To Mac or not to Mac? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 10:24 PM

So my brand new Toshiba (like, just out of box that night, second time booting up new) did the same thing my old new Toshiba did (like, had it for a month before getting fed up and having them exchange it for me).

Right now I'm likely going to exchange it out for a different laptop and sacrifice either weight or battery life.
Get out of Toshiba and into an Asus.

I'm eyeing a 13'' MacBook Pro, though. It weighs a little bit more, but the battery is amazing and I've yet to know of anyone with non-user-created-problems. My only real problem is the price tag. I can get it down to 1099$ with a student discount, but it's still about 500$ more than the Toshiba (for the same specs). :smallconfused: I've also never been a Mac person except with my phone. I even refused to get an iPod of any variety because I felt the price-to-quality ratio was way too high.
Yes. I personally have an INTENSE moral issue with Apple Corp., they constantly advertise to students about the "great deals" you get through them, and when it comes right down to it, you're spending 2x as much money for the same hardware. Unless you are a diehard mac fan, there is no sane reason to purchase a mac. Leopard is a stripped-down version of Unix, and you're much better off with any flavor of linux. In addition, linux has better compatibility as well, thanks to things like WINE. Finally, tech support for linux, while it is almost exclusively online, tends to be done not by someone reading out of a book in the midwest but by someone who has already fixed the problem you have.

Oh, and I'd also like to point out there's an Asus with a 9 hour battery life.

So...is it ACTUALLY worth the extra half a grand for the same thing when I'm not doing anything even remotely graphics intensive? (Boyfriend would like to borrow it if I got one and get a demo of Final Cut Pro, though, lol.)
No. Mac OSX is just an extremely advanced virus that latched onto your Unix operating system. If you are having software problems, switch to linux. Don't give Steve Jobs too much money for an inferior product. Please. If the issue is hardware, Sony and Asus make much better laptops than Mac does.

In addition, because Macs are all built in-house, heaven forbid something goes wrong with the hardware: you pretty much have to take it to a mac store. Their hardware is extremely difficult and annoying to work with: who the hell binds a laptop keyboard to the MOTHERBOARD?!?! And the harddrive is conveniently located in a small compartment behind the battery :smallconfused:

You may want to find someone less biased, but my hatred of macs comes from years of experience with their "deals" and running tech support for my friends who bought a mac. Oh, and you know how there's Office for Mac? Trust me, it crashes pretty much all the time, is super slow, and doesn't run right. That's from a summer job where I worked on macs in office full time.

IonDragon

2010-06-05, 10:27 PM

Macs = no.

I've done the math. It's NOT worth the money. You get basically the same hardware for usually less than half the price when you buy a PC even if you count in the free iPod deal that they did a while back it's still not worth it.

If you buy one off craigslist or ebay, understand that if it breaks (and computers usually break, which is why I recommend IBM) you won't be getting it fixed: you will be getting a new one, it will be cheaper than the repairs.

Honestly, when I get a new computer I'm planning on doing one of two things: Building a custom one again, or buying it from Best Buy and getting the 3 year "accidental damage plan". This covers putting it 'slipping into a blender and turning it into plastic dust. Or 'accidentally' dropping it off of a 5 story building. FOR 3 YEARS. I also plan on pulverizing my computer and returning it repeatedly to make sure I get my money's worth.

Also, you have a brand new Toshiba. I like Toshiba. Get it fixed, or explain the problem and let me fix it for you or walk you through the fix.

Syka

2010-06-05, 10:31 PM

Arguskos- no resold computers for me. I need it for school and don't have any idea what someone else has done to a computer.

Super- so glad I feel the same way. My one exception thus far has been my iPhone, which I love to death. The Genius' at my Apple store were wonderful, but also over an hour drive away. Each way.

Also, point me to this Asus. Is it at Best Buy?

Ion- I got the Toshiba through Best Buy with the 3 year standard plan. Despite my otherwise klutzy nature, I have never yet dropped a laptop. Not even the Dell that I didn't worry about at all for a year (I left it in a hot car, etc, lol). I'm planning on staying with Best Buy.

So...I'm guessing I'll stick with PC's for now...

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 10:32 PM

Understand I am a Mac user at heart.

No. It is absolutely NOT worth the money you pay. Period. Macs are nice, and I prefer OS X to any other operating system I've ever used (and I've used almost all of them that you can find anymore), but they just aren't worth the pricetag. However, you can acquire them for cheaper through Craigslist, and if you're interested in a Mac, I highly suggest that you do so.

Thank you so much. I've always thought this. Good computer? Yes. Good OS? Yes. Good Price? Lol, no.

In addition, linux has better compatibility as well.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/teaspit.jpg

No... just, no. If you compare Windows, Mac and Linux, Linux comes in third in compatibility.

It's very common to find software that runs only in Windows, and it's also rather common to find software that works in Mac and Windows. You know, the commercial OS's. But finding software that runs on Windows and Linux? Rare. It exists, sure, but it's rare. And finding among those Software that only runs in Linux? Also rare.

Sorry, friend. Linux has the worst compatibility, says the Angel typing from Ubuntu 9.04.

EDIT: On the original question:

Get it if you can afford it. If you can't or if you really feel it's way too expensive, then don't. You'll be fine if you switch, Macs can still run wIndows if anything goes wrong, and OSX is quite friendly, but... if you really don't want one, then don't.

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 10:35 PM

Also, point me to this Asus. Is it at Best Buy?
Sure thing. How quickly do you need it? If memory serves it's a core2 and in my particular store, it sits next to an absolute behemoth of an i5 and a tiny no-optical toshiba. Oh and yes, it's at BB. I remember because I saw that battery life and was like, "... wut?!" If you can wait until monday afternoon I can even get you a SKU, model number, and price :smallwink:

So...I'm guessing I'll stick with PC's for now...
If you want to change OS, I understand. Windows isn't exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread. But please go linux instead of mac :smallyuk:

@the poster above me, what's the WINE equivalent for Mac OSX?

IonDragon

2010-06-05, 10:35 PM

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 10:41 PM

Oh and Syka, I hear you on the iPhone even if Ion prefers the Droid (I do too, but it's a matter of preference): the iPhone is an amazingly cool device. Maybe the droid's better, but the iPhone was first and is still frickin' awesome.

Mac's stubborn resistance to Flash drives me crazy though.

Also, in the words of Master Shawn Davis, teacher of Computer Science at UCD:

"I will never use a macintosh because Steve Jobs is the only human on earth who operates under the illusion that humans have only one finger." (http://www.goopeg.com/img/ZsXg0uHn.jpg)

Syka

2010-06-05, 10:41 PM

Super, I could probably find it. Do you know how much it costs and/or weighs? I also LOVE Win7 with a passion. And that teeny Toshiba is the one I got. Bought an external CD/DVD drive for it any everything.

Ion, I've had my iPhone right abouts a year now. :smallsmile: I like the Motorola Droid with the exception of the slider keyboard. Hate that.

The phone was free though (my dad got it for me). Otherwise, I was sticking with a semi-smartphone (Samsung Propel) or not-as-cool smartphone (Blackjack). I thought about switching to a Droid since I'm a HUGE Google fangirl, but...well, why buy another smartphone when I already have one I love? If it dies, and I have the money, an android phone is my goal.

...I only get the free apps anyway, lol.

Terry576

2010-06-05, 10:42 PM

Consider an android over an iPhone. I've had apple "UN-OK" apps and uninstall them from my iTouch. I mean, WTH is that? Also, Android can run apps like "Google Voice" which apple won't OK or explain why they won't OK, PLUS an Android isn't locked to one model of phone. There's like a dozen or so Android compatible phones, so you can pick what features you want. AND you can have your IM client open at the same time as your MP3 player! /shocked

Clearly, you haven't seen this (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cracked.com%2Farticle_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple.html&ei=CBkLTJbDHpLANpONiLYE&usg=AFQjCNEjn3UkbjxKD8ncoGcJcueT2XSqaA) article from Cracked.

Yeah, Apple hates people.

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 10:43 PM

@the poster above me, what's the WINE equivalent for Mac OSX?

Actual support.

Besides, don't try showing off WINE to me. 90% of the time it doesn't work. It's why Dual-booting is still necessary.

SDF

2010-06-05, 10:44 PM

I don't mind Macs. I need my friends macbook pro to record my music right now. (That and the super expensive recording software and peripherals he has :P) I own an expensive alienware lappy and a custom PC tower, and like both. My best friends sister HATES her macbook (not pro) and has had many problems with online assignments. We took the same online anatomy class together, and while I didn't have any problems downloading, completing, and returning the homework she has had several incidents. Now I know how to use her computer better than she does. I'm (modestly of course) really good with computers, so individual software and OSs never bother me much, as I acclimate fast.

That was my anecdotal experience. My advice? Make a pro and con list;

Is one computer you are looking at worth the price difference from the other (WHY?)
Do you know one OS better than another? Is learning another going to be worth the time?

ect.

You mention battery life, are you going to be using it for long periods of time away from an outlet often enough to justify hundreds of dollars? (Mostly trains and planes) Also, note: Macbooks do not have an external power supply on their plugs. My friend once used my friends macbookpro to play WoW for 6 or so hours with the computer on her lap. It got SO HOT that it SCARED her legs with burn marks. I don't ever really leave laptops on my actual lap so I've never had an experience with a PC or Mac like that. Just FYI, though.

Winter_Wolf

2010-06-05, 10:44 PM

Aside from bias against macs (I dislike them), you need to consider the cost of repurchasing all your software on a new platform. You might be able to get away with using BootCamp, but then you're still paying for a Windows OS, and still booting into Windows, which defeats the purpose of getting a mac.

My wife's Asus has treated her well for over three years now. My old Toshiba had issues, too. I'd never get another of those.

Bottom line, if you go mac, you need to figure out how you're going to replace the software you've been using and consider that in the cost of switching over.

arguskos

2010-06-05, 10:44 PM

@the poster above me, what's the WINE equivalent for Mac OSX?
Uh, WINE is. :smalltongue: WINE works on OS X with no issues. Seeing as how I've used it as such. Also, there are multiple other options for emulation, both of the softer WINE variety, harder true emulation options, and for actual serious partitioning, if you're into that.

Trog

2010-06-05, 10:50 PM

I'm a mac person, mostly. I work as a graphic artist and thus am on them constantly. I own a MacBook Pro (typing on it right now). Mac OSX is my preferred OS.

That said, if I could find a way to easily run OSX on a cheaper computer I would. Apple charges far more for its hardware and gives it low end stats, really, when you compare it to many PCs.

As to the hardware issue I would normally swear by their hardware as being pretty good... up until I got this laptop. It's the only mac I have ever had hardware problems with. I'm on my second screen, my third hard drive, and the non-unibody construction of this thing makes it obvious why they wanted to switch to unibody construction since this one is falling apart.

Now maybe with the unibody and with the other hardware upgrades they have made it'll be worth it. But if you've never used a mac before I suggest spending an afternoon with one somehow to see if you like the interface. Some windows users get all upset that things are different on a mac and get frustrated with it and give up. I own both a PC and mac and each has its quirks but I much prefer the mac. If I had to buy another computer (and I can afford the wince-inducing prices) I'd probably get another mac.

Also, since you are looking at getting a mac, have you considered getting an iPad at all? Seems good for media consumption (minus flash *le sigh*) rather than creation. Not sure what you use your laptop for.

IonDragon

2010-06-05, 10:52 PM

You'll be fine if you switch, Macs can still run wIndows if anything goes wrong.

Have you TRIED to do this? I'd have had an easier time pulling teeth. I think the only reason I was able to get Mac OS back on after was because I'd cloned the hard drive before I started doing anything. Mac OS messes with the GRUB (Or whatever mac uses) and always looks for Mac OS even when it's not there before booting.

Clearly, you haven't seen this (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cracked.com%2Farticle_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple.html&ei=CBkLTJbDHpLANpONiLYE&usg=AFQjCNEjn3UkbjxKD8ncoGcJcueT2XSqaA) article from Cracked.

Yeah, Apple hates people.

I have not, but I knew most of that before. I thought I could make my point without resorting to "You buy a Mac and you support nazis" argument and just stick to hardware and compatibility.

EDIT:
I'm on my second screen, my third hard drive, and the non-unibody construction of this thing makes it obvious why they wanted to switch to unibody construction since this one is falling apart.

Actually, mac's use Toshiba hard drives most of the time. There is no 'mac' brand hard drive, just a Toshiba drive with a mac logo on it.

arguskos

2010-06-05, 10:54 PM

Have you TRIED to do this? I'd have had an easier time pulling teeth. I think the only reason I was able to get Mac OS back on after was because I'd cloned the hard drive before I started doing anything. Mac OS messes with the GRUB (Or whatever mac uses) and always looks for Mac OS even when it's not there before booting.
Uh... what? Dual-booting is really REALLY easy on a Mac. Boot Camp is a fantastically simple program, works wonders, and is easy to work with to boot. Now, if you more literally meant replacing OS X with Windows completely... uh, I've got nothing to say, other than "you wasted a lot of time :smalltongue:".

I have not, but I knew most of that before. I thought I could make my point without resorting to "You buy a Mac and you support nazis" argument and just stick to hardware and compatibility.
Again, this is the main reason I would steer clear of Mac these days. The company is getting... scary.

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 10:55 PM

That said, if I could find a way to easily run OSX on a cheaper computer I would. Apple charges far more for its hardware and gives it low end stats, really, when you compare it to many PCs.
I have some really, really good news for you (http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK)! They started selling OSX separately.

As to the hardware issue I would normally swear by their hardware as being pretty good... up until I got this laptop. It's the only mac I have ever had hardware problems with. I'm on my second screen, my third hard drive, and the non-unibody construction of this thing makes it obvious why they wanted to switch to unibody construction since this one is falling apart.
I forget who's harddrives Mac uses but I'm pretty sure it's not Seagate or Western Digital. Harddrive failure therefore do not surprise me. Again, most of Mac's manufacturing and hardware is done in-house... they only recently switched to intel chips!

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 10:56 PM

IonDragon

2010-06-05, 10:58 PM

Uh... what? Dual-booting is really REALLY easy on a Mac. Boot Camp is a fantastically simple program, works wonders, and is easy to work with to boot. Now, if you more literally meant replacing OS X with Windows completely... uh, I've got nothing to say, other than "you wasted a lot of time :smalltongue:".

It didn't sound like he was suggesting dual booting, it sounded like he was suggesting OS replacement. As in removing OSx from the computer (as if that was an option, it's nearly as bad as Vista pre-installs). Plus there's the issue of compatible drivers, especially graphics drivers.

