Why do people buy "Apple" computers?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,586
1,000
126
Originally posted by: Prodigy^
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.
Actually, that's why so many Unix/Linux geeks these days seem to like Macs. Full command line access for full configurability of the usual *nix apps, but with a super easy GUI interface if you wish.

A friend is a WAN administrator, and had never touched an OS X Mac before I got one. I gave it to him, and within about 1 minute in the Terminal he knew where just about everything he would use was. (Of course, although he runs Windows at home, he's more of a Unix guy.) Quite frankly, I had absolutely no idea what he was doing, but it was interesting seeing him explore the depths of my computer with stuff I had never seen before, and which I have never seen since. :p

EVERY Pixar film was done on a Mac
Well, that's not quite a fair example, considering that Steve Jobs runs Pixar. ;)
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
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.

I honestly don't believe it's that far off the mark. You also have to understand how post production w/a budget works. For example, a post house I used to work at had 6 off-line suites running Avid Media Composer (on Macs) and one on-line suite running Smoke/Flame on a sun box. The editors would cut the commercial or music video at a "low" res on the Avid and put in rough G/FX or what not and then sent the finished cut to the on-line editor who would work w/the footage at full res, do final FX, color correct, etc., and the dump a master copy out to DigiBeta. All of these systems run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. When FCP 3 hit the scene it was a mature enough product, though still not as mature as Avid's hi-end software, that people started to replace their off line machines (Avids) with FCP machines which, for most intents and purposes, can do the same job at around 1/5 the cost. FCP has also become NLE of choice for documentary makers (who usually are shooting on a shoe string compared to feature films) and the indie film community.

Currently the only Windows based NLEs that, IMO, a pro post house would use would be Avid based (excluding the Avid DVXpress which is really hurt by being DV only). But with the current trend of companies moving away from Avid off-line machines to FCP off line machines that starts to leave room for only editing/finishing hybreds (like the Avid DS) and finishing machines (like Avid Symphony). So even if you have a PC based finishing rig, that machine still didn't edit movie X or TV show Y.

Now when you start getting down to the local and industrial level where people are on smaller budgests and looking for all-in-one machines you see a much greater variety of NLEs being used.


Lethal
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
"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."

Apple has fixed OSX's Audio implimentation and even made Dolby Digital surround (5.1) the standard on the OS level. So now when someone uses FCP on a Mac with DVD STudio pro they can encode a 5.1 Dolby track at the same time.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
"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."

Apple has fixed OSX's Audio implimentation and even made Dolby Digital surround (5.1) the standard on the OS level. So now when someone uses FCP on a Mac with DVD STudio pro they can encode a 5.1 Dolby track at the same time.

Was it Jag that fixed the audio problems?


Lethal
 

mikable

Senior member
Sep 23, 2000
303
0
0
After reading through all 150+ posts I can conclude a few things.


1. This is a gosh darned over talked topic!

2. People like what they first had reguardless of merit.

3. It dosen't really matter.

4. It's a matter of personal opinion, preferinces, and taste.

5. Where are all the "use the search" pundits as this topic has MANY threads.

6. Dosen't anyone work at work anymore?

7. Duno just though I'd make a # 7 cause I don't like ending on a 6 :)


 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
>Quote

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Originally posted by: KF
>Well, I would suggest trying it out.
>But you have to spend a fortune in order to try an Apple. I can fool with one in a store, but I see nothing to recommend Apples >there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>Not at all. I spent $1500 on my iBook and I would have had to have spent much more to get a comparable x86 notebook.
The reason for my statement is that I want to find out what is to like about Apples in some other way than buying one.

If I have to spend $1500 to satisfy my curiousity about Apples, I'm not that curious. The day I spend $1500 on a computer is the day h*ll freezes over. Maybe $1500 for THREE computer iterations.

Iterations are what is good about a PC clone to computer nerds. You don't have to buy the whole flipping thing at once. The CRT, case and mobo are not one unit. You want a new mobo ($60 - 150), that's all you have to get. About a 1000 varierties currently in production. About 5,000 old versions still obtainable, from marginally usable to amost as good as new. Next year, there will be 1000 new varieties. You want a different case, just get the case ($30 - 300). No trouble finding 500 or so varieties on the Internet. You want a new CPU chip, 100 varieties available ($30 - $700) The $30 one is perfectly suitable for grandma's Internet surfing machine, so you don't have to buy dual G4s to surf Apple style.

