Why do people buy "Apple" computers?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Hi,
I am curious about what makes people buy Apple computers (aside from the fact that they are the BEST looking computers I have ever seen and their monitors make me drool like a pavlovian dog)?

It seems odd that in an age of 6 month (or less) extinction plateaus on CPU speed, that people still would pony up a considerable amount of $$ for "old" technology (eg. 1.25 ghz CPU's).

explain the benefits of this platform, I just can't fathom it.

ps. What is the deal with them always using a twin cpu (The new G4 uses twin 1.25 ghz chips)? Is this marketing b/c they think people will consider that 2.5 ghz of processing power?

Not a flame war plz. Just curious as I know little of the Apple mystique.



A Quick Look at the Fastest Apple PowerMac



Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Hi,
I am curious about what makes people buy Apple computers (aside from the fact that they are the BEST looking computers I have ever seen and their monitors make me drool like a pavlovian dog)?

It seems odd that in an age of 6 month (or less) extinction plateaus on CPU speed, that people still would pony up a considerable amount of $$ for "old" technology (eg. 1.25 ghz CPU's).

explain the benefits of this platform, I just can't fathom it.

ps. What is the deal with them always using a twin cpu (The new G4 uses twin 1.25 ghz chips)? Is this marketing b/c they think people will consider that 2.5 ghz of processing power?

Not a flame war plz. Just curious as I know little of the Apple mystique.



A Quick Look at the Fastest Apple PowerMac



Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again



Benchmark Duel: Mac vs. PC, Round II
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
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


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

First of all, I don't own any Mac's, an iMac wouldn't really suit me very well, and as I've already stated, the PowerMac's are indeed far too expensive for what you get, no argument there.
Secondly, Im typing this on my Linux only workstation, that I use for admining a bunch of Solaris and Linux boxes, as well as two OpenBSD firewalls, so I have indeed figured out how to install and use UNIX/Linux/BSD.

And I don't know where you go shopping, but here in Sweden I can get an iMac for ~1.500$, this is indeed more expensive than getting a Dell or Compaq.
But the value isn't in the hardware, it's in the complete platform, a concept most people seem completely unable to grasp.

It's the same thing when companies buy SPARC based servers, they aren't buying it cause UltraSPARC's are faster than P4 Xeon's, cause they aren't until you begin scaling to really large boxen, they buy them cause Sun can supply you with the whole platform, you get a nice SPARC box, you get Solaris, and it's all made by Sun, CPU's, addon boards, etc etc, which makes it all a very stable and smooth platform, same with a Mac.

A Mac is indeed a more expenssive alternative to an x86, but it does have benefits as well as cons.
I only own x86's myself, but that doesn't keep me from seeing the benefits of other platforms, unlike the narrow minded people I was referring to above.

x86'ers tend to call Mac users zealots cause they keep badmouthing x86's/Windows, and I agree, many Mac users are indeed very zealous, but IMO, a similar percentage of x86 users are just as bad when it comes to badmouthing other platforms.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: BMW330ci
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: XCLAN
I want one BAD. they are nice looking, quiet.
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.

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.
What's wrong with it? Mine works fine, except it's loud when the second fan kicks in.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
don't give me that OSx is easier to use, because winxp is DUMB PROOF
Oh yea? My parents always have trouble with Windows ("now do I use the right or left button here in this menu?" - incidentally, I could see how a one buttom Mac mouse would help them a lot, even though I'd get pissed with it's limited capabilities quickly!). Windows XP (or any other Windows) is not idiot proof. Neither is OS X, but I think OS X has the upper hand in usability.
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
I dual-boot Windows 2000 Pro and Debian Linux 3.0, and that doesn't stop me from wanting a PowerMac (or better yet, a PowerBook, which I can afford even less than a PowerMac).
Originally posted by: Sunner
x86'ers tend to call Mac users zealots cause they keep badmouthing x86's/Windows, and I agree, many Mac users are indeed very zealous, but IMO, a similar percentage of x86 users are just as bad when it comes to badmouthing other platforms.
As this thread so beautifully illustrates... :disgust:
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Ok, I own a Mac-PPC, Sun-sparc4m, Sun-sparc4u, AMD-athlon tb, AMD-athlon XP, Intel-p3, Intel-p, and Intel-ppro (I dont think Im forgetting any...) and all are in use (well ppro is on loan to my brother. They each have a purpose and I like them each for different reasons. These reasons are only applicable to me, so if they do not fit your need, TS. :)

sparcm:
stable, small, fairly quiet box for hacking around with OpenBSD on a different platform
sparc4u:
quiet machine to play with Solaris on its native platform
PPC:
desktop replacement, easy to use, powerful enough to get my work done easily, inexpensive (as compared to x86 laptops with the features I wanted at the time)
athlong tb:
Fairly fast machine running OpenBSD as a desktop (being replaced by the p3 system soon and another faster athlon in the future due to heat and laziness issues)
athlon xp:
fast, cheap, server system running OpenBSD
p3:
It will be dual eventually and will run linux for database type stuff that OpenBSD does not seem to handle as well
p:
quiet, small, firewall
ppro:
FreeBSD box at the moment for my brother to hack around on

Each has a use. Each one is good at what it does. Each one fufills my needs. If my solutions would not fill your needs, tough. If you dont like them you can definitely flame me for them, but you should be able to admit that my needs are different from yours, my tastes are different from yours, and my solutions (although different from yours) are good for me. Why did I spend "more" for some of these machines? Because in the long run, I think they are worth the money.

So please, spend less, get your faster machine, run your better operating system, bash Macs and show your ignorance in what may be important to someone else. Some of us dont buy computers for FPS or to be cool or whatever you possibly bought your system for. Im done with the thread.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: Sunner
Some of us dont buy computers for FPS

:Q
Yeah, I don't buy computers for FPS either. It'd be stupid to buy a Mac for one, since even with the same card and the fastest CPU, a PC will be faster. Fortunately, I'm not a gamer, aside from a bit of Quake III or UT now and then for 20 minutes, after 5 hours of sitting in front of Office.

Anyways, it seems that InfoWorld loves the PowerBook G4 Titanium. There are a couple of mistakes in the article, but I would agree, the TiBook is the best laptop in the world in its class. Indeed, after looking around for some laptops for my boss, it is the amongst the best priced for its features. (And please don't quote me a bargain basement price on some 8 lb Inspiron, since they are not comparable machines.) Some of the the Fuji LifeBooks seem quite nice though.
 

BMW330ci

Senior member
Apr 4, 2001
454
0
0
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: BMW330ci
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: XCLAN
I want one BAD. they are nice looking, quiet.
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.

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.
What's wrong with it? Mine works fine, except it's loud when the second fan kicks in.

It crashed and froze up constantly (even in the hardware test and OS X reinstallation bootup) so Apple agreed to repair it. It has been working fine since. My fan does get loud too but only after I play Quake 3 =)

:)
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: Sunner
Some of us dont buy computers for FPS

:Q
Yeah, I don't buy computers for FPS either. It'd be stupid to buy a Mac for one, since even with the same card and the fastest CPU, a PC will be faster. Fortunately, I'm not a gamer, aside from a bit of Quake III or UT now and then for 20 minutes, after 5 hours of sitting in front of Office.

Anyways, it seems that InfoWorld loves the PowerBook G4 Titanium. There are a couple of mistakes in the article, but I would agree, the TiBook is the best laptop in the world in its class. Indeed, after looking around for some laptops for my boss, it is the amongst the best priced for its features. (And please don't quote me a bargain basement price on some 8 lb Inspiron, since they are not comparable machines.) Some of the the Fuji LifeBooks seem quite nice though.

Well, I figured it would be obvious enough from my previous posts, but maybe it's worth pointing out that I was being EXTREMELY sarcastic ;)
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: Sunner
Well, I figured it would be obvious enough from my previous posts, but maybe it's worth pointing out that I was being EXTREMELY sarcastic ;)
Yeah I know. ;) I was just reiterating the point that not all of us rate our computers by the frame rate in Giants.

For those who don't get what I'm talking about: Sure a modded Civic will be faster some low end BMWs, but I'd rather have a BMW any day, even if the Civic had extra Type R stickers. ;)
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Wong Fooey you want some valid points.
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".

Dude, did you even read my reply to this misinformation the first time you posted it (2nd page of the thread)? Speed is wonderful thing, but it's pretty useless if you don't have any good apps to run. Guess what, people/companies who do film/video for a living are replacing their old Macs with new Macs. Why? It certainly isn't 'cause Macs render faster. So that means there must be something besides rendering speed that matters. :Q Maybe like software, use-ability, and stability. Like I said before, 95% of what you see on TV or at the movies is cut on a Mac.

Now before my "good apps" and "stability" comments get ripped into notice I kept my comments limited to the realm of post production. I'd appriciate it if all replies to this post did too.

BTW, it's "Mac" not "MAC" just a pet peeve. ;)


Lethal
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
umm people stick with Macs mostly because that's probably what they were brought up on and have been developing on their whole lives. It like telling a professional photographer who's used regular film his whole life to switch to a new digital camera. Sure the digital camera may even be better and may even be easier to work with, but he's not gonna change.
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
Like I said before, 95% of what you see on TV or at the movies is cut on a Mac.

Thats WRONG.

You know its wrong. I know its wrong. Many new movies have been done with PCs. Spiderman, MIIB(basically every Sony movie), Ice Age, etc. Heres what an editor of Ice Age said.
I had been a Mac user my entire life, but I quickly discovered that Windows was surprisingly good. In many ways, it behaved even better than the Mac."

Hell one of the most popular TV shows 24, is done on Win2000 based systems from Avid. Stop spouting BS. Alot of places are using PC based systems. Its more like 50/50 as I previously stated. The only place the Mac beats out PCs is pro audio, and thats changing(though slowly), because the PC doesnt get the latest and greatest audio software right away like the Mac does.

What software do you think the pros use?
 

mjolnir2k

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
862
0
0
All I can say is Holy Cr@p I can't believe this is still going...I am almost sorry I asked...Heh, heh..ALMOST!

carry on...and pass the popcorn!
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
I do agree though. PC makers have dropped the ball when it comes to laptops.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
umm people stick with Macs mostly because that's probably what they were brought up on and have been developing on their whole lives. It like telling a professional photographer who's used regular film his whole life to switch to a new digital camera. Sure the digital camera may even be better and may even be easier to work with, but he's not gonna change.
? You might want to check out the digital camera forums. Professional photographers used film because it was better and cheaper in many ways. That's partially changing now, but that's only because the pro-level digital cameras are finally coming down in price. Indeed, I have a 1.5 Megapixel pro camera from a few years back that cost something like $10000, and a similarly spec'd film camera would have cost less than $1000 and the images from film would have been much better quality.

Nowadays, the same is no longer true, and I use digital almost exclusively, but there are still distinct advantages to using film for some people.

Again, it comes down to what your needs and preferences are. It's a mistake to think that all people are better off with digital, just as it's a mistake to think that all people are better off with Windows PCs. In my case digital is good, but my TiBook is also good, and indeed it's the best value for what I do. And no, I did not grow up with Macs either. I made a conscious decision to switch my laptop to an OS X one, simply because I felt it was a better machine and OS, even if it didn't spit out as many FPS as my PC laptop did. Yes, I knew in advance my iBook would be slower in 3D games than my PIII laptop, yet I still felt that overall it was a better machine. Fancy that.

----

By the way, I also find it hard to believe though that 95% of 2D video is cut on Macs. Macs do hold much of the market, but I don't think it's anywhere near that high.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: LH
Like I said before, 95% of what you see on TV or at the movies is cut on a Mac.

Thats WRONG.

You know its wrong. I know its wrong. Many new movies have been done with PCs. Spiderman, MIIB(basically every Sony movie), Ice Age, etc. Heres what an editor of Ice Age said.
I had been a Mac user my entire life, but I quickly discovered that Windows was surprisingly good. In many ways, it behaved even better than the Mac."

Hell one of the most popular TV shows 24, is done on Win2000 based systems from Avid. Stop spouting BS. Alot of places are using PC based systems. Its more like 50/50 as I previously stated. The only place the Mac beats out PCs is pro audio, and thats changing(though slowly), because the PC doesnt get the latest and greatest audio software right away like the Mac does.

What software do you think the pros use?


Okay, so are you talking about editing, FX, compositing or 3D animation? 'Cause they are all different (I'm not meaning to be condecending<sp?> here, but very few people seem to understand that editing, G/FX, compositing and 3D animation are all seperate things.) In my personal experience very few of the editors I know, post houses I've worked with or visited have any PC based systems. Most of them have a finishing/FX suite running discreet software, but that's neither here nor there since it is editing and it's not on Mac or Windows. And, like I said before, many places are replacing aging Avid setups w/FCP. Does that mean that no one uses Windows based system? Of course not, but the vast majority of people and companies who do TV and film use Macs running either Avid or Apple NLE software.

In regards to Audio, I've heard a lot of audio guys b*tching 'cause OS X handles audio poorly and hardware and software is just now starting to come out for X (which is still useless until Apple fixes the audio handling problems OS X has). But I'm not a audio guy so this is second hand knowledge, not personal experience.


Lethal


EDIT:
All I can say is Holy Cr@p I can't believe this is still going...I am almost sorry I asked...Heh, heh..ALMOST!

carry on...and pass the popcorn!

Sadist. ;)
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
"3) Best in digital music. Yes the iPod is great, but what does that have to do with Apple computers? Does the apple sound card sound better? Do their speakers produce better sound? I doubt there is a major difference in sound from either type of computer when using the same quality parts."

ALL of the major recording studios Around (yes even skywalker ranch) has Macs for alot of their work.

"5) Burning DVDs. You can burn them on the PC too, sure their expensive iMovie is nice, but there are also nice programs for the PC if you want to spend that amount of money"

iMovie is a free software that comes preinstalled on EVERY mac.

"6) They have laptops. Hmm don't PCs?"

Yes but Apple laptops look better, are thinner and lighter and have a longer battery life.

"8) Macs can also use Microsoft Office! Well that certainly isn't an incentive. Give me a reason why Macs are better, not equal. Equal won't make me want to switch."

Microsoft has the LARGEST Apple team outside of Apple's HQ and even Microsoft states that MacOS X runs Office better than Windows.

"10) Its beautiful. That is personal preference. I honestly think some PC cases look great too."

But to make a PC look that cool you need to cut your case all up. Macs look cool without any mods. They're very innovative in their design and function.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: KF
Apple 6360 Mac w/ Monitor $80

Apple 7600 Mac w/ Monitor $120

I don't know if you could put a 40G IDE HD in these and make them semi-usable or not. (Anyone know?) Maybe people could get an idea of what MACs are like even with these obsolete refurbs.

The reasons to like MACs have been presented pretty well. If they were in the same price range, Apple would be picking up a big chunk of market share.

Why are MACs expensive and PCs cheap? Lack of direct competition. Apple really contracts out everything to the same factories that make PC electronics. If anything, their manufacturing costs are cheaper than ready built PCs like Dell.

Their OS is a UNIX, like Solaris on Sun, and like Linux on the PC. Unix is a CPU independent OS written in a higher level language (C), Therefore you should be able to run Unix programs on the MAC, unless they have rigged their OS not to. Their GUI should be an application that runs on Unix, just like KDE runs on Linux. If you are following this, then the MAC OS can be made to run on PCs, just like Linux will run on PCs, and programs for the MAC OS would run on a PC. Unfortunately Apple would run into the same problem Linux has. You need driver support from the individual hardware manufacturers.

But there is nothing inherently making the MAC significantly more expensive than a PC. If they didn't have such abysmally low sales figures, the development costs would be distributed over a larger number of computers, and the price would be in the PC range. Ever since the original MAC, Apple has always been one step behind where they needed to be to accomplish this objective, which cannot work in a free market. This is because a big chunk of the top Apple leadership are elitist snobs who can afford anything they want regardless of the price, and who cannot understand that the funds average people will allocate to a computer is low.

I think Apple just sticks with Motorola because it is easier to market a mystique that way. They should just develop a MAC PC and start a MAC PC validation progam to gradually encompass more "valdated" PC hardware, guaranteed to work with their OS and their PC.

These old macs use SCSI-2 drives and have NO support for OS X and you cannot install OSX on them.

 

Prodigy^

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,044
1
0
a PC probably isn't very smart to a 50-year-old or a first time PC user, i admit it is complicated, but if you're just the least bit of a comp freak, you'll quickly find that you hate user-friendliness....i want to be able to control where stuff goes, configure and customize everything, etc. the mac campaigns have a negative effect on me.
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
Im talking about post EDITING and editing of movie dailies. Yes Avid just happens to make everything for every market, ie: Softimage XSI, DigiDesign Pro Tools, and various Avid video editing and compositing software, for post broadcast and consumers, not to mention video editing cards and systems, they make Mac and Win software/hardware, however like I said post editing is 50/50 it greatly depends on what studio it is, alot of the newer studios use Win systems, most of the older ones still use Macs.

Sony uses Avid Win2000 systems and software. Ice Age was edited on Win2000 systems(it was also animated on Win2000 systems). 24 does post editing and special effects on Win2000 systems.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: mjolnir2k
Hi,
I am curious about what makes people buy Apple computers (aside from the fact that they are the BEST looking computers I have ever seen and their monitors make me drool like a pavlovian dog)?

It seems odd that in an age of 6 month (or less) extinction plateaus on CPU speed, that people still would pony up a considerable amount of $$ for "old" technology (eg. 1.25 ghz CPU's).

explain the benefits of this platform, I just can't fathom it.

ps. What is the deal with them always using a twin cpu (The new G4 uses twin 1.25 ghz chips)? Is this marketing b/c they think people will consider that 2.5 ghz of processing power?

Not a flame war plz. Just curious as I know little of the Apple mystique.



A Quick Look at the Fastest Apple PowerMac



Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again



Benchmark Duel: Mac vs. PC, Round II



but that doesn't matter. Monster's Inc, Toy story (1 and 2), A Bugs Life and EVERY Pixar film was done on a Mac. Lucas arts also uses macs for ALOT of his video and almost 98% of his sound editing and cuting.

It was said before that we can say with complete confidence that 95% of all Feature Films were cut on a Mac.