Why do people buy "Apple" computers?

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: SaveYourself
In many things, Macs are like Bose speakers. On paper they look terrible (the Acoustimass-15 has a frequency-response hole - 10 dB down between 200 and 280 Hz, it does not go below 45 Hz, and it does not go above 18kHz.) So why do people still buy Bose? It's because they couldn't care less about the FR curves and the sound is pleasing ot the ear. With the Mac, it's the look and feel of the computer (the part that you actually use) that people care about, the simple elegance of the Dock, and the great visual effects built right into the GUI, without bogging everything down. And the most popular games, the ones that matter, are available for the Mac and I understand that the Mac runs them quite well. The reason they can get away with what would normally be considered outdated graphics chips in the PC market is that the CPU can compute the vertices without needing the GPU to speed the frames through to the monitor more quickly to create a sense of speed. Just like Bose relies on a lot of psychoacoustics in their products to get the sound that will be the most ear-pleasing to the consumer, though golden-eared audio purists with flat response from 5Hz-50KHz cry foul.

I disagree. I like Macs, because they're well made and easy to use. I've used Macs and PCs quite a bit and I prefer my laptops to be Macs because of the overall setup and build quality. OTOH I generally don't like Bose speakers. The sound quality on some lines is noticeably worse than comparatively priced speakers and the build quality is often also worse than other speakers in the same price range.

As for outdated graphics chips, I should point out that the Geforce 4 first came out on the Mac (by a few days), and my laptop has a Radeon 9000.

Also, AFAIK, the Radeon 7500 is standard on iBooks (the cheap Apple laptops). No cheap PC laptops in the same price range (that I know about) come with gfx options anywhere near what the iBook has (the PC laptops all have integrated gfx, which royally suck).

 

[dannybin1742]

Also, AFAIK, the Radeon 7500 is standard on iBooks (the cheap Apple laptops). No cheap PC laptops in the same price range (that I know about) come with gfx options anywhere near what the iBook has (the PC laptops all have integrated gfx, which royally suck).

yeah but a high end gpu is not needed because just about anything over 900mhz can play the games at decent framerates without having to have an expensive gfx card, and if you are not using the laptop for playing games, what is the point in having one with such a good card?

my moms HP 500mhz AMD laptop can play dvds and do all the stuff she needs with a shared memory gfx card

also

my superthin 700mhz hp notebook with an ati m1 8mb gfx card does everything i want, and can play counterstrike decently fast -no choppy frame rates

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Eug don't even try to play any Apple computer as a gaming machine please. That is one card that Apple definitely does not have up their sleeve. Gaming is for the most part, the PC's domain. With only mainstream titles ported over to Apple's, there is no compelling reason to buy a Mac for gaming, because they still deliver lower FPS than comparable PC's with even worse graphics cards. Apple's don't have any speed advantages over PC's anymore, in fact the tables have turned. THe only advantage that is being portrayed in this thread is OSX and the ease and usability of it. But hey, it's not my money so if you wanna spend it on whatever makes you happy GO RIGHT AHEAD.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
But hey, it's not my money so if you wanna spend it on whatever makes you happy GO RIGHT AHEAD.

Now you are starting to catch on!

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Eug don't even try to play any Apple computer as a gaming machine please. That is one card that Apple definitely does not have up their sleeve. Gaming is for the most part, the PC's domain. With only mainstream titles ported over to Apple's, there is no compelling reason to buy a Mac for gaming, because they still deliver lower FPS than comparable PC's with even worse graphics cards. Apple's don't have any speed advantages over PC's anymore, in fact the tables have turned. THe only advantage that is being portrayed in this thread is OSX and the ease and usability of it. But hey, it's not my money so if you wanna spend it on whatever makes you happy GO RIGHT AHEAD.

Sudheer Anne, as n0cmonkey says, I'm glad you're starting to catch on.

It's my money, and I spend it on what I think is best for me. I guess it says something though about the overall usability and functionality of the Mac laptop and OS, if I'm willing to spend $3000 of my hard earned money on it, despite the fact it doesn't get 23487243 fps in UT2003. $3000 buys a lot of laptop for any brand, but the TiBook is hands down the best laptop in existence for me, at any price. (This is my 3rd laptop in 3 years and I've looked around at a LOT of laptops.)

Actually the Apple laptops use Radeons because the video card offloads work from the CPU for that intense GUI. Gaming is not a main consideration. In Mac OS X.2, the 2D desktop is OpenGL accelerated so having a fast GPU is desired, whether or not you plan to game at all. The iBook has the 7500, and the Titanium has the 9000. I agree neither is going to be a first choice gaming machine. Fortunately, I prefer to get work done with my laptop. It's only a side benefit of the 9000 that it's OK for light gaming so when I take a 20 minute break from my work. ie. I can throw in a little UT or whatever when I'm sick of other stuff, but that's the extent of it. If I really wanted a gaming machine, I wouldn't even buy a laptop, and I would simply upgrade my Windows XP BX Celeron machine to a P4 3 GHz with Radeon 9500 or something.

 

[mjolnir2k]

Oh, what the hell...let's send this back up for another round!

 

[Cat13]

My brother-in-law works in the movie industry primarily dealing with sound editing and dubbing on motion pictures and such. He won't use anything but Apple. From what he says, the software and hardware of an Apple is taylored to this type of application. I can't argue with him, he has been doing this a while now and makes stupid money living it up in LA.

 

[bsr]

1. Apple computers make good expensive paper wieghts..
2. dont need to spend money on games cause the macs only got like 6 ..
3. people like droping them from 5 story buildings
4. there good to laugh at
5. They are 100% non upgradable



Thats my reasons why people buy them ...... LOL

 

[D1vine]

I've heard some rumors about the IBM PowerPC970 chip and the immense performance possibilities it offers.

Anyone else hear anything about it? Its been said that their first customer will most likely be Apple (the G5 )

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

fact is PC's have been gaining ground on Apple and have surpassed them in most aspects in the last three years. All advantages that Apple used to have are pretty much gone and now Apple's only real "advantage" is making prettier cases and creating false lying switch ads.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: D1vine
I've heard some rumors about the IBM PowerPC970 chip and the immense performance possibilities it offers.

Anyone else hear anything about it? Its been said that their first customer will most likely be Apple (the G5 )

Intro article on the IBM PowerPC 970 here.

Basically it starts where the Motorola G4 7455 left off. If it wasn't for the IBM PPC 970 Apple would be in big trouble, because Motorola is no longer developing the 8xxx G5 series at this point.

IBM is taking over the reigns, and indeed already some chips in current Macs are IBM chips. The PPC 970 is 64-bit, Altivec-capable, very SMP-able, and the little brother to the heavy duty POWER 4 chip.

Among the first customers will be IBM themselves (Linux servers), and Apple. Shipping 2H 2003.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: D1vine
I've heard some rumors about the IBM PowerPC970 chip and the immense performance possibilities it offers.

Anyone else hear anything about it? Its been said that their first customer will most likely be Apple (the G5 )

Intro article on the IBM PowerPC 970 here.

Basically it starts where the Motorola G4 7455 left off. If it wasn't for the IBM PPC 970 Apple would be in big trouble, because Motorola is no longer developing the 8xxx G5 series at this point.

IBM is taking over the reigns, and indeed already some chips in current Macs are IBM chips. The PPC 970 is 64-bit, Altivec-capable, very SMP-able, and the little brother to the heavy duty POWER 4 chip.

Among the first customers will be IBM themselves (Linux servers), and Apple. Shipping 2H 2003.

Any guesses if Apple would make a high-end workstation model that had Power 4 chips in it? Of course, it might be expensive, but it couldn't be any worse than any SGI workstations, and it would be compatible with more software than what SGI's generally are (what SGI's do, they do very well, but I'm wondering if a Power 4 Apple box couldn't do things an SGI could plus more).