EDIT: That was not an accident.

Syka

2010-06-05, 10:59 PM

Was it this one (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core%26%23153%3B2+D uo+Processor+-+Black/9701931.p?id=1218153002507&skuId=9701931), Super?

Liiiitle heavier than I wanted, but looks like a good potential replacement.

I'm using this in school. That's why weight was pretty important. I also hated being tied to an outlet all the time, since I move around campus a lot and, specifically, where I do my internship doesn't have easily accessible outlets.

Love iPads, but doesn't quite meet my needs for schoolwork, unfortunately. I need a full laptop. I was even warned (sharply) away from netbooks.

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 11:01 PM

Super, I could probably find it. Do you know how much it costs and/or weighs? I also LOVE Win7 with a passion. And that teeny Toshiba is the one I got. Bought an external CD/DVD drive for it any everything.
The one in our store was broken and I told my boss, "Get it out of here." He was like, "It was discontinued and I'm afraid if we send it back we have to open another one and then lose 15%." I said, "I've only seen one person consider that laptop and she didn't get it because the touchpad is broken. You can either sell one as an open box or sell neither." He said, "gotcha."

The asus is about 5.5 and around 650, iirc. It may even have a built in nVidia, not sure about that though. And win7 is pretty cool.

EDIT: Yeah, that's the one! Also 5lbs isn't all that much... the Toshiba you were using was 3.68 lbs if memory serves. At least you're not carrying a 10lber like I am!

(<3 my laptop to death)

Trog

2010-06-05, 11:02 PM

Actually, mac's use Toshiba hard drives most of the time. There is no 'mac' brand hard drive, just a Toshiba drive with a mac logo on it.
Never said there was a "mac" brand, just saying whatever I got the first two times were lemons, not macs. :smalltongue:

I have some really, really good news for you (http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK)! They started selling OSX separately.
:smalleek: So... so this runs on PCs? I'm looking on this page but don't see the system requirements listed anywhere. :smallconfused:

EDIT: Nevermind. Found it.

arguskos

2010-06-05, 11:03 PM

It didn't sound like he was suggesting dual booting, it sounded like he was suggesting OS replacement. As in removing OSx from the computer (as if that was an option, it's nearly as bad as Vista pre-installs). Plus there's the issue of compatible drivers, especially graphics drivers.

EDIT: That was not an accident.
As for installing OS X on a non-native Mac computer... ok, I'll grant you that one. It's difficult. I've done it, but it's a pain, no joke. I read that somewhat differently, and so, I apologize for my demeanor. Misunderstandings all around, you know how it is, yes? :smallwink:

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 11:03 PM

Trog: It's an operating system. As long as you have an intel chipet it'll work on your computer. The reason it doesn't say it requires, say, Mac, is because it is mac. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But yes, you can install OSX on any computer now.

Though seriously, $250 for an operating system? Win 7 ultimate is $124.

valadil

2010-06-05, 11:04 PM

No... just, no. If you compare Windows, Mac and Linux, Linux comes in third in compatibility.

It's very common to find software that runs only in Windows, and it's also rather common to find software that works in Mac and Windows. You know, the commercial OS's. But finding software that runs on Windows and Linux? Rare. It exists, sure, but it's rare. And finding among those Software that only runs in Linux? Also rare.

Sorry, friend. Linux has the worst compatibility, says the Angel typing from Ubuntu 9.04.

Depends how you define compatibility. Linux wins in terms of hardware compatibility. When people say it's more compatible, this is what they're usually referring to.

What makes you think that it's rare to find software that only runs in linux? You're on Ubuntu. Try getting gnome to run in windows. Or rhythmbox. There's a reason almost all of my windows usage takes place in cygwin - it's where the real software is. Open up synaptic. I'm on debian, so my copy is a little different than yours. I see 24,000 software packages for linux, and that's only a fraction of what's available.

Syka,

Sorry to get carried away on the linux babble.

People who get Macs really love them and rarely have problems. I moved my parents over to one (they felt guilty after I spent a whole thanksgiving cleaning up their Gateway). They love it. They're doing more with it than they ever did with a PC, and they don't even need me to tell them how. They don't even bother asking me to fix things anymore. It's awesome. My brother even picked one up too after seeing how much they liked it.

However, my parents are doing well financially. They can afford the Apple tax. I thoroughly approve of Macs, but I don't own one myself (aside from my phone). I'm a linux guy (which should be apparent from the first couple paragraphs) and don't see the point in paying for OS X if I'm not going to use it. I'll gladly take OS X over windows, but I'd probably just install debian on any Mac I owned.

Anyway, if you can afford the Apple tax you do get back some value from it. I don't know if it's worth the extra price though. Personally I'd spend $100-200 more for an Apple, but any more than that is more than it's worth. People who do give in and buy Apple are usually very happy with it. I'm always hearing stories of people who made the switch and are happy for it, but I've never heard of someone loving their switch to windows.

arguskos

2010-06-05, 11:05 PM

Trog: It's an operating system. As long as you have an intel chipet it'll work on your computer. The reason it doesn't say it requires, say, Mac, is because it is mac. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
This... isn't actually entirely true. Mac, not being designed to work on non-native machines (such as a Toshiba laptop), doesn't interact well with the hardware. Now, it CAN be done, but you have to be willing to do a lot more legwork than you're likely used to. You have to hunt down all the drivers (if they exist, they may well not), you have to troubleshoot a lot, it's a pain. It can be done, it's just hard.

IonDragon

2010-06-05, 11:09 PM

It's basically the same process as upgrading Vista to XP. Hard, but usually possible.

valadil

2010-06-05, 11:10 PM

This... isn't actually entirely true. Mac, not being designed to work on non-native machines (such as a Toshiba laptop), doesn't interact well with the hardware. Now, it CAN be done, but you have to be willing to do a lot more legwork than you're likely used to. You have to hunt down all the drivers (if they exist, they may well not), you have to troubleshoot a lot, it's a pain. It can be done, it's just hard.

If you buy the hardware with the intention of running OS X, you can build a machine that will run it. If you buy something off the shelf and hope OS X works things will be a bit more difficult. There are plenty of guides out there detailing what sort of hardware you'll need for a Hackintosh. Some manufacturers even sell premade machines ready for you to install OS X yourself. Not sure if any of them make laptops though (which I assume is what Syka is looking for since she mentions a Macbook Pro).

arguskos

2010-06-05, 11:11 PM

If you buy the hardware with the intention of running OS X, you can build a machine that will run it. If you buy something off the shelf and hope OS X works things will be a bit more difficult. There are plenty of guides out there detailing what sort of hardware you'll need for a Hackintosh. Some manufacturers even sell premade machines ready for you to install OS X yourself. Not sure if any of them make laptops though (which I assume is what Syka is looking for since she mentions a Macbook Pro).
Of course. I simply felt that clarifying the point was worth a post. :smallwink: It's not the easiest thing ever, unless you have a pre-set machine that was built to do it, and even then, there's still a few hoops to leap through (drivers, for instance).

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 11:11 PM

Trog

2010-06-05, 11:11 PM

Trog: It's an operating system. As long as you have an intel chipet it'll work on your computer. The reason it doesn't say it requires, say, Mac, is because it is mac. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

Yes, I may be a mac user but I'm not that dense. :smalltongue:

I mean, from what I've heard running OSX on a PC is doable but requires a lot of pain in the ass messing around with the hardware since the OS looks for and apparently requires a lot of particular components and such because, since it is made for apple's choice of hardware, if you have something that is not a component they use it won't function properly.

At least that was always my understanding and is something I would rather not have to deal with.

I believe when they allowed Mac clones there for a short while they had to abide by lots of Apple's rules and then when Apple found out that they would be losing their shirt by being undercut they canceled the Mac clones experiment.

arguskos

2010-06-05, 11:13 PM

It would interact fine with the hardware if Macintosh wasn't acting like the gigantic monopoly they try to claim Microsoft is and not be so secretive about their drivers.
/SMACK For committing the cardinal sin of confusing Macintosh and Apple, you earned that. :smalltongue: Also, I don't particularly disagree.

Macintosh OS=the operating system (fine).
Apple=the company (evil scum-sucking bastards).

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 11:20 PM

Try getting gnome to run in windows.

......right. Cuz that would be useful. Not like say... getting Photoshop to run on Linux.

EDIT: Not a word about GIMP. GIMP is not Photoshop. No, not even then.

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 11:22 PM

Eh. Macs used to be a line of computers, which generally means subset company. But fine, the Apple Corporation acts like the gigantic monopoly they claim Microsoft is, yadda yadda.

It doesn't change the fact that I personally cannot justify or condone buying an apple product while I still see so many college students bragging about how much money they saved by going mac instead of windows.

valadil

2010-06-05, 11:28 PM

......right. Cuz that would be useful. Not like say... getting Photoshop to run on Linux.

EDIT: Not a word about GIMP. GIMP is not Photoshop. No, not even then.

Gnome was just an example. And honestly, I think it would be awesome to be able to run another WM in windows. Gnome wouldn't be the most useful, but I might actually use XP if I could run a tiling WM like xmonad in it. Just because you don't think Gnome in windows is useful doesn't validate your point about linux only software being rare.

Superglucose

2010-06-05, 11:35 PM

Lol I think we scared Syka out of her thread.

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 11:36 PM

Gnome was just an example. And honestly, I think it would be awesome to be able to run another WM in windows. Gnome wouldn't be the most useful, but I might actually use XP if I could run a tiling WM like xmonad in it. Just because you don't think Gnome in windows is useful doesn't validate your point about linux only software being rare.

:smallsigh:

Right. Because the reason why I pointed out its usefulness was to validate my point. I pointed it out to invalidate yours.

And the point still stands. Linux's strength is not compatibility and we both know it. From what I'm perceiving here, you're a Linux user as well. You'd know.

valadil

2010-06-05, 11:42 PM

Lol I think we scared Syka out of her thread.

This is why we can't have nice things. I had a sneaking suspicion my post went too far toward linux.

Since it was mentioned earlier...

@the poster above me, what's the WINE equivalent for Mac OSX?

It's not an equivalent, but Parallels is very, very sexy. It's a virtual machine instead of an emulator but it has some nifty features to make it run more seamlessly. Like, you can run your Windows windows side by side with your Mac ones. You can even stick a Windows start menu in your dock. It looks just like any other Mac icon, but when you click it the Windows start menu opens and launches Windows programs. The system trays even merge together into one big tray.

Unfortunately Parallels isn't free. I think a pro license is $80. At least if you have a lot of Win software already purchased, it's cheaper than buying Mac copies. It's pretty fast for running Office, but I haven't seen how games fare. My only experience with it is setting up my boss's new Mackbook Pro. Then again with Steam coming out for Mac, you may not need Windows games in the near future.

valadil

2010-06-05, 11:47 PM

:smallsigh:

Right. Because the reason why I pointed out its usefulness was to validate my point. I pointed it out to invalidate yours.

And the point still stands. Linux's strength is not compatibility and we both know it. From what I'm perceiving here, you're a Linux user as well. You'd know.

You still haven't defined compatibility. Linux wins hardware compatibility. Linux loses commercial software compatibility. I'd wager that linux does well for free software compatibility, but have little enough contact with windows to know how it's doing there. If all you're talking about is commercial software because you want photoshop and portal, nobody is arguing with you.

Your point about linux only software being rare is still incorrect. I apologize if trying to run gnome on windows was a bad example - it was something I could assume you were familiar with since you said you used Ubuntu.

Erloas

2010-06-05, 11:49 PM

Haruki-kun

2010-06-05, 11:57 PM

You still haven't defined compatibility. Linux wins hardware compatibility.

Yes, but that's barley an issue. I, for one, would not want to run Mac on a non-Apple computer, that would make no sense. It's a moot point.

Linux loses commercial software compatibility. I'd wager that linux does well for free software compatibility, but have little enough contact with windows to know how it's doing there.

So-so. The thing is Linux applications generally don't stay only Linux. Inkscape, for example, works perfectly fine on Windows. They usually do.

If all you're talking about is commercial software because you want photoshop and portal, nobody is arguing with you.

Sadly, they usually are. :smallsigh:

But yes, commercial software is important. Because if I want free software, it's still gonna run. OpenOffice runs in both, Mac and Windows, as well as Linux distros, while Microsoft Office runs on Mac and Windows only. WINE barley runs the installer.

Your point about linux only software being rare is still incorrect.

Let me ammend my previous statement. You'll have a harder time finding Linux-only applications that don't have a counterpart in comercial Operating Systems. Gnome, to remain in the same example, is a counterpart. Sure, you might have a hard time getting it to run on Windows or Mac, but you're not missing out on much. They work well without it. Whereas on Linux.... well, eventually you NEED to switch to windows because there's something that just won't work.

SYKA:
Buy whatever you WANT. What really matter is that you feel comfortable with it. Don't get dragged into our OS wars. Just get a computer you really like and be happy with it.

Trazoi

2010-06-05, 11:58 PM

So...is it ACTUALLY worth the extra half a grand for the same thing when I'm not doing anything even remotely graphics intensive? (Boyfriend would like to borrow it if I got one and get a demo of Final Cut Pro, though, lol.)
It depends whether you like Mac OS X and/or Apple's hardware enough for it to be worth it. Personally I don't mind so much about the look, but Mac OS X is my favourite modern OS for most tasks so I'm willing to pay a small premium for it. Plus in my case I want to work on developing Mac software so owning a Mac is pretty much a requirement.

Although when it comes to price differences twice as much sounds a bit much. I'm out of date on current prices and I'm sure the price difference was a lot smaller when I was shopping around a few years ago. However it would make sense if Apple prices have remained the same while general hardware prices have fallen through the floor.

Bear in mind that Apple's hardware isn't magically fault proof. My own MacBook Pro was plagued with problems. Granted it was bought refurbished and was first edition hardware, but it spent almost as much time within its warranty period in for repairs as it did in use. That said my laptop is the worst case I've heard of and dealing with the support staff was better than average (still mildly annoying, but not as tooth-pulling as most I've dealt with).

You might also only require a plain MacBook instead of the MacBook Pro; I'm not sure what your needs are or what the price difference is. I also agree it's worth shopping around for decent deals if you're keen on getting a Mac. But then again, prices on regular non-Apple notebooks are pretty good right now, so if your heart isn't set on Mac OS or Apple then it might not be worth it, especially if you've got a lot of Windows software already that you would need to run via Parallels.

Trog

2010-06-06, 12:06 AM

Trog, look up Hack'n'tosh or some such. There are ways to get OSX running on other hardware, you just have to make sure you pick out parts that has drivers for OSX. I know they used Foxconn motherboards, but I don't know if that is a requirement.

