How is Mac better than PC?

I have a Mac cuz I like Steve Jobs, and I like underdogs.

But how are they better from a techincal standpoint?

I also like not having to worry so much about viruses and spyware.

from a technical point of view, Macs haven't been better than PCs for quite a long time. On the contrary, due to their competitive market, Intel-based PCs have had superior hardware in almost every category for a while now. I guess there could be a little bit of an argument about which processor is better, but even there, Intel and AMD make advances much more quickly since they are in competition.

I think your point about viruses and spyware is really the main way in which Macs could be considered "better" though this is due mainly to market share. Computers running Linux don't have that problem either, you know?

So in the end, it comes down to niche and need. There are a few Mac-only pieces of software, like Final Cut Pro, but other than that, I can't imagine why one would want to use a Mac other than personal preference.

I don't buy the whole underdog thing either. Apple is a big corporation that marks up its products way above their cost on the open market. Steve Jobs is the very well paid CEO of two big companies, and the real genius behind Apple, Steve Wozniak, got kicked out on his rear.

I've programmed assembly language on both platforms. Mac is far superior. Period. More consistent, less crashes, better GUI, better support, better updates, better security.

If new PC's are Mustangs, Macs are Maseratis. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't been up on MacOSX.

but if we want to get into all that, I've done assembly on both platforms as well, and on the Mac, I kept on trying to use the phantom right mouse button.

But seriously, you haven't added anything substantive with your post other than saying "I'm right, you're wrong." And this is what bothers me about many Mac afficionados. There are aspects of OSX that I like a lot--the BSD kernel, parts of the GUI. On the other hand, I also like the infinitely wider software base of the PC and the fact that I can still run my software from the 1980s.

Apple's large disregard for backward compatibilitiy is an enormous issue. To continue with your analogy, one should not have to buy a whole new car every time you want to change tires.

because no matter how you slice it, Windows is DOS with a bad toupee. It is awkward, takes a long time to boot, and instead of just rewriting the goddamn ROM-BIOS MS keeps patching around it, ostensibly for backward compatibility. The problems manifest themselves in a more unstable OS that ends up wasting a lot of my time. If you have the time to mess with it more power to you.

Me, I'd rather bite the bullet for performance's sake and throw out the old software, instead of keeping my WordStar2000 from 1985 on life support.

to a certain degree. Though not completely. I have two machines running XP at home, and they both boot in under 30 seconds, which is, admittedly a small miracle compared to the way 9x booted.

And I think OSX's issues with recent versions of Office, Photoshop, etc, are much more pressing than you make them out to be. I think we can agree on putting WordStar out to pasture, but I do enjoy booting up WordPerfect 5.1 every once in a while just to see that blue background. ;-)

I get pissy on MS but no one can deny they've come a long way in the last five years.

I would cut them a lot more slack if they'd deep-six the little 'help' monitor-dude in Word...:D

I'm using WP 10 and will probably upgrade to 12 soon.

It does a few things better than Word for me, and still has "reveal codes." Lemme tell you how handy that is when you're in the middle of a complex document with graphics, tables, columns, dropcaps...

Admittedly, nobody else can read a .wps file, but I can easily make just about any Word variant file you want, or go straight to PDF without any bullshit. And the html pages it creates don't have half the spaghetti code or crap Word pages have.

And Bill Gates doesn't get a nickel out of it.

Corel tells me they're doing Linux again, so that means it might even work on a Mac like Open Office does, albeit with a little work.

Any PC. Example, I'm on an EMac, running OS 10.3(Panther), along with a split system OS 9. On the OS 9 side of things, I'm running ALL of my old programs from my old '93 PowerMac 6100. This includes software that I ported over from an old Apple Classic(OS 6) and other software ported over from an Apple II. No problems with backwards compatablity there.

Also, Mac is much better with cross platform compatablity than any PC. I regularly take home documents from my PC at work, on floppies, CD or Zip discs. I have no problem opening them, either as text documents, Word, Excel, or PowerPoint docs, or as IE or Netscape docs. Also, if I wished to, I could install either an Orange PC Card, or Virtual PC, and run PC programs on my Mac, with little or no speed difference. I've known friends who've done this and love it. With a PC, trying to do any of these tasks is difficult at best, and more than likely impossible.

As far as software availability goes, like I said before, a Mac is cross platform compatable, especially with the installation of a PC card or emulation software. With one of those easy, simple steps on a Mac, your software availability more than doubled, something that is impossible on a PC.

From a hardware standpoint, Macs have always been on the cutting edge of the spectrum. From copper chips, to the first desktop supercomputer, to the first dual processors, to the first 1 gig processor, Macs are on the bleeding edge of hi tech hardware. So much so that their computers age very gracefully. As I mentioned before, I own a PM 6100. When I first bought it in '93, it was THE shit, top of the line. And it aged well, so much so that it was my home computer up until last July. I bumped up the processor with a 400Mhz card, and maxed out the RAM, and that was it. I think a ten year run as a fully functioning computer is pretty good in this day and age of instant obsolecence.

And as far a graphics works goes(my big concern with any computer) Macs are THE BOMB. Faster rendering times, better color matching, the Mac is head and shoulders above a PC for graphics work. This is why, in any serious graphics intensive business, you always will find a Mac.

Ease of use is also another consideration. When I first got a Mac,I was computer illiterate, and yet I was able to do what I wanted to do, instantly and intuitively. No having to fumble around multiple drives, no need to figure out DOS prompts, none of that, simply click and go. I've recommended Macs to my computer illiterate friends and family, and even the densest non-techy among them have been able to get up and running on a Mac in minutes, as opposed to days and weeks with a PC.

Durablity is also another area where Macs are superior. Since getting my first Mac, I made a hobby of collecting old Macs. It is amazing how many you find that are still functioning and in use. My Apple IIe I found in college library, still in use for tutorials, as was my Mac IIx, and this was back in '98. I've seen several old Macs from the eighties and ninties that are still funtioning and useful, yet I still haven't seen a PC that is more than ten years old still in regular use. It seems that they have a bad habit of either dying or becoming severly obsolete within five years.

Outside influences are also less bothersome for Macs. We all know the story about how virtually no viruses are written for the Mac. Well, neither is spyware or popups. I read in chat rooms, blogs and other 'Net places about the hassles with all of these things, and am thankful not to have to deal with them. I do have virus protection on my new Mac, but rarely run it or update it. On my 6100, I took off my virus protection the last six years it was in regular use, and never had a problem. Sure, I would recieve the virus from some of my PC friends(who were regularly going nuts with viri), and I would even open it up, explore it and dissect the virus with ResEdit(among other programs), and never suffered. Oh, and then there was that little matter of the Y2K bug. While the rest of the world was going nuts rushing around, spending the big bucks to stave off DOS disaster, Mac users cooly and quietly without a care, for we knew that on January 1, 2000, we would get up, turn on our Macs, and they would work just fine.

All in all, give me a Mac anyday. In fact, if they were to stop making Macs tommorrow, I would still continue to use them the rest of my life. After all, why settle for a Dodge when you're used to a Rolls?

The #1 thing that bothers me about some Mac supporters is their utter lack of objectivity.

Let's analyze this here: you run *two* operating systems in order to be able to run all your programs. That is the very definition of bad backwards compatibility. That'd be like a PC user running both XP and DOS and claiming what you are.