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
fact is PC's have been gaining ground on Apple and have surpassed them in most aspects in the last three years. All advantages that Apple used to have are pretty much gone and now Apple's only real "advantage" is making prettier cases and creating false lying switch ads.

Why do you even bother posting such crap? You're obviously biased and zealous, why even try to take part in a discussion when you can only contribute biased, ignorant opinions? What you said is not true, and that's all there is to it.

Come on people, contribute a bit of intelligence to the conversation, or go away.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
fact is PC's have been gaining ground on Apple and have surpassed them in most aspects in the last three years. All advantages that Apple used to have are pretty much gone and now Apple's only real "advantage" is making prettier cases and creating false lying switch ads.

Why do you even bother posting such crap? You're obviously biased and zealous, why even try to take part in a discussion when you can only contribute biased, ignorant opinions? What you said is not true, and that's all there is to it.

Come on people, contribute a bit of intelligence to the conversation, or go away.

Heh, look at me. I don't even own a Mac (rather, I have two x86 boxen which run Windows and Linux), but I still defend them where they have strong points. Believe it or not, but Macs do have some advantages over PCs, which you, Sudheer Anne, would have been very well educated in by Eug, BBWF, n0c and others if you would have actually read their posts. If you can't bother to read the thread, don't bother posting in it.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I don't own a Mac either

It's just a matter of having an open mind and not falling into the anti-everything-but-windows-and-x86 mindset that Windows "computer geeks" seem to fall into.

 

[D1vine]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
I don't own a Mac either

It's just a matter of having an open mind and not falling into the anti-everything-but-windows-and-x86 mindset that Windows "computer geeks" seem to fall into.

Exactly. I almost bought a MAC a few months buck but i've decided to hold off for a little while to see what else is coming down the road.
I don't like people (i know a lot) that are so "pro-fanboy-[insert anything here] this," that they refuse to hear about anything else. My roommate happens to be one for PS2's and Hondas, some of my friends and co workers are fanboys for x86 and windows (even though they are self claimed M$ haters), and it just bothers me.

Like BingBong said, post something constructive to the discussion or don't bother. No one here wants to listen to one minded biasesness (sp?) anyways.

Hmmm...i'm sensing the beginnings of a flame war, so lets stop it before it progresses.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

haha! beginnings?

but i agree, d1vine, theres no point in being a fanboy for much of anything, it only limits you.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Any guesses if Apple would make a high-end workstation model that had Power 4 chips in it? Of course, it might be expensive, but it couldn't be any worse than any SGI workstations, and it would be compatible with more software than what SGI's generally are (what SGI's do, they do very well, but I'm wondering if a Power 4 Apple box couldn't do things an SGI could plus more).

I know squat about POWER 4, but nonetheless I don't think Apple will get anywhere near them, at least for the time being. Maybe in a few years if Apple actually makes a dent in the Unix server market, they'll start producing machines with chips in a similar class, but for 2003 I don't think it makes any sense at all, esp. considering that these chips cost $$$$$. (ie. My guess is that a POWER4 chip costs more than a whole standard workstation. )

Too bad though, because it does look nice (in order of speed):

System - specint2000/specfp2000

Intel Itanium 2 1000 - ~700/~1350
IBM POWER4 1300 - 804/1202
Intel Pentium 4 2533 - 882/861
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ 1733 - 720/613
Sun UltraSPARC III 1050 - 537/701
Intel Itanium 800 - 314/645
Intel Pentium III 1133 - 461/320


specfp2000:

1. Alpha 21264C at 1250MHz
2. Itanium2 at 1000MHz
3. POWER4 at 1300MHz
4. SPARC64 V at 1350MHz
5. POWER4 at 1100MHz
6. Alpha 21264C at 1224MHz
7. Alpha 21264C at 1000MHz
8. Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz
9. Pentium 4 at 2.66 GHz
10. Pentium 4 at 2.53 GHz

I dunno how fast a 1.8 GHz PPC970 will be though.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

please prove me wrong and state where Apple has an advantage these days. It certainly isn't in the speed department, upgradability, or compatibility department. You can debate stability all u want but XP doesnt crash on me. You can debate ease of use, but I think windows is pretty damn easy to work with. In the end I am right and you are wrong.

 

[bsr]

people that make the big mac switch makes the switch back to pc 90% of the time. ....

 

[topaz22]

... and what is apple thinking with the xserve ??? hmm... lets enter a saturated server market, with slower hardware, slower software.. (not to mention overpriced) in a world that lives off of performance... who in their right mind would want an apple server?

 

[D1vine]

Again,

I point to the thread subject.
**** about apple all you want but i was under the impression that the subject was "Why do people buy Apple computers?" I never saw it as "How come apple sucks and lets all tout off why."

True, apple DOESN'T have much higher performance in MOST apps these days anymore. But they are optimized for their own applications and run them just as f***ing fast as PC's run theirs. So lay off.

Why do people buy anything?? Because for the most part they want to, and they chose their selection for a reason. What god given right were you given to allow you to tell them that they're stupid or that the product they bought was stupid?
I happen to think MAC OS X is gorgeous, robust, and capable of many things that Windows isn't, and its built off an open source architecture. Don't believe me?? Go check apple's website and check out the DARWIN project. Its the source behind OS X and its freely available to those that want it.

They have a niche market, leave them to their own. I'm sure you weren't ever defiled by an Apple computer so IMO you really don't have a reason to hate them other than "they suck blah blah." Wasting time...

 

[gf4200isdabest]

"people that make the big mac switch makes the switch back to pc 90% of the time. .... "

Wow; what a moron. The only reason I feel bad about having an IBM-compatible is because i get grouped with dumbasses like this one. If you have no idea what you're talking about, do the world a favor and take a "shut the hell up" pill

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: topaz22
... and what is apple thinking with the xserve ??? hmm... lets enter a saturated server market, with slower hardware, slower software.. (not to mention overpriced) in a world that lives off of performance... who in their right mind would want an apple server?

Public relations junk, but here it is anyway:

====

?The Adobe Web Workgroup Server runs on Apple?s new Xserve and offers sophisticated collaboration and site management features that vastly improve web and design team productivity,? said Susan Prescott, vice president of Adobe?s Cross-Media Group. ?The combination of our powerful suite of web publishing and design tools with Apple?s new rack mount server offers our customers the most complete solution for web development. We are pleased to build on our long standing relationship with Apple and deliver yet another powerful solution to the creative community.?

"Apple?s powerful new Xserve rack-mount workgroup server solution combined with Apple?s UNIX-based Mac OS X Server software is a superior platform for Oracle9i? said Mike Rocha, senior vice president, Product Services and Platform Technologies, Oracle Corp. 'Oracle?s leading database clustering technology, Oracle 9i Real Application Clusters, running on Xserve will deliver enterprise class solutions to our joint customers and create new opportunities for both companies.'"

====

Support is 24/7 and the licence for OS X.2 Server included with an Xserve is for unlimited clients.

I probably wouldn't jump into one right now, but my friend who does WAN administration for a Unix/PC software company wants to test one out.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Eug
Support is 24/7 and the licence for OS X.2 Server included with an Xserve is for unlimited clients.

And that, my friends, is a big advantage for the Xserve. Microsoft's server OSes are shackled with expensive licensing schemes, which means that a Wintel server will most likely cost more in the end even if the hardware may be cheaper at first.

Of course, I would just throw together a DIY x86 rackmount box and put a UNIX or UNIX-like OS on it for my server needs, but for the corporation that needs 24/7 support and doesn't want to deal with costly and complex licensing schemes, this could be just what they're looking for.