if you hate windows so much, go use linux. Make a pc from scratch(aka much cheaper than mac), and run linux for free. You can now play most windows games, and also you don't have to worry about DRM or the gov monitoring your stuff, and have far less vulnerabilities, since vulnerabilities can be patched in the 24 hour timeframe. How retarded do you have to be to pay premiums just to spite microsoft by sucking up to apple?
- Status
Did anyone read the line where the author says to "have an open mind" and try something different? I am a software developer by trade and have extensively used every version of Windows. At one point in my career I found myself working for a company that used both Windows based machines and Mac OS X machines. What I found is that Apple has spent considerable time ensuring the design and usability of Mac OS X is almost (and I stress almost, as there is no such thing as bug free software in any environment), flawless. I am tired of people who think that if the software they are using is confusing and lacks cohesion with its various pieces of functionality, that it equates to that software being "powerful". Like the author indicates OS X is extremely powerful (so is Windows, and so is every flavor of Linux). Where OS X excels, is that all the power of the OS is extremely smooth, and intuitive to use, and ultimately takes less time to achieve the same results. And I can't fathom why anyone would choose software that is more clunky to use, and as a result wastes time as you try to figure out how to do certain tasks. It just makes no sense.
prolightandstage
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2008
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
Great Article. I have been running Macs and PC's next to each other for a year and half. I have both sitting on my desk and use both daily. For internet and gaming or typing up a quick word document or excel spread sheet the PC has it down the system works great and gets kudos for continuing to push the technical envelope. AND you can buy into the pc platform for cheap!
But as a graphic and video profesional once you go MAC you can never go back. Like the article states the MAC is meticulously designed. All the parts go together so well and are so well tested that it is rare that i have a problem with my workhorse mac. Speed wise forget about it. Day to Day tasks both are decently fast and yes the PC smokes my MAC on gaming but when i start needing to render video or am editing a large graphics file the MAC really shines churning through renders at record speeds. Up time is at a maximum because all the components are made for each other and my MAC gets more hours on it then my PC and i would say maybe once every 2 months i might experience a crash (generally in a third party software app) where on my pc at least once a week, more often if running demanding applications.
I know that you can design PC's to be just as robust but the market is so full of different options that it's difficult to seperate the hype from the facts. With the MAC it's much more simple to know you are getting a quality product and so for an industry professional it makes alot of sense to use one. Plus in the graphics and audio industries chances are that your colleagues are running on the same platform. In the Video world MAC reigns supreme.
Price is a nobrainer. I learned along time ago to buy upgrades on the aftermarket. MY MAC as priced on apple.com $5200 my mac as I paid $3100 including a 30" high def monitor 1.5 tb of disk space and 4gb memory. 3 Video cards for 6 displays. And its roc solid cause they are all MAC parts.
Don't get me wrong I will probbaly always own a PC as its great at what it does, its low cost to maintain, and I love my games. But when i need to count on a reliable platform to run my pro apps that my living depends on its hard to argue with the MAC's success
But as a graphic and video profesional once you go MAC you can never go back. Like the article states the MAC is meticulously designed. All the parts go together so well and are so well tested that it is rare that i have a problem with my workhorse mac. Speed wise forget about it. Day to Day tasks both are decently fast and yes the PC smokes my MAC on gaming but when i start needing to render video or am editing a large graphics file the MAC really shines churning through renders at record speeds. Up time is at a maximum because all the components are made for each other and my MAC gets more hours on it then my PC and i would say maybe once every 2 months i might experience a crash (generally in a third party software app) where on my pc at least once a week, more often if running demanding applications.
I know that you can design PC's to be just as robust but the market is so full of different options that it's difficult to seperate the hype from the facts. With the MAC it's much more simple to know you are getting a quality product and so for an industry professional it makes alot of sense to use one. Plus in the graphics and audio industries chances are that your colleagues are running on the same platform. In the Video world MAC reigns supreme.
Price is a nobrainer. I learned along time ago to buy upgrades on the aftermarket. MY MAC as priced on apple.com $5200 my mac as I paid $3100 including a 30" high def monitor 1.5 tb of disk space and 4gb memory. 3 Video cards for 6 displays. And its roc solid cause they are all MAC parts.
Don't get me wrong I will probbaly always own a PC as its great at what it does, its low cost to maintain, and I love my games. But when i need to count on a reliable platform to run my pro apps that my living depends on its hard to argue with the MAC's success
What a terrible article !
