What's all this I hear on the commercials about Apple systems being far superior? They never get viruses or crash etc? From what I have always heard Apple systems are trash. Why would they say such things? Why?

"Look, mommy... a fuse! And it's shooting off sparks..."

Are ya lookin' fer discussion, or argument? Although I'm not a Mac guy, they have their place... and they've evolved quite a bit over the years. Latest version of the OS now has Unix underpinnings, which makes it inherently superior to the Windows OSs that I run around here...

As for the viruses, the first have landed. For the longest time, it wasn't worth the virus writers' effort to make a Mac virus... not enough people used them. Now.... ;)

I'm looking for the truth is all. And you answred some of the questions I had. I started seeing these new Apple commercials making amazing claims to solve all the problems a PC has. I have always assumed they were terrible attempts at computers, has something changed or is it all lies?

My experiences with Macs are limited to a big heavy box with a tiny but even heavier screen. It's older than I am. It's yellow with age. And it still works. And it works well. So yes, I would say Apple computers are inherently superior.

Ohhhh.....God...... Must....resist......posting.....In....this.....thr ead.....


Can't.....fight...it.......


Ok, I will post, but it will be short...

In the IT world, there are people like me that like Windows, and people that don't.

Generally people that like one, will hate the other, and im afraid that this thread will only lead to a massive war on what is superior.

My opinion is this:
Mac's have huge potential, but they lack the user base needed to make them any more than a specialty PC. When it comes to multimedia applications, I would always be happy to use a Mac, but IN MY OPINION they are no better at anything else than what I can put on my PC.
*They DO crash, and although it may not be as often as Windows, there is a simple reason. Mac OS is no where near as complicated/versitile as Windows.
*The whole virus-free thing is bull$hit, while it is very true that there are far less viruses, they are just as vulnerable, if not more so because of the lack of protectin thought to be needed.

All I think the Mac's need are some more support. If they had games developed to run on their Os, I may consider it, but unfortunantly, I cannot easily customise a Mac (Put my own hardware in)

And yes I am aware of Bootcamp, but I think thats a stupid idea, designed to attract a larger user base, and it has no advantages unless you already own a Mac and Windows.

Anyways, that's all I will say for now. If you have any more questions and would like my opinion, i'm here to answer, but I will admit that my answers/opinions will be considered Biased by some people [img]smile.gif[/img]

Note: This is not a serious response, but I do find this odd.

Mac User: I love my computer, it hardly ever crashes, unlike a Windows based unit. Hey look, I can put Windows on my computer...er, what? If Windows is inherently as bad as Mac users would have us believe, why put it on a Mac? :confused:

I go where the games are. If they manage to get compatibility for all PC games then great. Otherwise it's good for nothing but work.

I think Macs are great little computers these days. If I hadn't moved the family to Linux, it's what I would put my parents on. They're slick, fast, reliable and more secure than Windows by default (from design as well as obscurity). They also offer many features that Windows XP doesn't.

Having said that, I don't get on with the interface and the lack of configurability (but it's not much different to Windows in this respect).

Loads of my friends made the leap from Windows whilst at uni and none of them have looked back.

Luvian is dead right about the games, although as always it's a chicken and egg situation. The market base is growing, and more games are being released for it.

At the end of the day though, it's a case of using what's right for you. Wander down to an Apple store and have a play with one and see if you like it. Ultimately OS wars are a bit pointless because different people will always judge an operating system in different ways.

@Robert: Apple allowing people to dual-boot Windows is a cunning marketing ploy - you're far more likely to buy a mac if you know you can still go back to familiar surroundings every now and again. Games are the other big reason for keeping Windows around of course.


Edit: Luvian, love the sig ;)

[ 08-08-2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Just read Luvian's thing about AOL. Millions can be wrong!! Mac is far better, Bill just won out that's all.

Look at Beta vs VHS. Beta beat the crap out of it, but Sony made a marketing BooBoo. Still have my Sony Super beta HiFi. It still does great at taping, editting and digital effects I only see as of late in other sytstems and it's 12-13 years old or more.

Mac/Apple needs to get it's iHead out of it's iAss.

<font color=8fbc8f>Windoze by far is the primary rig used by the common person. Easy out of the box "plug&play". MACs are a little bit more 'complicated' than that, therefore they are not "As easy" to set up and begin to compute on. A windazed power monger cannot quickly make a MAC do as "HE" demands, so they fall to the way side. Raw computing power? Probably equal. Internet and e-mail, MACs are way faster as they have less "Security bridges" to cross. Overall multi-media, MAC again has the advantage. But games, and customability and tens of thousands of viruses, erm- programs? M$ takes the cake.

If you ever want to get really deep, come on over to the Penguin!</font>
http://www.ubuntu.com/

I wish IBM or someone would spoof it, and have the PC guy go "Yeah, dumbass, have fun with your 9 programs available for your Mac! HAHAHAH!"


[img]smile.gif[/img]


WATCH these:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCmUAWn_DlU (funny as HELL -Language)

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6irAfABLsT0

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc4oP_ITqMc

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvt6Plo4jk

[ 08-08-2006, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

The neverending battle of good versus evil.

ROFLICOPTER!!!! Yuo used Windoze and M$ instead of Windows and MS!!!!

U are teh funny! [/sarcasm]

[ 08-09-2006, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]

I have both a PC and a Mac. I use the PC pretty much only for a few games, and a network hub, and use the Mac for everything else. Work. Internet. graphic design. Audio. You name it.

The mac looks better, feels better, is way more stable, comes with better support, better software packages (Garageband, iphoto, imovie are all kickass!) and better integration of the sum of its parts.

I grew up on Amiga, and went to PC, depressed about how bad the graphics were by comparison. After several years owning PCs, I bought a mac and haven't looked back. Seriously stable, seriously sexy and seriously powerful.

There are lots of programs for the Mac.
The mac-only programs are way better than anything on PC anyways.
Imovie alone, is worth buying a mac for.

So Adobe Premiere Pro v2.0 isn't as good as imovie? Really? Hmm, I thought most Movie studios used that, or inhouse stuff. I know ILM uses Adobe Premiere for some editing..

In the end, Macs are for graphics artists. But I am one, and have done VERY well with a PC. Plus, Mac's are a LOT more expensive compared to a PC of equal power (or even a faster PC is still cheaper)...

I owned an Amiga a long time ago. And was LUCKY as hell to have a friend that got a newer Video Toaster card, and gave me the old one. The card was huge! Had fun with it back then.. It had a dongle I think... I forget. Something weird..

imovie is free when you get a mac. Other programs like Final Cut Pro are better, but you're paying for it. Final Cut Pro is awesome btw.

imovie is also really easy to get into. Very intuative for a beginner.

Similarly Garageband is a cool music making program that comes free with a mac. Like imovie, there are better programs out there that are more specialised, but again, it's intuatively good for beginners and people wanting to get their ideas down.

Apple also own a serious music program called "Logic". Which is the next step up from garageband.

You also get iphoto and ical for free. The software bundle with macs is great. Plus you get the imac account, which has idisc and other stuff.

I was so pissed when the Amigas went down. The graphics were so much better than anything else at the time. What a bummer. I still have some Amgia games, but no way to play them.

I remember when I had a Commodore 128, and played the first Goldbox game (Champions of Krynn) and It had GREAT graphics--

Then I got a 386/16Mhz, and got the next goldbox (The 2nd Krynn game) and GOD, the colors were CGA. (16 colors?) ugh...

Finally, Dark Queen of Krynn and Pools of Darkness went VGA 256 colors.. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Garageband? Microsoft has an equivelant which is "Supposedly" better- I cannot say this is my opinion, as I have not tried either, but I have read that the equivelant is quite good in its versatility.

Final cut Pro? I'm afraid it's available to Windows users too.

Though I will agree on what is commonly said about IMovie...It kicks ass [img]smile.gif[/img] But i'm afraid that alone will not make me buy a Mac.

Have you used garageband? Not just versatility, but loop library is huge. It's a great buy on it's own. It's also used widely, so in terms of collaboration, you're in a better position to share files.


Top 10 Reasons to buy a mac

10. No piecing together crap. All integrated. Buy it and plug it in. It WORKS.
9. Better software and more stable platforms for design, video and music.
8. Bootcamp on the new intel machines means you have a PC and a mac when you get a mac
7. .mac account
6. iphoto
5. garageband
4. imovie
3. safari (better than firefox and ie combined)
2. looks so sexy
1. no viruses

[ 08-09-2006, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Melchior ]

Ummmm [img]smile.gif[/img]


Top 10 Reasons to buy a mac

10. No piecing together crap. All integrated. Buy it and plug it in. It WORKS.

All intergrated, 1 thing breaks, it's ALL dead. bad.


9. Better software and more stable platforms for design, video and music.

Not true. I go WEEKS without having to reboot and run TONS of video editing stuff and 3D Max apps.

8. Bootcamp on the new intel machines means you have a PC and a mac when you get a mac


7. .mac account

What does that mean? [img]smile.gif[/img]

6. iphoto

Photoshop 8.0

2. looks so sexy

Sexy? SEXY? Since when are PC's needing to look sexy? I don't wanna bang my PC! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]


1. no viruses

Not true. There are virii for Macs. There are less, but thats because hardly no one uses them. Hackers attack the mass market. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So...Maximum PC did a test in their July issue, tested both Windows XP and OS X on an intel-powered Mac. Before I say the results, let me say Maximum PC is all about computing performance, and their standards are demanding. Their tolerance for crap is low, and they are fairly scientific in their testing...personally, they're my most esteemed resourced when it comes to computers.

They tested software that was supposed to run on both platforms on the very same machine, after installing both OSes on it...and XP won every contest. Sure, there are issues about program-porting, but that doesn't account for the 20% (or more) performance jumps when switching from OS X to Windows XP.

When it comes to performance, XP wins. It's more efficient for processing, and that's what really counts, not a bunch of shiny gloss.

[ 08-09-2006, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

What's with all the replies, I wasn't even serious. Just kidding, yeah okay I figured they sucked. It seems they are instead trying to use the flaws as a marketing technique to make people buy (Virtually no viruses on a Mac - until enough of you buy one, then we're like windows but without the security patches).

Even my ipod (though it's cool) pretty much forces me to use the itunes app. and that in itself is a clunky and lacking pirce of software that doesn't come close to Media Center as far as options are concerned for loading songs unto my MP3 player. I think to myself if this one application is so annoying imagine how the Mac OS is.

You make it sound like you won't get security patches if you buy a Mac?! Their rolling out of security updates may be slow in comparison to Linux, but it sure beats 'patch tuesday' followed by 'virus wednesday' followed by a one-month wait for the security fix.

There are still unpatched security vulnerabilities in Microsoft software that they refuse to fix. According to Secunia, with all patches and workarounds applied, Windows XP Home is still affected by 26 documented flaws, some of which are rated "highly critical". As the code is closed, nobody knows how many undocumented flaws exist.

It is undeniable that a Mac is more secure than Windows out of the box due to its Unix backend, the fact that it doesn't ship with tons of internet-facing services enabled, the fact that the user must create a username and password and is discouraged from running things as root (the administrative user).

Having said that, it sounds like you've already made up your mind on this issue...

One of the Linux magazines I buy ranks distributions according to how fast they release fixes for security issues. The fastest (Red Hat) released a patch for a popular internet service within 20 minutes of the flaw being published. The bulk of the major distributions had released patches within two hours, with only Debian straggling a little with a lag time of a little over a day. Now that is taking security seriously and I wish the big players would do the same.

[ 08-09-2006, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Ilander, I think your magazine is definitely right:

http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/GenMatch1.png

There's a detailed analysis here of the Mac's performance failings. It also has links at the bottom to the original article which included Windows comparisons.

You make it sound like you won't get security patches if you buy a Mac?! Their rolling out of security updates may be slow in comparison to Linux, but it sure beats 'patch tuesday' followed by 'virus wednesday' followed by a one-month wait for the security fix.

There are still unpatched security vulnerabilities in Microsoft software that they refuse to fix. According to Secunia, with all patches and workarounds applied, Windows XP Home is still affected by 26 documented flaws, some of which are rated "highly critical". As the code is closed, nobody knows how many undocumented flaws exist.

It is undeniable that a Mac is more secure than Windows out of the box due to its Unix backend, the fact that it doesn't ship with tons of internet-facing services enabled, the fact that the user must create a username and password and is discouraged from running things as root (the administrative user).

Having said that, it sounds like you've already made up your mind on this issue...

One of the Linux magazines I buy ranks distributions according to how fast they release fixes for security issues. The fastest (Red Hat) released a patch for a popular internet service within 20 minutes of the flaw being published. The bulk of the major distributions had released patches within two hours, with only Debian straggling a little with a lag time of a little over a day. Now that is taking security seriously and I wish the big players would do the same. </font>[/QUOTE]I had made up my mind but was recently unsure of late due to hearing all this marketing stuff. On your point about security, I do believe that if Macs got the worldwide consumer-base that windows has overnight, it wouldn't be very secure.

I assume from your post you use only Macs yourself then? How do you find them for gaming etc?

I liked the second and fourth the most.

Z man - All intergrated, 1 thing breaks, it's ALL dead. bad
Not true. Replacement is more than possible.
In any case, in 5 years I had not one thing break down on a single mac.
It's VERY robust and stable. Never put it into the shop.


zman -Not true. I go WEEKS without having to reboot and run TONS of video editing stuff and 3D Max apps.

~That's not my experience with the PCs I've owned. I've found them flaky. There's a reason I switched. I hated macs with a passion, but got fed up with PCs. You're talking to a convert. I can't tell you how much I hated macs. Even six years ago I was pretty anti. I just got fed up with PC and tried a mac. never looked back. ~

zman -What does that mean? [img]smile.gif[/img]
~The .mac account gives you free webspace/blogpage etc (no ads), a virtual hardisk online for filesharing and backups... loads of stuff.~

zman -6. iphotoPhotoshop 8.0
~ Does Photoshop 8.0 come FREE with any and every PC you buy?

zman -Sexy? SEXY? Since when are PC's needing to look sexy? I don't wanna bang my PC! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

~Ah... when you want to impress a girl and look hip, not like a geek. That's when mac sexiness becomes important. ~ ;)


zman -1. no viruses Not true. There are virii for Macs. There are less, but thats because hardly no one uses them. Hackers attack the mass market. [img]smile.gif[/img]

That amounts to the same thing.

Mac also sends out security updates. Updates from the manufacturer make all the difference.

You just need to try one. I mean, I still have both types of computer in the house. A PC desktop, a PC laptop (for my wife) and a mac laptop.

The mac tops the lot in terms of speed, reliability, performance, and everything else.

[ 08-09-2006, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Melchior ]

A quick comic on mac gamers vs pc gamers:

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20040703

Benchmarks prove the PC faster. End of story.

Reliability has never been a problem on the PC, it's the choice of Operating systems. I'm not sure how many servers are running on Mac's these days, but I would suspect that the PC holds the majority for server duty.

Heck, Mac is switching to an Intel (read: PC) processor! I would hazard a guess to say that the Mac is gasping for air at this point and making one last grab for the surface before it drowns.

Dunno, Zebedog. Have you ever owned both computers?

I don't care what benchmarks do or don't prove. I care about how frustrated I get working with the PC, compared to how reliable the Mac is.

As said, I use both, own both. How many here can say that? Make up your own minds by testing them yourself, don't rely on what testers say.

Do Macs take Nvidia cards and the like or are they all intergrated or independant video systems specially made?

I think, and this came from Maximum PC, so that I'm giving them proper credit, despite agreeing with their idea, that Apple will release their OS for sale with any computer, very soon. Gone are the days of proprietary hardware, and the only step left for them to remain competitive IS to sell OS X or OS XI to system builders.

I don't know if Macs can use nVidia products, but I know they can use AMD(ATI) products, as some ship with x1900 graphics, IIRC. They also use the same RAM and the same hard disks as the PC crowd. Don't know about motherboards, but I do know that a lot of them use PC processors nowadays...

Whatever the distinction used to be, it's fading, leaving the end user with a choice between form and function. Those who want form use a Mac.

Although, I think my computer is rather stylish...well, except for those errors that it experiences that I've inflicted upon it...poor Hosscat. :(

[ 08-09-2006, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

For anyone really interested in going into depth consider getting your hands on Issue 241 (April 2006) of Pc Plus UK. It was just after Apple announced the switch to Intel, and they did a 16 page comparison between PCs and Macs in it.

It would be quite long to copy it here, but they compared:

Mac Mini vs Evesham Mini PC
Mac Mini won on two tests out of three

Asus A6 vs Apple Powerbook G4
the Asus won on all tests

Apple Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz vs HP xw9300 workstation
one test was too close to call, in the other two the G5 won.

(the tests were Photoshop CS2, Quicktime 7 Pro and iTunes wav to mp3)

So going from this, the difference between them really depends on the categories and individual Macs can be better than individual PCs and vice versa.


Otherwise, I've had no problems with stability with my Dell/windows XP/intel core duo laptop...sometimes it even runs a month without a reboot and it does run Visual Studio, VMware (virtual machining sometimes even two different distros of Linux at the same time) and other performance heavy programs.

Oh and for the all-in-one crowd. I think the easiest available solution nowadays is to have a Windows PC with VMWare, since it can run almost any other OS in its virtual PC (and beats MS's Virtual PC easily at compatibility...). ;)

[ 08-09-2006, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

Never heard of a Mac being used for a server (although it shares Unix ancestry with both BSD and Linux). I believe that the new OS10.5 Leapard will be a bit beefed up in this respect.

The BSD's and Linux have the server market carved up between them (roughly 2/3) whilst Windows has roughly 1/3. Linux on a Mac wouldn't be ideal, Windows is PC only and I'm not sure if the BSD's run on a Mac - so I think you're right to say that the PC holds a huge majority.


@SpiritWarrior - No, I don't use Macs. I just appreciate what they bring to the Operating System marketplace - a bit of competition and a bag of new features were extremely welcome I think.

In Linux I can pretty much get most of the Mac experience, minus the bits that annoy me (like the interface). It hasn't really seemed worthwhile for me to buy a copy of OSX therefore, although stranger things may happen in the future.

I almost went for one of those new Apple laptops, but they seem to have far too many manufacturing problems for my liking.

Never heard of a Mac being used for a server (although it shares Unix ancestry with both BSD and Linux). I believe that the new OS10.5 Leapard will be a bit beefed up in this respect.

The BSD's and Linux have the server market carved up between them (roughly 2/3) whilst Windows has roughly 1/3. Linux on a Mac wouldn't be ideal, Windows is PC only and I'm not sure if the BSD's run on a Mac - so I think you're right to say that the PC holds a huge majority.


@SpiritWarrior - No, I don't use Macs. I just appreciate what they bring to the Operating System marketplace - a bit of competition and a bag of new features were extremely welcome I think.

In Linux I can pretty much get most of the Mac experience, minus the bits that annoy me (like the interface). It hasn't really seemed worthwhile for me to buy a copy of OSX therefore, although stranger things may happen in the future.

I almost went for one of those new Apple laptops, but they seem to have far too many manufacturing problems for my liking. </font>[/QUOTE]That's one of the major issues I see with Apple hardware (Ipods, mac mini's and so on) they try and make things too small, or they mutilate hardware to make it look cool (which they do quite well most of the time) but they sacrifice too much in the process :(

The last time I used a Mac was about 1986, after Windows had been launched for a year, and I'd been using Deskmate for a couple of years. I have never really felt the need to switch or even try a Mac again since then; the PC accomplished everything I asked of it.

http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

And that pathetic 2.5% market share is only for pre-fabs. If you include user-built systems, the Mac would be beat down even further.

RIP Mac.

That's an awesome site Zebodog!

It was interesting to see Compaq on top for the first couple of years (I knew they held a key position, but not that big)