Iterations cut down on the cost of staying current or keeping the computer suitable to its use. Not getting, and therefore not paying for things you don't use is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Only Apple people, for whom price is not a problem, think the reverse.

Since practically every family has a computer nerd relative somewhere who you can be roped into it, this facility of PCs is widely available to moms, pops, grandmas, and kiddies everywhere.


>>People like Unix style command line shells? There are only about 500 different ones around you can use with Windows.

>Name one that is installed in the base install.
Who cares? If you enjoy command line BS, you enjoy installing a new one. If you have trouble installing one, you are unsuited to using a command line shell. It couldn't take but a couple of minutes for major set of tools, and a few seconds would be more typical.

> The only half decent one I found was cygwin, and that needed a bunch
> of other stuff to be installed too. Which means, more time spent installing
> stuff and not enough time working.
All command lines shells are the same. You type in commands. There is no such thing as decent. There is no such thing as bad.
It is what it is. That's a command line.

Cygnus is a Unix emulation that runs as a task under Windows. It is supposed to run all the Unix/Linux command line tools. You can compile Linux kernals, or whatever, the same as you would using a command line shell within Linux.

And yes, if there aren't 500 Unix command line shells for Windows, then there are 1000. They have been creating these things since before Windows, when DOS was the PC operating system. If you didn't know this, quit styling yourself "elite". Effete would be more appropriate.

They used to include POSIX with Windows NT, which is a standardized version of UNIX. They may still. You can buy an expanded version from MS (they call it SFU!) for XP Professional ($100)

I don't mean to leave the impression I seriously used any of this UNIX stuff, or that I would want to. You just run across this type of thing all the time from techies.

Apple doesn't tout Unix as a selling point as far as I can see (and no wonder). They seem more to be concealing the fact that they use UNIX.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Despite the fact I said I was done with the thread I will respond to this post because it brings up some interresting ideas in a not-totally-flaming way. :)

Originally posted by: KF
>Quote

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Originally posted by: KF
>Well, I would suggest trying it out.
>But you have to spend a fortune in order to try an Apple. I can fool with one in a store, but I see nothing to recommend Apples >there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>Not at all. I spent $1500 on my iBook and I would have had to have spent much more to get a comparable x86 notebook.
The reason for my statement is that I want to find out what is to like about Apples in some other way than buying one.

If I have to spend $1500 to satisfy my curiousity about Apples, I'm not that curious. The day I spend $1500 on a computer is the day h*ll freezes over. Maybe $1500 for THREE computer iterations.

The machine I mentioned is a notebook, not a desktop. The following situation is different with a notebook in the x86 realm too, as far as I can tell.

Iterations are what is good about a PC clone to computer nerds. You don't have to buy the whole flipping thing at once. The CRT, case and mobo are not one unit. You want a new mobo ($60 - 150), that's all you have to get. About a 1000 varierties currently in production. About 5,000 old versions still obtainable, from marginally usable to amost as good as new. Next year, there will be 1000 new varieties. You want a different case, just get the case ($30 - 300). No trouble finding 500 or so varieties on the Internet. You want a new CPU chip, 100 varieties available ($30 - $700) The $30 one is perfectly suitable for grandma's Internet surfing machine, so you don't have to buy dual G4s to surf Apple style.

Iterations cut down on the cost of staying current or keeping the computer suitable to its use. Not getting, and therefore not paying for things you don't use is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Only Apple people, for whom price is not a problem, think the reverse.

I can purchase the individual parts for a PPC system and put it together myself. Check ars' forum for information on that.

Since practically every family has a computer nerd relative somewhere who you can be roped into it, this facility of PCs is widely available to moms, pops, grandmas, and kiddies everywhere.


>>People like Unix style command line shells? There are only about 500 different ones around you can use with Windows.

>Name one that is installed in the base install.
Who cares? If you enjoy command line BS, you enjoy installing a new one. If you have trouble installing one, you are unsuited to using a command line shell. It couldn't take but a couple of minutes for major set of tools, and a few seconds would be more typical.

But this takes time. Downloading these takes a while, even on DSL.

> The only half decent one I found was cygwin, and that needed a bunch
> of other stuff to be installed too. Which means, more time spent installing
> stuff and not enough time working.
All command lines shells are the same. You type in commands. There is no such thing as decent. There is no such thing as bad.
It is what it is. That's a command line.

Wrong. csh, ksh, sh, and bash are all fundamentally different and each incompatible with the others in small or large ways. I like some of the shells, but not others. I can put up with BASH, but I dont like it.

Cygnus is a Unix emulation that runs as a task under Windows. It is supposed to run all the Unix/Linux command line tools. You can compile Linux kernals, or whatever, the same as you would using a command line shell within Linux.

Isnt this payware?

And yes, if there aren't 500 Unix command line shells for Windows, then there are 1000. They have been creating these things since before Windows, when DOS was the PC operating system. If you didn't know this, quit styling yourself "elite". Effete would be more appropriate.

Again, these all require extra work to get a system to a usable standpoint, FOR ME.

They used to include POSIX with Windows NT, which is a standardized version of UNIX. They may still. You can buy an expanded version from MS (they call it SFU!) for XP Professional ($100)

If you did not know, NT's POSIX compatibility was broken. POSIX covers more than just Unix.

I don't mean to leave the impression I seriously used any of this UNIX stuff, or that I would want to. You just run across this type of thing all the time from techies.

I do use it. I use it daily. Whenever I am on a machine I have a connection to a Unix machine whether I am at work or at home. Simplifying things for myself makes my life easier.

Apple doesn't tout Unix as a selling point as far as I can see (and no wonder). They seem more to be concealing the fact that they use UNIX.

No, they do not conceal it at all. They target it to the people that would care. That is why I purchased a Mac.

My comments are opinion on what is better for me. You may think Im a loser for caring that I have to either spend $100 or 2 hours downloading some software, but sometimes I just want something usable right away so I can get some work done. Mac OS X can do this for me. Windows cannot. This does not fit your situation, thats great for you, but that does not affect me in the least. I have a use for Mac OS X, you dont. Does that make me wrong? Not at all. Does that make the Mac useless? Obviously not.

Another note about the shell/ssh thing: Installing 3rd party apps can cause problems that have to be traced down. Is it a bug with the OS or the software? If I uninstall it will the bug go away? When the tools are integrated, the OS developer has to test them and work out the bugs. No blaming of other companies, no time spent tracking down support emails from various companies or individuals, just one responsible entity. Again, simplicity.
 

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
(Sunner) It's a damn shame most enthusiasts are so narrow minded and can't see the world that exists outside their own little universe.

very well put.. all of the windows zealots seem to be whining about mac heads, while the people posting good things about macs in this thread are completely reasonable and are definitely not "mac heads". the same cannot be said for the aforementioned windows zealots.

also to pick up on what n0cmonkey said - many people enjoy doing things with their computers that are very different from what the average windows user, or even "power" user as i guess most of you would call yourselves, do. all kinds of networking fun, setting up, say, webservers, nameservers, database servers, ip filtering, mail setups, programming/development, and all kinds of other fun stuff that the windows "power" user can't really do in windows (yet a mac with osx can handle most if not all of these things pretty well) - and yes, apache runs in windows, VStudio, etc, what i'm talking about is powerful, robust UNIX systems which are a billion miles away from things like integrated hotmail accounts and thumbnail folders. most people in this thread have no exposure to this side of the computing world so i suppose it's understandable for them to be ignorant about it..

so, yes, you can game on a windows machine faster and cheaper than a mac. you can run MS Word alot faster (i know its important!) on a windows machine. but you cannot run any sort of respectable network services on a windows machine, and that's important to some people.

on the software issue - yes, most windows software absolutely IS crap, and believe it or not, the mac community is huge, and there are tons of applications for macs, many of which are crappy, but a higher percentage being erm, less crappy, than on windows. i think this has to do with just the whole vibe of the mac platform - apple has a very different "attitude" as a company than MS, and their users, developers, and applications reflect that.

on macos being more user friendly - of course this is subjective but honestly i think its a no brainer, and most people saying windows is as useable or more useable than macos are completely ignorant, and/or extremely biased, due to their bizarre love of Microsoft.

apple is against DRM BS (that microsoft is silently trojaning into their software, thanks to their love of $$ and lack of concern for their users.)

and once more, you guys dont seem to realize that there are many-a-unix sysadmin using apples because of 1. quality of the platform overall and 2. unix in osx. the windows zealots seem to be completely amateur gamers and (?? i dont know what else you guys do in windows, chat?)

hm thats about it. while i'm pretty zealous about my dislike of windows, i'm trying to be reasonable here. open up your eyes people - there is a VAST world of computing beyond the tricycle that is Microsoft(R) Windows(tm). if you choose not to take advantage of it, at least acknowledge it, and understand it a bit, and maybe people will respect your opinion a bit.
 

Prodigy^

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,044
1
0
the windows zealots seem to be completely amateur gamers and (?? i dont know what else you guys do in windows, chat?)

listen to yourself, you're just as bad as the windows zealots. every half-serious gamer in the world uses windows and you can do everything in windows that you can do with a mac. you make up false facts about windows software being crappy, and spout the usual anti microsoft bull. MS-haters who hate out of spite are retards.
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: Prodigy^
the windows zealots seem to be completely amateur gamers and (?? i dont know what else you guys do in windows, chat?)

listen to yourself, you're just as bad as the windows zealots. every half-serious gamer in the world uses windows and you can do everything in windows that you can do with a mac. you make up false facts about windows software being crappy, and spout the usual anti microsoft bull. MS-haters who hate out of spite are retards.
I can't speak for BBWF, but my dislike for Microsoft stems from their business practices and their recent (and continuing) attempts to push Palladium (aka hardware-enabled spyware and cop chips combined with intrusive software) down consumers' throats.

As far as Windows software goes, brand name software that costs money (examples: Office XP, Photoshop, 3ds Max) is usually good, and open source Windows software (example: Mozilla) is pretty good, but 90% of the shareware you download from places like download.com is crap. Mainly because the people who write it don't have the slightest idea how to design a proper user interface, and although the information is freely available, they don't care enough to read it and make a half-usable program. I think the 90% of shareware that is written for the Windows platform is probably a major part of the group (if not the group itself) of software that BBWF speaks of when he says "yes, most windows software absolutely IS crap."

When you can prove to me that Palladium, among the many other malpractices of Microsoft, is "bull," then I will believe you. Unfortunately, this stuff is all too real, and there are many good reasons not to like Microsoft. Not liking Microsoft means using alternative options if possible. The PPC architecture (at least Apple's implementation of it), along with Mac OS X.2, is a perfectly good alternative; an x86 or other architecture, combined with a UNIX (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) or UNIX-like (Linux) open-source operating system is also an excellent alternative.

Oh, and to make this post have some lasting value (since I know the above comments will be ignored by the Windows/Microsoft zealots)... I'd like to know what BBWF's (if he's still reading this) opinion is of the DIY kit with the ATX motherboard and PPC (G3?) processor is. I guess I don't see the point; that particular PPC setup won't run OS X (at least AFAIK), and the main advantage (I thought) of using the PPC arch was using it in an Apple *Mac with OS X. Linux on a DIY PPC setup works fine, I'm sure, but so does Linux (or *BSD) on many other architectures (some of them much cheaper to implement than a PPC setup). This is not a flame against the PPC architecture - I have nothing against it; I'm just curious what kind of real-world advantages there might be to using a non-Apple PPC machine. Oh, and if someone other than BBWF wants to voice their opinion, that'd be fine with me, too.

<-- wants to turn this thread from a flame-fest into a useful thing, and would appreciate hearing anyone's [non-flaming] opinion of the above... :)
 

jcontonio

Member
Jun 21, 2001
162
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: IHateRequiredNicknames
Apple did a lot of work supporting the education market years ago.
Apple has never produced a computer that competed well on price/performance. In very limited cases, they were tied or slightly in the lead in performance (on limited benchmarks), but their computers were often 2-3 times the price of the PC. However Apple did a major education campaign. They gave huge discounts to schools, and had deals with HyVee or Campbell's soup where turning in receipts or can labels would have Apple give free computers to schools. With all these free or cheap Apples in the schools, it became more expensive to include PCs (since then they would need to hire two technicians - one for the Apples and one for the PCs). That campaign was a huge success and education became nearly entirely Apple users. Apple's idea for this: if the students grow up learning on an Apple, then they'd be more likely to buy an Apple at 2-3 times the price. The problem is it was the parents buying their kids computers, not the kids. Parents saw a PC in the local store for $1000 or a Mac for $3000. Very quickly the PC became dominant. Sure there are a few people still left in the 'dark ages', unwilling to give PCs an honest try, and that is what Apple hangs on to for survival. Even schools have been coming around. When I was in high school I had a huge debate with the teachers saying that they should teach on PCs since that is what the majority of homes/businesses use, but they refused to listen and my high school was 95% Apple. Today (10 years later) I don't think there is an Apple left in my high school. Why teach kids something that they won't likely use when cheaper PCs will be very useful?

Other reasons why people buy Apple:
*** Thinking that it is the best OS ever. Every single version of the Apple OS has been hailed as the best OS ever, even when they made the major switch to Unix it didn't change their tone. A 100% completely different OS and it still is the best ever. Im not saying that OS X is bad, but it just seems odd that no matter how many changes they make, the next version is always the best OS ever.
*** Absurd benchmarks. They used to have tons of links on their website to a "benchmark" showing that their most expensive dual 1.25 GHz G4 with maximum memory was 90% faster than a 2.53 GHz P4 in Photoshop. Yet they failed to include important details: did the P4 have SDRAM or RDRAM, did the P4 have enough memory (probably the major reason of their results), which filters of Photoshop did they use (were they only the ones that were Apple optimized), why didn't they compare to a dual Xeon, why didn't they use the faster 2.8 GHz P4 available at the time? Do a quick search and at the very same time Apple was reporting that result other independant sites showed the P4 dominated the dual G4 in every single benchmark, even Photoshop. Why the disparity- basically since Apple was trying hard to mislead. I looked quickly now, and couldn't find a single benchmark comparing a G4 to a P4 anymore on Apple's website.
*** Lets look at their top 10 reasons to switch:
1) It just works. Remember their commercial about drivers ruining Christmas? Well look here at a link on their home page. Apple is requesting their users to download a DVD driver so that they avoid using media that "may permanently damage the drive". Gee if it just works without needing to download drivers, why such an ominous warning?
2) It doesn't crash. I've worked on both types of computers. Honestly I'd say they crash evenly (actually my school Apple/Macs crashed more frequently, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend that their tech person had them set up poorly).
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.
4) Digital photography. Now c'mon, PCs can work with photography too.
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.
6) They have laptops. Hmm don't PCs?
7) It is built for the internet. Well I don't think you can buy a PC anymore that can't use the Internet.
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.
9) Macs use the same network cards as PCs. See my comment for #8.
10) Its beautiful. That is personal preference. I honestly think some PC cases look great too.

 

jcontonio

Member
Jun 21, 2001
162
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: IHateRequiredNicknames
Apple did a lot of work supporting the education market years ago.
Apple has never produced a computer that competed well on price/performance. In very limited cases, they were tied or slightly in the lead in performance (on limited benchmarks), but their computers were often 2-3 times the price of the PC. However Apple did a major education campaign. They gave huge discounts to schools, and had deals with HyVee or Campbell's soup where turning in receipts or can labels would have Apple give free computers to schools. With all these free or cheap Apples in the schools, it became more expensive to include PCs (since then they would need to hire two technicians - one for the Apples and one for the PCs). That campaign was a huge success and education became nearly entirely Apple users. Apple's idea for this: if the students grow up learning on an Apple, then they'd be more likely to buy an Apple at 2-3 times the price. The problem is it was the parents buying their kids computers, not the kids. Parents saw a PC in the local store for $1000 or a Mac for $3000. Very quickly the PC became dominant. Sure there are a few people still left in the 'dark ages', unwilling to give PCs an honest try, and that is what Apple hangs on to for survival. Even schools have been coming around. When I was in high school I had a huge debate with the teachers saying that they should teach on PCs since that is what the majority of homes/businesses use, but they refused to listen and my high school was 95% Apple. Today (10 years later) I don't think there is an Apple left in my high school. Why teach kids something that they won't likely use when cheaper PCs will be very useful?

Other reasons why people buy Apple:
*** Thinking that it is the best OS ever. Every single version of the Apple OS has been hailed as the best OS ever, even when they made the major switch to Unix it didn't change their tone. A 100% completely different OS and it still is the best ever. Im not saying that OS X is bad, but it just seems odd that no matter how many changes they make, the next version is always the best OS ever.
*** Absurd benchmarks. They used to have tons of links on their website to a "benchmark" showing that their most expensive dual 1.25 GHz G4 with maximum memory was 90% faster than a 2.53 GHz P4 in Photoshop. Yet they failed to include important details: did the P4 have SDRAM or RDRAM, did the P4 have enough memory (probably the major reason of their results), which filters of Photoshop did they use (were they only the ones that were Apple optimized), why didn't they compare to a dual Xeon, why didn't they use the faster 2.8 GHz P4 available at the time? Do a quick search and at the very same time Apple was reporting that result other independant sites showed the P4 dominated the dual G4 in every single benchmark, even Photoshop. Why the disparity- basically since Apple was trying hard to mislead. I looked quickly now, and couldn't find a single benchmark comparing a G4 to a P4 anymore on Apple's website.
*** Lets look at their top 10 reasons to switch:
1) It just works. Remember their commercial about drivers ruining Christmas? Well look here at a link on their home page. Apple is requesting their users to download a DVD driver so that they avoid using media that "may permanently damage the drive". Gee if it just works without needing to download drivers, why such an ominous warning?
2) It doesn't crash. I've worked on both types of computers. Honestly I'd say they crash evenly (actually my school Apple/Macs crashed more frequently, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend that their tech person had them set up poorly).
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.
4) Digital photography. Now c'mon, PCs can work with photography too.
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.
6) They have laptops. Hmm don't PCs?
7) It is built for the internet. Well I don't think you can buy a PC anymore that can't use the Internet.
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.
9) Macs use the same network cards as PCs. See my comment for #8.
10) Its beautiful. That is personal preference. I honestly think some PC cases look great too.

 

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
Originally posted by: Prodigy^
the windows zealots seem to be completely amateur gamers and (?? i dont know what else you guys do in windows, chat?)

listen to yourself, you're just as bad as the windows zealots. every half-serious gamer in the world uses windows

i dont care about gamers. they can use windows all they want, it doesnt bother me, whatever, i dont care. windows is to a pc gamer as an xbox is to a console gamer. if something happens - then what, they're out of a gaming platform. life goes on.

and you can do everything in windows that you can do with a mac.

windows comes with apache, nmap, ssh, a c compiler and a whole disc of developer tools? wow, i didnt know that. windows can DO almost everything a mac can, but it can't do it as well. ask someone who knows what they're doing whether they'd rather run a large website on windows or on osx. as i stated - for SIMPLE uses, sure, windows can get the job done. you can edit text files, you can manipulate images, do email, surf, etc. but as far as being a high-end workhorse, windows is nothing but a joke.

and spout the usual anti microsoft bull.

alright genius, what usual anti MS bull am i spouting? did you even read what i said? i feel like i am one of the few in this thread actually making valid points. you are just giving the typical "you just hate MS" response, and its BS.

MS-haters who hate out of spite are retards.

i assume you're referring to me, thanks for your input.

jliechty - I'd like to know what BBWF's (if he's still reading this) opinion is of the DIY kit with the ATX motherboard and PPC (G3?) processor is. I guess I don't see the point; that particular PPC setup won't run OS X (at least AFAIK), and the main advantage (I thought) of using the PPC arch was using it in an Apple *Mac with OS X. Linux on a DIY PPC setup works fine, I'm sure, but so does Linux (or *BSD) on many other architectures (some of them much cheaper to implement than a PPC setup).

it's a fine idea by me, only issue is cost - if i had lots of money i'd pretty much have at least one of everything, so it'd just be yet another platform - but i dont, so to me it's just a neat little idea that's too expensive. ppc is obviously a more evolved and modern platform - but on the other hand, i can build a 1+Ghz x86 machine for under $300 which is pretty remarkable.

edit because i was thinking strange after being up for 27+ hours - ok now that i think about it, it all depends on the price of the self built g3 versus a self built x86 and a mac. if its almost the cost of a mac, why not just buy the mac and get all of the benefits? if it's alot lower than it's somewhat close to x86 prices, and it'd be an interesting idea.
 

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
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.

another person with no idea what they're talking about.
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
My closing thoughts before I ignore (hopefully) this thread forever. PCs have their uses, Macs have their uses and the right platform for you depends on what you are doing.


Lethal
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
windows comes with apache, nmap, ssh, a c compiler and a whole disc of developer tools? wow, i didnt know that. windows can DO almost everything a mac can, but it can't do it as well. ask someone who knows what they're doing whether they'd rather run a large website on windows or on osx. as i stated - for SIMPLE uses, sure, windows can get the job done. you can edit text files, you can manipulate images, do email, surf, etc. but as far as being a high-end workhorse, windows is nothing but a joke.

Yes and that would be why the animation industry(games, movies etc) are done on WinTel based systems. XSI doesnt come on Mac, Max doesnt come on Mac. Maya is finally out on Mac, after years. Heck Steve Jobs own Pixar doesnt do their animation on Macs, I believe they use Irix(Sun Solaris).

I still doubt the 95% figure. Like I said before Sony uses Windows based systems and they release alot of movies...

I still say post editing is closer to 50/50 than you guys think. Pro Audio is strongly Mac because like I said Win systems get the latest an greatest audio software&tools alot later than Macs.

Graphics design is closer to 50/50 than you guys think.

Animation well the PC by bar leads Mac. Heck Irix and Linux beat out the Mac in installed user base in animation...
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
another person with no idea what they're talking about.

You have no idea what your talking about either. PCs are workhorses for much of the world and alot of different industries.
 

silent tone

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,571
1
76
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
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.

another person with no idea what they're talking about.

I guess he could technically call it expensive since you have to buy a new mac to get it, or pay fifty dollars. It's comparable to ms movie maker 2, which will be free.;)

 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: LH
another person with no idea what they're talking about.
You have no idea what your talking about either. PCs are workhorses for much of the world and alot of different industries.
You seem to want to discount the fact that Macs are still used in many industries. They may not be used exclusively, but they are used nonetheless. If Macs were as bad as many of the people who mindlessly spout what they've been taught since they were young children say they are, then even the most die-hard Mac fanatics would have "reverse-switched" a long time ago. Macs have their advantages, which I feel do not need repeating, since this has been discussed many times over already in this thread. PCs also have advantages. DEC/Compaq Alphas have their advantages. Sun UltraSparc whatever-version-they're-at-now's systems have advantages as well. SGI's MIPS architecture even has its advantages...

Now Cyrix processors - I don't know if they have any advantages, aside from being darn good space heaters. ;)
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: istallion
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
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.

another person with no idea what they're talking about.

I guess he could technically call it expensive since you have to buy a new mac to get it, or pay fifty dollars. It's comparable to ms movie maker 2, which will be free.;)
Oh? I thought you had to pay $200 to get Windows XP to get MS's movie maker. Now, that you could get it separately for free - that's news to me.
rolleye.gif
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: jcontonio

1) It just works. Remember their commercial about drivers ruining Christmas? Well look here at a link on their home page. Apple is requesting their users to download a DVD driver so that they avoid using media that "may permanently damage the drive". Gee if it just works without needing to download drivers, why such an ominous warning?
Unfortunately, this isn't something Apple can control. The download is a firmware update for the Superdrives that fix them. The company that made them(Pioneer) didn't do a very good job, and now they have a major problem with 4x DVD-R's. Their PC drives have the same issue. Pioneer dropped the ball on this one, not Apple.

PS On a side note, durring a software update, a Mac should recognize the faulty drive, and grab the new firmware. Compared to a PC, where you have to know you have a bad drive, it's a little more proactive
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
Originally posted by: LH
windows comes with apache, nmap, ssh, a c compiler and a whole disc of developer tools? wow, i didnt know that. windows can DO almost everything a mac can, but it can't do it as well. ask someone who knows what they're doing whether they'd rather run a large website on windows or on osx. as i stated - for SIMPLE uses, sure, windows can get the job done. you can edit text files, you can manipulate images, do email, surf, etc. but as far as being a high-end workhorse, windows is nothing but a joke.

Yes and that would be why the animation industry(games, movies etc) are done on WinTel based systems. XSI doesnt come on Mac, Max doesnt come on Mac. Maya is finally out on Mac, after years. Heck Steve Jobs own Pixar doesnt do their animation on Macs, I believe they use Irix(Sun Solaris).

I still doubt the 95% figure. Like I said before Sony uses Windows based systems and they release alot of movies...

I still say post editing is closer to 50/50 than you guys think. Pro Audio is strongly Mac because like I said Win systems get the latest an greatest audio software&tools alot later than Macs.

Graphics design is closer to 50/50 than you guys think.

Animation well the PC by bar leads Mac. Heck Irix and Linux beat out the Mac in installed user base in animation...

Okay I lied, one more post. ;)

My 95% figure is just based on my observations so it can't be taken as fact for the whole industry, but I don't think my guess is that far off (50/50 IMO is way to generous). The vast majority of what you see in theaters or on TV (this include TV shows, commercials, trailors, etc.,) is cut on a Mac. I have friends at trailor houses in LA and they are seeing their side of the industry move to all FCP machines save for each house having one or two finishing machines. I'm sure the windows based machines will start to appear more and more in the industry now that they have a proven OS (Win2k), but w/o a killer NLE app (i.e.FCP) windows is never gonna have a chance.


Lethal
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: LH
windows comes with apache, nmap, ssh, a c compiler and a whole disc of developer tools? wow, i didnt know that. windows can DO almost everything a mac can, but it can't do it as well. ask someone who knows what they're doing whether they'd rather run a large website on windows or on osx. as i stated - for SIMPLE uses, sure, windows can get the job done. you can edit text files, you can manipulate images, do email, surf, etc. but as far as being a high-end workhorse, windows is nothing but a joke.

Yes and that would be why the animation industry(games, movies etc) are done on WinTel based systems. XSI doesnt come on Mac, Max doesnt come on Mac. Maya is finally out on Mac, after years. Heck Steve Jobs own Pixar doesnt do their animation on Macs, I believe they use Irix(Sun Solaris).

I still doubt the 95% figure. Like I said before Sony uses Windows based systems and they release alot of movies...

I still say post editing is closer to 50/50 than you guys think. Pro Audio is strongly Mac because like I said Win systems get the latest an greatest audio software&tools alot later than Macs.

Graphics design is closer to 50/50 than you guys think.

Animation well the PC by bar leads Mac. Heck Irix and Linux beat out the Mac in installed user base in animation...

Pixar runs Mac OS X. Several scientific institutions run Mac OS X. The Matrix was done on a cluster of 32 FreeBSD machines on x86 processors. :p
 

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
Originally posted by: LH
windows comes with apache, nmap, ssh, a c compiler and a whole disc of developer tools? wow, i didnt know that. windows can DO almost everything a mac can, but it can't do it as well. ask someone who knows what they're doing whether they'd rather run a large website on windows or on osx. as i stated - for SIMPLE uses, sure, windows can get the job done. you can edit text files, you can manipulate images, do email, surf, etc. but as far as being a high-end workhorse, windows is nothing but a joke.

Yes and that would be why the animation industry(games, movies etc) are done on WinTel based systems. XSI doesnt come on Mac, Max doesnt come on Mac. Maya is finally out on Mac, after years. Heck Steve Jobs own Pixar doesnt do their animation on Macs, I believe they use Irix(Sun Solaris).

I still doubt the 95% figure. Like I said before Sony uses Windows based systems and they release alot of movies...

I still say post editing is closer to 50/50 than you guys think. Pro Audio is strongly Mac because like I said Win systems get the latest an greatest audio software&tools alot later than Macs.

Graphics design is closer to 50/50 than you guys think.

Animation well the PC by bar leads Mac. Heck Irix and Linux beat out the Mac in installed user base in animation...

i dont think you got my point. 3d animation/video/audio/photo/etc has been covered already, i'm talking mostly about network services.
 

Flatline

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2001
1,248
0
0
BBWF, just one interjection...I wouldn't want to run a LARGE website on a Mac or a Windows machine; give me apache on linux any day.

Of course, if I were forced to choose between Mac & Windows for running a large website, I would pick the Mac (primarily because it IS a 'nix-based platform).

I would hesitate to call Windows machines a joke as far as being workstations is concerned...at my last company, all of our software developers used Win2K machines (although we in the IT department truly did try to get them to run 'nix); we were pleasantly surprised by their stability and performance. While I still think that a properly configured 'nix machine would have been better, the Windows workstations performed admirably (and were less expensive than their Mac counterparts...we did look at that).

Many of the things that you listed as great Mac features (apache, ssl, c compiler, etc.) will be included on pretty much any 'nix platform, and I agree that their inclusion in the OS is one of the things that make 'nix-based OSes so useful. However, I personally can't get around spending so many $$$ on proprietary hardware and software in order to have a brand-name 'nix machine at my desk; this is one of the things that kept me away from slowaris for so long.

Long story short, I rarely (if ever) use Windows anymore; I have become a 'nix fan. I like the fact that OSX is 'nix-based, but the price tag is too high for me (although I must say that the notebooks are intriguing) :D