows environment. This is largely due to the way Microsoft as a company operates and builds their products. From file browsing to hardware performance. Microsoft products as a whole infuriate me to no end. "Office" has and will always be the biggest joke Microsoft can play on the business world. Word is clumsy, unintuitive and tries to do too many things for you - from font selection to formatting. Again, this is largely a nuisance because I'm a designer and need to format things for myself. Outlook is holding back advancements in newsletter formatting and general email formatting. Technically-speaking, Windows makes web designers rely on using table-based layouts for newsletters, which drastically hinders what can be achieved from a marketing and advertising standpoint. This can be said about any Windows software I've ever used. It is not enjoyable and largely frustrating to use day-to-day. I am also a fairly tech-savvy person, as it goes hand-in-hand with my profession. I view Windows as being for the more casual uninitiated computer user. Unfortunately, given Windows popularity and domination of the market, they have set the standard in terms of user expectations in how to use a computer - or how computers work. This is unfortunate because, in my opinion, Windows is not conducive to any work environment.
Let me put it another way, why do you think Windows is such an easy target for security exploitation and requires aggressive anti-virus protection? Becuase their operating system is inherently flawed. The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not a well-written operating system. They have not been able to even come near the performance and reliability of OS X.
Out of the box Windows machines are in fact cheaper than Macs, but with consistent heavy use over the course of a year, you will notice far more degradation of performance on a Windows machine Vs. OS X. The way Windows allocates it's processor performance is vastly inferior to how OS X handles that same level of processor speed. Also, I have to point out the far superior ROI on a Mac when it comes to resale value. I am using a 7 year old G4 Powerbook right now that I could easily sell for $500. I could never say that about any PC notebook. It also needs to be pointed out that Macs are more expensive, not because they "look sexy" (they do) but because of what is inside.
It is often overlooked, but Apple computers are made to work. The hardware selected for each computer is optimal for how OS X functions. You don't have all the various computer companies (Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, Vaio, etc.) putting in random hardware and forcing them to cooperate with an operating system, Windows. OS X is only meant to be used with specific hardware that Apple installs. This has it's advantages and it's disadvantages, but I view it as a huge advantage. You can not expect every Windows-based PC to perform as well as a self-contained, optimized computer would.
I just thoroughly hate how Windows is constructed, it's incredibly messy from the inside-out. Applications leave trails everywhere and the registry system is a joke. I honestly just hate having to use a more "closed-off" system that isn't as easy to manipulate or provide you the basic ability do what you want with it. This is why I prefer OS X, it's the middle-ground between Windows and Linux. Windows also installs 80million apps that you will never use. Factory-default Windows start-up is a joke. There are way too many processes running at any given time - Vista compounded this fact to a ridiculous extent, which I'm sure everyone knows. My point is that regardless of the cost of a Windows machine, you would have to customize/optimize several components and settings to get it to perform the way it should. From deleting unnecessary programs to trial-and-error disabling start-up menu applications.
These are only my opinions after using both operating systems for years, side-by-side.
Soon I will have a Mac to use at work as well and I won't have to suffer Windows any longer - well, other than for cross-testing browsers on each platform.
Also, just to point out, anyone who builds their own computers, carefully selects optimal hardware to utilize within a Windows environment could achieve a greater level of satisfaction and performance. This makes sense though because you are in control of each component you attach. This is never the case for the general consumer.
The biggest reason I dislike Microsoft and will never support them, personally.
Microsoft holds technology back. From their widely-used and awful Internet Explorer to Outlook Email, Microsoft is not forward-thinking. They are almost single-handedly holding back the evolution of the internet. From design to functionality, Microsoft is cancer. They release a new version of IE and it is instantly outdated and will require web designers to "hack" their CSS to accommodate the lack of evolution. Digging deeper, IE is the reason why HTML5 and CSS3 might not be able to be widely-implemented for 10 years, if not more. Anyway, I won't bore anyone with further technological mumbo jumbo.
Bottom line, both operating systems work and can perform well, however Windows requires more tweaking to reach it's full potential.
For me, Windows is like smoking analogs. OS X is like vaping. Or in only vaping terms, Windows is like a three-piece, heavy-maintenance, drip-heavy model and OS X is like the VK.
Sorry for the novel. Also, please chime in with other opinions, I don't claim to be an expert on anything but I do know stuff.
This is a rant, I didn't plan it to be, but I just kept typing away....
As for the whole Mac vs. PC deal, wow, I've had that conversation too many times. I use Vista at work as a web designer/developer and truly despise Microsoft-anything. I don't feel Windows has ever been a great operating system and don't think it ever will be. Also, for the record I hated OS 9 and did not enjoy using a Mac until OS X came out - which in my opinion redefined the way a computer can and should be used. It set a standard that Windows will never come close to.
Now, OS X has and hopefully will always be the most stable operating system for day-to-day use on the market. The claims about certain software not being cross-platform are valid, however you can get pretty much any program for a Mac that you can for a PC. Now, they may not carry the same name - for example, Office Vs. iWork, or several other accounting/administrative/general business software applications but you can, generally, achieve the same things on either operating system. This is far more true today than ever before - largely because Macs are becoming more and more popular.
I can effectively perform my day-to-day design/production tasks relatively easy on either Mac or PC but it's far more frustrating in a Windows environment. This is largely due to the way Microsoft as a company operates and builds their products. From file browsing to hardware performance. Microsoft products as a whole infuriate me to no end. "Office" has and will always be the biggest joke Microsoft can play on the business world. Word is clumsy, unintuitive and tries to do too many things for you - from font selection to formatting. Again, this is largely a nuisance because I'm a designer and need to format things for myself. Outlook is holding back advancements in newsletter formatting and general email formatting. Technically-speaking, Windows makes web designers rely on using table-based layouts for newsletters, which drastically hinders what can be achieved from a marketing and advertising standpoint. This can be said about any Windows software I've ever used. It is not enjoyable and largely frustrating to use day-to-day. I am also a fairly tech-savvy person, as it goes hand-in-hand with my profession. I view Windows as being for the more casual uninitiated computer user. Unfortunately, given Windows popularity and domination of the market, they have set the standard in terms of user expectations in how to use a computer - or how computers work. This is unfortunate because, in my opinion, Windows is not conducive to any work environment.
Let me put it another way, why do you think Windows is such an easy target for security exploitation and requires aggressive anti-virus protection? Becuase their operating system is inherently flawed. The only conclusion I can come to is that it is not a well-written operating system. They have not been able to even come near the performance and reliability of OS X.
Out of the box Windows machines are in fact cheaper than Macs, but with consistent heavy use over the course of a year, you will notice far more degradation of performance on a Windows machine Vs. OS X. The way Windows allocates it's processor performance is vastly inferior to how OS X handles that same level of processor speed. Also, I have to point out the far superior ROI on a Mac when it comes to resale value. I am using a 7 year old G4 Powerbook right now that I could easily sell for $500. I could never say that about any PC notebook. It also needs to be pointed out that Macs are more expensive, not because they "look sexy" (they do) but because of what is inside.
It is often overlooked, but Apple computers are made to work. The hardware selected for each computer is optimal for how OS X functions. You don't have all the various computer companies (Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo, Vaio, etc.) putting in random hardware and forcing them to cooperate with an operating system, Windows. OS X is only meant to be used with specific hardware that Apple installs. This has it's advantages and it's disadvantages, but I view it as a huge advantage. You can not expect every Windows-based PC to perform as well as a self-contained, optimized computer would.
I just thoroughly hate how Windows is constructed, it's incredibly messy from the inside-out. Applications leave trails everywhere and the registry system is a joke. I honestly just hate having to use a more "closed-off" system that isn't as easy to manipulate or provide you the basic ability do what you want with it. This is why I prefer OS X, it's the middle-ground between Windows and Linux. Windows also installs 80million apps that you will never use. Factory-default Windows start-up is a joke. There are way too many processes running at any given time - Vista compounded this fact to a ridiculous extent, which I'm sure everyone knows. My point is that regardless of the cost of a Windows machine, you would have to customize/optimize several components and settings to get it to perform the way it should. From deleting unnecessary programs to trial-and-error disabling start-up menu applications.
These are only my opinions after using both operating systems for years, side-by-side.
Soon I will have a Mac to use at work as well and I won't have to suffer Windows any longer - well, other than for cross-testing browsers on each platform.
Also, just to point out, anyone who builds their own computers, carefully selects optimal hardware to utilize within a Windows environment could achieve a greater level of satisfaction and performance. This makes sense though because you are in control of each component you attach. This is never the case for the general consumer.
The biggest reason I dislike Microsoft and will never support them, personally.
Microsoft holds technology back. From their widely-used and awful Internet Explorer to Outlook Email, Microsoft is not forward-thinking. They are almost single-handedly holding back the evolution of the internet. From design to functionality, Microsoft is cancer. They release a new version of IE and it is instantly outdated and will require web designers to "hack" their CSS to accommodate the lack of evolution. Digging deeper, IE is the reason why HTML5 and CSS3 might not be able to be widely-implemented for 10 years, if not more. Anyway, I won't bore anyone with further technological mumbo jumbo.
Bottom line, both operating systems work and can perform well, however Windows requires more tweaking to reach it's full potential.
For me, Windows is like smoking analogs. OS X is like vaping. Or in only vaping terms, Windows is like a three-piece, heavy-maintenance, drip-heavy model and OS X is like the VK.
Sorry for the novel. Also, please chime in with other opinions, I don't claim to be an expert on anything but I do know stuff.
Last edited:
Your dead on. I fought with Packard Bell, Dell and Compaq for a long time, to me they are worthless companies. In the terms of slapping pure junk into a machine and expect it to work. Fully integrated motherboards so when you loose sound you loose your whole computer or you cant upgrade anything cause its all soldered together! nope not for me. I been building my own for years, I know exactly whats in mine and I know I can outrun the biggest baddest Dell. I run a dual boot of WinXP64 and Linux, well Win7 too so it a triple I guess. Anyway I dont have the typical bic lighter computer so I usually dont have to deal with the window problems that most people have to deal with. I however take her down once a year, just because nothing beats that new computer smell.
The thing with macs is SIMPLICITY. I was so used to the crazy operations and searching files on PC's that when I got my mac, I couldnt figure anything out! I then started to learn that it is al very simple. Once you understand the simplicity of every operation on a mac, you are golden.
Just remember, it is easier than you think, whatever it may be. Like copy paste. I couldnt for the life of me figure it out. Found out it is as simple as a double finger bump on the trackpad and your right click options poof up!
Same thing with scrolling. Bump and hold 2 fingers on the track pad and just move them up and down and walah! No more hold button and dragging. Even tho I still do that hehe
Just remember, it is easier than you think, whatever it may be. Like copy paste. I couldnt for the life of me figure it out. Found out it is as simple as a double finger bump on the trackpad and your right click options poof up!
Same thing with scrolling. Bump and hold 2 fingers on the track pad and just move them up and down and walah! No more hold button and dragging. Even tho I still do that hehe
Last edited:
Windows could come close to it, but they don't. Microsoft is responsible for creating current computing standards, like it or no, they also have a huge base of users to maintain backwards compatibility for, every time they have made 'revolutionary' changes such as changing device driver interfaces, they catch a crap storm for that... so it's a no win for them.
It's not conducive to how you work. You're a creator and the fine points of formatting are your responsibility. Office is designed to take those tasks that people find challenging away and allow them to focus on their content instead of how to present their content. If you were to sample the average user you would find that they're grateful by and large for the automatic formatting tools and the like. It's for the masses, not for the niche.
This is pretty funny because it's a very common misconception. The reason there are more security holes in Windows is two fold: One, MacOS has never been the first to introduce any sort of network functionality, so they always have the benefit of Microsoft learning first. Second, and this is the big one, until recently there haven't been enough Macintosh computers to make it worth the trouble to write viruses for them; this has changed, there are viruses for MacOS now... the thing is that since the vast majority of computers are connected to the internet via some form or another of wired/wireless routers now instead of directly, most of the commonly exploited holes are closed to virus propagation by a piece of hardware that neither Microsoft nor Apple are responsible for. When was the last time you heard about a mass virus outbreak for Windows?
Most of the viruses and spyware that people contract now that target Windows machines are put there by P2P sharing programs or websites with malicious code. They target Windows because that's what the vast majority of the browsers and P2P tunnels that they come in contact with will be using.
This is true, but it's also the reason why Macs are significantly more expensive than PCs... Again, Macs are for an 'elitist niche', those that can afford them do benefit from the fact that Apple selects and tests each piece of hardware that goes in them for interoperability with the other components. I won't contest it... but this has nothing to do with Microsoft. They release an operating system that is usable by the masses, if these 3rd parties decide to use cheap hardware as a platform you can't blame Microsoft or Windows for it.
The registry and the services running are a side effect of the fact that modern incarnations of Windows (everything from Windows NT 3.51 and later) are designed with network operations in mind. The registry isn't the best construct for system management, but it is the best known construct that allows for little things that most enterprises deem important like the ability to perform remote installation, maintenance and policy management of individual workstations. Can't do that (securely or with guaranteed results) with the file based configuration management that is provided by UNIX style operating systems, and consequently, MacOS.
I'm not a web design guru (though I am going to school for it now) so I won't comment on these items directly, but I will tell you that even though I am attempting to use Chrome primarily as a web browser now, I constantly find sites that won't work properly using Chrome, Firefox, Seamonkey or any of the Webkit based browsers. They work fine in IE, though... So if I find sites that work fine in IE, but won't work in any other browser, is it really Microsoft fighting against the standard or is it other people trying to change the standard that Microsoft is setting?
CTRL-F has brought up a search dialog in Windows since at least Windows 98... pretty sure it did it in 95 too, but I don't have a copy on hand to test.
Just saw the thread had been renamed... I definitely feel partly responsible, sorry 
Yeah, Luma sorry for contributing to the thread derailment. At least the issue has been made loud and clear and is being addressed.
Teibidh, I hear you. We definitely have differing opinions and I like hearing them. You made valid points on the network-related info. I won't be worried about virii for OS X any time soon.
Since you are studying web design and may find this helpful. The only other thing I'll add is in regards to your comment on web standards and IE, it is widely acknowledged within the web development/design industry that IE is internet cancer. My statements are nothing new and don't even cover the half of it (especially the ....... that is IE6). Microsoft is holding technology back and it's an unfortunate fact. Which, again is due to their overwhelming market share and inability to be remotely standards-compliant.
There is an Acid Test for web browsers that measures their level of standards-compliance based on 100 functions relating to javascript, CSS, HTML, and various other rendering engines. IE8 gets a 20/100, IE9 gets a 32/100, Safari 4 gets 100/100, Chrome gets 100/100 and Firefox gets 93/100 or so. That right there speaks volumes about Microsoft and how bad IE really is. Webkit-based browsers do have some rendering issues, albeit very minor and nowhere near what IE has. I'll put it this way, there are no CSS hacks specifically for any webkit or gecko-based browsers (other than CSS3 filters), there are countless for all IE browsers. The worst thing is that IE is ridiculously inconsistent between versions too. One thing will work in IE7 and won't in IE8, etc. Because Chrome is still relatively new, I'd expect it's not perfect and I believe it was/is still in Beta - however their Acid Test score is perfect. The only real flaw I've found in Chrome and Safari, as they both use Webkit, lies in rendering the end of a page. Sometimes on page load, a website background will cut-off for no real reason.
You can write bullet-proof CSS and it should look almost the exact same in all modern browsers, which doesn't include IE6. If you've seen rendering issues between modern browsers, it is more often the fault of the developer being lazy and not the browser itself. People still make awful websites that don't take cross-browser support into account and code/style sites in a sloppy manner which causes issues. No browser is 100% perfect no questions asked, but that is why the standard is so important to uphold. Honestly, most of my hatred toward Microsoft is because of their awful browser performance and how much harder it makes my job. I have to dumb-down my code just to support their lazy asses. That is all compounded by Windows in general and all it's ugliness.
Microsoft has never set a standard in the web world. People came together and started the W3C in an effort to make all browsers perform equal and Microsoft has always been 12 steps behind.
The most humorous thing is that IE5 for OS X was the most compliant browser Microsoft ever developed. In fact, IE6 went the opposite direction and they've been making up for it ever since. It was an awful move by Microsoft and I don't know if they will ever dig themselves out. I see Firefox, Safari and Chrome overtaking IE with time. Firefox is getting closer by the month.
I'd recommend you read "Designing With Web Standards" by Jeffrey Zeldman for more information - especially because you're studying web design. It's an important book, probably the most significant on the subject. He will be releasing the 3rd edition next year.
For more on the Acid Test visit - The Acid3 Test
This shows what each browser gets on the Acid Test:
Acid3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IE fails at life.
</end>
Teibidh, I hear you. We definitely have differing opinions and I like hearing them. You made valid points on the network-related info. I won't be worried about virii for OS X any time soon.
Since you are studying web design and may find this helpful. The only other thing I'll add is in regards to your comment on web standards and IE, it is widely acknowledged within the web development/design industry that IE is internet cancer. My statements are nothing new and don't even cover the half of it (especially the ....... that is IE6). Microsoft is holding technology back and it's an unfortunate fact. Which, again is due to their overwhelming market share and inability to be remotely standards-compliant.
There is an Acid Test for web browsers that measures their level of standards-compliance based on 100 functions relating to javascript, CSS, HTML, and various other rendering engines. IE8 gets a 20/100, IE9 gets a 32/100, Safari 4 gets 100/100, Chrome gets 100/100 and Firefox gets 93/100 or so. That right there speaks volumes about Microsoft and how bad IE really is. Webkit-based browsers do have some rendering issues, albeit very minor and nowhere near what IE has. I'll put it this way, there are no CSS hacks specifically for any webkit or gecko-based browsers (other than CSS3 filters), there are countless for all IE browsers. The worst thing is that IE is ridiculously inconsistent between versions too. One thing will work in IE7 and won't in IE8, etc. Because Chrome is still relatively new, I'd expect it's not perfect and I believe it was/is still in Beta - however their Acid Test score is perfect. The only real flaw I've found in Chrome and Safari, as they both use Webkit, lies in rendering the end of a page. Sometimes on page load, a website background will cut-off for no real reason.
You can write bullet-proof CSS and it should look almost the exact same in all modern browsers, which doesn't include IE6. If you've seen rendering issues between modern browsers, it is more often the fault of the developer being lazy and not the browser itself. People still make awful websites that don't take cross-browser support into account and code/style sites in a sloppy manner which causes issues. No browser is 100% perfect no questions asked, but that is why the standard is so important to uphold. Honestly, most of my hatred toward Microsoft is because of their awful browser performance and how much harder it makes my job. I have to dumb-down my code just to support their lazy asses. That is all compounded by Windows in general and all it's ugliness.
Microsoft has never set a standard in the web world. People came together and started the W3C in an effort to make all browsers perform equal and Microsoft has always been 12 steps behind.
The most humorous thing is that IE5 for OS X was the most compliant browser Microsoft ever developed. In fact, IE6 went the opposite direction and they've been making up for it ever since. It was an awful move by Microsoft and I don't know if they will ever dig themselves out. I see Firefox, Safari and Chrome overtaking IE with time. Firefox is getting closer by the month.
I'd recommend you read "Designing With Web Standards" by Jeffrey Zeldman for more information - especially because you're studying web design. It's an important book, probably the most significant on the subject. He will be releasing the 3rd edition next year.
For more on the Acid Test visit - The Acid3 Test
This shows what each browser gets on the Acid Test:
Acid3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IE fails at life.
</end>
Well, all I can say is, I don't see how two finger tapping is easier or more intuitive than right clicking. Or how two finger dragging is easier or more intuitive than scrolling.
I am just an end user. To me, it's just a matter of two different languages. I learned the language for Windows, and now I have to learn the language for Mac.
But Mac and Mac fans always say how intuitive it is. And I just don't get that at all.
I think it's a techie thing. Maybe if you get into all the technical stuff, it is somehow easier to program, or whatever. Maybe that side of it is more intuitive. But on the end user side, it doesn't strike me as easier, just different.
I am just an end user. To me, it's just a matter of two different languages. I learned the language for Windows, and now I have to learn the language for Mac.
But Mac and Mac fans always say how intuitive it is. And I just don't get that at all.
I think it's a techie thing. Maybe if you get into all the technical stuff, it is somehow easier to program, or whatever. Maybe that side of it is more intuitive. But on the end user side, it doesn't strike me as easier, just different.
I used to build my own PC's and when you put together a system to run Windows with GOOD components, a new mac doesn't seem so expensive by comparison, and you are still stuck with windows. I can understand the frustrations involved in switching from windows to OSX as i was a PC user for 10 years. I was fortunate enough to have a friend who "showed me the light" with his Imac. So it was an easy transition having someone to call when I had a question. By the way, you can "right click" in OSX if you attach a mouse As for MS Word, it will NEVER be what WP is, even WP from 5 years ago!
As for MS Word, it will NEVER be what WP is, even WP from 5 years ago!
This is the problem when you discuss Macs Vs PC's on the internet; You get empty responses such as "It just works" or "showed me the light."
The simple fact of the matter is that the only true difference between Macs and PC's is the operating system itself and the case of the computer. This is why I have such a hard time justifying the price of a Mac. The OS itself is built on Linux, which is a free operating system that can be downloaded at any time. Mac's now use Intel processors instead of their long-used Motorola processors, so now that's not even an upside. They generally use DDR3, which is a plus as far as speed is concerned.. But so does every PC in or just under the price range of the Mac.
So far the only thing exclusive to Macs is the ever-so-trendy Apple logo on the case. To me that is like buying a Honda Civic that's being sold by Maserati (with new seats!) for $30,000 instead of buying the exact same car from Honda itself for $20,000. Are the Maserati seats really worth that $10,000? No, and the Apple logo isn't worth another $500+ either.
By the way, to counter the "it just works" lie.. Networking has already been touched on in this thread (a nightmare on a mac and wasn't even possible until they finally realized that they're not changing the entire industry), but what about Snow Leopard? Upon its release there were a ton of people that had the "spinning wheel of death," had issues with hardware compatibility (still having those issues), their OS running so slow that Safari wouldn't even launch without a nap being taken, etc, etc, etc.. It just works, eh? Apparently not for a huge portion of their fans.
Oh, and don't even get me started with the lie that was posted about OSX being a far superior Operating System than windows at its architecture and implemented security. That is just an absurd claim that no one could possibly back up with any sort of real proof.
The simple fact of the matter is that the only true difference between Macs and PC's is the operating system itself and the case of the computer. This is why I have such a hard time justifying the price of a Mac. The OS itself is built on Linux, which is a free operating system that can be downloaded at any time. Mac's now use Intel processors instead of their long-used Motorola processors, so now that's not even an upside. They generally use DDR3, which is a plus as far as speed is concerned.. But so does every PC in or just under the price range of the Mac.
So far the only thing exclusive to Macs is the ever-so-trendy Apple logo on the case. To me that is like buying a Honda Civic that's being sold by Maserati (with new seats!) for $30,000 instead of buying the exact same car from Honda itself for $20,000. Are the Maserati seats really worth that $10,000? No, and the Apple logo isn't worth another $500+ either.
By the way, to counter the "it just works" lie.. Networking has already been touched on in this thread (a nightmare on a mac and wasn't even possible until they finally realized that they're not changing the entire industry), but what about Snow Leopard? Upon its release there were a ton of people that had the "spinning wheel of death," had issues with hardware compatibility (still having those issues), their OS running so slow that Safari wouldn't even launch without a nap being taken, etc, etc, etc.. It just works, eh? Apparently not for a huge portion of their fans.
Oh, and don't even get me started with the lie that was posted about OSX being a far superior Operating System than windows at its architecture and implemented security. That is just an absurd claim that no one could possibly back up with any sort of real proof.
BTW, CDC700, you failed to mention that in OSX you had to manually set up the right-click function. It doesn't "just work."
I still have to go back to the software issue. At least 3 times in the last 4 weeks I've suggested that someone with a MAC could have installed some software that would solve a problem for them but there was no MAC OS equivalent software that would do the same thing.
The husbad of one of my customers called a few months back and wanted me to help with printer sharing on a MAC Book Pro he bought. I got it working but in the middle of the conversation he asked me about several programs he was running on his desktop PC with regard to getting them for the MAC. I think he already knew the answer to the questions anyway. Not one of the programs he asked me about would run on a MAC. For him, those were important enough that he began to wonder what he bought the MAC for. He claimed because he had heard it was so easy to use.
Go to a Micro Center or Fry's and count the software titles available for the MAC vs a PC. Now it's partly about choice but a lot of us like having a choice.
Anyone who thinks it's safe to use a MAC needs to go back to the drawing board. Look at the OS X patches Apple has been issuing lately, they are mostly security related for a reason. Even Apple suggests that MAC users have anti virus software installed.
I have a packaging design firm that uses both MACs, (VERY expensive ones) and PCs. When they want to do what graphics people call ripping they do it on the PCs because it's faster. When asked why they don't just add more PCs their reason is pretty valid. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in MAC software and MAC specific peripherals thast goes back many years. They also admit that if that wasn't the case they would have switched a long time ago.
The husbad of one of my customers called a few months back and wanted me to help with printer sharing on a MAC Book Pro he bought. I got it working but in the middle of the conversation he asked me about several programs he was running on his desktop PC with regard to getting them for the MAC. I think he already knew the answer to the questions anyway. Not one of the programs he asked me about would run on a MAC. For him, those were important enough that he began to wonder what he bought the MAC for. He claimed because he had heard it was so easy to use.
Go to a Micro Center or Fry's and count the software titles available for the MAC vs a PC. Now it's partly about choice but a lot of us like having a choice.
Anyone who thinks it's safe to use a MAC needs to go back to the drawing board. Look at the OS X patches Apple has been issuing lately, they are mostly security related for a reason. Even Apple suggests that MAC users have anti virus software installed.
I have a packaging design firm that uses both MACs, (VERY expensive ones) and PCs. When they want to do what graphics people call ripping they do it on the PCs because it's faster. When asked why they don't just add more PCs their reason is pretty valid. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in MAC software and MAC specific peripherals thast goes back many years. They also admit that if that wasn't the case they would have switched a long time ago.
Scenario: New game comes out requiring high end graphics card.
PC user... "Cool I just need to wait till next payday and I can go buy a new video card for a couple hundred bucks so this game will work. Sure glad I'm saving all that money by vaping instead of smoking or it might take me a couple months to afford that new video card. And hey, my old card will upgrade my brother's computer, I'm sure he'd like that!!"
Mac user... "hmmmm, my mac won't run this game. They have a mac version of it but my video card isn't strong enough. I really want this game so I guess I'll have to save up for the next 10 months or so until I can afford the couple thousand bucks to buy a new Mac. Sure wish I could just upgrade my card instead of having to buy a whole new computer. Maybe I should cut back on my vaping supply orders so I can afford that new Mac sooner."
PC user... "Cool I just need to wait till next payday and I can go buy a new video card for a couple hundred bucks so this game will work. Sure glad I'm saving all that money by vaping instead of smoking or it might take me a couple months to afford that new video card. And hey, my old card will upgrade my brother's computer, I'm sure he'd like that!!"
Mac user... "hmmmm, my mac won't run this game. They have a mac version of it but my video card isn't strong enough. I really want this game so I guess I'll have to save up for the next 10 months or so until I can afford the couple thousand bucks to buy a new Mac. Sure wish I could just upgrade my card instead of having to buy a whole new computer. Maybe I should cut back on my vaping supply orders so I can afford that new Mac sooner."
Mac are not for gamers, are not for modder (overclocking)
Having a mac is not just about the OSX os, it's about the hole package, yes the processors and ram and HD are the same you would find on a PC, but actually all the parts work perfectly together and they are so well put...
besides the fact that the OSX is flawless compared to windows, there is not a single PC laptop that can match the looks, durability, batt life, size. and even if they are 20% more expensive,they worth at least more than 50% more!!!
I had at least 20 pc's in the past and I still have 2 laptops. My last PC laptop I decided to buy something with power and portability and a nice design. I chose the Sony Vaio because it was on special and because for the same specs it was 200$ cheaper than a HP. I paid 1000$usd plus tx (1100$canadian) 7 months ago. 4-5 months ago I got the new macbookpro, I have the same specs and it was 1200$usd (200$ more than the Sony and same $ as the HP)
The Mac is A LOT faster (even when running microsoft office).
-the track pad is light years ahead of any PC, 3 and 4 finger swipe is the greatest thing.
-Full Aluminium body is gorgeous
-the magsafe (the ac plug) is the best thing, you just cannot ripoff the cord and damage the connector.
-Batt life.... I have the tiny 13inch and last time with no wifi switched ON, the batt lasted about 6:30 hours, even a IBM with the extented batt wont match that.
-The illuminated keyboard is the best.
All That for 200$ more than a big brand. maybe now it is 300$ more (PC $ go down fast).. Well worth it....
I like beautifully crafted things, I love design and technology and for me Mac is the best.
For me a PC is like a Civic or a Mustang, you can tune it to be scary fast for small $, but it will never a high end luxury car like the Mac:
I was a PC, now I'm a Mac
MAC4LIFE
Having a mac is not just about the OSX os, it's about the hole package, yes the processors and ram and HD are the same you would find on a PC, but actually all the parts work perfectly together and they are so well put...
besides the fact that the OSX is flawless compared to windows, there is not a single PC laptop that can match the looks, durability, batt life, size. and even if they are 20% more expensive,they worth at least more than 50% more!!!
I had at least 20 pc's in the past and I still have 2 laptops. My last PC laptop I decided to buy something with power and portability and a nice design. I chose the Sony Vaio because it was on special and because for the same specs it was 200$ cheaper than a HP. I paid 1000$usd plus tx (1100$canadian) 7 months ago. 4-5 months ago I got the new macbookpro, I have the same specs and it was 1200$usd (200$ more than the Sony and same $ as the HP)
The Mac is A LOT faster (even when running microsoft office).
-the track pad is light years ahead of any PC, 3 and 4 finger swipe is the greatest thing.
-Full Aluminium body is gorgeous
-the magsafe (the ac plug) is the best thing, you just cannot ripoff the cord and damage the connector.
-Batt life.... I have the tiny 13inch and last time with no wifi switched ON, the batt lasted about 6:30 hours, even a IBM with the extented batt wont match that.
-The illuminated keyboard is the best.
All That for 200$ more than a big brand. maybe now it is 300$ more (PC $ go down fast).. Well worth it....
I like beautifully crafted things, I love design and technology and for me Mac is the best.
For me a PC is like a Civic or a Mustang, you can tune it to be scary fast for small $, but it will never a high end luxury car like the Mac:
I was a PC, now I'm a Mac
MAC4LIFE
Actually, I didn't "manually set it up"...... Not sure where you get your information from but right click "just works" immediately after install. Unless I have a version of Tiger that nobody else has
But moot point anyways. I've had plenty of people tell me The Dodge I drive is a POS and the "HEMI" is a joke, but it has 180K clicks on it and still going strong. I use my MAC for business and although it is capable of doing many many things that I will never do, it starts in <15 seconds, runs 6 programs at a time without loss of speed, surfs the internet, and doesn't need to have the OS reloaded once a year to keep it running properly. As for the gaming......seriously? Can't you get a PS3 or XBOX360 for half the price of a PC???
Actually, I didn't "manually set it up"...... Not sure where you get your information from but right click "just works" immediately after install. Unless I have a version of Tiger that nobody else has
Apparently you do, because OSX (sans snow leopard) does not have right-click enabled out of the box.
Reference? I work on Macs and PC's for a living. This doesn't mean that I work on only failed macs and pc's, as 50% of my job consists of setting up new units.
This is where I tend to have issues with Mac fans; They have jumped on Jobs' bandwagon so hard that they have convinced themselves that their Mac defies every bit of logic in the world.
You are either exaggerating or you are wrong, choose your poison. This is not an OS issue, this is a mechanical issue. No operating system in the world can override the mechanical response to the requests made by the user.
Neither does a properly maintained PC. Which, by the way, is true for any operating system in the world. If the user is in over their head and trying to modify the "guts" of the OS itself it will eventually have problems. If you are downloading everything you can get your cute little fingers on you will eventually have problems. There is not an operating system in the world that makes users not be idiots, and as such all operating systems have issues and will one day need to be restored (given that the user screws it up). Me? I had a desktop computer running XP for 5 years before a restore. The reason I had to finally restore it? I let someone use my computer that decided they would give my PC the gonoherpesyphilaids. Since then? Works perfectly. With outdated (and, frankly, insufficient) hardware I am still able to do as I need without any issues. I can write my papers, do my labs, write my essays, surf the internet, and anything else that I really need to do. Does it slow down when I do all of that? Of course it does, but that's good ol' reliable logic for ya..
I agree completely.
By the way, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not a mac hater at all. As far as graphics editing/audio editing/etc is concerned there simply is no alternative. This has nothing to do with the superiority of the hardware, rather it has to do with the fact that Apple has such a small portion of the market (10%) that there is not a huge need for antivirus to be installed. This frees up resources for what you're doing otherwise and allows for more processes to be run with a higher performance than on a PC.
Cliffs: 2gb's of mem on a mac = 1.5 gb's on mac, whereas 2gb's on a pc = 1gb on a pc. More resources must be used for the precautionary measures.
Cliffs: 2gb's of mem on a mac = 1.5 gb's on mac, whereas 2gb's on a pc = 1gb on a pc. More resources must be used for the precautionary measures.
- Status