There is absolutely no way anyone can justify an Apple based computer over a 'pc' based computer on price. Both contain almost if not identical hardware supplied by the same 3rd party manufacturers yet the Apple product has a huge premium for some relatively cheap casing and a different BIOS and O/S.
There are other reasons that an Apple may make a sensible purchase Price/performance is not one of them.
P.S
Neither is how thin it is. Weight I can understand but thickness is pure marketing gimmickry.
There is absolutely no way anyone can justify an Apple based computer over a 'pc' based computer on price. Both contain almost if not identical hardware supplied by the same 3rd party manufacturers yet the Apple product has a huge premium for some relatively cheap casing and a different BIOS and O/S.
There are other reasons that an Apple may make a sensible purchase Price/performance is not one of them.
P.S
Neither is how thin it is. Weight I can understand but thickness is pure marketing gimmickry.
prolightandstage
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2008
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
It seems that the majority of the negative comments on here are from people that have never actually operated a MAC. Part of having stellar performance is more uptime. there is very little worse to having your pc based system on an 8 hour render only to crash 6 hours in...where i have had that frequently happen on pc based systems its been extremely rare in my experience to have that happen on a MAC reliability is a key determining value when looking at bang for the buck.
rebooting an internet session while blasting through world of warcraft is an annoyance losing a 6 hour render session when your deadline is the next day is a totally different situation.
PC's can be this reliable but it takes a pro building it and once its done typically you will be paying a comparable price.
rebooting an internet session while blasting through world of warcraft is an annoyance losing a 6 hour render session when your deadline is the next day is a totally different situation.
PC's can be this reliable but it takes a pro building it and once its done typically you will be paying a comparable price.
nukemaster
Titan
- Nov 23, 2004
- 19,623
- 6
- 74,965
Glad you tossed in that last part. I have NEVER crashed rendering or encoding even in over 24 hour sessions. Folding loads a system too and i have that on long term too. Even on the cheapest systems under windows 98 rendering was fine(slow but stable)
I have to agree with most of the comments here... this is a terrible, terrible article. The dude cherrypicks whatever ridiculous things he can find in order to get his "point" across. Really disappointing. Instead, he should just be honest with himself and everyone else and admit what more enlightened minds have already concluded: you're paying a massive premium for the OS. My gf has one (old school 12" powermac), my best friend has one (15") and they both admit the OS is what is keeping them coming back. Reliability? Haha! 4 close friends have macs, and every single one has required repairs. My thinkpad, on the other hand, is bulletproof 🙂 (I'm not a MAC user, personally... I prefer freedom).
Regards.
ps. my beef with MACs is the lack of sales -- I'm the kind of guy that likes to shop for a good deal... I got my last laptop 30% off. Wish I could do that with a MAC :-(
Regards.
ps. my beef with MACs is the lack of sales -- I'm the kind of guy that likes to shop for a good deal... I got my last laptop 30% off. Wish I could do that with a MAC :-(
Why is this on toms? All of the comparisons were horrible attemps at making macs better. The fact is, there is no comparison. Macs are overpriced aluminum noob computers with so expensive upgrades it would kill my paycheck to buy a mouse for a mac.
Houndsteeth
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2006
- 514
- 3
- 19,015
Yes, the hardware was cherry-picked, because the author wanted to match the Mac hardware as much as possible. The Mac Pro uses workstation-level processors and motherboard and can address up to 64 GB of RAM across up to 8 processors. There are no enthusiast-level computers out there that support this level of hardware. Instead, the author had to either piece out the purchase or find comparable workstation-level hardware that is available from a mainstream integrator (such as Dell, HP or Gateway).
Sure, anyone can go out there and prie out a build that might be comparable to a Mac Pro for 90% of the people who would need one...but it's that 10% (of which I am one) who would never be satisfied with anything less that this level of hardware, whether it's from Apple, Dell or HP. You just can but enough RAM pr processors for some of the needs people have, such as high-end real-time video rendering and encoding, etc.
And for those of you who think that Final Cut Pro is just an application that has an equivalent on the Windows side, you have another thing coming. There isn't anything else like it out there right now, and it is only available on the Apple platform.
I have seen an 8 way 3Ghz Mac Pro with 64 GB of RAM brought nearly to it's knees doing video rendering for a colleague of mine. But it kept cranking away. And he said he would have never been able to do the same thing on any Windows-based workstation, just due to the fact that there isn't Windows software out there that could handle this. In fact, in the past, he had to rent time from a Unix server farm that was running custom-coded software to do this kind of rendering, and it didn't happen in real time. He is more than happy to be able to buy off-the-shelf software and hardware to do exactly what he needs.
Sure, anyone can go out there and prie out a build that might be comparable to a Mac Pro for 90% of the people who would need one...but it's that 10% (of which I am one) who would never be satisfied with anything less that this level of hardware, whether it's from Apple, Dell or HP. You just can but enough RAM pr processors for some of the needs people have, such as high-end real-time video rendering and encoding, etc.
And for those of you who think that Final Cut Pro is just an application that has an equivalent on the Windows side, you have another thing coming. There isn't anything else like it out there right now, and it is only available on the Apple platform.
I have seen an 8 way 3Ghz Mac Pro with 64 GB of RAM brought nearly to it's knees doing video rendering for a colleague of mine. But it kept cranking away. And he said he would have never been able to do the same thing on any Windows-based workstation, just due to the fact that there isn't Windows software out there that could handle this. In fact, in the past, he had to rent time from a Unix server farm that was running custom-coded software to do this kind of rendering, and it didn't happen in real time. He is more than happy to be able to buy off-the-shelf software and hardware to do exactly what he needs.
T-Bone:
1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts. If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one. Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows? That's right, you didn't because there isn't one. Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high. So MS's 70% market share would be more dangerous that Google's 90%... but it's exactly reverse.
2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition. It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.
3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.
“if you hate windows so much, go use linux. Make a pc from scratch(aka much cheaper than mac), and run linux for free. You can now play most windows games “
I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard. I have tried to use Cedega and Wine to run games on linux but most would not run. But if you know how to share your secret.
“It seems that the majority of the negative comments on here are from people that have never actually operated a MAC. “
Maybe so, but it also seems that majority of Mac users posting here had their last interaction with Windows back in the 90's. It seems like Mac users think that Windows crashes every day. As you can see I have no love for MS, but in all fairness to them I have to say that my Windows XP has not crashed in 2 years.
1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts. If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one. Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows? That's right, you didn't because there isn't one. Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high. So MS's 70% market share would be more dangerous that Google's 90%... but it's exactly reverse.
2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition. It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.
3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.
“if you hate windows so much, go use linux. Make a pc from scratch(aka much cheaper than mac), and run linux for free. You can now play most windows games “
I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard. I have tried to use Cedega and Wine to run games on linux but most would not run. But if you know how to share your secret.
“It seems that the majority of the negative comments on here are from people that have never actually operated a MAC. “
Maybe so, but it also seems that majority of Mac users posting here had their last interaction with Windows back in the 90's. It seems like Mac users think that Windows crashes every day. As you can see I have no love for MS, but in all fairness to them I have to say that my Windows XP has not crashed in 2 years.
prolightandstage
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2008
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Glad you tossed in that last part. I have NEVER crashed rendering or encoding even in over 24 hour sessions. Folding loads a system too and i have that on long term too. Even on the cheapest systems under windows 98 rendering was fine(slow but stable)[/citation]
I love my pc I built it myself just like I built my last 3 pc's and I will continue to maintain and build my pc's in the future. I think its funny how many people who are rubbed wrong by this article seems to be clueless on the niche market that the MAC fills and why the MAC is such a rock solid machine for what it is designed to do.
90% everyday use get a PC you will be happier.
5% Music and Graphic Industry Professionals LEARN THE MAC BUY THE MAC LOVE YOUR MAC.
5% WANNA BE COOL CAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL then go ahead BUY A MAC feel warm and fuzzy who cares what your buddy thinks its a "cool" platform but dont come crying and whining that it sucks cause your frame rate on quake isnt happening like your buddy steves whose computer cost $500 less. Instead load up Final Cut PRO, AVID or PRO TOOLS and understand that these are the tools that make MAC.
I love my pc I built it myself just like I built my last 3 pc's and I will continue to maintain and build my pc's in the future. I think its funny how many people who are rubbed wrong by this article seems to be clueless on the niche market that the MAC fills and why the MAC is such a rock solid machine for what it is designed to do.
90% everyday use get a PC you will be happier.
5% Music and Graphic Industry Professionals LEARN THE MAC BUY THE MAC LOVE YOUR MAC.
5% WANNA BE COOL CAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL then go ahead BUY A MAC feel warm and fuzzy who cares what your buddy thinks its a "cool" platform but dont come crying and whining that it sucks cause your frame rate on quake isnt happening like your buddy steves whose computer cost $500 less. Instead load up Final Cut PRO, AVID or PRO TOOLS and understand that these are the tools that make MAC.
Your article loses a ton of credibility with this paragraph:
"Mac OS is definitely not "proprietary" and is widely used across many professional industries, especially audio, video, image processing, photography, architectural and others. To claim that Mac OS is proprietary indicates a total lack of understanding on the computer landscape. As proof, a survey conducted by Fortune indicated clearly that even Linux on the desktop still has yet to surpass the 1-percent market share milestone. In a recent posting at ArsTechnica, Apple surpassed 8-percent market share. Proprietary? Absolutely wrong."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proprietary
You should look these things up before posting such an inflammatory article.
"Mac OS is definitely not "proprietary" and is widely used across many professional industries, especially audio, video, image processing, photography, architectural and others. To claim that Mac OS is proprietary indicates a total lack of understanding on the computer landscape. As proof, a survey conducted by Fortune indicated clearly that even Linux on the desktop still has yet to surpass the 1-percent market share milestone. In a recent posting at ArsTechnica, Apple surpassed 8-percent market share. Proprietary? Absolutely wrong."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proprietary
You should look these things up before posting such an inflammatory article.
T-Bone
Distinguished
- Jun 3, 2004
- 153
- 0
- 18,680
LoL! You couldn't be more hopelessly wrong. I will point out the ways, young grasshopper!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts.[/citation]
Dictate prices of what, their own software? Isn't that what a company is supposed to do? How did they dictate the prices for Suse, RedHat, FreeBSD, OSx, Ubuntu, etc? Translation of your point 1: "let's go after the evil nasty super gigantic corporation!"
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one.[/citation] (Can you honestly remember what the name of that new search engine was without looking it up?)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows?[citation]
Yes (see above list of OSes) and apparently so did you: Suse linux as you wrote below.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high.[citation]
So you're saying making oses is inherently expensive...and that's MS's fault because...?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition.[citation]
Wrong again: Windows runs on any pc hardware whereas OSx is only run on Macs (as per the emperor Mr. Jobs.) Where's the "direct competition"?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.[citation]
The Vista stumble and those nifty ads helped too! Macs are great little computers for what they do; but, when truthfully compared to a pc, they fall flat on bang-for-your-buck (any way you cut it.)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.[citation]
Yeah! Good luck to us all if that happens! If you think ms "dictates" wait till you see what Apple will do to you with a 90% market share! They wanted the US govt recognize their patent for GUIs; that means ALL guis! Thank god ms won that case!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard...[/citation]
How can this be? But you said there was no os choices out there because MS "has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition"? You must be one of the lucky ones that escaped MS evil clutches!
BTW, go to YouTube and do a search and you'll find a myriad of recent titles of games running in various flavors of linux.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts.[/citation]
Dictate prices of what, their own software? Isn't that what a company is supposed to do? How did they dictate the prices for Suse, RedHat, FreeBSD, OSx, Ubuntu, etc? Translation of your point 1: "let's go after the evil nasty super gigantic corporation!"
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one.[/citation] (Can you honestly remember what the name of that new search engine was without looking it up?)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows?[citation]
Yes (see above list of OSes) and apparently so did you: Suse linux as you wrote below.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high.[citation]
So you're saying making oses is inherently expensive...and that's MS's fault because...?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition.[citation]
Wrong again: Windows runs on any pc hardware whereas OSx is only run on Macs (as per the emperor Mr. Jobs.) Where's the "direct competition"?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.[citation]
The Vista stumble and those nifty ads helped too! Macs are great little computers for what they do; but, when truthfully compared to a pc, they fall flat on bang-for-your-buck (any way you cut it.)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.[citation]
Yeah! Good luck to us all if that happens! If you think ms "dictates" wait till you see what Apple will do to you with a 90% market share! They wanted the US govt recognize their patent for GUIs; that means ALL guis! Thank god ms won that case!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard...[/citation]
How can this be? But you said there was no os choices out there because MS "has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition"? You must be one of the lucky ones that escaped MS evil clutches!
BTW, go to YouTube and do a search and you'll find a myriad of recent titles of games running in various flavors of linux.
T-Bone
Distinguished
- Jun 3, 2004
- 153
- 0
- 18,680
LoL! You couldn't be more hopelessly wrong. I will point out the ways, young grasshopper!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts.[/citation]
Dictate prices of what, their own software? Isn't that what a company is supposed to do? How did they dictate the prices for Suse, RedHat, FreeBSD, OSx, Ubuntu, etc? Translation of your point 1: "let's go after the evil nasty super gigantic corporation!"
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one.[/citation]
Can you honestly remember what the name of that new search engine was without looking it up?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows?[/citation]
Yes (see above list of OSes) and apparently so did you: Suse linux as you wrote below.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high.[/citation]
So you're saying making oses is inherently expensive...and that's MS's fault because...?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition.[/citation]
Wrong again: Windows runs on any pc hardware whereas OSx is only run on Macs (as per the emperor Mr. Jobs.) Where's the "direct competition"?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.[/citation]
The Vista stumble and those nifty ads helped too! Macs are great little computers for what they do; but, when truthfully compared to a pc, they fall flat on bang-for-your-buck (any way you cut it.)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.[/citation]
Yeah! Good luck to us all if that happens! If you think ms "dictates" wait till you see what Apple will do to you with a 90% market share! They wanted the US govt recognize their patent for GUIs; that means ALL guis! Thank god ms won that case!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard...[/citation]
How can this be? But you said there was no os choices out there because MS "has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition"? You must be one of the lucky ones that escaped MS evil clutches!
BTW, go to YouTube and do a search and you'll find a myriad of recent titles of games running in various flavors of linux.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...1. Unacceptable market share is one where company has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition. Microsoft is guilty on both counts.[/citation]
Dictate prices of what, their own software? Isn't that what a company is supposed to do? How did they dictate the prices for Suse, RedHat, FreeBSD, OSx, Ubuntu, etc? Translation of your point 1: "let's go after the evil nasty super gigantic corporation!"
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...If I don't want to use Google I can use number of competing search sites. Heck, few weeks ago few former Google employees started another one.[/citation]
Can you honestly remember what the name of that new search engine was without looking it up?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]Did you hear about that new company that makes OS in competition to Windows?[/citation]
Yes (see above list of OSes) and apparently so did you: Suse linux as you wrote below.
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...Cost to enter the OS market is prohibitively high.[/citation]
So you're saying making oses is inherently expensive...and that's MS's fault because...?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]2.People's most important interaction with computer comes at the OS level. So that would put Apple and Microsoft at direct competition.[/citation]
Wrong again: Windows runs on any pc hardware whereas OSx is only run on Macs (as per the emperor Mr. Jobs.) Where's the "direct competition"?
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]It's widely assumed that Apple's recent market share climb can be attributed to MS's stumble with Vista. Unless you want to argue that real reason is that people just want to pay for their computer more.[/citation]
The Vista stumble and those nifty ads helped too! Macs are great little computers for what they do; but, when truthfully compared to a pc, they fall flat on bang-for-your-buck (any way you cut it.)
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]3.Given that not all developers decided to make software for Mac, it's smart strategy to allow users to run some Windows programs on Mac. But if Apple's share continues to climb you will have most of the software developed for Mac too. And then, quite possibly, it's going to be Apple waiving goodbye to windows and Microsoft.[/citation]
Yeah! Good luck to us all if that happens! If you think ms "dictates" wait till you see what Apple will do to you with a 90% market share! They wanted the US govt recognize their patent for GUIs; that means ALL guis! Thank god ms won that case!
[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]...I have Suse installed and I love it for simple tasks like web browsing and word editing. I tried using Linux for other stuff too but often found that lack drivers and etc makes it hard...[/citation]
How can this be? But you said there was no os choices out there because MS "has enough leverage to dictate prices and drive away competition"? You must be one of the lucky ones that escaped MS evil clutches!
BTW, go to YouTube and do a search and you'll find a myriad of recent titles of games running in various flavors of linux.
eodeo
Distinguished
- May 29, 2007
- 717
- 0
- 19,010
May I assume that that should have read can’t instead of can. If so, we agree. Which brings me to a question for you- why does the computer in this article (and most other Macs for that matter) have only 2 gb of ram? Having more cores than ram is just plain stupid. Anyone will tell you that... Unless they’re a mac user. As I understand it, Mac OS is 32bit with hacked ability to use more than 4gb of ram. That said, OS can use more than 4gb. What about the Mac software? Name one(1) Mac’s software that can use more than 3gb of ram.
Final Cut Pro, isn’t one of them:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93844
The fact that your “professional” friend uses Mac for starters, tells magnitudes about his “professionalism”, so the fact that he doesn’t know any real 64bit editing software is not that surprising. Actual 64bit software (inexistent for Kitty OS) can use up to 16 exabytes of ram (that’s nearly 17 million terabytes). So when you have 8gb of ram, all 8 will be available. Like i have it on my Win XP x64.
Any other comments how great it is to work on Mac? Maybe how its actually smarter by design, even though it uses exact same hardware as PC? Maybe convince us how millions of PC hardware stores and enthusiasts are idiots that don’t know what they’re missing by using 8 cores and 2gb of ram. Maybe tell us how that gets the work done faster? Hmm? Anything? I thought not.
I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I have some problems with your choices for the PC Mac Pro rig.
1) Why did you go with that expensive Lian-Li case? Sure they look the same, but it does not look like you will be OCing, considering you did not include an aftermarket cooler. You can find a MUCH cheaper alternative.
2) This is just personal choice, but I am really surprised at the purchase of Vista Ultimate. I think that you just wanted to bump up the price with that. XP is a lot more stable and has a lot more support and less problems.
3) Come on...a kilowatt PSU? At MOST the thing will draw is 500W. I mean, seriously. That bumps the price like crazy.
1) Why did you go with that expensive Lian-Li case? Sure they look the same, but it does not look like you will be OCing, considering you did not include an aftermarket cooler. You can find a MUCH cheaper alternative.
2) This is just personal choice, but I am really surprised at the purchase of Vista Ultimate. I think that you just wanted to bump up the price with that. XP is a lot more stable and has a lot more support and less problems.
3) Come on...a kilowatt PSU? At MOST the thing will draw is 500W. I mean, seriously. That bumps the price like crazy.
LOL typical Apple boy paying way to much for PC components. I should put up my overpriced PC parts site today! Honestly no seasoned PC builder with that much money would buy half those components you put on that list as they are second rate and overpriced. You can get much more bang for you buck or get better performance for much less. That is what being a PC user is all about.
nukemaster
Titan
- Nov 23, 2004
- 19,623
- 6
- 74,965
T-Bone:
This fun little discussion we are having is already well beyond the scope of this article, so I'm affraid I'll have to cut it short. However, if you are interested to find out about how I disagree with you on almost all of the points I'd be more than happy to continue it on the forum.
This fun little discussion we are having is already well beyond the scope of this article, so I'm affraid I'll have to cut it short. However, if you are interested to find out about how I disagree with you on almost all of the points I'd be more than happy to continue it on the forum.
to compare apple with dell is accurate because with apple you are not only buying the hardware but the brand; same with dell.
apple computers are not low end and have never been. yes you can buy a no name low end comp with the same specs as a mac for cheaper; but then you are not buying the brand. I can buy a plain t-shirt for $3 or I can go to the nike store and pay $60 for the same shirt with a swish on it. now personally i refuse to buy branded anything, and yet I am considering a mac simply because i do not want to deal with microcrap anymore. Well rather as little as possible(IT admin in an MS environment).
then there is also the not so legal option of macOS on non mac hardware; which i will try before i commit to the expense of the mac hardware. should the mac OS prove itself in real use (rather then random here and there). I will expend on the hardware.
PC user since 286
apple computers are not low end and have never been. yes you can buy a no name low end comp with the same specs as a mac for cheaper; but then you are not buying the brand. I can buy a plain t-shirt for $3 or I can go to the nike store and pay $60 for the same shirt with a swish on it. now personally i refuse to buy branded anything, and yet I am considering a mac simply because i do not want to deal with microcrap anymore. Well rather as little as possible(IT admin in an MS environment).
then there is also the not so legal option of macOS on non mac hardware; which i will try before i commit to the expense of the mac hardware. should the mac OS prove itself in real use (rather then random here and there). I will expend on the hardware.
