I want to hear which you think is better, real reasons please. Not just, well I think Mac is stupid and for hipsters..or Aw PCs are for poor people..or crap like that. Thank you :)
I've seen the same sort of fervor in the Linux diehards as I've seen with Apple. This isn't true of all such users of course, but I've seen the same degree of cliquish behavior and arrogance in both communities which have persisted despite any lack of substantial evidence.
I'm with you on this one, Richard, but only partway. The Linux cliques do exist, right along with the arrogance and snobbery and the people who don't know what soap is. One of the things I dislike about IT departments is the lack of social skills and the prevalence of personality disorders in people who are good with Unix and Linux.
Nevertheless, tribe Linux has good reason to be deeply suspicious of Microsoft, most recently due to team Redmond's efforts to strangle Linux by pegging Windows to hardware that won't boot anything else. (I suppose they envy Apple's lucrative business model enough to take a stab at emulating it.)
This time the cover story is "better security" and the fact that it's anti-competitive-- great for Microsoft and tough luck for the only other major OS that uses the same PC hardware-- is just a coincidence. (No, really. A coincidence. Would Microsoft lie about a thing like that? Never!)
The legal battle has just started with a lawsuit filed in Spain on March 26. A whole lot more lawsuits are likely coming too.
My reasons for sticking with Macs are not particularly compelling for most. I work as a commercial photographer and do a heavy load of digital editing on a daily basis, and Macs have simply become the industry standard in my region. While, historically, there were some legitimate reasons for this, I'm actually not sure any of them remain valid, but that's just the way it is. There is a certain degree of convenience in keeping work and home in-line on the same operating system.
I'm a commercial photographer, too. And much as with the hardware and software others expect you to be using, I'm sure you're aware that you'd be suspect if your main camera (assuming you use a DSLR) were anything but a Nikon or Canon.
For what I do—taking thousands of photos of the same subject much of the time—I have found a program, ThumbsPlus, that does batch processing of things ranging from rotation to resizing to color correction to watermarking, eliminating a lot of labor. It does it more easily than any other software I've found and having actually had a Mac for a while (because I thought that as a photographer I had to have one), I discovered that (a) there's nothing really equivalent in the Mac world and (b) ThumbsPlus's designer (Cerius Software) tells me they will not be porting their program to Mac. Before anyone mentions it, Photoshop "actions" are much clunkier than ThumbsPlus's approach.
I use a variety of different programs when doing art. A mix of PhotoShop; Corel PhotoPaint, PhotoImpact, and Paint Shop Pro; the original JASC Paint Shop Pro; and some freeware as well. ThumbsPlus is just the best and most powerful batch processor I've found. Originally designed to make thumbnail pages (hence the name), it does a whole lot more now.
Bought my first PC in 1986; IBM PC AT. No Microsoft Windows just PC DOS. Bought my first Mac the following year, end of 1987. It was a Macintosh SE30. Nine inch screen monochrome.
Around that time Microsoft released MS Windows. Ran out and bought it along with a really expensive digital art program called "Designer". The promise of gui based PC's was great but the actual product left me wanting. Windows was very slow, even for the most basic art based files and prone to crashing.
The little Mac ran circles around any 80x86 based intel PC out there in that time period. I did desktop publishing with Aldus Pagemaker and vector based graphics with Adobe Illustrator and despite it's black and white monitor it ran faster and printed graphics faster than it's bigger and faster competitor. Matter of fact at about the time most graphic art divisions, at the ad agency I worked at turned to the little monochrome Mac exclusively.
I've stayed with what worked for me. I use to buy a new, faster, sleeker Mac about once every year and a half. Which correlated with improvements in graphic and design software. When my kids were in their fives and six's I bought software for them and it was a whole lot easier on a Mac, to show them how to use a computer, than it was on my, then, 80386 IBM PS2 Model 70. At the time Mac's were more intuitive.
Today I still use Mac's. Why? It's what works for me. Have nothing against PC's and I still have one despite the fact that I rarely use it. Purchased it for my son, for college, and he uses it to play video games. He uses his Macbook Pro for school. Kids!
I'll certainly concede Mac beat PC all hollow in 1986 for GUIs and WYSIWYG apps!
I started on a PC and will probably stay there because I've got stuff dating back to 1987 on it somewhere. At work I code for Linux boxes but that's a very different "universe" and the two rarely cross--if I want to do anything but write code I swivel my chair 90 degrees to the right and use the windows 7 box on the company's main network for email, etc.
Noel - I started with a little "LE," harddrive capacity - get ready for a chuckle - 250 Mgs! From tgherre to an iMac, to an iBook, to a MacBook. I do computer graphics, and couldn't be happier.
My first hard drive was 40 megs. The machine was truly awesome for its day with a full MB of RAM.
When I started we didn't have ones and zeros, we only had zeros.
Now I have a flash drive, the size of my little finger, with a 15 gig capacity - it's truly amazing what we've seen happen in only the last 20 years, hardly the blink of an eye, really.
OK, I've got to step up, here. I started programming in 1972. The first computer I worked on was an IBM 1401 with 4K bytes (that's 4000 bytes - count 'em) of core (main memory), punched cards in and out and a printer. But this 4K computer produced all the reports this largish insurance company needed at the time. Later the company stepped up and bought a tape drive for their master files.
As part of my training I was given an existing production program which used 3998 core positions and I had to add a column to the report. Great fun!! I just had to use areas of memory which were pre-designated for special uses (like the card-read area - 1-80) as temporary storage.
I thought my 250-meg hard drive with my old Mac LE was a horror story, but I added extra memory and boosted it, but 4K of actual memory beats anything I have to offer, hands down! You are the horror-story winner! Congrats!
Not horror-story - just old.
You load your deck of cards into the computer and pressed "Start". No operating system - each card took its place in core until the program was loaded.
B 333 (branch to core position 333) started the program. 333 because 1-80 was the card-read area, 101-180 was the card punch area, and 201-332 was the print area. Areas above the card-read and card-punch areas were usually used as registers/accumulators. At 333 you started by initializing your work areas, registers, etc. then read the first data card.
There were huge rooms full of boxes of punched cards - 4000 in a box, floor to ceiling. We also had sorting machines with 12 output trays. You sorted a myriad of cards on one column, save the output, then sort them all on the next column, etc.
The only horror story was dropping a box of cards. :-)
I design computers for avionics. I use PowerPC RISC processors for our embedded designs (instructions per watt is good), so I was concerned when apple moved over to intel parts. Turns out the telecom folks use PowerPC's so they are still available. Now a European architecture called ARM is in everything. In any event I am sure there is not a whole lot of fundamental difference between an apple and other pc's anymore, since they use the same processors and RAM,