After that there is a simple little program/driver sort of thing that is installed and tells OSX that everything is fine to run on the hardware. Basically the only real thing that makes Mac hardware Mac hardware as far as OSX is concerned is a little chip they have Foxconn install on the motherboard that says thats what it is, it serves no purpose but hardware watermarking basically. So someone made a piece of software that tricks OSX into thinking everything is ok.
Heard the term hackintosh often. And yeah, see, the part you just mentioned about picking out the parts? ... yeah see that's the bit I'd rather not have to deal with, unfortunately. :smallsigh: Especially since, when they upgrade the OS there can be an issue with it not working on your non-mac computer (or so I've heard). Again, I don't know the details I just know that it is something that -can- be done, it's just not something I -want- to have to learn all about and deal with to pull it off and deal with the ongoing issues.

I'd love it (now that Mac is bigger than Microsoft) if, someday, in the not too distant future, Apple gave up on making computers and just stuck with the OSX software. If they can get the majority of their revenue from, say, iPhones and iPads and such making a way to have a PC be certified "OSX ready" would go a long way towards getting out their OS to more users. What they lack now isn't money, apparently, it's saturation in the computer industry. And something like this might help that happen.

Or they could just... I don't know... lower their prices.

I'm certainly not holding my breath for either of these things to happen though.

Reinboom

2010-06-06, 12:59 AM

No... just, no. If you compare Windows, Mac and Linux, Linux comes in third in compatibility.

It's very common to find software that runs only in Windows, and it's also rather common to find software that works in Mac and Windows. You know, the commercial OS's. But finding software that runs on Windows and Linux? Rare. It exists, sure, but it's rare. And finding among those Software that only runs in Linux? Also rare.

Sorry, friend. Linux has the worst compatibility, says the Angel typing from Ubuntu 9.04.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/teaspit.jpg

No... just, no. If you compare Windows, Mac and Linux, FreeBSD comes in third... wait, I mean Mac comes in third for compatibility.

All five too-many-to-count kernel branc... I mean three kernel branches have multiple OS distributions on top of them to further muck things up.
Also, there's the already brought up semantics on what "compatibility" means.

Of course, you used Ubuntu and never listened to me. :smalltongue:

In most cases, all major OSes have a way to run software from each other. WINE, VMWare (is made for both Linux and Windows!... and possibly Mac, iirc), BootCamp...

Further, different people are looking for different things out of their OS. Just because Photoshop doesn't work doesn't mean that Linux distros are terrible with compatibility. I could say the same for some random shell scripts... or more significantly, I can't get FontForge to work properly on either Windows (via Cygwin) or Mac. I must switch over to OpenSuSE for any sort of stability. Doesn't this mean that Linux is more compatible? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

If you have issues with compatibility in anything, you haven't looked into it enough. Or you are on Ubuntu. (:smalltongue:) (...but even then...)

Syka:
I would like to reiterate most people's standings here. Macs are pricey buggers for what you get. Also, when there are serious problems with a mac, they are realllly reallly difficult to deal with.
However! Most of the serious problems are very... niche and won't come up for standard user. Also, their unified building of the computers helps ensure you get something that lasts longer.

On computers in general, just makes sure you get product from a company that has more control over the individual pieces of their computer than Toshiba does (and I must emphasize this).

HP, Apple, Dell (now-a-days...), and Asus (usually) tend to have great control over their laptops.

I would also recommend something that you can get ready assistance with. Having the best buy you go to be there helps a lot.

On the OS debate, ensure that the programs you need are readily available. Make sure you consider this for quite a bit as well and don't just think about the things you have now. It will save you quite a bit of frustration. For the uses you have spoken about in the past... Mac will most likely work well for you.

Also, I must give a +1 to Trog. He constantly surprises me as being a reasonable mac voice. :smalltongue:

Trog

2010-06-06, 01:09 AM

Also, I must give a +1 to Trog. He constantly surprises me as being a reasonable mac voice. :smalltongue:
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/teaspit.jpg

<.<
>.>

I just wanted to use that graphic for something too. :smalltongue:

Knaight

2010-06-06, 01:23 AM

'tis a fun graphic. On a slightly different note, not all Mac hardware is a complete ripoff. Sure, keyboards, mice, monitors and such should really always be some other company (usually a third party, since the Microsoft stuff isn't much better than the Apple stuff, though cheap), but there are some computers that work very well and aren't hugely expensive. Most notably the Mac Mini, which won't work when you need a laptop(at which point you enter the stupidly expensive stage again), but is a very solid desktop computer, at fairly typical prices. This is without looking at some other benefits (it is really, really easy to move for a desktop.)

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 01:23 AM

HP is terrible. I wouldn't recommend HP to my worst enemy. Do you have any idea how often I had to fix the DV line?

As for MS mice, are you seriously comparing business mice in terms of quality? :smallconfused: They're mice, the only time you'll notice a real difference is when you step up into the gaming mice... and then it's Razer or Bust baby!

raitalin

2010-06-06, 01:23 AM

That said, if I could find a way to easily run OSX on a cheaper computer I would.

http://www.hackintosh.com/

SDF

2010-06-06, 01:29 AM

On the OS debate, ensure that the programs you need are readily available. Make sure you consider this for quite a bit as well and don't just think about the things you have now. It will save you quite a bit of frustration. For the uses you have spoken about in the past... Mac will most likely work well for you.

And this is really what the question is all about. You want the computer for school. What does your campus support more than anything else? My campus has gone as far towards Mac as they can (the student union computer store is a mac store. :smallmad:) Frustrating for me and a lot of other people as you have to have passive running software for PC users to use their internet system. Crappy software at that, updating constantly and using a lot of virtual memory in the background. I finally said screw it, wrote campus IT a final scathing email and uninstalled the software. I use off campus wireless now, and now that I don't live on campus anymore it isn't a problem for me. If I had a Mac I never would have had that headache. If I did have a Mac I would have different problems I don't deal with now. Again, it is all what you need. I dual booted DSM for my computer programming classes I took. (all electives, and if I'm not programming I haven't found any reason to use a Linux distro for much anything else I do on a computer)

As an aside I would never try to run Snow Leopard (or whatever the newest OSX release is) on a non-Mac computer. One good reason Apple runs all their software on their hardware is that everything meshes together so well. If you have a problem on an Apple OS PC, unless you can fix it yourself, Apple and M$ tech support probably won't be able to help you. And, you will be left with one unfortunate child of a computer.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 01:32 AM

I have a macbook and honestly, I feel it was completely worth the money. One of the best spending choices I ever made.

I like the OS very much, it's very user-friendly, and I've never had problems with my laptop, software or harware, ever. I know Macs are supposedly also having problems and I know they aren't "perfect" computers and can break and crash, but I've not experienced any of them. We also own a Windows pc desktop, and that thing is about the same age (2 years) and is running slow, crashes often and I'm honestly considering replacing it. The fact is, many people hate computers, why? Because programs crash, run slow or whatever. I've not experienced that with my macbook.

People say it's insane to spend 1200 euro's for something which has the same "stats" as another laptop that you can buy for like 600 euro's. I don't think it is. When you buy an expensive laptop (and honestly, all computers are expensive, except maybe netbooks), you want it to work fluidly and look attractive. My macbook is a lot thinner and lighter than most laptops of my friends. It never feels "cheap". I've never had the feeling that "it was a piece of junk and I wish I had a new/better one". Which I've had with other computers periodically, and such a feeling or impression is not what I want to have when I spend a large amount of money for something which I'll have to look at on a day-by-day basis.

I'm not an Apple-fanboy, although I do plan on only buying apple computers in the future, if my income allows it. The thing is, from my personal experience, they're actually just better.

Totally Guy

2010-06-06, 03:49 AM

I think I got a really good deal on my macbook. I got the "last years" aluminium unibody non-pro macbook just after they started making the aluminium ones pro-only.

I bought it from a costco warehouse and they included a standard warranty that should be suitable for me. It's not as comprehensive as a lot of places but it was included.

If I'd have bought a computer from a PC World, which is the big name around here, I'd have probably been worse off after paying out for an extended warranty whether I'd got a mac or a pc.

Vaynor

2010-06-06, 04:43 AM

Say what you will about Apple computers, but I love my Mac. I love the operating system (yes I could hack it, but running it legally is much easier and less prone to failure). I don't really play many computer games, and any games I would want to play have been released for Mac or I can just run it off of Bootcamp. It is more expensive but I think it's worth the extra cost (if you can afford it, that is).

However, unless you really like the Mac OS the extra cost probably isn't worth it to you. I'm not a fanboy or anything, I just find the OS to be vastly superior to Windows. That's how Apple makes its money, they make a great OS but force you to buy their computers to get it. Like I said, if you can afford it, I think it's worth it, but as always YMMV.

Oh, and you know how there's Office for Mac? Trust me, it crashes pretty much all the time, is super slow, and doesn't run right. That's from a summer job where I worked on macs in office full time.

Well... why would you do that? Office for Mac is completely pointless, it's just a more expensive version of iWork. You can just export your files as PC-friendly files, so there's not even any compatibility issues.

In addition, because Macs are all built in-house, heaven forbid something goes wrong with the hardware: you pretty much have to take it to a mac store.

Why is this a bad thing? Apple has exponentially better service than any PC system. In fact, being built completely by Apple even helps with repairs, if your computer parts are all built by different companies they're not likely to be able to fix it as well.

I've been using a Mac for years (10) and the only problems I've had with them have been caused by me, or have been replaced for free immediately.

Note: Just putting out my opinion, I have nothing against Windows, I would just prefer not to use a computer that ran on it.

Lawless III

2010-06-06, 05:13 AM

I got tired of PCs breaking down and microsoft telling me to screw off, so I switched to apple. It's been about 7 months and I have absolutely no complaints.

The worst part is I used to be extremely anti-mac. I actually wasted money on a zune (stopped working after a month as did two of my friends') just to avoid buying an ipod. After using my friends laptop while my pc was out getting fixed (for the third time that year) I decided I'd rather have something reliable than something with more capabilities.

Then my friend set me up to play Touhou without having to dual boot. My admittedly basic computer needs are now completely satisfied.

Yora

2010-06-06, 05:23 AM

I never had anything from apple, nor do I ever intend to do so.
I don't know if their products are actually good or not, but I refuse to give any money to a company like that.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 05:24 AM

I never had anything from apple, nor do I ever intend to do so.
I don't know if their products are actually good or not, but I refuse to give any money to a company like that.

Do you refuse to use Google as well? Just asking.

EDIT: I'd just like to explain my question. I don't intend to mock you on your decision not to support an industry or boycott something. I respect such decisions. It's just that I'm not entirely sure in what way Apple is really doing something that's worth morally opposing, comparing to other big companies like Google and Microsoft.

Yora

2010-06-06, 05:30 AM

Google Search only. Anything else, no. But that's for different reasons.

In case of Apple, I think they have no respect whatsoever for people. Employees are treated like **** and if anyone is critical of them they sue them to hell and back. I think they even have a couple of suicides on their hands and I don't want to think of the people they chased away before they killed themselves.
Microsoft isn't Mother Theresa either, but as Linux is too complex to me, I'm willing to do with Windows.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 05:33 AM

Could you explain to me your reasons for fundamentally refusing to ever buy something Apple? To me, it seems they're just another big company, nothing fundamentally philosophically wrong with.

Samurai Jill

2010-06-06, 05:37 AM

Yes. I personally have an INTENSE moral issue with Apple Corp., they constantly advertise to students about the "great deals" you get through them, and when it comes right down to it, you're spending 2x as much money for the same hardware.
Oh, really?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/4258725
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9029458/Ding_Mac_vs._PC_cost_analysis_Round_II_
http://maclawstudents.com/blog/why-use-macintosh/

The subject is actually more complex than this.
1. If you surveyed performance differences in total hardware config over apple's entire range, you'd get maybe a 20% difference in relative pricing, but I'm skeptical of that.
2. Apple has never serviced the low-end market particularly well, so value-for-money is usually much better for the pricier models, and worse at the lower end.
3. However, comparing a low-end Mac with a low-end PC tends to ignore perks that come with buying a Mac, such as a graphics card worth a damn, better engineering/reliability, lower energy costs, less exposure to viruses (due, if nothing else, to smaller market share,) and generally lower overall cost of ownership.
4. I am sick to death of people who compare PC machines they assembled from scratch using 2nd-hand parts with a Mac that was purchased via standard channels. Yes, the DIY option isn't really available for the Mac, but it's irrelevant to 90%+ of users who don't know how to do DIY a PC.

To be honest, Mac and PC hardware have been converging steadily over the last 10-15 years or so, so that real performance differences are relatively minor. On balance, I've found the dishonesty of Apple's marketing is amply recompensed by the wilful ignorance and cherry-picking of PC advocates. The only compelling reason to by a PC is (A) if there's some critical piece of specialist software you need that only runs under windows, (B) if you're a hardcore gamer, or (C) if you only want some really minimal low-end machine that will likely crap out on you after 2-3 years. Otherwise, buying a Mac will probably give you a better overall deal.

...Leopard is a stripped-down version of Unix, and you're much better off with any flavor of linux.
Provided you don't mind a GUI design that makes your eyes bleed, sure, Linux is better. Ubuntu is the only Linux variant that I would rate as 'competent' where UI design is concerned. Not 'great', but 'competent'. Windows 7 is tolerable, but still inferior to Mac OSX 10.4, which was years ago. And good luck finding software for Linux.

Besides, there's always Boot Camp.

You may want to find someone less biased, but my hatred of macs comes from years of experience with their "deals" and running tech support for my friends who bought a mac. Oh, and you know how there's Office for Mac?
That would be developed by Microsoft, yes? Oh yes, heaven forfend one might suggest there would be a conflict of interest there. Or, you could try iWork.

SDF

2010-06-06, 05:43 AM

Well... why would you do that? Office for Mac is completely pointless, it's just a more expensive version of iWork. You can just export your files as PC-friendly files, so there's not even any compatibility issues.

Which is itself a more expensive version of OpenOffice, and I don't understand why anyone would ever bother paying for the others.

Why is this a bad thing? Apple has exponentially better service than any PC system. In fact, being built completely by Apple even helps with repairs, if your computer parts are all built by different companies they're not likely to be able to fix it as well.

I've been using a Mac for years (10) and the only problems I've had with them have been caused by me, or have been replaced for free immediately.

Repairing a Mac has been by far my worst experience with the company. I went to the local Apple store with a problem with my friends macbook pro. We were told we needed a new hard drive and double fan replacement. (As the hard drive had been damaged by the fans being out and the thing overheating) Total about $300 with labor. (Warranty had just expired) We then took it to the campus owned store where we only needed to pay for one fan and labor that cost about 10% of Apples quote. $60, and it worked fine after. So, my only experience with Apple customer service has been extremely negative.

Samurai Jill

2010-06-06, 05:49 AM

In case of Apple, I think they have no respect whatsoever for people. Employees are treated like **** and if anyone is critical of them they sue them to hell and back...
This is standard behaviour for corporations. I'm not going to claim that Apple is somehow morally superior to Microsoft or any of it's other big-name competitors. It isn't. They just offer better products.

SDF

2010-06-06, 05:51 AM

This is standard behaviour for corporations. I'm not going to claim that Apple is somehow morally superior to Microsoft or any of it's other big-name competitors. It isn't. They just offer better products.

Absolutely not, they offer different products.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 05:56 AM

Absolutely not, they offer different products.

So basically you're saying the question of "To mac or not to mac?" is not about what is the better/tastier apple (pun intended), but about whether you'd prefer an apple or a pear?

SDF

2010-06-06, 06:04 AM

So basically you're saying the question of "To mac or not to mac?" is not about what is the better/tastier apple (pun intended), but about whether you'd prefer an apple or a pear?

I'd prefer to mac on some cupcakes! :smallbiggrin:

People too often make the mistake of trying to buy the "best" product for something, when there really isn't one. If someone asks what the best guitar is I'm going to ask them what kind of sound they are going for, and what kind of music they want to play. A Fender and a Gibson sound completely different but neither is better. If someone wants to buy a gun I'm going to ask what they need it for. Hunting, CCW, home defense, or something else? Depending on the answer you could end up with a tiny handgun to a big bore elephant gun. When asking about a computer it is all tailored around the users needs, wants, and abilities. Saying one is better than another is fallacious, as they all have strengths and weaknesses.

Reinboom

2010-06-06, 06:14 AM

I'd prefer to mac on some cupcakes! :smallbiggrin:

Ew, cupcakes! :smallyuk:
Cantaloupe is just better.

+1 to everything else you said.

Samurai Jill

2010-06-06, 06:34 AM

Absolutely not, they offer different products.
They offer, on average, better products at a higher price. (And, arguably, nominally better value for money in various cases.)

Again, there are situations where a PC will suit you better- if you're really strapped for cash, if you're a hardcore gamer, have a computer science degree, or need specialist software that only works on the PC. But I honestly think that applies to a minority of the general population.

Yora

2010-06-06, 06:39 AM

Absolutely not, they offer different products.

I think somehow they managed to promote their products as high quality and superior to others. If you're good at marketing, and no doubt that Apple is one of the best there, you don't actually need to have a good product. Much more important is to convince people that they look good with your product. iStuff is not about the quality of the product, but a lifestyle. You tell people so much about yourself when you have an iProduct. True or not, Apple convinced people that other will think they are cool when they have iStuff.
And let's not lie to ourself, once we picked a brand, we will all lie to ourself that we picked the best brand. I'm sure I do the same with my long love for Sony consoles and Creative sound cards. (Which I tell you, are clearly the supperior ones! I had never any problems with them, mostly because I never compared them to anything else. :smallwink: )

I forgott after whom it's named, but economics knows an effect were a product sells much better because it's expensive. There have even been companies saved from bancruptcy by trippling the price of their products nobody wanted to buy.

SDF

2010-06-06, 06:58 AM

They offer, on average, better products at a higher price. (And, arguably, nominally better value for money in various cases.)

Again, there are situations where a PC will suit you better- if you're really strapped for cash, if you're a hardcore gamer, have a computer science degree, or need specialist software that only works on the PC. But I honestly think that applies to a minority of the general population.

Or if you want an optional touch screen/tablet. A blue-ray player. (people like those right?) Or ever want to do anything with a registry. (shudder) For more money you can always get something faster, and with more memory. Money is always a factor in the equation, unless you are typing on a Cray personal supercomputer. With an unlimited budget you could easily build a computer that is performance wise superior to a Mac in every way, runs everything a Mac would with more ease, looks way cooler, and will never leave you for someone smarter and better looking. Money goes into what is, "better."* Options go into what is, "better."* Ease of use goes into what is, "better."* Ect., and so on. Once again, different platforms are meant for different applications. So, unless you can definitively demonstrate with hard facts that Apple has a superior product, "on average," I wouldn't make that claim. And, I'm not trying to promote one system over another. I'd rather Syka had the facts on what each excels at, so that she can evaluate what she needs so she will be the most satisfied with what she ends up buying.

*for you that is, where better really means different

Samurai Jill

2010-06-06, 07:26 AM

Or if you want an optional touch screen/tablet. A blue-ray player. (people like those right?)
By and large, not really. Sony and their ilk have been pushing HD-TV for years now, with pretty limited success. Download speeds are already advancing to the point where physical media storage is becoming rapidly obsolete. (The personal computer itself is going to be obsolete in another ten years or so, which is why Apple is fighting tooth and nail to enter the notebook market.)

I'm not aware of most tablet manufacturers having major problems with Mac compatibility.

So, unless you can definitively demonstrate with hard facts that Apple has a superior product, "on average," I wouldn't make that claim...
Others have covered the subject far more comprehensively than I have in my first post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8638446&postcount=60). Nobody, I think, really disputes that Apple caters to the higher end of the desktop/laptop market. And the notion that Macs are 100% more expensive than their PC equivalents or other such nonsense is a myth. Put two and two together.

...when you compare Macs with comparably equipped Windows PCs, sometimes Macs beat Windows PCs in the price/performance comparison. Sometimes Windows PCs beat Macs. Overall, there's relative parity...
Macs have clearly been more expensive than Windows PCs in the distant past. But if you're talking about name-brand Windows PCs from reputable manufacturers like Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, Lenovo and others, right now, the out-the-door pricing is more or less on par.
Ding! Mac vs. PC cost analysis, Round II (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9029458/Ding_Mac_vs._PC_cost_analysis_Round_II_)

And, I'm not trying to promote one system over another...
And I'm claiming you get what you pay for.

SDF

2010-06-06, 07:55 AM

You're addressing an argument I'm not making. The price/performance argument. You get a pretty equal laptop for the price if you want to spend that much. So then it comes down to, again, what you want it for. The price argument I'm making is you can spend less money on a good lappy that will perform fine for your applications. If you NEED the processing upgrades get them, if not why spend the money? And, if you want to spend way more than you ever would on a Mac you can upgrade beyond the top tier of what Apple offers. (A high end VoodooPC or Falcon Northwest) But, then you are spending way more than there is really any reason to do.

(Also, what is with the popular mechanics comparison? An $1800 desktop PC that isn't beyond 2 GHz and runs Vista published in late december '09? WTF? You can get beyond 3.5 with the Intel X58 architecture for less money than even the Mac was charging - well if you personally overclock it. Otherwise you are looking in 3.2-3.4 range. Still.)

Samurai Jill

2010-06-06, 08:04 AM

You're addressing an argument I'm not making...
The price argument I'm making is you can spend less money on a good lappy that will perform fine for your applications.
Your addressing an argument I'm not making. If you don't need to buy a BMW to drive to work, then obviously a Toyota will serve you perfectly well. BMW still make better cars.

SDF

2010-06-06, 08:24 AM

The Toyota Camry and Avalon were the Motor Trend 07 and 06 cars of the year respectively and rated higher than the BMW Series cars in their class.

lesser_minion

2010-06-06, 09:03 AM

In my experience, buying a Mac is like buying a customised BMW from a dealer, while buying a PC is like buying a BMW from BMW directly.

There is very little in any given Mac that couldn't be in a PC - IIRC, the only real "Mac Exclusive" is a fancy integrated graphics card that is marketed as being competitive with some discrete cards.

And Apple subcontract out a fair amount of the work - IIRC, the parts are sourced from a few different companies and assembled by Asus.

Shopping around should be able to net you a significantly cheaper - and better - PC than the equivalent Mac, in essence because you're basically buying a Mac from further up the supply chain.

Saying that, this is mostly anecdotal and possibly outdated. The last laptop I bought was a Samsung X22, about two years ago, and the analysis I just made was very much valid then.

If you can still find one, I'd actually recommend going for it even now - it should still be an improvement on any sort of "uber-budget" model, and it only weighs 2.36 kilos. It's an old enough design to be pretty cheap, but still hardcore enough for university work, and since the screen is slightly larger than your typical ultramobile, it's slightly better off in that department as well.

As far as I can tell, most of the parts are still available as well, although I'm not sure how long that will last, and Samsung have historically been fairly good as far as warranties are concerned.

Trog

2010-06-06, 09:30 AM

There is very little in any given Mac that couldn't be in a PC - IIRC, the only real "Mac Exclusive" is a fancy integrated graphics card that is marketed as being competitive with some discrete cards.
And this ^ is my one real gripe about how they configure their hardware. Take a look at The Adobe CS 5 Deluxe Suite's minimum system requirements, for example. You need a higher end, brand new Mac to run it. You could run it on, say this 2 year old MacBook I am running now but for the graphics card... which you cannot upgrade. And because even the mid-level iMacs only just meet the minimum requirements for CS5 when Adobe comes out with, say, CS6 and the VRAM requirements go up yet again you're screwed. You basically need to buy a whole new mac. Or buy the highest end one and pay through the nose since that one has slightly longer staying power. Instead of just upgrading your VRAM.

This... is how they get you, unfortunately. :smallsigh:

Haruki-kun

2010-06-06, 12:26 PM

If you have issues with compatibility in anything, you haven't looked into it enough. Or you are on Ubuntu. (:smalltongue:) (...but even then...)

I've looked into it endlessly. ENDLESSLY. I've used everything within my grasp, and things just won't work. WINE is not the great amazing salvation most Linux users claim it is. Half the time it won't run the applications properly, it doesn't even support USB...

And lots of the Linux equivalents are just not as good as their commercial counterparts. Blender cannot compete with Maya or 3DS Max. Inkscape, amazing as it is, is no match for Illustrator in the professional world. And I've yet to meet someone who will be impressed by "Extensive knowledge of GIMP" and no Photoshop in a resume. And GIMP is one of the better applications.

As for Ubutnu, give it a rest. I think it's safe to say most of my compatibility issues will remain in most Linux Distros. Maybe things wil have changed if we have this conversation again in five years.

'course, Apes will have taken over the planet by then, and Google will be the only ones with the firepower to stop them.

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 12:30 PM

Yeah, Linux can be rather...exciting...for even somewhat esoteric pursuits. I've heard people detailing their misadventures with getting Tablet PCs to run Linux properly, and between having to code their own drivers and strange glitches in everything, it just doesn't work. If you want a Tablet PC, you're going with Windows - Apple will never make them, Modbooks are slate-only and OSX has abysmal support this sort of thing anyway.

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 12:31 PM

Samurai, your analysis is exclusive to desktops and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Apple products are usually around twice the cost of their PC equivalents. If you want an example, touch Zune vs iTouch. If you want another example, mac OSX ($250) vs win 7 (max cost of $124). Their macbooks follow this same pricing guideline.

Oh and here's the kicker: apple products are not better. They use Toshiba harddrives. They use older model nVidia chips. They only recently switched to intel. I couldn't even tell you who their monitor manufacturer is.

It's more like comparing a BMW to a civic. The BMW is shinier and sometimes it goes faster, but the civic is much more reliable, will last you a lot longer, has much better gas mileage, and is also a lot cheaper. If you're looking to get a status symbol, buy a mac. If you're looking for a good computer, stay as far away as possible.

Also never buy their desktops. Even if it's the same price, you lose so much by not being able to upgrade it yourself it's depressing. Desktops made by most brands are pretty much modular: you can swap out any piece of equipment in there without too much trouble. Sure you have to match your PSU to the total power rating of the internal parts, and your processor to the motherboard, but you can always swap one part out for something different. That's huge, because it means if someone comes into your store saying, "I need a new graphics card" they're paying maybe $150 for the card and $150 for the installation (since people usually like to pay for that) instead of $600-$1000 for a new computer.

Reinboom

2010-06-06, 12:40 PM

I've looked into it endlessly. ENDLESSLY. I've used everything within my grasp, and things just won't work. WINE is not the great amazing salvation most Linux users claim it is. Half the time it won't run the applications properly, it doesn't even support USB...

And lots of the Linux equivalents are just not as good as their commercial counterparts. Blender cannot compete with Maya or 3DS Max. Inkscape, amazing as it is, is no match for Illustrator in the professional world. And I've yet to meet someone who will be impressed by "Extensive knowledge of GIMP" and no Photoshop in a resume. And GIMP is one of the better applications.

As for Ubutnu, give it a rest. I think it's safe to say most of my compatibility issues will remain in most Linux Distros. Maybe things wil have changed if we have this conversation again in five years.

'course, Apes will have taken over the planet by then, and Google will be the only ones with the firepower to stop them.

I refuse to give that a rest. Ubuntu is just that terrible. :smalltongue:

I didn't push Wine OR Linux equivalents with my post either. :smalltongue:

The USB thing isn't strictly true either. My USB drives work fine with wine. Just depends on the type. Of course, that doesn't really matter. Wine can be avoided altogether, after all. :smalltongue:

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 12:42 PM

Apple products are usually around twice the cost of their PC equivalents. If you want an example, touch Zune vs iTouch. If you want another example, mac OSX ($250) vs win 7 (max cost of $124). Their macbooks follow this same pricing guideline.

To be fair, the OS only costs so much if you want to buy it so you can get a complete new install. You can update from the latest version for like 30 euros. Which is cheap. There's no reason not to buy that update version, unless you want to install the OS on a non-apple computer. Also, win 7 costs you you 380 dollars max, not 124. Windows 7 Ultimate costs that much (if I converter euro's into dollars correctly). A "update" version to Windows 7 ultimate would still cost you 350 dollars or something. True if some say that many people don't need the "Ultimate" version of the OS, but honestly some do and comparing it to the ultimate version is fair, as we're comparing it to the price of the whole OS with OSX too.

thubby

2010-06-06, 12:43 PM

generally, I've found macs to be best for artists. lots of programs for them, and you don't have to be into computers to use it competently.

linux is for programmers. with enough know how, you can do just about anything on them, but you have to know what you're doing.

windows is for gaming...

PhoeKun

2010-06-06, 12:44 PM

Oh and here's the kicker: apple products are not better. They use Toshiba harddrives. They use older model nVidia chips. They only recently switched to intel. I couldn't even tell you who their monitor manufacturer is.

They use what? If this is true, its absolutely damning to Mac.

As a user of Toshiba products, I have watched four of their hard drives fry themselves in the span of a year and a half. Four. I am the first to admit I don't always have good luck with computers, but this was just ridiculous. And it was inevitably the hard drive that went each and every time...

It's anecdotal, but there you have it anyway. Toshiba hard drives. I... ew.

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 12:59 PM

To be fair, the OS only costs so much if you want to buy it so you can get a complete new install. You can update from the latest version for like 30 euros. Which is cheap. There's no reason not to buy that update version, unless you want to install the OS on a non-apple computer. Also, win 7 costs you you 380 dollars max, not 124. Windows 7 Ultimate costs that much (if I converter euro's into dollars correctly). A "update" version to Windows 7 ultimate would still cost you 350 dollars or something. True if some say that many people don't need the "Ultimate" version of the OS, but honestly some do and comparing it to the ultimate version is fair, as we're comparing it to the price of the whole OS with OSX too.
Dunno where you're shopping, but Microsoft was offering W7 Business for thirty bucks (to students) back when it was released, with a similarly cheap preorder. Some manufacturers were giving it away for free for people who bought computers recently. I just googled "Windows 7 Ultimate buy" and see prices of $114. Where are you finding $380?

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 01:03 PM

Dunno where you're shopping, but Microsoft was offering W7 Business for thirty bucks (to students) back when it was released, with a similarly cheap preorder. Some manufacturers were giving it away for free for people who bought computers recently. I just googled "Windows 7 Ultimate buy" and see prices of $114. Where are you finding $380?

Strange. I'm looking on Microsoft website (http://emea.microsoftstore.com/nl/nl-NL/Microsoft/Windows/windows-7/?WT.mc_id=_MSCOMNL_HP_nav_Windows). Maybe this is something local, here in the Netherlands/Europe?

lesser_minion

2010-06-06, 01:15 PM

They use what? If this is true, its absolutely damning to Mac.

As a user of Toshiba products, I have watched four of their hard drives fry themselves in the span of a year and a half. Four. I am the first to admit I don't always have good luck with computers, but this was just ridiculous. And it was inevitably the hard drive that went each and every time...

It's anecdotal, but there you have it anyway. Toshiba hard drives. I... ew.

They use all sorts of things. Most of their RAM is either Crucial or Samsung (although, IIRC, those actually are the two best brands).

I was under the impression that Samsung hard drives were the worst for durability, but that was mainly because the hybrid thing meant that the most intensive processes had to be performed about ten times as often, rather than being because they were poorly made.

If you max out the specs, your hard disk will probably come from Samsung, IIRC (but it will be fully solid-state).

Regarding pricing, I use Win7 professional. It cost me £30 thanks to the student deal.

Vaynor

2010-06-06, 01:56 PM

Which is itself a more expensive version of OpenOffice, and I don't understand why anyone would ever bother paying for the others.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with my point. All I was saying is that complaining about Macs because a Microsoft-made program that costs more than the perfectly good Apple version runs slowly on a Mac is not an argument against Apple.

Syka

2010-06-06, 02:06 PM

As far as I know, my school is friendly to both PC's and Mac's, but I've been a PC user my whole life.

I actually just shelled out for MSOffice a month ago, since I've been tired of compatibility issues between OO and MSO (reformatting things, the fact OOCalc is no where NEAR the level of Excel, etc).

It's just a matter of me finding a computer now that I like. I'm not a huge fan of Dells, due to past experiences; I'm generally wary of HP laptops (love the desktops, though), but my dad says they use a lot of HP's (...and Mac's) where he works (engineering place) without issue; and a tech friend of mine said Toshiba is normally top of his list for recommendations. :smallsigh:

Everyone, literally EVERYONE, has different opinions on good and bad computer brands. I think I'm just going to look at specs and hope for the best.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 02:11 PM

The best advise I can give you: don't look at specs alone. The biggest issue with choosing an Operating System, is in User-Interface. So, I'd say, watch some videos from the internet, inform yourself about how the GUI works on a mac and if it sounds intuitive to you.

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 02:15 PM

Strange. I'm looking on Microsoft website (http://emea.microsoftstore.com/nl/nl-NL/Microsoft/Windows/windows-7/?WT.mc_id=_MSCOMNL_HP_nav_Windows). Maybe this is something local, here in the Netherlands/Europe?
The English MS website has Ultimate for $220. You guys are just getting gouged.

The best advise I can give you: don't look at specs alone. The biggest issue with choosing an Operating System, is in User-Interface. So, I'd say, watch some videos from the internet, inform yourself about how the GUI works on a mac and if it sounds intuitive to you.
I can't begin to say how much loathing I have for the OSX dock. I recognize that other people seem to like it for reasons that are beyond me, but it is a major turnoff.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 02:16 PM

I can't begin to say how much loathing I have for the OSX dock. I recognize that other people seem to like it for reasons that are beyond me, but it is a major turnoff.

See, this is my point. Personally, I love it and find it way more intuitive than the Microsoft toolbar. So, given that it is such a "personal" thing, and people have different opinions, I say the best solution is trying to find out yourself.

Knaight

2010-06-06, 02:22 PM

Yep, UI is hugely personal preference. I love the dock as well, and the view all windows function in the lower left corner that was built into OS X is another favorite. A lot of people I know hate it. UI is big, and some stores let you play around with them on test computers.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 02:32 PM

Don't be intimidated by this "flame war" and choose for the "save" choose of buying a Windows machine, without informing yourself of what a mac looks like and how it'd work. Else you're only going to regret it later. Inform yourself and if you then decide a mac is nothing for you, at least you can feel good about it.:smallwink:

IonDragon

2010-06-06, 02:38 PM

Oh, really?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/4258725

That computer is also better than http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2268 SURPRISE! Compare bad hardware to a mac, and the mac is better. And to top it off, the one in that review was running vista. Why don't we compare a Commodore 64 to a PowerMac while we're at it? Or possibly a golf cart to a Jaguar?

Don't be intimidated by this "flame war" and choose for the "save" choose of buying a Windows machine, without informing yourself of what a mac looks like and how it'd work. Else you're only going to regret it later. Inform yourself and if you then decide a mac is nothing for you, at least you can feel good about it.:smallwink:

Except the PC is the safe choice, because anything you can do to a Mac's UI you can do to a PC's. For example Rocket Dock (http://rocketdock.com/) perfectly replicates that dock, which I personally find annoying, and you can use Rain Meter (http://rainmeter.net/RainCMS/) to customize your UI in just about any other way.

So, at least we're all "informed" now...

Alleine

2010-06-06, 02:39 PM

Yeah, I'll thrown in with the 'not worth it' crowd.

If you have the money and know the operating system, I might say its worth it. But if you are familiar with windows already, need to do stuff on the cheap, and won't be using the mac for all of the various art related reasons that people get a mac, you shouldn't get a mac. It will probably end up as more of a hassle and cost than if you just found a different brand PC that works.

Off topic, I find it rather amusing to what rabid heights the computer market can send people frothing to. Discussions of hardware, operating systems, and simply what to buy. People need to chill out :smallwink:

Syka

2010-06-06, 02:41 PM

I have played around on Mac's to some degree. When I use the computer lab at school, I usually hope on the iMac's. Allowing for a learning curve, I didn't notice any huge issues during light usage. My main concern about Apple products (including MacBooks) has always been the bang for the buck and if I'll use that extra 500$ of computer, lol. I'm not an artist at all, so graphics are beyond me (although, as I said, Boyfriend would love it). I would actually LOVE a Mac, partly because I was floored by the customer service, but...I'm really unsure if it's worth the extra money for me right now since I don't have all that much.

I'm a pretty basic computer user. I don't even watch movies and all on my computer. The only reason I was warned away from Netbooks is because I'm a huuuge multitasker when I'm in school.

I'll be taking Plautus (2nd failed Toshiba) in tonight and...we'll figure it out from there. I'm leaning toward a Samsung I saw there, but I'm wondering if switching to the Intel version would solve the issue, since I'm fairly certain it's the ATI/AMD causing a problem from what I saw online.

*shrug*

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 02:42 PM

Except the PC is the safe choice, because anything you can do to a Mac's UI you can do to a PC's. For example Rocket Dock (http://rocketdock.com/) perfectly replicates that dock, which I personally find annoying, and you can use Rain Meter (http://rainmeter.net/RainCMS/) to customize your UI in just about any other way.

So, at least we're all "informed" now...

I never denied that a PC would be the safe choice, it fact it is. As you know what you're getting if you've never used a mac.

However, I also want to point out that just installing programs like those docks, which I have done in the past, is good to get a general idea of how they work, but mostly I found them very bad integrated and didn't really show you the actual benefit of a dock and other stuff.

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 02:47 PM

But if you are familiar with windows already, need to do stuff on the cheap, and won't be using the mac for all of the various art related reasons that people get a mac, you shouldn't get a mac.

You know, I just don't get that. What are these much-espoused "art reasons" that people prefer Macs for? I'm a graphic designer, and I've always found PCs to be superior or equal in all respects in my work.

IonDragon

2010-06-06, 02:48 PM

Off topic, I find it rather amusing to what rabid heights the computer market can send people frothing to. Discussions of hardware, operating systems, and simply what to buy. People need to chill out :smallwink:

It's quite simple really. If you don't try to warn people away from a snake oil salesman, you're a bad person. I hate to see the gullible being taken advantage of.

However, I also want to point out that just installing programs like those docks, which I have done in the past, is good to get a general idea of how they work, but mostly I found them very bad integrated and didn't really show you the actual benefit of a dock and other stuff.

If you could explain any difference in their functionality it would be interesting.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 02:48 PM

I would actually LOVE a Mac. [...]
I'm a pretty basic computer user. I don't even watch movies and all on my computer. The only reason I was warned away from Netbooks is because I'm a huuuge multitasker when I'm in school.

I'd say go for the cheapest macbook around. If you know you would love the mac, I'd say buy it. If the purpose of money isn't to make you (or somebody else) happy, I wouldn't know. However, if you really can't afford it, there are other computers too that work great.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 03:02 PM

If you could explain any difference in their functionality it would be interesting.

I can. It might be that some of the newer function have been integrated now, since it has been quite a time ago (a few years) when I tried one of them, and I don't even know which one it was, I think it was Rocket Dock though.

1. I had trouble making sure the dock would load properly and wouldn't constantly flip be covered or cover my current active window. In Mac this is less of an issue, considering how maximizing windows works.

2. I had trouble getting rid of the windows taskbar and with certain things I wanted to do, like switching between different internet windows I still had to use the taskbar. With Mac this issue is non-existent or less of an issue considering you can use Expose, which is even quicker when you use keyboard shortcuts. (Now I think of it, I could have just used ALt+Tab..., but that would still have been less optimal, I think)

3. Many of the native icons programs use on Windows aren't vector images and thus look very blurred. On Mac, this isn't an issue.

4. I had on multiple occasions that the dock would show programs running on the background that would clutter up the dock. This has never been an issue on my mac's dock.

5. A feature of the mac dock is that you can browse through maps and open documents from them, without specially opening the Finder. As far as I know this isn't possible on any of the windows docks and all links to maps are just links to opening explorer.

6. Speaking of the map-preview feature, the fan-view choice is as far as I know also unique. Personally I dislike it as just prefer the grid view, but I know people to really like the fan view.

7. I've also had problems with the rocket rock behaving strangely when you have another program running full screen. With mac, this is as far as I have experienced, also not a problem.

Syka

2010-06-06, 03:04 PM

By having budget constraints, I mean I'd be choosing to get a Mac (even the cheapest MacBook, which is heavier than I wanted) or doing the trip to NYC this summer that I've been planning. I have approximately 635$, give or take a little bit to include taxes, to play with and anything extra is coming out of Trip Fund.

That said, taking Plautus in. Depending upon what they say, I may or may not be exchanging it for a totally different computer. I've also decided to compromise on battery life to get the weight I want.

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 03:12 PM

Yeah, in that case, an expensive laptop like a mac might not be affordable. Hope you find a good laptop do.:smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo

2010-06-06, 03:21 PM

You know, I just don't get that. What are these much-espoused "art reasons" that people prefer Macs for? I'm a graphic designer, and I've always found PCs to be superior or equal in all respects in my work.

I believe he was refering to the computer "shell" design itself, wich is quite pretty. Smooth curves, that lovely white, it's the kind of thing we watch in the sci-fi movies.

My opinion? Mac is a status symbol. Having one is sending a message that you have got money to burn and good taste.

If you're however short on money, want to do actual work, and/or can live whitout a machine that's pretty to the eye, there's no reason for you to get a Mac.

Haruki-kun

2010-06-06, 03:22 PM

You know, I just don't get that. What are these much-espoused "art reasons" that people prefer Macs for? I'm a graphic designer, and I've always found PCs to be superior or equal in all respects in my work.

Mostly that lots of Art application actually work on Macs, so you get the advantages of having a Mac without the disadvantage of not being able to use the system because your software demands Windows.

If you're however short on money, want to do actual work, and/or can live whitout a machine that's pretty to the eye, there's no reason for you to get a Mac.

Hint: You can do "actual work" on non-Windows computers, too.

Oslecamo

2010-06-06, 03:25 PM

Hint: You can do "actual work" on non-Windows computers, too.

I just said not-Mac. Linux is not-mac last time I checked.:smalltongue:

Ichneumon

2010-06-06, 03:26 PM

Why would you be less able to do work or be productive on a Mac?

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 03:29 PM

Mostly that lots of Art application actually work on Macs, so you get the advantages of having a Mac without the disadvantage of not being able to use the system because your software demands Windows.
So, not for any real reason. Seems to be a trend with Apple products, that.

lesser_minion

2010-06-06, 03:34 PM

I believe he was refering to the computer "shell" design itself, wich is quite pretty. Smooth curves, that lovely white, it's the kind of thing we watch in the sci-fi movies.

My opinion? Mac is a status symbol. Having one is sending a message that you have got money to burn and good taste.

If you're however short on money, want to do actual work, and/or can live whitout a machine that's pretty to the eye, there's no reason for you to get a Mac.

Hmm... I'm not a serious programmer in the slightest, but I'd say Cocoa/Objective-C qualifies as another advantage for Macs. While GNUstep and étoilé emulate a fair bit of it, they aren't so easy to use.

However, yeah... "being able to program in one specific programming language" is not exactly #1 on the list of things I look for in an OS.

Being able to use LLVM with Objective-C might also be an advantage, although I haven't really looked into it.

If some of the claims I've heard about Cocoa/OpenStep/GNUstep are true, however, it would be a pretty tempting reason to switch.

Haruki-kun

2010-06-06, 03:44 PM

So, not for any real reason. Seems to be a trend with Apple products, that.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/hatersgonahate.jpg

Trog

2010-06-06, 03:44 PM

You know, I just don't get that. What are these much-espoused "art reasons" that people prefer Macs for? I'm a graphic designer, and I've always found PCs to be superior or equal in all respects in my work.
Once upon a time, ten years ago, macs had the superior color management in the OS software so you were assured of displays that rendered color closer to the final product. This was followed by the concept of a color managed workflow which was implemented to be able to track and map input devices' color data (and the corresponding International Color Consortium's profiles) to the display and on to the output device to ensure consistent color throughout the work flow. Mac worked hand in hand (so to speak) with Adobe to implement this.

Nowadays such software and workflows can, I believe, be present on both Macs and PCs. The distinction was always a fine point for higher end print products and much to do with the behind the scenes stuff happening between programs but art departments at companies that had owned macs continued to buy macs for their art departments and so you have macs grandfathered in in a lot of art departments. Many nowadays are changing ovr to PCs because, as a business decision, spending a lot less on computers is a wise decision if there is no other inherent distinction between the two. The artists may (or may not) feel there is a difference but upper management and accounting often feel otherwise when the compare the bills for two different departments versus their results.

Plus there is the less tangible idea that "macs are more aesthetically pleasing machines" and that artists tend to gravitate towards these for that reason. I kind of think it is the reverse - that macs began to feature better product design, aesthetics-wise, due to the amount of artists that were loyal to the brand before it was all shiny. This whole thing is just a theory but one that I think has at least some basis in fact for some mac users.

So use what you want. As all graphic artists know, it's really only the final product you produce that counts. :smallwink:

Oslecamo

2010-06-06, 03:59 PM

Why would you be less able to do work or be productive on a Mac?

Because you're paying more money for the same computing quality, wich means you have less money to spend on new upgrades or other stuff that can help you do your work.

Lord Seth

2010-06-06, 04:02 PM

@the poster above me, what's the WINE equivalent for Mac OSX?I'm not the poster above you, but I'll tell you anyway: WINE is the WINE equivalent for Mac OS X. I actually use CrossOver though; it costs money but it's way easier to use than regular WINE. Alternatively, you can just install Windows on it if you want. More expensive, but you get complete compatibility.

"I will never use a macintosh because Steve Jobs is the only human on earth who operates under the illusion that humans have only one finger." (http://www.goopeg.com/img/ZsXg0uHn.jpg)The weird thing is that the newer Apple mouses do have two buttons (sort of) in that hitting the right side of the mouse produces a different effect than the left, but Portal just counts them as the same. Still, it's not hard to just pay $10 for a mouse that does have two buttons, or if you're really cheap (unlikely if you did buy a Mac, heh) to just change the controls.

I can't begin to say how much loathing I have for the OSX dock. I recognize that other people seem to like it for reasons that are beyond me, but it is a major turnoff.I find the OS X dock pretty tolerable, except for the fact you cannot turn it off completely. You can turn hiding on to make it go away, but if you put your mouse too close to the bottom of the screen (or the left or right, depending on how you've set it) it pops up anyway. I've barely found that to be a problem myself, but I'm confused as to why there's no way to turn it off for the people who do find it to be a problem.

Now, my thoughts! I've been a lifelong Mac user, so I can definitely say there are some problems with it. They're more expensive than their PC counterparts and their prices really should be lowered. And I'm still amazed at how much Apple messed up the newer versions of iMovie and QuickTime. iMovie HD and QuickTime Player 7 were great, but iMovie '08/'09 and QuickTime X are pretty awful. Why take something that's had a perfect interface for years and completely change it for no apparent reason other than that you can? At least with iMovie I can see that maybe they were trying to make it worse to get people to buy Final Cut Express (which is good), but I'm baffled at QuickTime X. At least they still let you download QuickTime 7. Though I'm sure that Microsoft has messed some things up just as badly on the Windows side...

All that said, at the end of the day, I greatly prefer the Mac OS interface (probably the biggest reason I prefer it), it has some programs I quite enjoy that Windows doesn't, and the interface of the graphical version of NetHack is way better in Mac OS X than it is in Windows (hey, it matters to me). A lot of things are greatly exaggerated by the haters also. So I'd really say that the main reason to get a Mac is if you find Mac OS easier to use than Windows. You can get Mac OS on a PC, but it's a pain to do so, you're not going to get much customer support if you have problems afterwards, and I believe it's technically illegal if you care about that sort of thing.

Flickerdart

2010-06-06, 04:29 PM

The weird thing is that the newer Apple mouses do have two buttons (sort of) in that hitting the right side of the mouse produces a different effect than the left, but Portal just counts them as the same. Still, it's not hard to just pay $10 for a mouse that does have two buttons, or if you're really cheap (unlikely if you did buy a Mac, heh) to just change the controls.
I've used those new mice. Half the time you click, it decides that you actually middle-clicked and brings up the calendar. Then if it didn't decide that, it decides that you wanted to do that thing where it puts all windows on the screen at once (something I've never been able to intentionally replicate, which is funny). Not to mention the uselessness of the little scroll ball for scrolling for any length. I always try and get the old one-button mice when I'm at the design lab - they might suck, but they suck consistently.

Trog

2010-06-06, 04:43 PM

I've used those new mice. Half the time you click, it decides that you actually middle-clicked and brings up the calendar. Then if it didn't decide that, it decides that you wanted to do that thing where it puts all windows on the screen at once (something I've never been able to intentionally replicate, which is funny). Not to mention the uselessness of the little scroll ball for scrolling for any length. I always try and get the old one-button mice when I'm at the design lab - they might suck, but they suck consistently.
Agreed. Ever since the hockey puck mouse they came out with I've been wary of Apple's design sense taking precedence over functionality in regards to their mice. I've been using PC mice on my macs for many years.

Ogremindes

2010-06-06, 06:15 PM

Jack Squat

2010-06-06, 06:49 PM

My addition to the debate is that I've got a MacBook Pro that has hit the floor hard. Twice. Once onto tile. Both the top and bottom case are bent, and it doesn't close properly any more, but apart from that it still works perfectly. It's about four years old now, and my sister's been using it since her (pink) Sony Vaio crapped out early this year.

You're not just paying for looks on a Mac, you're also paying for build quality.

I've had my Dell 6400 for over 3 years now. I'm not one who's known to be gentle with gadgets. I can't count how many times it's been dropped or banged into things, or tossed onto a bed or chair. It's taken 3 good falls (>3 ft), and I had to replace the screen after the last one. It was a $90 fix that I did myself. I've had it blue screen on me twice, other than that, it's functioned flawlessly. The laptop was $600.

Price isn't what determines build quality, both structural integrity and how well it actually functions. Sony just isn't good at making computers, that's why your sister's Vaio crapped out. In my experience, as far as PCs, HP makes good computers and so does Dell (in the upper price range anyways). Most of Mac's products are well designed, but that's not why they cost more. IMO, they don't function any better than HPs. You're paying for the name, for that apple symbol.

I think this is best proven by the Macbook airs. They release a computer that has 3 ports on it - a headphone jack, a lone USB port, and a mini display port - and no CD/DVD drive. They then charge $1500 for a computer that you need to pay an extra $100 just so you're able to play a CD or watch a movie that you already own. To my own amusement, they include recovery discs with a computer that has no drive to read them.

Oslecamo

2010-06-06, 07:07 PM

Syka

2010-06-06, 07:53 PM

I was going to go with this (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Lenovo+-+ThinkPad+Edge+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core% 26%23153%3B+i3+Processor+-+Midnight+Black/9846226.p?id=1218183109339&skuId=9846226&st=lenovo&contract_desc=null) (it was on clearance and I've heard good things about Lenovo), but the 2 that had been in other stores either got sold or the store wouldn't send it to my store, and I wouldn't buy a floor model. So I got this (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Asus+-+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Core%26%23153%3B2+D uo+Processor+-+Black/9701931.p?id=1218153002507&skuId=9701931) and had it price matched to the Lenovo (645$).

So....do you think even though it's an ultra-low voltage processor, that I'll still be able to multitask? It's got waaay more RAM than my old Dell (256M versus 4G DDR3), but a slower processor (1.6Ghz on the Dell, 1.3Ghz on the Asus). Cnet said the processor slowed it down a bit, and the battery life in their review was half of what was advertised, but I'm curious what you guys think.

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 09:00 PM

Depends on what you want to multitask really. If you're talking Excel, Word, and Firefox, yes. If you're talking Crysis, Maya, and SETI At Home, no. :smallwink:

EDIT: by the way, one trick to lengthening battery life is to turn down the brightness of the screen. If you were doing well with that toshiba you'll do great with this Asus.

Me? I'd be going for that sleek, sexy Sony i7 they've got. It's (ironically) the only computer on the floor with a better processor than mine :smallwink:

Syka

2010-06-06, 10:03 PM

Sony's are like Mac's for me...a tad too pricey. ;)

Pretty, though. And for multitasking I mean a number of Firefox/Chrome tabs, Word, Excel, AND Powerpoint, Business Plan Pro, iTunes, and a few other things. It should be fine, though. :smallsmile:

Imagine my surprise when during the first bootup my computer starts showing me a movie...:smalleek: This Asus seems HUGE, even though I know it's no bigger than my Dell really, because that little Toshiba spoiled me, lol. It may not be as light as I aimed for, but it's better than Stan.

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 10:22 PM

Yeah it should do all that fine. Might want to consider switching media players; however, iTunes has problems.

Syka

2010-06-06, 10:28 PM

Yeah it should do all that fine. Might want to consider switching media players; however, iTunes has problems.

iTunes is for my iPhone. I use WMP, or Zune software if WMP is being buggy. I avoid iTunes for anything other than organizing my phone and getting apps that are too big to download direct to the phone. :smallwink: Love my Zune.

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 10:46 PM

...if you and Oz ever split give me a call.

Syka

2010-06-06, 10:55 PM

Lol, as I said...the iPhone was my first ever Apple product. It's the only one that, compared to equivalent machines (variations on the Droid, Palm's, etc) isn't overpriced. :smallwink: I've actually been impressed with the Zune compared to my other 2 previous players.

Plus I hated the original iPod/Nano's interface. That circle thingy bugged me to death (I used friend's on occasion).

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 11:00 PM

Don't let it's price fool you, you can get a Droid unlimited data plan for $40/month, and iirc the basic plan ATT has is $40/month.

Syka

2010-06-06, 11:06 PM

The iPhone data plan is about that, I think. I worked it out, and if I got a Motorola Droid on Verizon, I'd be paying the same for the same amount of minutes plus unlimited data (required by both) and unlimited messaging. Seeing as both are $200 with sign up...I was surprised the iPhone wasn't more, lets say.

Plus I already own it. :smallwink: Yay free stuff.

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 11:07 PM

Hahaha I don't mean to disparage your awesome piece of equipment! I wish I had an iPhone, I'm stuck with a phone that isn't' even a smart phone. All's I got is an LG slide. I'm considering picking up an iTouch soon though, they's just so HANDY.

Syka

2010-06-06, 11:09 PM

If it's like the phone version, do it. <3 my phone.

I went from a phone that didn't even have a SIM card or a camera, to the iPhone. It was a...shock. I'd been planning on a Propel or Blackjack, but who's going to turn down an offer of an iPhone, lol?

Superglucose

2010-06-06, 11:12 PM

The stopping point are ze funds. $199.99 for an 8gb is about... $150.00 more than I have to spend at the moment :smallwink: I might start saving a bit more up though.

SDF

2010-06-07, 12:38 AM

What computer are you using now? Is it yours, someone else's, desktop, laptop, and how old is it? Do you plan to keep it and use it after you get your new computer?

I'm not sure how important this is to you, but you could always try to scrape a bit more and save up for exactly what you want. Again, it isn't always what you need. (As are so many things we all want/need. :smallsigh:) Also, I love iTunes, and my iPod. I have it set up pretty much exactly how I want, so the only time I have any problems is when it updates and writes over my workarounds. :smalltongue: Honestly, if you could just have it I would say get a custom PC desktop and a macbook pro. It is a pain in the butt to mess with customizing, or opening a laptop no matter the brand, IMHO.

The reason I use mac for my music is the firepod studio my friend has. It is an $800 interface that, up until they changed the name to the FP10, was mac only. It is also firewire, which my alienware actually has, but is pretty rare on a lot of PCs to the point you usually need to have it installed third party that voids your warranty. (Though, most places will give you a warranty on their work.) The point is, it is expensive and hard to deal with on a non-mac platform.

Superglucose

2010-06-07, 01:04 AM

Firewire is terrible. It's slower than USB and not a widely supported. I can't imagine why anyone would prefer to use it :smallconfused:

As for your comment about iTunes, so you like iTunes because you have all these workarounds for the features you don't like, and the only thing that bothers you is that they get removed whenever you update?:smallconfused: I hate to break it to you, but that's why people generally switch programs: they have to use all sorts of workarounds, and then realize, "Why not use a program I don't have to use workarounds for?"

Plus I've yet to meet anyone who appreciates iTunes' style of organizing music.

Vaynor

2010-06-07, 01:18 AM

Firewire is terrible. It's slower than USB and not a widely supported. I can't imagine why anyone would prefer to use it :smallconfused:

Plus I've yet to meet anyone who appreciates iTunes' style of organizing music.

Umm, what? Firewire is faster than USB, you are right that it is not widely supported though.

Edit: Unless you are only moving small amounts of files. If you need to move any large amount of information, Firewire is your friend. Especially when doing things such as booting a computer from an external hard drive, or backing up a computer, etc.

Also, personally, I usually listen to a single artist at a time, or a specific album, so when I listen to music (via iTunes) I just simplify the list to that specific artist/album and go from there. Would you prefer the music not be organized alphabetically? You order it by pretty much any criteria you can think of, anyways. Plus, I love iTunes' "Genius", it works like Pandora for the music I already own.

SDF

2010-06-07, 01:24 AM

Wut? My firewire is way faster than a 2.0 USB port. It is supported by most mac and some third party peripherals.

I like the iTunes interface. I just don't update. No need to be so critical of my preferences, mang.

Ichneumon

2010-06-07, 01:28 AM

I like iTunes U very much.

Superglucose

2010-06-07, 01:41 AM

Umm, what? Firewire is faster than USB, you are right that it is not widely supported though.

480 mbit/s > 400 mbit/s

Unless you want to compare max values, in which case 5000 mbit/s > 3200 mbit/s

As for organizing music, I used to think iTunes was awesome. Then I tried winamp and realized, "lol... I can actually organize"

Vaynor

2010-06-07, 01:45 AM

480 mbit/s > 400 mbit/s

Unless you want to compare max values, in which case 5000 mbit/s > 3200 mbit/s

It's not even nearly that simple. It has to do with how firewire handles files. If you're transferring information at around 100 mb, sure, USB will generally be faster, but for handling larger amounts of information firewire reigns supreme. Especially if the files are individually stored and not zipped (or likewise).

Reinboom

2010-06-07, 01:54 AM

480 mbit/s > 400 mbit/s

Unless you want to compare max values, in which case 5000 mbit/s > 3200 mbit/s

As for organizing music, I used to think iTunes was awesome. Then I tried winamp and realized, "lol... I can actually organize"

That's also comparing with Firewire 400. Which would be like comparing with USB 1.0 - which you are not doing.

Firewire 800 speeds tend around the high 700s, close to 800 mbit/s (yay! naming schemes!).

The maximum running is a nearly useless comparison. USB has some terrible hardware management to go with it. It gets speeds much slower than even the reported standard 480 mbit/s and is CPU intensive (comparatively).

Now what USB has over firewire is that firewire constantly changes designs and that everything has adapted to USB. Making a "no room for alternatives" situation.

Jimorian

2010-06-07, 02:10 AM

Regarding Firewire vs. USB 2.0, for the kinds of video production things we do at school, it has to be firewire, because even though the USB spec speed is higher, to handle real-time transfer of video files to/from a camera or DV tape deck, firewire is the only thing that will work.

The same goes for editing. You can work in Final Cut Pro with files on a Firewire HD and still get real-time playback.

Using Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro are the primary reasons I'd consider getting a Mac. Adobe Premiere and Encore are the equivalent programs in the PC world, but they aren't quite on par. The point is moot for now because I don't have the money for one.

IonDragon

2010-06-07, 02:10 AM

Plus, I love iTunes' "Genius", it works like Pandora for the music I already own.

AHAHAHAHA except if you listen to anything that isn't played on the radio 20x/day. Itunes' 'Genius' has not once recommended anything related to the music I listen to. Not once. Ever.
Some things I listen to that it doesn't understand the genre of:

Bella Morte (EBM, my 'emo' music)
The Crystal Method (Club music/electro, fairly main stream)
Faderhead (Club music/electro, I'll admit, a bit off the beaten path but still...)
Basshunter (Club music/nerdcore, this is about as mainstream as my music gets)
The Prodigy (!!!!! What? There's like 1 GB of their music alone!)

And yes, I've given it many chances, and yes I let it do it's MANDATORY update EVERY TIME I OPEN ITUNES. Still doesn't help. You know why Pandora is better? It takes advice from it's users.

[The rest of this post has been removed due to flames coming out of my ears]

Vaynor

2010-06-07, 02:18 AM

AHAHAHAHA except if you listen to anything that isn't played on the radio 20x/day. Itunes' 'Genius' has not once recommended anything related to the music I listen to. Not once. Ever.

Woah there, I never said it was perfect. It works for almost every band I listen to, and trust me on this, I don't listen to much mainstream music at all. I use it if I want to listen to a certain kind of music (i.e. music like x band). I think you might be confusing the Genius I'm referring to, the kind that generates a playlist from music you currently own, and the kind that recommends music that you don't own based on that which you do own. You might want to calm down just a little.

Alleine

2010-06-07, 02:55 AM

I'd definitely stick with non-mac if money is the concern, however minor the concern is. If you'd still like a mac the next time a computer flakes out on you/you're ready to replace and you have enough money you're comfortable spending it on mac, THEN I'd go for it.

It's quite simple really. If you don't try to warn people away from a snake oil salesman, you're a bad person. I hate to see the gullible being taken advantage of.

Except that this isn't like that at all?:smallconfused: Its a product that works. This is clear to my family that has been using macs since I can remember. Its more expensive yes, but if you prefer macs for whatever personal reasons, then its worth it. It really comes down to personal preference.

Its good you give people a different perspective though. Makes 'em think about it and ultimately(hopefully) choose whats best for them. :smallsmile:

IonDragon

2010-06-07, 04:15 AM

Woah there, I never said it was perfect...*snip*...You might want to calm down just a little.

Nor did I expect it to be perfect. Though usually when someone loves a function, you'd expect it to at least be a function that works.

Except that this isn't like that at all?:smallconfused:

Its good you give people a different perspective though. Makes 'em think about it and ultimately(hopefully) choose whats best for them. :smallsmile:

Well actually, if you want to get technical you can't really prove a negative, so much as disprove enough positives to make it appear you've proven a negative. For all i know Snake Oil may be an excellent remedy for curing hair loss, dry skin, and a million other ailments down to the common cold.

Just like macs may actually be better at something.

Now, I'm not saying macs don't work. I'm just saying I have yet to see definitive proof that they're better for anything, or can do anything you can't get a PC to do with know-how slightly greater than "novice" level (barring running mac-only applications, and prevent functionality).

There were links earlier to a slim line computer that was built mostly for movie viewing with a price tag greater than a mac. That was a poor example, because those are not the kind of specifications you want on good computer. That was more of a novelty computer, in that it was slim line, and all built into the monitor. I may have not taken the time to explain my position on why that was a bad case previously.

Syka

2010-06-07, 08:17 AM

What I'm hoping for is that I can get a job with a company that is willing to shell out for a computer. ;) A friend of mine here got a $3000+ Dell from his job, but it's HIS computer. The admissions counselors at my school also get their personal computers paid for.

Sadly, since I'm likely moving to NYC in a year or so, I don't see myself having enough money for a Mac soon. Hopefully one day.

SDF, I was using Lucretius, a 2.5 year old HP desktop. He is mine and I'm definitely keeping him around. He's probably even going to make the trek up to NYC with me. I wish I could have waited a little bit more, but I really need a laptop for my classes. That is why weight and battery was an important factor for me, and I needed one Right Now.

I break computers by looking at them funny, so I'm going to leave the custom PC thing to my boyfriend. He built his current one. Once Lucretius is out of warranty next year, I'll probably have him update hardware if needed. He could probably do with a little more RAM, actually.

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 09:04 AM

Firewire is terrible. It's slower than USB and not a widely supported. I can't imagine why anyone would prefer to use it :smallconfused:

No. That isn't actually true. All USB is is a bigger number tacked onto the front ("480 Mbps" as opposed to "400 Mbps").

The other thing is, that's also a textbook case of the "one marketable element" engineering methodology - don't make a good product, just find a number people intuitively equate with something good, and crank it up as far as possible. Even if it goes far beyond what is actually useful.

It's been done a million times before. Processor clock speeds. Digital Camera resolutions (There is an 'ideal' resolution for a particular size of chip. Exceeding it actually decreases picture quality). Misusing programming languages is another classic, although that's a lot more subtle.

If it was some score on a widely recognised benchmark, as opposed to one small factor in a bigger picture, then 480 Mbps would be meaningful. As it is, it isn't.

Erloas

2010-06-07, 09:35 AM

No. That isn't actually true. All USB is is a bigger number tacked onto the front ("480 Mbps" as opposed to "400 Mbps").

The other thing is, that's also a textbook case of the "one marketable element" engineering methodology - don't make a good product, just find a number people intuitively equate with something good, and crank it up as far as possible. Even if it goes far beyond what is actually useful.

It's been done a million times before. Processor clock speeds.

Those numbers actually mean something. At least relative to each other. A 3.6GHz processor is unquestionably faster then the same architecture at 2.6GHz. While its true that when comparing across architectures the numbers don't mean anything, since a 4.0GHz Pentium 4 is slower then a 2.2GHz Core2Duo. Of course then you run into the question of how noticeable it actually is to the user and that depends entirely on what the user is doing.

USB2.0 is faster then Firewire, at least the 1394a that everyone uses, there is a 1394b that is out too but isn't used much. It isn't all that much faster though so in a lot of uses it won't be a noticeable difference between them. But he is absolutely right that it is not widely supported. It was only ever used much in the recording and video industry because Apple started it and said thats how it should be. Outside of video cameras and a few external storage options, it isn't really used at all. And even in both of those it was dropped in favor of USB once USB2.0 came out because Firewire was significantly faster then the original USB1.0 specs that were being used when Firewire started. As it happens, Apple was also the first vendor to remove Firewire support from its line of computers; its probably still on the towers that only video editing companies buy, I know they removed it from their laptops and iMacs.

Flickerdart

2010-06-07, 11:07 AM

Doesn't Firewire also have hilarious security holes? That's what I've heard, at any rate.

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 11:09 AM

Those numbers actually mean something. At least relative to each other. A 3.6GHz processor is unquestionably faster then the same architecture at 2.6GHz. While its true that when comparing across architectures the numbers don't mean anything, since a 4.0GHz Pentium 4 is slower then a 2.2GHz Core2Duo. Of course then you run into the question of how noticeable it actually is to the user and that depends entirely on what the user is doing.

They do mean something. I'm not saying that the numbers are meaningless.

What I'm saying is that it's exceedingly naïve to assume that the first number people give for a particular technology is the whole story.

Clock speed refers to the rate at which a signal is propagated across the processor. A higher clock speed does imply more responsive transistors (which allow the signal to be propagated faster), and implies that instructions will be completed faster, but it's not the sole factor.

Bus speed, for example, is quite important. If your processor is only receiving instructions at 800 MHz, then it's going to have to wind itself down and run at 800 MHz. Or do nothing 1,400,000,000 times per second.

And then there's the fact that both memory and graphics cards have clock speeds even slower than that.

My understanding is that in general, Firewire is faster, because it uses those 400 Mbps far more efficiently than USB 2.0 uses its 480 Mbps. The only issue is compatibility.

NOTE: According to the wikipedia article, testing does show that "400 Mbps" Firewire is faster than "480 Mbps" USB2, at least in sustained usage. However, windows drivers are lower quality.

USB3 is competitive with Firewire, but... even less widely supported. The only advantage is that you should be able to use a USB2 device with a USB3 port.

Doesn't Firewire also have hilarious security holes? That's what I've heard, at any rate.

Being a hardware standard... that would be surprising.

Flickerdart

2010-06-07, 11:18 AM

Being a hardware standard... that would be surprising.
5 seconds of googling got me this (http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2008/03/your_pc_0wned_over_firewire.php), and 4 and a half million other results. It's definitely a real thing.

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 11:31 AM

5 seconds of googling got me this (http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2008/03/your_pc_0wned_over_firewire.php), and 4 and a half million other results. It's definitely a real thing.

Yet... it isn't actually a particularly big hole. If someone has physical access to your computer, you're likely to be pwned anyway. Likewise, if you plug any storage media into your computer without knowing that it's safe, you can be pwned pretty easily.

It's certainly not a "hilarious security hole", because unless the user is practically complicit (leaving a laptop unattended in a public place is, of course, such a good idea), it can't be exploited.

Flickerdart

2010-06-07, 11:34 AM

I'd rather not knowingly increase my chances of "being pwned", thank you very much.

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 11:38 AM

I'd rather not knowingly increase my chances of "being pwned", thank you very much.

Nine out of ten of the people who were going to 'pwn' you brought a USB stick with Linux on it. Not a super-amazing gadget the sole purpose of which is to crack computers, since those aren't so easy to obtain and are a fast track to being 'pwned' if someone catches you with one.

You can also disable the Firewire port when you aren't using the computer.

Finally, it comes down to the way memory is mapped. Newer machines are a bit more careful with the feature in question, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1394_interface#Security_issues

For a real hilarious security hole, try PDFs - some of the things you're allowed to include in a pdf document are absolutely ridiculous (3d models with embedded javascript, instructions to open external applications, instructions to send arbitrary data to arbitrary IP addresses...)

And CSS-using documents can specify a unique background image for each hyperlink on a page (meaning that the server for those images now has a record of exactly which of those hyperlinks you've visited before).

mrpitchfork

2010-06-07, 12:36 PM

Erloas

2010-06-07, 01:05 PM

A Mac is worth every cent. People will cite NewEgg and tell you otherwise, but they don't actually understand the construction of a computer, and they won't stop trying to be funny long enough to make cohesive arguments. They just understand what basic parts are required for a computer to run. They don't understand every single thing involved in the design of a fully functioning computer.What? Most people don't understand how many registers a processor has or how many cycles it takes to complete a move function, or how the processor controls the bridge controllers on a motherboard, but that has no impact on the ability of someone to buy the parts and build a functioning computer.
In terms of putting it together, I'm sure the people actually assembling the computers for Mac know significantly less about computers then the average computer enthusiast. I have known people that did basic motherboard testing at Intel and people that have assembled computers for some company (I think it was Micron when they were still selling computers, but I'm sure Apple is the same way) didn't know anything about computers before they got there. Someone says "here are some parts, this is how it goes together, put as many together as you can in 8 hours" and thats about it. Someone above them picks out the parts that will be used together and they know more, but they have nothing to do with engineering parts.

It isn't like Apple even makes any of their components. They get their processors from Intel, they get their motherboards from Foxconn, they get their hard drives from Seagate, not sure who they get their memory from but I can guarantee its the same manufacturer you can buy parts from on Newegg just with a different sticker on it. They get their LCDs from several different suppliers that supply to every other company as well. I have no idea what they use for power supplies, but I know they come from one of the manufacturers that have a retail brand you can buy. I would guess FSP because they do a lot of OEM power supplies, and they are a top tier manufacturer, but there are better ones out there too. The only thing Apple actually makes is the cases, the one aspect of a computer that has no impact on anything outside of aesthetics.

The operating system is vastly superior for the common user and the uncommon user alike, and Macs are sturdy and will last for years. There is an overly vocal and very misleading minority who have problems with their Macs, acting as if EVERYBODY has these problems. They are an overly vocal and very misleading minority.
Objectively how is it superior? Knowing several people that work in the video industry, they have all said they have about the same amount of problems with their Macs as they have with other computers. Its not many for either. I can't even remember the last time my home-build Windows PC crashed. Its not hard to get the same or better components then what Apple uses. (Most enthusiasts won't even look at Foxconn motherboards because they are sub-par compared to the competition) As for security, right now they only advantage OSX has is obscurity. Even top security firms and hackers alike say Windows 7 is much more secure then OSX, that Microsoft has made huge gains in security where Apple tends to ignore problems until they become wide spread.

Ponce

2010-06-07, 01:10 PM

You leaving your computer unattended and then having its integrity compromised is not the FireWire technology's fault, the same way it isn't Apple's fault or Gateway's fault if someone uses your computer without your permission, the same way leaving your car unlocked and then having it stolen is not Toyota's fault.