PC user since 286
eodeo
Distinguished
- May 29, 2007
- 717
- 0
- 19,010
I’m a digital content creator. I primarily use 3DS Max. For textures I use Adobe Photoshop, since I started with it long time ago. I know it well and it’s simple. Adobe After Effects, I use for motion analysis/stabilizing/ tracking and compositing in general. These two Adobe programs are good, but dated. I was wondering one day why 2 very popular products linger in 32bit space. The answer – they’re Mac products ported for PC.
Looking further into the stuff it all finally started to make sense, - the incompatibility, the instability, the poor way they manage files and encoding- everything just clicked in an instant- they’re from Mac.
At that point i figured that Macs must be cheaper since they behave as the consoles of the grown ups. Wrong again I was.
So, in conclusion, I have a bigger bone to pick with Mac than you’re average user, not because i mind how sucky it is, but because 2 of the elementary software i grew fond of, are from Mac. And Mac’s staggering and no evolution makes me mad. I want Mac to pick up the pace and join us in 2004. Or better yet 2008, seeing how we’re 4 years after 64bit was made available to the mass public.
On top of that they also charge more for less. In world they created its no wonder there is no evolution… PC world leeches- raiding the comfort PC brings, claiming to have more, while in truth they’re just about in late 2001 with their OS- the only difference b/w PC and Mac – other than price.
Steveorevo
Distinguished
- Aug 8, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]eodeo[/nomAnd Macs staggering and no evolution makes me mad. I want Mac to pick up the pace and join us in 2004. Or better yet 2008, seeing how were 4 years after 64bit was made available to the mass public.[/citation]
You can't blame Adobe for making their 32 bit apps on Windows suck. OSX was 64bit (since 2002) and Windows was still in 64bit BETA since 2003 (Code name Longhorn). Adobe and Apple are not the same company. If anything, Microsoft, using their heavy weight as a monopoly held the industry back.
Bottom line, you get what you for and maybe a little bit less with Microsoft.
[citation][nom]eodeo[/nom] As I understand it, Mac OS is 32bit with hacked ability to use more than 4gb of ram. [citation]
No eodeo, your understanding is wrong. OSX is 64bit and has been for much longer then any version of Windows.
[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Even an X850(before vista came out) runs aero without a problem. Hell onboard Geforce 6200 runs it fine too.[citation]
Both the X850 and 6200 are good graphic cards. My comparison here is that Aero couldn't cut it on an Intel GMA. Sorry, to think that Microsoft writes such optimized code is a joke. As Dave Winer put it:
"Vista has the smell of death. I don't believe Vista will be around much longer. I don't want to be one of those people who has a computer that runs Vista, anymore than I wanted to use OS/2 when Windows 3.x was in its heyday. I remembered too well what it was like to use an Apple III when it failed to take over, as expected, from the Apple II. Operating systems can fail, and Vista shows every indication that it is one of those operating systems.
Now, what led to this feeling? Well let's work backwards.
1. They are running a campaign to try to prove, despite what people believe, that Vista really is a great operating system. They can try to appeal to our intellect, but it only validates the gut feeling that something is very wrong. The only way I'm convinced something is hot is if I hear from people using it how hot it is, all the time, repeatedly. I know one or two people who use Vista, and mostly they say it's okay, no one says it's great.
2. I think Microsoft is in bed with Hollywood, and when they improve an OS they're adding more locks and security cameras for the entertainment industry to control us and spy on us. I like computers that mind their own business and work for me, not The Man. If Microsoft came out with a marketing program for Vista that said "This is your operating system, not ours or Hollywood's" -- that would catch my attention. (They aren't saying that, and I don't think they can.)
Update: Netflix's DRM Turned Me Into a Pirate.
3. Microsoft lost me, bigtime, over their lack of defenses against malware. It was when I switched to Macintosh that I realized how painful Windows had become.
4. Vista was troubled in development (it was called Longhorn), kept being delayed, people that worked on it weren't enthusiastic, their marketers kept saying it had killer features, but never could say what they were and they never materialized."
You can't blame Adobe for making their 32 bit apps on Windows suck. OSX was 64bit (since 2002) and Windows was still in 64bit BETA since 2003 (Code name Longhorn). Adobe and Apple are not the same company. If anything, Microsoft, using their heavy weight as a monopoly held the industry back.
Bottom line, you get what you for and maybe a little bit less with Microsoft.