As for cross-platform compatibility, you have a point there. I think generally, because they have to be, Macs are better at reading PC-formatted files than vice versa. You see, this is what we call *objectivity.*

Ok, as for the cutting-edge technology stuff, you're somewhat offbase. While it's true that Intel doesn't use copper cores, AMD has been using them for a while now. The whole "desktop supercomputer" ad campaign was demonstrated to be a crock, as Apple paid off labs to test Intel and AMD chips that had much of their functionality disabled. Apple was far from the first to use parallel processing, as this technology has been around in servers for years and years--various Unix flavors have been using this as their standard. Ok, now your biggest mistake was the idea that somehow, having the first 1Ghz chip means anything at all. One of the fundamental rules of computer hardware architecture is that you cannot compare clockspeeds across different chips. That clockspeed is simply a measure of how fast the chip runs through its set of instructions (its basic, machine-level code.) Say I have a chip with 1,000,000 transistors that runs at 100 MHz, and you have one with 100 transistors that runs at 1 GHz--my chip will still be more powerful, despite the vastly slower clock speed. My point is not to compare Apple and PC processors, but to reiterate that comparing clock speeds is meaningless.

At this point, the main advantage that Macs have in the graphics world is that they *used* to be better at it, so everyone is accustomed to using Macs for that purpose. Photoshop, for instance, runs many filters more quickly on a PC now than it does on a Mac.

Ease of use is a bad argument to make now as well--you're talking about DOS, which has not been the OS for 10 years now! That's like me criticizing Apple for not having color screens on most systems until about 10 years ago!

Look, there are advantages to both sides--OSX's BSD kernel is awesome, and the look of the GUI is better. The PC world has the benefit of an enormously better software base and more access to varied hardware. There is no point in having this discussion without displaying more objectivity. This is not a comparison of a Dodge to a Rolls--it's comparing a BMW to a Mercedes.

How many times do you have to reboot a PC? How many times have you lost data due to a PC crashing? How much downtime(and money) do you have to spend installing patches, virus control, security issues, crashes, updates, etc ad nauseum? All of this due to the simple fact that you are trying to operate a one size fits all OS on many different machines. With a Mac, you have a specific machine mated to a specific OS, both optimized to work well.

And as far as using two different OSs for backwards compatablity, well friend, you aren't being accurate there. It is the same OS, with two distinct partitions, one is OSX, the other is OS9. It is seamless, easy to use and fully integrated.

And while you casually dismiss the copper cores, my point is that Mac was the FIRST one with such a processor. As they were the first desktop supercomputer. You dismiss this claim, but my question to you is why the DOD didn't dismiss it, and in fact banned Macs from being shipped overseas for a while(may still be) because the DOD determined that they WERE a desktop supercomputer?

In fact Macs have always been ahead of the curve in regards to PCs. Having an easy to use GUI, which Wintel machines didn't get for years(and then they ripped off Macs). The first in copper cores, the first desktop supercomputer, the list goes on and on. And while you dismiss a 1 Gig clockspeed as being meaningless, why is clockspeed considered meaningful when a Wintel machine catches up to a Mac? All of the PC mags crow about it, as does the box's maker, I'm sorry, but it seems that clockspeed is indeed meaningful.

And I love how you dismiss the Mac as "used to be better" at graphics work. Riiiight. Sorry, but that simply isn't true. If you go back in the past few issues of Macworld, they run they latest copy of Photoshop on both a Wintel machine and a Mac. Gee, guess what friend, the Mac won, including running filters. And speaking of filters, how many third party Photoshop filter pacs can you get for a PC? I can count the number on one hand. But hey, if you don't believe me, or Macworld, then look at the evidence of the free market. How many graphics studios run PCs? How many run Macs? How many graphics shops who are purchasing new equipment opt for the Mac?
When the money is on the line, they go with the Mac. As does state of the art animation, music, and movie studios.

Ease of use is a bad arguement? That's a laugher friend, for that is what a lot of your home users partly base their decision on. And it just isn't comparison to DOS, even on XP, the ease of use is atrocious. Sad to say, I have to use a Dell box at work, and ease of use is something sorely lacking. Important functions are hidden, finding things is slow and cumbersome, and any task out of the ordinary is an exercise in excrutiating agony.

There are only two advantages that a PC has over a Mac. The first is a wider selection of software, but that is correctable, with both software and hardware fixes. The other is price, in general PCs are cheaper(though Mac prices are coming down). Of course, part of this price differential is accounted for by volume sales. Another part is accounted for by the crappy quality of a great many off the shelf PCs(Dell and Gateway come to mind, and there are others). Quite frankly though, I would rather pay the extra bucks for a quality machine that lasts for ten years than pay a lower price for a machine that is trash within three.

on either a PC or a Mac. I reboot my PC maybe once a week, and spend at most 90 seconds a month dealing with viruses and security updates.

You are the one who is not being accurate: you are running a two-partition, two OS system. Yes, they are closely related OSs, and they run well in tandem, but they are two different pieces of software, case closed. It is no different from one of my systems that runs XP and RedHat. I can access files with either OS quite easily, but they're still on different partitions and are distinct from each other.

Look, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, but clock speed is still meaningless, and it's just as stupid when a PC-advocate uses it as an argument. Just because they're stupid doesn't mean that you have to be too. This is the objectivity that I am talking about, but apparently, you don't seem to understand that.

I don't think you understood my point about the graphics world. Macs used to have an enormous technical edge with their performance in programs like Photoshop. As well, Final Cut Pro was the only high-performance video/film editing software available. What I am saying is that this edge no longer exists to such a large degree. Sure, Macs may be a little stronger in performance in Photoshop, but some filters *do* run better on Intel/AMD systems now. And with the recent introduction of Avid Express DV, film and video editors have a program the equal of Final Cut Pro. Sorry if I don't take MacWorld that seriously--after the debacle comparing the G5s to Intel/AMD, I take all benchmarks--be they Mac ones, PC ones, whatever--with a huge grain of salt. Yes, on the free market, Macs dominate graphics--it's because they always have! Why would people switch over, even if PCs are technically equal at this point? There's no reason they would! Lord knows I'd get a Mac if that's the stuff I was doing.

Let me make myself more clear on the ease of use argument--yes, it's a bad argument, and secondly, *your* ease of use argument was terrible. You compared OSX, a brand new OS, to DOS. That's really stupid. I'm sorry. It's also a bad argument in general because ease of use is both an individual response and something that only comes with time--Commodore 64 users will find their OS easiest to use just like you prefer OSX and I prefer XP or Redhat because those are what we use...and there's nothing wrong with that.

My point is that they are both excellent platforms, and there isn't any real need for you to have such a nastily partisan view on the matter.

By dismissing everything I said as nonsense, claiming I wasn't being objective, and taking my comments out of context(DOS prompts was what I said, not a DOS OS). If you don't like the response you get, don't jump on my ass with both feet, for I will respond back.

It seems like the best thing for us to do at this point is to agree to disagree and part amiably, OK?

no hard feelings... :-)

Let's analyze this here: you run *two* operating systems in order to be able to run all your programs. That is the very definition of bad backwards compatibility. That'd be like a PC user running both XP and DOS and claiming what you are.

How the "two operating systems" thing works: Mac OS X is a Unix-based operating system, while the pre-OS X "classic" systems were not. If you need to run a "classic" application, the system starts OS 9 for you. Nice and clean.

Windows NT (NT, XP and 2000 are based on the NT core) does the same thing when you need to run a Windows 9x-based application or a DOS-based application. It has to--there is no DOS code in NT.

XP emulates DOS if needed--no separate code. It also emulates the bits of 9x that are not in the NT kernel though most software written for the 9x series was designed to run equally well on both 9x and NT based machines so it's really a moot point.

I agree that OSX handles the handoff to OS9 in an elegant manner--but they're still two different OSs.

Some stores have to old dual boot systems w/classic. The new Macs won't boot OS 9 any more. Not even from a CD rom.

That is a real pisser for some of us. Now I gotta buy new X compatable s/w. :-(

I thought they just wouldn't boot OS 9.

Security is the main difference.

Windows machines are inherently insecure. I don't by the argument that there are more viruses for Windows just because they have the market share. It has more to do with Microsoft's technology. Outlook is a horrible product when it comes to security. So is Internet Explorer and Windows OS for that matter. Why do you think that Microsoft has to release security patches on almost a weekly basis? It has to do with their underlying technology and their security model.

Yes, Linux and OSX can have viruses, but Windows is in a class by itself. Microsoft has 50+ billion in cash. They've also been at this for over 15 years. Why can't they solve the security problem? Because their technology has serious problems.

I run Linux as my primary desktop. I also have an OSX box as well as a Windows XP box. In terms of usability I would say OSX is the easiest to use and has a more pleasing experience. The main reason is because Apple has more control over the end product - so software tends to work better with the hardware. I am also impressed with the IPod and it's integration with the OS.

In terms of stability, Windows looses hands down. I've worked in IT departments where they actually have their Windows servers on reboot schedules just to have relatively stable systems.

Hardware is really a non-issue now. Most people would not detect the performance difference between an OSX box and a Windows Box.

Rum is better than both. Especially Barbancourt.

But I love my Mac. I do a lot of song writing and I've been using a Mac since the 80s. I couldn't tell you shit from shinola when it comes to the 'why's'but it just freakin' works.

which is a stable platform. Mac software has yet to become stable, like Macromedia Director. Most devices work without having to install drivers. Any dumbass can use them.

I was reminded why Macs are called Macintrash.

I've recently switched to a Mac from a PC (10 years), and I wouldn't go back if you paid me. My Mac is fast. It's stable (unlike my XP PC, which, though more stable than Win98SE, crashes at least once a week). It's intuitive. It has great software. And it's a beautiful piece of industrial design.

It's pretty easy to throw out the Macintrash comment and run away. Maybe you'd like to explain it.

But now we have Mac OS X, which is the worst peice of shit I have ever seen, the interface is disgusting. I don't care how great unix is, Apple destroyed the mac interface with Aqua or Quartz or whatever it is called. Virtually none of our copy protected Mac OS 9 software works in "Classic",

Mac quality has gone STRAIGHT to hell, the failure rate of newer macs is far beyond what would be consitered totally unacceptable, when we get a mac dead out of the box, Apple won't replace it, it has to go in for repairs, so you end up paying full price for a refurb machine, and that is assuming they fix it right the first time.

The macs we bought in 1995 are for the most part still going strong, we have had a few 7200's die, but could have easily been repaired were it worth it. No 9500's have died what-so-ever, and they are humming along nicely with 500mhz G3 upgrade cards and a gig of RAM.
The 7200's aren't really upgradable, and replacement SCSI hard drives are worth more than the whole system.

Of the macs we bought in 1999-2001, most of the towers have had a problem of some sort, mostly fried motherboards or power supplies.
Lots of iMac monitor problems. The eMacs are the worst pieces of shit I have ever seen, worse than the Packard Bell my girlfriend bought a few years back.

The recent Apple powerbooks have all sorts of problems, from bad displays to bad hinges, and they only boot Mac OS X.

Macs are gradually being phased out, it will take a good 5 years or more, but we won't be buying any non-Mac OS 9 booting macs in future, and we sure as hell aren't buying more G4 towers or emacs.

From now on, we are buying HP desktops and Fujitsu notebooks, the support we receive from Fujitsu borders on stalking. And when we get a defective HP, it is replaced in a matter of days if not hours.
While getting a mac fixed could take weeks.

Apple refused to license its technology. Therefore, Apple is the only one working on Mac upgrades.

IBM licensed its technology to damn near everybody who wanted it. These licensees then had to compete with each other for sales...innovations galore!

Yeah, Windows sucks. It's still better than not being compatible with 90% of the planet.

on the fact that none of your 3+ year old software for system 9 works one it? Good one. Try Windows 98 software on XP, and good luck.

I've had virtually every new desktop Mac in the last ten years and they have only gotten better. My G5 running 10.3.2 blows anything in the PC world out of the water. I really can't say I've known any one who has had the hardware problems you've had.

Try investing in some new software. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Guess What, there is alot of classic Mac OS software that is used every single day all over the world that will NEVER be ported to Mac OS X, because either;

a) the developer doesn't exist anymore,
b) the developer doesn't support the mac anymore,

If you have not had hardware difficulty, count yourself fortunate.

As for Windows XP, it has something called the "Program Compatibility Wizard" and unlike Classic, it actually works.

However, most Win32 software, will run in Windows XP without the wizard or any further support, while any non-Carbon\Cocca programs need to run in Classic.

that I've been unable to run in XP. There are a handful of DOS programs, but certainly not any from the 9x era.

Sure sounds like they're not for you.

My Powerbook G4 running OSX (which I absolutely love) and most Adobe software, most Macromedia software, sound design/music mixing/MIDI software, video editing software, 3D animation software, etc... runs great, is a pleasure to use and it's smooth as silk, baby.

on edit... i meant G4

OS X is the smartest thing Apple could have ever done. Unix/FreeBSD is an OS that has been tweaked for 30+ years. It's infinitely more stable than OS 9. Jobs has been announcing for _years_ that their new machines wouldn't be able to boot OS 9. And golly gee, they started making machines that won't boot OS 9! If you need a machine that boots 9.x and not just Classic mode, get a current G4 tower model. They're the end of the line.

The Aqua window manager ISN'T the old Mac. It has more in common with Linux distributions in the way it integrates its own built-in apps (iTunes, Mail, etc.) with the OS. The Dock came from NeXTSTEP, the FreeBSD OS that ran the NeXT workstations (Jobs' company after he was booted from Apple). I admit I was a little disoriented when I first booted X, but now I don't know how I lived with OS 9 for so long. It's just that superior.

Yes, Apple has had quality control issues recently. The only problems I've read about are the iBooks and the iPod battery fiasco, and they were messed-up problems, to be sure. As regards service, I have AppleCare, which I got for $100 ($150 off!) when I got my iBook. For three years, I'm able to call anytime, about anything, and I also am totally protected in terms of repairs. I know my Apple rep on a personal basis, and would give his and Apple's service in general a 10/10. "Consumer Reports" magazine gives Apple top marks for service perennially.

I used to work in the technical side of the music business, and I can tell you that the dominance of Macs is overwhelming. These are some of the most punishing software packages you can run when it comes to hard drives and other components that fail under stress. I simply haven't seen anything like what you're describing, ever, in any studio or production house. And I have a lot of confidence that I am looking at a representative sample of pro users under conditions of both use and abuse.

The software issues are not necessarily Apple's fault. I simply stopped using some companies' software when I had to buy a new package every time Apple's OS changed. Any company that does that is ripping off the public. As for copy-protected software not running in Classic, you should be taking up that issue with the software company. Most high-end packages that have all the copy protection and HD authorization assume that since you had the money for Maya, Digital Performer, etc. in the first place, you'll keep coughing up the $$$ for upgrades. I don't like it, but that's not Apple's fault.

Apple dropped support for Mac OS 9, we have found Mac OS X to be useless in our environment, this combined with endless hardware problems has led us to begin phasing out macs. Case Closed.

Many others have come to the same conclusion,

It is Apples fault because they began farming out manufacturing to rock bottom vendors in Asia, we have some 8mhz Mac Classics that are still going strong, Power Macs that are almost 10 years old are also still going strong. We use a Quadra 605 as a webserver. Systems that are brand new compared to the 9500 that sits on my desk are failing in large numbers. I would imagine the last mac standing will be a 9500 that will at that point be almost 15 years old.

Macs used to be bullet proof, I saw a Mac SE survive falling down a flight of stairs with barely a scuff.

but yes, Apple has dropped OS 9. Good riddance. It was great for the time, I guess...

I don't really understand how OS X is "useless in (your) environment". What are you running? I just can't think of any package that doesn't run better on X. And what hardware problems are you having? I run some oddball stuff, but all I've ever needed to do was to install the latest drivers. The weirdest piece of hardware I'm using is an old large-format Epson printer that hasn't been supported since OS 8.6 or so. I installed the Gimp-Print open source driver package--problem solved.

As for the Asian factories, gee...I wonder why the PCs are so cheap? Maybe because they're made in the same factories? Apple pretty much had to do that in order to stay competitive at all. Now those old machines, yeah, I have an attraction to old Macs, too--I own hyper-modded 9600 and B&W G3 machines, as well as a totally hot-rodded beige G3. They were built extremely well. But if you wanna talk lousy construction--go to a Gateway store sometime, or better yet, try to get one open! I saw the guys on TechTV nearly break one trying to put a new video card in.

The other thing is, I don't know anyone doing serious work on a Mac Classic! Even the 9600 is a 50 MHz bus machine. The B&W G3 is 100 MHz bus. The new G5s have 900 MHz and 1 GHz bus speeds. It's nice that those old machines are still going strong, but all my 9600 is gonna be doing from now on is writing letters and web surfing. And once again, I've been around recording studio people and musicians for years and I just haven't seen the kinds of failures you're talking about. I now work in the sciences, and this is what we call anecdotal vs. statistical evidence.

with more anecdotal evidence, right?

I said I have seen Macs operating under punishing pro audio conditions running every kind of professional HD recording and DSP package there is, for years, and without the kind of failures you're talking about. That includes the new machines--in fact nearly all of them were B&W or newer. I'm not saying that the failures you've experienced are acceptable in any way, but they simply cannot be statistically common based on the huge numbers of people I've worked with. Not to mention the trade magazines, which I still read (EQ, TapeOp, etc.).

OK, so it's not as good as a journal article study, but it is an _unofficial_ random sample. In fact the main failures I ever saw were spectacular OS 9 crashes, which eventually led to the joke about Macintosh being an acronym for "Many Applications Crash, If Not, The OS Hangs". Which is probably why so many people were glad to make the changeover to OS X.

OSX seems pretty damn stable to me. Though I also see very few real stability issues with XP.

What is so difficult about this?

We are an Apple customer, we are unhappy with the quality of current Apple hardware and aren't interested in where Apple is going with their opperating system. As a result we are switching vendors.

It's a business decision, there is nothing special about Apple.

Yeah, PC's are cheap, but Macs aren't. When a cheap HP burns, one phonecall and a new system is on the way, when a expensive mac burns it spends 2-3 weeks sitting at an Apple dealer waiting for parts and service. If macs are the BMW of computers, shouldn't they come with BMW quality service?

we aren't producing albums, or printing a magazine, were just using macs for office work, and my 9500 with a 500mhz Sonnett card in it runs everything perfectly. The mac classic is used to access an electronic data system that hasn't changed a whole lot since the 70's.

This isn’t an office full of beret and goatee wearing types sporting iPods hacking away at Photoshop and Premiere 24/7. It’s just an office, full of people in suits and ties, we have Macs because when they bought computers in the 80’s they were Macs and until recently we were generally happy with them.

A Power Mac 9500 runs Microsoft Word just fine,

The failure problem is common knowledge, I suppose it might go unnoticed in places with only a handfull of systems.

We gave Mac OS X a try, people generally hated it, with the exception of the weird lady with an office full of troll dolls.
We also didn't want to deal with a UNIX server environment.

The main things that disqualified X was the fact there were to many problems with older software that had copy protection, the fact almost everyone hated the interface (again, this are not Mac partisans, these people have PC's at home) and because Apple only appears to be supporting Mac OS X in the form of annual upgrades. And annual opperating system upgrades are an expensive pain in the ass.

If you just want to run office-type software, I think you _would_ be happier with PCs, mostly because of their dominance in that market. There, I've said it! And if you're not on board with OS X, it's definitely time to jump ship. As for the Mac Classic, that's actually pretty cool the way it's used--I just can't think of anyone I work with who still uses one of those for anything!

And yes, a 9500/9600 runs Word just fine, even without the new processor. And most office software packages don't require the latest in hardware, to say the least.

"Beret and goatee wearing types"? Now you're just being silly. And the iPod accounts for something like 75% of current mp3 player sales, so I think it's safe to say that it's more than the beret-and-goatee crowd that's coughing up the change for iPods.

Macs and _equivalently configured_ PCs are quite comparable in price; there have been numerous examples of this given right here, in the "Lounge" at DU. You pay a fairly small premium for some of the cosmetics and the connectivity (FW800, PCI-X, etc.) that Apple adopts first. And those are the kind of features that people who produce albums and print magazines want. Apple does their market research just like everyone else.

Many of the super-cheap PCs are so inexpensive because they have hardware literally soldered to the motherboard so it can't ever be swapped out (esp. video cards), and the machine is upgradeable only with extreme difficulty. And yes, I've checked this out, they're still doing it. I went to a Gateway store a couple months ago.

Again, on the failure issue--I haven't seen the kind of repeated failures you're talking about, and I've been around Macs that were being run in extremely demanding pro audio environments years on end. I'm now in the academic field and Macs are used in demanding environments there too--particularly in the sciences, where they're running X11 Unix apps. I'm sorry for the problems you've had; they're unacceptable, but cannot be typical. And Apple _should_ have "BMW" service. Some of it is of that caliber, like AppleCare. But I would also like to see them dispatch a new system to you if yours fails. I hope they make that part of AppleCare.

There aren't any PCs with soldered cards in PCI or AGP slots. What you have on some low end PCs are motherboards with cheap integrated parts like video, sound, and ethernet. Some of these motherboards, like NVIDIA's NFORCE series of boards, are actually very high quality, with good 3D chipsets, and 5.1 digital sound, all for under $200.

Gateway is a very bad example of a PC vendor. Gateway, Dell, etc are boutique vendors where you are paying for a name and for a system-wide warranty. You can get the exact same machine, and usually a much better one, from smaller vendors for a fraction of the cost.

Then, of course, there is the issue of just building the machine oneself. It's not difficult and saves a lot of money. Objectively, there is no way that Apple can compete with white-box and do-it-yourself prices--it's simple market economics. PCs are cheap because of competition, not because of low-grade components.

(My background is in electronics). But "integrated video" etc., is just that--stuff on the motherboard that can't be changed. Sometimes the super-cheap machines also have limited PCI slots, etc. as well, so that upgrading things hogs slots that you need for other things. The pro audio and power users don't want "integrated 5.1 sound", etc. They want, like me, to buy a card like the ST Audio or MOTU stuff that gives you 7.1 or better, optical digital I/O, and really excellent audio electronics (e.g. not "prosumer" converters and opamps).

Gateway/Dell/etc. may be bad examples of PC vendors, but I wouldn't know that based on my PC-using friends, who often outfitted their offices entirely with Gateway equipment. They sure have great marketing. They're similar to Apple in that regard; Joe Sixpack-type people hear their name and immediately think "computer".

PCs are cheap in part not to low-grade components per se, but in not having all the features and connectivity of Apple's stuff, or not adopting it as fast as Apple. Or they leave out features like Apple's SuperDrives. I agree about the build-it-yourself stuff. THAT'S where you save the real money. But that's always going to be a small market.

can be turned off for upgrades--it's convienent for non-powerusers to have an economical choice that will still let them use productivity software. What you say about limited PCI slots is certainly true, though.

And sure, lots of people use brandname PCs. But the powerusers don't, and they aren't the target market for either cheap PCs or cheap Macs, I wouldn't think.

The SuperDrive isn't a good example for your argument, because it's just a rebranded Pioneer DVD-/+r drive that can be had for a lot less money without the Apple logo and pastel colors. And most vendors include some sort of dvd burner standard now anyway. In terms of connectivity, I don't know of any PC nowadays that doesn't come standard with Firewire (though not necessarily the new faster flavor) and USB 2.0, which I don't believe Apple supports.

not being used by power users. They buy the brand-name machines for the same reasons as everyone else: warranty coverage, etc. Power users are the people that Apple is really going after these days (video, pro audio, etc.). That's why they have X11 for OS X, and that's why all kinds of scientists I know are using Macs to run Unix apps.

Limited PCI slots are a headache because even if, as you say, the integrated stuff can be turned off, you're still going to need a spare PCI slot. Not a big deal to fix one thing, but if you need to fix one thing _and_ do a bunch of other power user stuff, you may be in trouble. Then there's the people who _become_ power users over a period of a year or so, and come to need more slots. You can always buy another machine, but that's not a good marketing solution.

The SuperDrive is standard on just about every Apple machine I've seen, except for some of the laptops. It's not a rebranded drive, it's just Apple's marketing name (or maybe Pioneer's) for it. The inside of an Apple is very much like a PC, and pretty much all ATAPI and ATA devices are plug-and-play. Lots of people add a "SuperDrive" of their own to old machines. I must say I don't see many DVD burners on name-brand PCs. I see a lot of combo drives.

The new G5s support FW400, FW800, and USB 2.0. They also come with PCI-X standard.

I think that's Mac's best selling point now.

And yes, SuperDrive is just a marketing term, but that's exactly what rebranded means--taking a piece of hardware and selling it under a different brand name. And in this case, for more money. I myself have the exact model of Pioneer burner that Apple used as their 3rd-generation SuperDrive--the only difference is that mine has a black front bezel on it.

Seriously, go to Dell.com. DVD burners are one of the standard options on every model. Part of this is that every PC sold is built to order, pretty much, so of course, if people want to save a little money, they can get a combo drive or something like that to save a few bucks.

I'm talking about machines that are stock, in stores, and not build-to-order. We have lots of "big box" stores around here, and I see lots of new computers flying out their doors. Yes, in build-to-order machines you of course can get anything you want. In nearly all Apple stock machines, except the absolute low-end, the DVD/CD burner is standard and not a custom add-on. And Apple started doing that a long time ago.

There is also a common misconception that Apple's hardware is all proprietary. If it were, I probably wouldn't be using Apple stuff anymore myself. The inside of an Apple is almost exactly the same as a PC. Same HD interface, same video cards, same PCI bus, etc. What really makes up an Apple is the ROM-in-RAM ("New World") routines and the processor. And it isn't like other companies couldn't use those processors themselves. The PowerPC chips are made by IBM and Motorola. And the "SuperDrive" while being a marketing term, is nothing other than a Pioneer/NEC/etc. burner. You can buy pretty much any ATAPI burner and add it to an existing Mac.

There are far more custom-built PCs bought every year than all Macs put together. I would imagine that there are more PCs with DVD burners sold than Macs with "SuperDrives." I don't really see why having DVD burners standard is something that is so important--yes, I use mine, and lots of other people do too, but I dare say that 90$ of computer users have no use for them, and making them standard just adds unnecessary cost.

I realize that Apple's hardware is no longer proprietary--and largely it's because Apple had to move away from their own systems in order to tap into the PC hardware market. The Motorola chips are great chips for sure, though I think they'd probably be even better if there were an Intel/AMD competitive dynamic, you know?

Also, the ability to upgrade hardware in Macs is still a relatively new thing, and is it possible in IMacs and Emacs even now?

every year than Macs, due to the market stats alone. All I'm saying is that Apple tends to adopt newer features, connectivity, and technologies faster than the PC clone world does, and that's why they're (somewhat) more expensive. The PCI-X decision is a good example of this, and it's revolutionized HD recording and the pro audio market. Pretty much all Apple stuff--even some of the eMacs--come with the DVD burners as stock equipment. As you say, that adds $$$.

You keep mentioning custom-built machines when I'm discussing off-the-rack Macs and PCs. That's the real apples-to-oranges thing here! Having the fancy stuff as stock equipment is the reason for the extra $$$. That's why when you compare _equivalent_ machines, from _retail_ dealers with warranty coverage and carry-in service--not white-box online companies--the difference in price really shrinks. The market is just too competitive for that not to be the case. (And I'm not knocking white-box dealers, I buy from people like NewEgg all the time, but they're not the Gateway store).

Actually, the new G5 chips are IBMs. The "Apple" chips could be used by anyone, they're not because of the R&D expense of developing a new product. That's why clones are cheaper. I know some extreme high-end companies do use the PowerPC chips, companies like Sun, I think. The tiny market and high R&D costs are reflected in the price.

Apple hardware has been interchangeable with PC stuff since about 1997, at least. That's when they switched over to PCI, ATA drives, etc. As I said in another post, I don't know anything about eMacs. I would never buy an all-in-one machine and hope I could do much upgrading. They do have FW400 and similar stuff, though, for peripherals.

except that the cheap retail PCs are a lot more upgradable then the equivalently priced IMacs/EMacs, I'm pretty sure.

But yeah, it's certainly true that Apple has adopted tech changes faster--I think it's easier for them since they don't have to get together dozens of manufacturers every time and agree to switch the standards.

As for the processors themselves, I think the R&D costs that Intel and AMD put in are just as high as IBM's. Sun does use some PowerPC machines though they also use some Intel and AMD server parts as well. I believe that PocketPC's architecture lends itself well to parallel processing, which may be one reason that server farms often use them.

eMacs/iMacs are pretty much closed systems. (In addition, I would never want to open up something with a CRT in it--and I have a background in electronics! They're lethal, even unplugged, unless you know what you're doing). Of course, the retail PCs aren't at all like eMacs. The better comparison would be the low-end Mac towers vs. equivalent PC towers, like the big-box-store HPs.

AMD, Intel, and IBM I'm sure have similar R&D costs, but the advantage of the clones is that there's lots of companies using the chip. Whereas when Apple wanted a new G5, they had to get IBM to make one, and then design a computer around it. All things being equal, the price is going to be higher in the latter case.

I am confused. You say it's low end and cheap parts... and then turn around and mention the nForce.

Are integrated Ethernet/Sound good or bad in your opinion?

(A7V8X Deluxe, Integrated Ethernet/Soumd, nForce2)

even though I'm not the one who made the comment. Built-in Ethernet and stuff doesn't bother me at all. I'm just not a big fan of integrated-everything-else. But if you're not a musician or whatever, maybe that's OK for you.

And yes, some of those motherboards are a great deal. I use Linux a little bit, and I'm tempted to put together a homebrew x86 machine. After all, just because I love my Mac doesn't mean I _hate_ PCs!

AGP: ATI Radeon 9800XT
PCI: Voodoo3 (2nd monitor)
4 other slots: CCFL switches

O_O

I need that integrated Ethernet :p

I'm a Mac person and even I know that's a cool system. Like I said, I don't hate PCs, and I really like Linux and other *nix OSes (including, of course, OS X).

All Macs I've ever seen have integrated Ethernet. I mean, what computer _doesn't_ have it?

i haven't seen any computer without integrated ethernet in years now

chipset is, by definition a cheap part because it integrates video, sound, and LAN. if one uses all the integrated stuff, it's going to be a cheap, low-end computer--still high-quality, however.

i think integrated ethernet/sound is largely fine since the newest Ac'97 and nForce audio codecs are very good. I'm not as big on integrated video since I like to have better stuff, but for 99% of people, I think the nForce's video would suffice.

we wouldn't be "happier" with PC's, we were pretty fucking happy with Macs for a good 15 years. And we would still be happy with macs had the quality not gone to hell and Mac OS morph into some sort of Japanese videogame on crack.

We went YEARS without taking any machine in for service, we had machines live out their entire useful lives with their factory install of System 7. If you just look at a G4 tower funny it will fry something.

"Many of the super-cheap PCs are so inexpensive because they have hardware literally soldered to the motherboard"

The iMac and eMac are 100% soldered down, even the CPU.
There are very few PC's with soldered down CPU's

As for things like PCI-X, PCI-X has been around for a while now, at the moment it is basically useless.

not-so-power-users...is that a word? (Probably not). I've only owned the towers, so I really can't comment on the CPUs in the eMac and iMac. In general, the types I used to work with (and still work with in the academic world) would not buy an eMac, due to the all-in-one nature of the product. I wouldn't buy one myself.

I still submit that if the main thing you want to do with your computers is office productivity stuff, and not much else, you would be happier with PCs. I do think there is a somewhat better selection of stuff for that platform. You seem to really hate X, and so I don't know what else to say, since Apple has pulled the plug on OS 9. Macs have always been bleeding-edge computers, and you simply don't need that kind of horsepower for office-type work--especially not 64-bit G5 horsepower.

PCI-X has indeed been around a little while. Apple was an early adopter of it with the G5s. It's not "basically useless" to me, but then I have a Mark of the Unicorn 2408mkIII and still do a lot of pro-oriented recording. The pro audio folks don't think PCI-X is useless, either, even though they've had to trade in their old cards. MOTU in particular has been very proactive on PCI-X support and has a great board-exchange program.

I've already addressed the quality control issues repeatedly--you can reread my earlier posts. I just haven't seen the kinds of problems you're talking about, that's all. I have to say based on my experience that we agree to disagree on OS X and on Apple QC.

You say you object to the intergrated nature of low end PC's, you cite everything being soldered down. Which is rarely the case.

Yet, in low end macs, where EVERYTHING is totally soldered down you seem undisturbed.

Anyway, you seem to forget the history of the mac, Office productivity is what the mac was originally designed for, I don't know if your old enough or not to remember the early Mac commercials where Apple commandos would storm and office, and put a Macintosh SE on every desk. We stuck with Apple when everyone else was dumping their macs as fast as they could, only to be dumped by Apple.

Apple has thrown away the mass market, to appeal to an extreme minority. For every producer and designer or astrophysicist, there are 99 worker bees. If Mac OS X is perfect for you, that is just great. Unfortunately for the commanding majority it is useless. But your like the billionaire praising the Bush taxcut, their agenda is targeted ENTIRELY to you, they have forgotten about the other people who have thrown up their arms in disgust.

We might seem unusual, and I suppose we are, Apple abandoned the general productivity market almost a decade ago. Even when it looked like Apple might die at any moment, we stuck with Apple because it worked for us. We were easy money for Apple, we bought lots of machines and were not too demanding. If it worked, we were happy and bought more.

The Apple base has been distilled down to the hard core mac partisans who will take a bullet for Apple and "freep" Apple satisfaction surveys. The rest of us who look and the LCD iMac and Mac OS X and say "what the fuck?" have already moved on.

I don't know _anything_ about iMacs/eMacs. I've never even sent an email on one. I don't like machines where all sorts of functionality is soldered down, period. If that includes Apple stuff, so be it. I wouldn't recommend an eMac for anyone except casual users and kids. By the way, all low-end through high-end Mac towers have cards for most functions. The CPU thing in eMacs is the first I've heard of it, and I don't like it. I also don't like CPUs and video in laptops not being in a socket. And I'm talking about my iBook, too, okay?

I also never said that CPUs were soldered down--I said lots of other functions were. Replacing those functions takes up PCI slots, and for some power users that becomes a problem. Pro audio users and serious musicians often have all the slots occupied with stuff. Personally, I just don't like paying for things on the motherboard I'm going to replace the minute the machine comes out of the box, that's all. When Apple does do the integrated thing, they do it in a pretty limited and classy way--like the optical digital I/O audio on the G5s. And they don't call it "integrated", because it's usually a full-featured functionality they add. I don't really like the on-board prosumer converters, junky opamp electronics, and RCA or 1/8" connectors of integrated audio.

I haven't forgotten the history of the Mac, I just don't know it. I know that Apple likes to market an image--hey, that's capitalism--but I'm not using their machines as a status enhancement. The PC has been the king of business apps since I don't know when. As soon as Windows came out, that was a slam-dunk for anyone to figure out. Business tends to look at short-term costs only. PCs were dirt cheap.

Apple hasn't thrown away the mass market--they were nearly run into the ground by lousy management, which Jobs wisely fired as soon as he was brought back. They _lost_ the mass market to dirt-cheap PCs and Windows. It's not the worker bees buying those machines, it's the bosses. While Apple nearly destroyed itself in the '90s, the PC took over the business world.

At this point, Apple has to appeal to a minority. That's why they came out with X11 for the Unix people. But I don't see a lot of people complaining about OS X. Most software companies were pretty good about the changeover, and Apple made it fairly painless with Classic mode in X. I'm thrilled with the stability--uptimes of weeks and even months. I guess you really don't like it--hey, we agree to disagree...

And I don't think that Consumer Reports magazine can be "freeped" the way an MSGOP poll can be. In fact, I know it can't. Apple is perennially given top marks for service and satisfaction by Consumers' Union. As for "taking a bullet for Apple", well, all I have to say is, "hey, man, it's just a computer!".

Only PCs I use are self built PCs. Proprietary cases are from Satan.

but yes, Apple has dropped OS 9. Good riddance. It was great for the time, I guess...

I don't really understand how OS X is "useless in (your) environment". What are you running? I just can't think of any package that doesn't run better on X. And what hardware problems are you having? I run some oddball stuff, but all I've ever needed to do was to install the latest drivers. The weirdest piece of hardware I'm using is an old large-format Epson printer that hasn't been supported since OS 8.6 or so. I installed the Gimp-Print open source driver package--problem solved.

As for the Asian factories, gee...I wonder why the PCs are so cheap? Maybe because they're made in the same factories? Apple pretty much had to do that in order to stay competitive at all. Now those old machines, yeah, I have an attraction to old Macs, too--I own hyper-modded 9600 and B&W G3 machines, as well as a totally hot-rodded beige G3. They were built extremely well. But if you wanna talk lousy construction--go to a Gateway store sometime, or better yet, try to get one open! I saw the guys on TechTV nearly break one trying to put a new video card in.

The other thing is, I don't know anyone doing serious work on a Mac Classic! Even the 9600 is a 50 MHz bus machine. The B&W G3 is 100 MHz bus. The new G5s have 900 MHz and 1 GHz bus speeds. It's nice that those old machines are still going strong, but all my 9600 is gonna be doing from now on is writing letters and web surfing. And once again, I've been around recording studio people and musicians for years and I just haven't seen the kinds of failures you're talking about. I now work in the sciences, and this is what we call anecdotal vs. statistical evidence.

I think the Packard Bell comment was uncalled for. Alot.

It's a computer, not a religion! You can't "hate" a machine, can you?

for me it's night and day.

Because they're are fewer security problems with Macs, we don't get as many intrusive, time consuming 'patches' and updates. Even with fairly regular virus checks -- something Norton says it's doing every time we boot -- my daughter's PC was recently infected with 25, count 'em, 25, viruses. Even after deleting and cleaning the files the computer still isn't right. I'm probably going to wipe the hard drive and re-install everything.

For any given operation there always seems to be an extra step to do everything with the PC -- just all there annoying windows that pop up asking if I'm sure I want to do whatever I just told it to do -- there are a few of these with Mac OS, but not nearly so annoying.

The interface of the Mac OS is more elegant and friendlier and easier to use

I have no idea if Mac hardware can beat PC hardware in some speed test or not -- but the time it saves in not crashing is well worth it. Every great once and a while a program has stopped responding on my Mac, but never has the whole computer crashed. On the other hand on our PCs crashing, not only programs, but the whole XP OS is routine. I swear if I see the box saying so and so task is not responding one more time, I am going to throw the PCs out the window.

A Compaq laptop that we recently bought one daughter has been nothing but trouble. When the thing was only 4 months old the hard drive died, we had to deal with service from India, which was awful and my daughter continues to have all kinds of strange problems which Norton's can't fix because even Norton's won't run right.

No matter that PCs are a little bit cheaper, I vow never to buy another Wintel product.

A techie I once talked to said the reason so many people write viruses for windows is because they hate Bill Gates and his monopoly. (something about not sharing source code). I don't want to own a product that people I don't even know are trying to sabotage to get to someone else.

and both can block pop-up windows. I don't think that you can do this with Explorer. I also use Netscape mail and don't have the problems of outlook.

In a word dominated by Wintel, I think that OS X works better in this environment. No, I do not have window-emulating program, but it is a lot easier to exchange files - yes, office file - with the OS X.

And the latest I heard from Microsoft is that the next IE will _not_ have tabbed browsing--when everyone else has tabs. I'm using Safari and Mozilla, myself.

Have you up-dated your Mac?

Mac OS X riddled with security holes

http://www.itnewslog.com/articles/full_article.asp?ID=972&Category=Security&Post_by=Cameron

Apple has released a range of patches for security holes - both old and new - for its Mac OS X operating system, which it advises users to download immediately. The company is downplaying the issue but one security company at least is concerned that the vulnerabilities could be extremely serious. Secunia has given the five - yes, five - patches a "highly critical" rating and warned that they may allow hijacking, security bypass, data manipulation, privilege escalation, denial of service and system access.

In other words, it makes Microsoft's current Sasser problems look no more than a nasty nip. The difference of course is that Windows is the vast majority of the market and Macs account for only three percent of operating systems. There isn't a worm exploiting the holes as yet but the company is strongly advising users to download and install the patches as the OS looks like an easy target at the moment.


http://www.apple.com/support/

See here

Sounds like PC talking points to me...

with them the way my wintel machines are. Like I said, we own both -- and regardless of the the theoretical security problems of the Mac -- there have been no harmful attacks on them whereas I'm forever dealing with viruses and worms on the PCs. In the 8 years I've owned Mac I've only encountered two worms -- one attacked a macro program in Word for Mac (microsoft) and the other got on my Imac, but couldn't do any harm because it was written for windows. My experience with viruses and worms on my windows based computers has been a constant nightmare even with Nortons anti-virus -- it's so bad that I've instructed my daughter at Berkeley to update and run her Norton's at least once a day! Those are the facts on the ground.

I'm not a techie but I found the following quote interesting:

<snip>"Could some of these security holes lead to issues on OS X? Well, yes, that's why they have been patched. To avoid the possible problem in the future. Have they been exploited in mass already like most Microsoft security holes are? Nope, and they aren't likely to be. Were they patched in a timely manner by the vendor? Oh yeah, compared to other commercial vendors the speed of patch release from the point of vulnerability discovery occured at warp speed.



Thos of us in the Mac world and the *nix world, especially those of us who keep up on security, know the truth, which is that Windows is the one OS most riddled with security holes. However, I did feel the need to post this article about how this author is totally without knowledge on their topic. Some folks (mostly Windows lovers) would read this and scream that "Windows only has more holes because it has the most market share!", which of course is a total lie. More machines running on the internet in a server capacity are running Linux, Unix and BSD than Windows by a fair amount. Also, the holder of most used web server is Apache, which while there is a Windows version is run mostly on *nix boxes. There is by far more software available for Unix, Linux, BSD (and therefor OS X) than for Windows. And there is exponentially more network applications available for these OSes. Taking this into consideration, if it was market share and available applications on a given system that determined the number of holes, then the Unixes and Unix derivatives should have the most overall holes. However, Windows holds that title and most likely always will due to bad coding practices and pathetic testing and security audits before software release...."

http://apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=915

and every so often I get a new security update.

Besides, if anyone really wants my Japanese to English translations of reports on how many Japanese women were employed part-time in the retail and light industrial sectors or artists' bios for concert tours, they're welcome to them.

And that was almost a year and a half ago. My PC automatically checks for and downloads new patches under my university's security system. Add that to Ad-Aware and Spybot, and you've yourself got one clean, happy PC (which is mine).

Don't download stupid stuff and you won't get virii.

The only virii I worry about are things like Blaster/Sasser. Things that I can get without complicity.

There is the virus thing (haven't had one in 13 years of using macs), and it's superiority in handling any kind of graphics work.

The new iMac with the 19" screeen gives you a fantastic monitor for the price.

doesn't exist so much anymore. PCs do a lot of Photoshop filters better than Macs nowadays, and with the development of Avid Express DV, even film editing is pretty much dead even.

And while all the Mac displays are nice, they're simply rebadged monitors that can be had for much less money without Apple's proprietary connector.

maybe in 1995, they did...but monitors for Apples are like monitors for everything else these days. Even back then you could buy a little adapter--which usually came with new Macs anyway--that let you use non-Apple displays.

The old propritary Apple monitor connection was called HDI-45, and was on the first generation Power Macs, but a DB-15 adaptor was included in the box.

It wouldn't be a bad idea in principle if all the monitor makers would agree on a form factor.

I haven't seen one since 1997.

The store at apple.com still displays the "apple display connector" as a "feature" of each monitor they have for sale.

I'm still using huge 19" and 21" CRT monitors in most of my setups. My video cards all have the same connectors on them that everyone else does, though. I'm not sure what the deal is with ADC; however, I do know that you're not compelled to use an Apple monitor. Most Mac video cards I've seen have the VGA and DVI connectors on them.

most "Mac" videocards are actually PC videocards.

It is definitely true that Apple finally allowing access to some PC hardware, like the videocards, has mitigated some of the proprietary issues. Now, if only they'd cave and add multi-button mice. How Mac users can live without a scroll wheel is utterly beyond me.

That was supposed to be the big advantage when they changed over to PCI from NuBus, that you would be able to buy all the same hardware as a PC clone, everything would be cheaper, etc. It didn't quite work out that way; video cards have always been about 20% more for the Macs. The video stuff on Macs is completely non-proprietary, though. Most of the new AGP models use nVidia cards.

when it becomes the standard later this year over in the PC world?

The new G5s immediately made that a big part of their marketing, and Mark of the Unicorn and other pro audio people got on board immediately. MOTU has a board exchange program.

for ages. they work right out of the box. MacOSX supports them just fine.

I, too, don't understand why Apple refuses to supply a mouse with more than one button, but oh, well, i just use third party mice and the 2nd mouse button works just the same on the Mac as it does on the PC.

on edit: oh, and the scroll wheels work just fine, too. My favorite mouse right now is the Razer Viper high-resolution mouse.

the point is that Apple charges more money for, say, a Sony built monitor that can be had at 2/3rd the price without an Apple logo on it.

... and have been forced to integrate a windows machine into my work for the last 15, and I far prefer the Mac.

In the same time I spend eradicating viruses and re-installing drivers on the PC just to get fricking software to work, I can finish a well-paying project on my Mac.

I couldn't care less about Steve's Job grand vision of the future or Bill Gate's evil plan to rule the world, I just like to get my work done. So for that reason I must use the Mac, I'd go broke otherwise...

YOu know PC...you feel mac..mac is set up so that naturally your next choice is easy to get to.

natural ease comes with experience, case closed. I think it's debatable whether or not OSX or XP is more intuitive, but ease of use is going to come only with time, and Mac, PC and Commodore 64 users will all find their own OS the easiest to use, you know?

;-)

I don't know, once I got used to mac...I could see the superiority in the style

spot on.

...have to admit XP has improved the PC to the point that the difference between the two platforms is narrowing. I use a G5 (dual processors) and the speed is frikkin' awesome, but my kid's XP is a decent machine (at about 1/4 the price). The games are better for a PC, and the graphics programs that were superior on a Mac a few years ago, are pretty well the same these days. The main advantage that the Mac has over the PC is true 'plug-and-play' while every game I buy for the PC seems to need some upgraded hardware configuration, sound card, video driver, etc. It still amazes me that I can buy a PC without a sound card.

which is pretty good, but the mac is still years ahead.

close to silent. I can take my iMac on trips because it's so compact. In the laptop world, Mac's are very price competitive and tend to be smaller, cooler running and the batteries tend to last longer. I think the $799 eMac is very competitive with windows computers and one can add Microshafts Virtual PC version of XP Pro for about the same price as adding XP pro to a windows computer running XP home edition Having a bunch of screens going at one time is also easier on a Mac. Then there is the iSuite of multimedia software. iTunes is great. Downloading programs off the internet also seems easier.
There also seems to be a lot less security updates. It seems lately that every time I get in front of a windows computer, there is a new security update and I must restart my computer after a download.

are you being serious?

From the times I have had to deal with it. In Panther Disk Images mount and give you the file. No wizards, it just automagically happens.

Just for perspective I own both a PC a Mac. My day to day stuff is done on the Mac. Heavy lifting is on the PC. My Macintosh fits how my brain works. It's just natural. I seem to go WTF with Windows.

without the need for third-party software. (But .zip archives are obsolescent, and it's an inferior format.)

I use a Mac at the office and a PC at home. I like them equally. Mac is just a little more user-friendly, though.

bottom line is that macs are for people who have more money. pc's have way better games.
I was gonna buy a mac but found I could only buy a used bullshit one. also looking for my favorite games on mac...not too easy,,,i know someone will say i'm wrong about these points...but no i'm not...so there!

...that's why I have an XBOX––which, ironically, is kind of like the Macintosh of video game consoles (better hardware, design and capabilities, but less software).

Have you tried looking at refurbished Macs? A friend of mine just got a basically new PowerBook for about $1,000 less than MSRP, with a warranty. Plus, as a poster has already said, you can get into a G4 eMac for less than $800 (the eMac includes a flat-screen CRT monitor, by the way).

On edit: I hear, by the way, that the next version of the XBOX will have, count 'em, three 64-bit (Apple/IBM) G5 processors. Hold on to your hats!

you can get a cool pc for 500

with a mini screen. I bought a gateway pentium HT with XP pro 2 months ago for a small network server and it was over$800 bucks and took 2 weeks to get.

through white-box vendors like tigerdirect.com

You can also build it yourself for around that price point

The cheapest NEW computer I found on tiger direct was $499 without a moniter plus shipping. The cheapest new flat screen 17" moniter was $349 plus shipping. I can can go to the Apple store at Lenox mall and buy a eMac with a 17" screen for $799 and put it my car in 30 minutes or less. Windows XP pro is another$200+bucks.
Macs are more competitive pricewise when one adds everything up and wades through the advertising hype. It's an arduous task to figure a price on the Dell, HP or Gateway website, these guys make car dealers look forthright.

a pretty high performance machine at www.globuscomputer.com complete with XP and a 17" CRT monitor (yes, the LCDs are a bit pricier, though I bought my own new Dell 17" LCD for $179 during a sale a few months back) for $565. Add on $50 for shipping and that's still way less than your emachine at $799, not even counting the tax you'd have to pay, which would add on at least another $50 to your order.

One can also purchase XP at lower prices through educational outlets, or use a free Linux OS.

What does pretty high performance mean? What kind of softwar additions come with it?

certainly not top of the line, but far from the bottom end of performance either. That's what I meant by "pretty high performance"--I don't mean to suggest that you can get one of Intel's high end chips for under $500 (in fact, I think Intel's 3.4GHz part costs about $700 all by itself!)

It didn't come with any software other than what XP has natively. But really, there's so much free software for Wintel machines that it doesn't really matter. Other than Office and XP itself (both of which I got at vastly reduced educational prices) I can't remember the last time I had to pay for any software. And if I had used OpenOffice, I could have saved even more money.

over the eMac you can go over to CompUSA or an Apple store and take immediate delivery of. Doesn't sound like much of a deal to me. The iSuite of media software and smaller form factor of the eMac is worth at least the the $200 difference.

"off-brand" is a misnomer. It's the same parts without the Dell or Gateway name and more customizability. To my mind, that's better than the brandname. Yes, you do have to wait 3 days to get it--that's true. But there are lots of mom and pop shops all over the country that will build it for you faster. I used to frequent one in
Boston that'd do sameday service.

As for the form factor, since you can choose your own case, you can have it be as small as you want, though probably still not as nice looking as a Mac, to be fair.

XP has a lot of the same functionality as the iSuite and there's plenty of other free software to cover any other bases, so your argument doesn't really work there--there's even pretty decent free video editing software around nowadays.

You're talking architecture and not software, so there you are wrong.

The processors and architecture of a Mac is not better than a PC.

Better to run BSD on a PC than OSX on a Macintrash

give me a break.

:evilgrin:

They just can't be! Unpossible!
The Professor

(beaming silently)

I just want to get my work done and to be able to access the Internet. I'm a little too old to be part of the generation that grew up on video games, so I'm indifferent to them. I word process, send e-mail, visit websites, and do an occasional spreadsheet for my business. That's it.

Mac lets me do all that with a minimum of fuss, especially when it comes to installing software and adding peripherals.

If I wanted to fuss around with programming or if I were a heavy gamer, I might want a PC, but otherwise, why bother?

I don't find that I need to spend "two to three weeks" getting problems solved. I bought my current iMac in January 2000 and my current iBook in December 2000. The iBook has never given me a bit of trouble, except for needing a new power cord. The previously well-behaved iMac suffered a hard disk crash shortly after traveling across the country in a moving van, but I got that fixed in two days at the local Mac repair shop. At the same time, I asked them to upgrade both my computers to OSX and install AirPort cards. Since I can't afford to buy new computers of any brand right now, I am glad to have had their lives extended.

There's an Apple Store just a couple of miles from where I live, and all you have to do is bring your computer in to the so-called "genius bar" and the friendly techies will diagnose your problems (the aforementioned dead power cord) or, as I've seen them do with other customers, show you how to do whatever you need to do.

The poster who condemned the Mac above must have had an extraordinary run of bad luck.

NEW MS drone machine.

I have replaced a modem, a CPU cooling fan and cleaned it once.

It has never had a virus, a worm or even a dust bunny!

The Microsoft software monopoly or the Apple Hardware monopoly.
Either ways you look at it you loose.

Motorola has alweays been superior, though I was impressed by the Pentium (before AMD's vastly superior Athlon came out.)

Otherwise it's overpriced propriatery garbage. That $3000 Mac may give you two G5 processors, but it comes with a limp amount of RAM, mediocre sized hard drive, and a puny ATi Radeon 9600 card. Woo-hoo. For $3000, I'd expect a 9800XT (or better yet, Nvidia), a 200GB HD, and 1GB of RAM. I could build a downright decent PC for less than 1/3rd the price of that TOTL Mac. The CPU may not be as fast, but it works - and with Linux, it works well. (Hah! Mac OS X was basically augmented freeware (FreeBSD). It's a joke.)

and a free printer---MacMall order #336767

What nVidia is better than a 9800XT

Since I love building computers I've always had PC's. I'd never buy a store bought PC although I've been tempted to pick up a mac notebook.

If I could build macs then I probably would switch between both.

my modified with Wdos 98 is rather stable and works well

a MAC :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: (The Mac was a birthday present from me to me last year. Hey it was one of those milestone birthdays!)

I have left the Mac on for WEEKS at a time and it does not lose time and continues to work, work, work.

The Windows machine must be turned off every day and it still loses time and I need to reset the clock.

I must confess that Windows XP does not crash nearly as often as Windows ME did. It is not Mac OS X however.