To get actually on topic:

A Mac is worth every cent. People will cite NewEgg and tell you otherwise, but they don't actually understand the construction of a computer, and they won't stop trying to be funny long enough to make cohesive arguments. They just understand what basic parts are required for a computer to run. They don't understand every single thing involved in the design of a fully functioning computer.

The operating system is vastly superior for the common user and the uncommon user alike, and Macs are sturdy and will last for years. There is an overly vocal and very misleading minority who have problems with their Macs, acting as if EVERYBODY has these problems. They are an overly vocal and very misleading minority.

This sort of sweeping, generic post might have made some sort of sense BEFORE the topic was discussed in much greater detail and at length, with many arguments already stated to shoot down your rather bold and fairly unsupported claims.

(Though I have to agree that when people say they've run X Computer for Y time period and have (or have not) had problems is the battle cry of someone who needs to go back to stats 101 and realize that ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING)

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 01:17 PM

Syka

2010-06-07, 01:21 PM

mrpitchfork, while I don't find Apple OS's to be the horror I once found them to be, I'm still much more comfortable using Windows. People complained loads about Vista, which I never had an issue with. Windows 7 I adore. It's probably because I have been raised on Window machines my ENTIRE life (my dad is an engineer who only went Mac in the last 5 or so years, after he stopped living with us...ironically, he's never mentioned my getting one or them being superior; my mom used to be a failure analyst and has built computers in the past).

I just don't find Apple OS's to be as friendly to me. I'm sure it's the learning curve and I could get used to it, but if we're going on ease of use...Windows is superior for me. I also KNOW it will be compatible with all the software I'd need in my business environment. Meanwhile, Apple isn't always. My best friend is getting a Windows netbook soon because several army documents just will NOT show up on her MacBook Pro no matter what she does, and she can't get anything off of her EHDD (although, she can put stuff on it).

I'm friendlier to Mac's now, I really am; I want one eventually. But you don't need to make a sweeping generalization that they are better for everyone for everything.

mrpitchfork

2010-06-07, 02:04 PM

What? Most people don't understand how many registers a processor has or how many cycles it takes to complete a move function, or how the processor controls the bridge controllers on a motherboard, but that has no impact on the ability of someone to buy the parts and build a functioning computer.
In terms of putting it together, I'm sure the people actually assembling the computers for Mac know significantly less about computers then the average computer enthusiast. I have known people that did basic motherboard testing at Intel and people that have assembled computers for some company (I think it was Micron when they were still selling computers, but I'm sure Apple is the same way) didn't know anything about computers before they got there. Someone says "here are some parts, this is how it goes together, put as many together as you can in 8 hours" and thats about it.

Okay.

Someone above them picks out the parts that will be used together and they know more, but they have nothing to do with engineering parts.

Knowing that these parts work really well together has nothing to do with engineering. Right.

It isn't like Apple even makes any of their components. They get their processors from Intel, they get their motherboards from Foxconn, they get their hard drives from Seagate, not sure who they get their memory from but I can guarantee its the same manufacturer you can buy parts from on Newegg just with a different sticker on it. They get their LCDs from several different suppliers that supply to every other company as well. I have no idea what they use for power supplies, but I know they come from one of the manufacturers that have a retail brand you can buy. I would guess FSP because they do a lot of OEM power supplies, and they are a top tier manufacturer, but there are better ones out there too. The only thing Apple actually makes is the cases, the one aspect of a computer that has no impact on anything outside of aesthetics.

So I guess the only problem with having a toilet paper case is aesthetics.

Objectively how is it superior? Knowing several people that work in the video industry, they have all said they have about the same amount of problems with their Macs as they have with other computers. Its not many for either. I can't even remember the last time my home-build Windows PC crashed. Its not hard to get the same or better components then what Apple uses. (Most enthusiasts won't even look at Foxconn motherboards because they are sub-par compared to the competition) As for security, right now they only advantage OSX has is obscurity. Even top security firms and hackers alike say Windows 7 is much more secure then OSX, that Microsoft has made huge gains in security where Apple tends to ignore problems until they become wide spread.

OS X is secure, lightweight, user-friendly (remember that familiarity != user-friendly; Syka seems to understand this), comes with a great deal of great and very intercompatible software, it is internally consistent, it rarely has significant hardware or software bugs, it has great resources for developers. I'd keep going but I'm lazy.

Also, OS X's security is not just due to its obscurity. Security can exist within the operating system, truth be told.

This sort of sweeping, generic post might have made some sort of sense BEFORE the topic was discussed in much greater detail and at length, with many arguments already stated to shoot down your rather bold and fairly unsupported claims.

When you've finished trying to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you instead of even trying to address their arguments, would you like to present an actual argument?

I thought it was generally assumed that, when someone says something, it's not necessarily true or intended to be stated as such. Otherwise we'd be saying "I thought", "for me", "I think", "my opinion", "my experience" after every single sentence. The point of the thread is not necessarily just a debate over OS X.

This is just an unsupported assertion with some pointless mudslinging tacked on.

See someone talk about how the only aspect of a computer is the RAM, processor, and HD. Then notice how everyone who goes out of their way to call Macs overpriced does this. Then get back to me.

That's interesting. It also has no real relevance, as nobody has actually tried such an argument in this thread.

Okay.

I also KNOW it will be compatible with all the software I'd need in my business environment. Meanwhile, Apple isn't always. My best friend is getting a Windows netbook soon because several army documents just will NOT show up on her MacBook Pro no matter what she does, and she can't get anything off of her EHDD (although, she can put stuff on it).

Odd. Does the army use a non-standard file format? Because NeoOffice can open up pretty much anything (it's based on OpenOffice, but optimized for OS X).

Erloas

2010-06-07, 02:48 PM

Knowing that these parts work really well together has nothing to do with engineering. Right. At this point in time it doesn't. The companies making the parts have went through years and years of engineering themselves to make sure all of the parts work together so it doesn't take an engineer to make a computer. Its called standards, and all computer parts should be built to meet those standards that say they are going to work together. About the only real variable is making sure you have a power supply that will supply enough power for all of the components you are installing, and generally speaking the video card(s) are the determining factor.

For motherboards and processors there are about a dozen processors and about 2-3 dozen motherboards that will all work together without any problems. There are about 100 different video cards that will work with every one of them without issue. The hard drive used makes no difference at all in terms of compatibility. There are a few options of RAM that have to be looked at, but its not that complicated and any one of them will work so long as you get the right type.

So I guess the only problem with having a toilet paper case is aesthetics. I've seen a lot of custom cases before, but I don't think I've seen that one. It does make a nice straw-man case though. There is a bit more to that in laptops then desktops, but for desktops any case you can actually buy will fit the needs. Laptops run the gamut for quality depending if you are spending $300 for one or $2000. And as is so often the case people claim their Macbook that cost $1500 is built better then the $300 windows laptop they use at work and not compared to the $1200 Windows laptop that its competing against.

OS X is secure, lightweight, user-friendly (remember that familiarity != user-friendly; Syka seems to understand this), comes with a great deal of great and very intercompatible software, it is internally consistent, it rarely has significant hardware or software bugs, it has great resources for developers. I'd keep going but I'm lazy.

Also, OS X's security is not just due to its obscurity. Security can exist within the operating system, truth be told.
OSX is not as secure as Windows according to security experts. Its been said and shown at every BlackHat convention for the last 3-4 years. Thats not to say OSX is highly vulnerable, but it isn't any more secure then Windows, it is demonstrably less secure. Lightweight is a really vague definition to try and use, and even if it is better then Windows it is a lot worse then many versions of Linux. User-friendlyness is really hard to judge. Every Apple product I've had to help other people use (yes other people that have Apple products and can't figure out how to do something they want ask me to help them figure it out) has been a PITA because the they want to do something that isn't exactly how Apple wants them to do it so it doesn't work.
But either way both systems are easy to use and can be learned by the average person in a short period of time. I don't think there is any objective way to say one is more user friendly then the other. There are plenty of examples of computer illiterate people learning Windows and doing what they need to do. As for fixing problems that come up, they all end up calling other people for that and there isn't a shortage of people that have learned to fix those problems for both systems fairly quickly and easily.
What are "great resources for developers,"? its a fairly meaningless statement. The last I read people were complaining about Apple eliminating all development for iPhone Apps that doesn't use their specific SDK despite the fact that there are currently quite a few SDKs that will work for it with their own advantages and disadvantages. In the software development world it seems most prefer Unix or Linux development tools followed by Microsoft Visual Studio.
Software bugs are more often then not a result of the person writing the 3rd party software and not based on the hardware or operating system it is running on. I don't think there is any way you could demonstratives even start to back up this claim.

Vaynor

2010-06-07, 02:51 PM

(Though I have to agree that when people say they've run X Computer for Y time period and have (or have not) had problems is the battle cry of someone who needs to go back to stats 101 and realize that ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. At all. People, like me, who have said that in this thread speak merely from experience, and have made no attempt to extrapolate their experiences onto those of all other computer users.

Syka asked for our opinion on whether or not a Mac was worth it, and people are merely stating their opinions.

lesser_minion

2010-06-07, 03:39 PM

Knowing that these parts work really well together has nothing to do with engineering. Right.

And Apple aren't the only people on the planet who know what they are doing as far as engineering is concerned.

So I guess the only problem with having a toilet paper case is aesthetics.

And Apple aren't the only people who make halfway-decent cases.

OS X is secure

Security can exist within the operating system, truth be told.

Yes, it can. OS X doesn't receive any special commendation here - OpenBSD is far more secure (and a juicier target), and Linux is also more secure (and a jucier target).

No OS commits any of the classic Windows mistakes any more, and it's a pretty well-established fact that every operating system currently in use is now secure enough.

The majority of attacks that take place currently on the internet depend on the biggest security hole being between the chair and the keyboard. Apple, to my knowledge, are too busy with out-of-date mudslinging to actually respond to that particular danger.

You may also want to read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2own)

Nobody voluntarily uses an insecure OS, for obvious reasons. So saying that an OS is secure is pretty meaningless.

My understanding is that Apple are highly irresponsible as far as disclosure is concerned - to the point that most of the people who would actually be willing to help them out don't, even though they are perfectly happy to work with everyone else.

That's a giant advantage for everyone else that you've just given up, and it's also about the only noticeable, tangible, thing in the whole mess.

Safari was more secure than Opera and Firefox for a couple of weeks back in April... that isn't the case any more though. Current stats from Secunia are:

Safari: Category 4. Arbitrary code execution and information disclosure.
Internet Explorer: Category 3. Information disclosure and cross-site scripting.
Mozilla Firefox: Category 2. Information disclosure
Opera: no known holes.
Google Chrome: no known holes.

By the way, don't use Flash.

, lightweight,

The installation footprint is smaller than Windows, I believe. It's larger than Linux, FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD, however.

Beyond that, you've devolved into sales-speak

user-friendly (remember that familiarity != user-friendly; Syka seems to understand this),

Nobody argued that familiarity did equal user friendliness. Of course, ease of gaining that familiarity is a part of it.

There are quite a few OS X gotchas that are exclusive to OS X, such as the hide button.

In any event, ease of productivity is also important, and not the same thing as user friendliness.

comes with a great deal of great and very intercompatible software,

Examples? And explanation of why these programs are so amazing in comparison to any alternative?

it is internally consistent,

Compared with? This is an advantage why?

it rarely has significant hardware or software bugs,

Define 'rarely'. And again, Apple's attitude to people trying to help them leads to people not trying to help them. With enough pairs of eyes, all bugs are shallow. All the eyes are on Windows or Linux.

it has great resources for developers

Objective-C is nice, as is Cocoa, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of developer resources.

Clang is also quite good, but available on Linux, and Apple were nice enough to BSD-license LLVM, which works on absolutely everything.

Also, OS X's security is not just due to its obscurity.

Eight times as many people are trying to break into Windows PCs as are trying to break into Macs, and the juciest targets are all running Linux, OpenBSD, or one of the Windows Server editions.

So yes, we'd expect far more reported holes on Windows than we would on Macs.

See someone talk about how the only aspect of a computer is the RAM, processor, and HD. Then notice how everyone who goes out of their way to call Macs overpriced does this. Then get back to me.

Yes, there is a lot more than that. Among other things:

Processor: Number of cores, clock speed, Front Side Bus, cache, word sizes/maximum supported memory. Motherboard/chipset: Clock speed, interfaces to hard disks, GPU, sound card, and memory modules. Graphics: Type of card (discrete or integrated), Clock speed, VRAM, type of VRAM, number of shaders, number of cards, different possible outputs, shader model, support for different features and types of shader. Physics: Availability of accelerated physics, API support, clock speed, shaders, support for different features RAM: Type, clock speed, and capacity. Hard Disk: Capacity, access time, technology (magnetic or solid-state), speed. Durability, most costly operations in terms of durability. Ability to use multiple disks, and ways in which those disks can be used (e.g. RAID). Optical disk. Media with read support, media with write/re-write support. Slots for expansion and peripherals: Types available (Firewire, USB, ExpressCard), Sizes (54mm support, mini-Firewire or normal Firewire) Card Reader: Supported card types (e.g. SD/MMC, MS, XD, CF), Versions of supported card types (e.g. SDHC). Bluetooth. Presence, available peripherals for bluetooth. Networking. Types of network adapter/modem; Network Provider lock-in (for mobile); Wireless signal types (for wireless) Chassis: construction, materials, sustainability considerations, ease of servicing and upgrading, durability Portability: Ability to change the battery; battery chemistry; number of cells; extended battery availability; power consumption; battery lifetime; weight Audio and video input/output: VGA/thatThingAppleUses; HDMI; onboard webcam; stereo and microphone jacks. Screen: backlighting, size, resolution, viewing angle, coating, outdoor and indoor performance, brightness. Warranty/Consumer Rights: service covered under warranty (e.g. C&R or RTB), area of service, consumer rights record of vendor, ability to purchase using a credit card (or other medium with similar advantages**)

The thing is, you can't get the best in every category, and while Apple are good in some categories, that isn't all of them - or necessarily better than any given PC manufacturer.

RAM, processor, and hard disk aren't the be-all and end-all, but they are still extremely important.

The motherboard might actually be the most important thing, as it determines what parts you can even have (and no, Apple don't tend to fit better motherboards than average).

* I've never seen a Mac with 24 solid state drives on RAID 0, for example.
** In the UK, credit card providers must also provide "purchase protection".

In the UK, Apple have allegedly made products to break after a certain amount of time. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/sep/30/news.consumernews) While it was in respect to iPods with a click wheel, it's worth noting that other companies don't seem to have an issue with consumer rights laws.