[citation][nom]eodeo[/nom] As I understand it, Mac OS is 32bit with hacked ability to use more than 4gb of ram. [citation]
No eodeo, your understanding is wrong. OSX is 64bit and has been for much longer then any version of Windows.
[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Even an X850(before vista came out) runs aero without a problem. Hell onboard Geforce 6200 runs it fine too.[citation]
Both the X850 and 6200 are good graphic cards. My comparison here is that Aero couldn't cut it on an Intel GMA. Sorry, to think that Microsoft writes such optimized code is a joke. As Dave Winer put it:
"Vista has the smell of death. I don't believe Vista will be around much longer. I don't want to be one of those people who has a computer that runs Vista, anymore than I wanted to use OS/2 when Windows 3.x was in its heyday. I remembered too well what it was like to use an Apple III when it failed to take over, as expected, from the Apple II. Operating systems can fail, and Vista shows every indication that it is one of those operating systems.
Now, what led to this feeling? Well let's work backwards.
1. They are running a campaign to try to prove, despite what people believe, that Vista really is a great operating system. They can try to appeal to our intellect, but it only validates the gut feeling that something is very wrong. The only way I'm convinced something is hot is if I hear from people using it how hot it is, all the time, repeatedly. I know one or two people who use Vista, and mostly they say it's okay, no one says it's great.
2. I think Microsoft is in bed with Hollywood, and when they improve an OS they're adding more locks and security cameras for the entertainment industry to control us and spy on us. I like computers that mind their own business and work for me, not The Man. If Microsoft came out with a marketing program for Vista that said "This is your operating system, not ours or Hollywood's" -- that would catch my attention. (They aren't saying that, and I don't think they can.)
Update: Netflix's DRM Turned Me Into a Pirate.
3. Microsoft lost me, bigtime, over their lack of defenses against malware. It was when I switched to Macintosh that I realized how painful Windows had become.
4. Vista was troubled in development (it was called Longhorn), kept being delayed, people that worked on it weren't enthusiastic, their marketers kept saying it had killer features, but never could say what they were and they never materialized."
nukemaster
Titan
- Nov 23, 2004
- 19,623
- 6
- 74,965
I guess you do not remember the same exact thing when Windows XP came out.
People said it is too bloated, slow, made of DRM, reports to ms if you use illegal software or even run emulated roms. Guess what, nothing ever happened. and XP was slow to adopt too.
Vista does have many features XP lacked.
I am glad you like your system, That is all that matters.
Ohh yeah, and Aero does run on the GMA 950 and newer.
People said it is too bloated, slow, made of DRM, reports to ms if you use illegal software or even run emulated roms. Guess what, nothing ever happened. and XP was slow to adopt too.
Vista does have many features XP lacked.
I am glad you like your system, That is all that matters.
Ohh yeah, and Aero does run on the GMA 950 and newer.
KyleSTL
Distinguished
- Aug 17, 2007
- 1,678
- 0
- 19,790
Wrong. Windows XP 64-bit was released in 2003 as a non-beta version. From Wikipedia:
"Windows XP 64-bit Edition, Version 2003 — Based on Windows Server 2003 codebase, which added support for the Itanium 2 processor, was released on March 28, 2003"
I believe Windows XP Pro x64 was released in late 2005 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Vista's 64-bit versions became available commercially in early 2007 when Vista first came out.
And 'Longhorn' BTW is the development codename for Server 2008.
Link
I was skeptical about Vista at first and converted one of my computers to Vista Ultimate about 3 months ago. I love it, and so does my girlfriend. Setup (drivers, file transfer, loading programs, etc) was so much easier than it was with a fresh install of XP Pro. 2/3 computers in my house are running Vista now and as soon as I build a new rig to replace my main rig (in signature) it'll have Vista too.
Two very positive reviews to add to the list.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 Founders Edition review: Incremental gains over the previous generation- Started by Admin
- Replies: 104
-
News Trump to impose 25% to 100% tariffs on Taiwan-made chips, impacting TSMC
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 41
-
News DeepSeek's AI breakthrough bypasses industry-standard CUDA, uses assembly-like PTX programming instead
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 33
-
Review Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition review: Blackwell commences its reign with a few stumbles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 223
-
-
News Facebook flags Linux topics as 'cybersecurity threats' — posts and users being blocked
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 34
Latest posts
-
-
Question Marine electronic repair service in Dubai | horizonelectronic
- Latest: horizondubai123
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram