This thread needs to end. The answer to "Why do people buy "Apple" computers?" has been pretty thoroughly answered by both Mac Users and non Mac users. It seems that some IBM compatible users are still in denial that their "macs are good for nothing" soundbytes are simply inaccurate.
Macs still have a strong-hold on the Graphic arts and publishing industry. A lot of newspapers still use programs like Quark and Ad Creator, abdobe acrobat, pagemaker, photoshop, illistrator etc. on the Mac platform. Some of those will run on a PC but it's been my experience that its a pain in the butt trying to get some of these programs to read PC files.
Now-a-days, with the speed and dominance (Macs have about 3% of the market) of PCs on similar programs it seems that these graphic artists and publishers are still back in the dark ages.
Mac
Now-a-days, with the speed and dominance (Macs have about 3% of the market) of PCs on similar programs it seems that these graphic artists and publishers are still back in the dark ages.
Mac
RE:"These type of threads are pointless and serve no function other than upsetting people."
MAC vs PC isn't nearly as bad as the "AMD vs Intel" flame wars.
MAC vs PC isn't nearly as bad as the "AMD vs Intel" flame wars.
Obviously there is still something lacking on the PC side of things if companies keep passing up PCs for Macs w/aging hardware. Unless you are looking to create a render farm raw machine speed is not top dog for computers that "work" for a living.
Lethal
I want one BAD. they are nice looking, quiet. I think they have 1 meg Cache? just the fact that you get away from Windows/Microsoft....should make it feel like a vacation.
but yes they are too expensive.
but yes they are too expensive.
you sound like that guy in the apple comercial saying he he had to pull open the computer and pull out cards......... or the chick who was like "ihad to download drivers....i saved christmas", you also sound like the people who sit on mac forums and talk about how much they hate pcs all day long
what the hell are you doing to you winxp computer?
i never have any of these problems. seriously though, any ret@rd can use winxp, most people who are conned into buying macs don't even know how to use unix, and if they truely wanted a Unix OS there are plenty of flavors of LINUX and its free, and seriously, i just started to use linux, and with no working knowledge of how it works, i was able to install redhat 7.3 on my laptop without any problems
The linux developers have a lot of work before they make Linux as nice of a desktop as Mac OS X. I was not conned into purchasing a Mac, I wanted to. I have a working knowledge of Unix (Solaris mosly but a little HP-UX), Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD. I still prefer the simplicity of my iBook running Mac OS X.
RE:"Obviously there is still something lacking on the PC side of things if companies keep passing up PCs for Macs w/aging hardware. Unless you are looking to create a render farm raw machine speed is not top dog for computers that "work" for a living"
Legacy and old habits mainly.
I do ads for a company that go into magazines and newspapers. Only some can read PC files. Fewer can read a Corel Draw or a MS Publisher file. Most are using Quark or Ad creator (Mac only program) on the Mac platform. Most of they time the convert to .PDF and send it to the print shop. All this makes it very difficult for a PC user to submit ads. Most often the "artist" has to recreate the ad. Unfortunately they don't take the time to do it right and most of them claim to be "graphic artists" after taking a photshop course. I use the term graphic artists loosely to say the least.
Legacy and old habits mainly.
I do ads for a company that go into magazines and newspapers. Only some can read PC files. Fewer can read a Corel Draw or a MS Publisher file. Most are using Quark or Ad creator (Mac only program) on the Mac platform. Most of they time the convert to .PDF and send it to the print shop. All this makes it very difficult for a PC user to submit ads. Most often the "artist" has to recreate the ad. Unfortunately they don't take the time to do it right and most of them claim to be "graphic artists" after taking a photshop course. I use the term graphic artists loosely to say the least.
Q: Why do people buy "Apple" computers?
A: Because we want to fund more insanely funny commercials like the drugged-up Ellen Feis one!
A: Because we want to fund more insanely funny commercials like the drugged-up Ellen Feis one!
You must not know much about web servers if you are comparing Apache to IIS. That's like comparing a Mercedes to a Ford, in terms of quality.
kinda funny how the pretty much all of the mac users are making valid points (and being reasonable - and informative), while a good portion of the windows users are just showing how ignorant they are.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,046
- 1,675
- 126
I'd be lying if I said that's still true. The iMacs and iBooks are quiet, but the new dual 1.25 GHz PowerMacs are supposed to be moderately noisy because of the case fans. Even a G4 puts out a significant amount of heat when the MHz gets high enough I guess. Also, my G4 Titanium 1 GHz's fan is fairly noisy. With usual stuff it's OK, but do some significant number crunching for 5 mins and a louder fan comes on. I wonder if the sensor threshold is set too low though, since the top of the TiBook is barely warm. Well, I guess that's better than getting too hot and crashing (like some of the early lower end 1 GHz PIII laptops). It's unfortunate though, since the 800 MHz G4 is supposed to be almost dead silent.
Wong Fooey you want some valid points.
1. Apples cost more and perform worse than their PC counterparts in the vast majority of benchmarks. 3D Gaming on the Mac is basically not even worth it because only the biggest titles get ported over. Even then, Apples don't get as fast FPS despite using the same graphics cards. Video/Photo/Audio editing used to be the Mac's biggest selling point because it used to be better at it. Recent articles have shown this not to be the case, forgot where i read this but somebody pitted a 3.06 P4 Dell System against the Dual 1.25ghz apple machine and the Dell system smoked it in the after effects tests they did. Ok so now that we know Apple doesn't have the speed advantage in these apps, people are gonna say ease of use. Well..... that's certainly as subjective as it gets and cannot be considered a "valid point".
2. "OSX is so much better than WINXP". Ok i'll give you this one, OSX IS a better operating system than WINXP is, but lets not get carried away. I would give the nod to OSX being slightly more stable, however XP has yet to completely crash on me, only the programs themselves have crashed. As for looks, both OS's look too kiddyish for me so that point is pretty much moot. XP does have its one advantage and that is the fact that it can run so many more programs than the macintosh can and not all PC programs are crap. And just because Apple has less software doesnt necesarrily make their software better. The quicktime player is a POS and its clunky and slow.
1. Apples cost more and perform worse than their PC counterparts in the vast majority of benchmarks. 3D Gaming on the Mac is basically not even worth it because only the biggest titles get ported over. Even then, Apples don't get as fast FPS despite using the same graphics cards. Video/Photo/Audio editing used to be the Mac's biggest selling point because it used to be better at it. Recent articles have shown this not to be the case, forgot where i read this but somebody pitted a 3.06 P4 Dell System against the Dual 1.25ghz apple machine and the Dell system smoked it in the after effects tests they did. Ok so now that we know Apple doesn't have the speed advantage in these apps, people are gonna say ease of use. Well..... that's certainly as subjective as it gets and cannot be considered a "valid point".
2. "OSX is so much better than WINXP". Ok i'll give you this one, OSX IS a better operating system than WINXP is, but lets not get carried away. I would give the nod to OSX being slightly more stable, however XP has yet to completely crash on me, only the programs themselves have crashed. As for looks, both OS's look too kiddyish for me so that point is pretty much moot. XP does have its one advantage and that is the fact that it can run so many more programs than the macintosh can and not all PC programs are crap. And just because Apple has less software doesnt necesarrily make their software better. The quicktime player is a POS and its clunky and slow.
As for looking cool, PC cases are making a major jump in the lookin' cool department. Won't be long until PCs are just as "cool" as a MAC.
Cool cases
RE:"As for looks, both OS's look too kiddyish for me so that point is pretty much moot"
True, I can't stand the bubble gum/fisher price look either but at least you can turn back XP to the Windows "classic" look.
Actually I like that Lycoris front end for Linux. Very impressive. A little bubblegummy but a nice job.
mac
Cool cases
RE:"As for looks, both OS's look too kiddyish for me so that point is pretty much moot"
True, I can't stand the bubble gum/fisher price look either but at least you can turn back XP to the Windows "classic" look.
Actually I like that Lycoris front end for Linux. Very impressive. A little bubblegummy but a nice job.
mac
My Powerbook G4 1Ghz SD went back to Apple repair after 2 days of using it. It appears they replaced the 1Ghz CPU. The repaired Powerbook actually runs cooler and faster than before.
#1 is completely irrelevant to alot of people, though it's absolutely true, and I don't think anyone(cept Apple) is denying that PC's are more powerful in most cases.
#2 is a far more important point to alot of people, and it's not just the OS, it's the entire platform.
If I were to give my grandma an iMac, chances are she'd actually manage to get it running without my assistance, there's no way she'd be able to do that with an x86/XP.
Most people just wanna write mails, print a letter, order movie tickets, etc with their computers, and they'll be fine with anything on the market today, so to them, performance doesn't matter one bit, ease of use, as well as looks and noise are far more important, and these points are where an iMac will show it's strengths.
And the iMacs are actually very decently priced, considdering what you get.
You get a computer that more than powerful enough, a 15 or 17 inch LCD, a very nice and userfriendly OS, all packaged in a small, quiet, and nice looking package that will fit nicely into any living room.
As it happens, my grandma already has a PC, I got it for her cause Macs at the time were DAMN expensive, and there was no OS-X, but if she were to ask me to recomend a computer today, I'd recomend an iMac in a second, it would save both of us alot of time.
The only downside I can see to it would be that I'd be jealous, and be forced to get a Mac myself(I want one for sure, but I'd want a PowerMac, and those are indeed horribly overpriced for what you get).
It's a damn shame most enthusiasts are so narrow minded and can't see the world that exists outside their own little universe.
I'm sorry but XP is as DUMB PROOF as it gets. You wanna go on the internet, double click IE. You wanna send pictures, hook up your camera, XP will no doubt recognize it and it will automatically get your pictures for you. Ease of use is available on both OS's. I mean a computer shouldn't be so easy because well it is a complex beast. People should spend time to learn how to use it just like you would a car if u wanted to drive.
RE:"It's a damn shame most enthusiasts are so narrow minded and can't see the world that exists outside their own little universe."
I think you have it backwards. It's the MAC that has it's own LITTLE universe. AS in THREE maybe FOUR PERCENT of the market. x86 is like 95%. Throw in a couple percent for "other".
And ya know, I don't blame MAC users for loving MACs but they should blame marketing morons like Steve Jobs and "I've been duped" John Scully for keeping Macs so estoteric and such a small part of the market.
Mac
I think you have it backwards. It's the MAC that has it's own LITTLE universe. AS in THREE maybe FOUR PERCENT of the market. x86 is like 95%. Throw in a couple percent for "other".
And ya know, I don't blame MAC users for loving MACs but they should blame marketing morons like Steve Jobs and "I've been duped" John Scully for keeping Macs so estoteric and such a small part of the market.
Mac
so why would anyone spend twice as much money on somthing that can be done on a machine at half the price
THIS IS A VALID POINT, THATS WHY ITS REITERATED AGAIN AND AGAIN, NOT EVERYONE IS RICH
you really can't beat ~$400 for a nice quiet dell, and no they are not loud at all that is BS
don't give me that OSx is easier to use, because winxp is DUMB PROOF
and if you really want a Unix OS and know how to use one, then i'm sure you can figure out how to do a dual boot, winxp and linux. i knew nothing about linux and i managed to do this about three months ago
if what you are after is a command prompt, why spend money in buying software? download it
and the reason the PC users of this forum lash out at the Crackaddicts is because of the claims they make about how great their system is and how beautiful it looks, and how inferior it our windows platform is, we don't want this to become somthing like the MAC ADDICT forums where all they do is sh!t on pcs all the time, seriously take a look over there if you want to discuss how bad winxp is, there are already many threads over there on that,
its also a matter of how you want to spend your money, not all of us have 3k to spend on a computer. when somthing for 1k can do the same thing even faster
an nOcmonkey has a valid point, if it works for what you do, then great, but you don't need to go around making claims that OSx is the godsent, and apples are the SH!t for video editing because they are not, benchmarks show this (i know someone will repond, but it feels better when i do it on a mac, come, does it really?, who wants to wait twice as long to render somthing?)
a Mac is simply a more expensive alternative to a PC platform
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
What? Once again please explain to me why a computer should not be easy to use? It is only a tool.
theres nothing wrong with being idiot proof. But when an OS is too simple and doesnt an advanced user like me muck around with the settings that tends to aggravate me. XP makes me jump through hoops sometimes just to change a simple option. I wish it didnt have to be like this and people would spend just a little time trying to figure out how to use a computer.
If I had the money, I'd have a dual processor G4. No doubt about it. Now, that is definitely NOT to REPLACE my PC, but in addition to it. If I had one comptuer (I do), I would definitely choose the PC, regardless of cost, primarily because I do so many things with my computer, including heavy gaming, which would be hard to lose...the Macs just don't have the games or gaming power.
That said, I would love to have a good Mac workstation with Cinema Display monitor solely for video / imaging work. I do a lot of work in Photoshop (I have PS 7 for the PC, which is great), and I recently got a miniDV camcorder, so I'll be doing lots of video work. Now, I can and do work with graphics and video on my computer, but the color matching of the Mac, and the easy way to connect and transfer video would be welcome. Not only that, but Final Cut pro has to be the absolute best digital video editing program around. Powerful, easy, and stable.
I used to be a Mac basher...and I worked with them for 4 years in a mixed platform environment; until OS X and their most recent software, I would still choose a PC for every application. But now, I have to say I'd like a Mac for video and 2D graphics, but a PC for games, business work, and 3D graphics. But, since I can do all of that on my PC, but not all of it on a Mac, I choose the WinXP platform...and will stay that route until I'm rich.
Jman
That said, I would love to have a good Mac workstation with Cinema Display monitor solely for video / imaging work. I do a lot of work in Photoshop (I have PS 7 for the PC, which is great), and I recently got a miniDV camcorder, so I'll be doing lots of video work. Now, I can and do work with graphics and video on my computer, but the color matching of the Mac, and the easy way to connect and transfer video would be welcome. Not only that, but Final Cut pro has to be the absolute best digital video editing program around. Powerful, easy, and stable.
I used to be a Mac basher...and I worked with them for 4 years in a mixed platform environment; until OS X and their most recent software, I would still choose a PC for every application. But now, I have to say I'd like a Mac for video and 2D graphics, but a PC for games, business work, and 3D graphics. But, since I can do all of that on my PC, but not all of it on a Mac, I choose the WinXP platform...and will stay that route until I'm rich.
Jman
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter