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 :)

Views: 1029

Replies to This Discussion

If you like Mac OSX, don't thank apple, they didn't do jack to make it.  It is unix based, and you can get a Linux distro (also unix based) for free, that will have relatively similar UI, more customization option, is faster, and more reliable.   Did I mention that 99% of software for it is free. 

My son is into Linux. Over the years I've tried SEVERAL times to move my personal computing to Ubuntu (I dual-boot to the latest release) - always to return "home" to Windows. It's not just a matter of being unused to the GUI, (which I find troublesome) it's that key, central function don't work or just plain fall over. I feel like I'm on Windows 3.0.

OSX, (which BTW I hate) NEVER falls over like that. If Apple didn't invent OS, then they certainly did a whole lot to stabilize it.

The choice is between a perfect world like the one in the movie Ted where it's perfect because someone is managing it for you, or a world like the real world where things are a lot more complicated because no one is. You use or buy a Windows app and you're on your own as to how well it works, but the trade off is a much wider selection and a far greater compatibility with other computers (even Apple computers can run most Windows software well enough to be useful, if not as well as on Windows machines).

In the phone and tablet world, it can be argued that Apple's products have far more apps than Android products. The last time I looked, it was a several orders of magnitude difference. BUT the gap is rapidly closing, and the Android world has the advantage Windows has of being open, but at the same expense of being less predictable.

It's not just a matter of being unused to the GUI, (which I find troublesome) it's that key, central function don't work or just plain fall over.

If you tried Ubuntu (and not Kubuntu) between 2004 and last year you would have been using the GNOME desktop environment. (Now it uses Unity.) Which GUI functions did not work or failed over? I switched to Ubuntu with GNOME in 2006 (Dapper Drake) specifically because Ubuntu was becoming a king-maker Linux distro. This, due to its reliability and GNOME's uniformity.

I have never seen an application released into production with Ubuntu that did not work or that just failed. Never. It's unthinkable. I would be less surprised if you had told me the government of New Zealand was successfully breeding eight-legged chickens.

Sure, I've installed applications from the Linux ecosystem that were crap and didn't work right. But multiple flameouts in the standard user-facing GUI of GNOME, ones that made it by legions of proud code monkeys, got blessed by the Linux gods, and then were released into the sparkling wild for the glory of all "type-A personality" geeks to see? Once discovered that would have caused an out-and-out stoning. Or worse, the culprits would have been kicked out of their Dungeons and Dragons campaigns.

That's a very good case for it being MY fault that functions fall over - not the designers, which I would never deny.

Every time I try to explain one of these problems, I tell my son what I did, followed by a long pause, followed by, "WHY?". I'm sure I'm doing things similar in cluelessness to renaming a Word file to .exe and running it.

All I know for sure is that (prior to Windows 8) you could sit me in front of any app in a windows environment and I would know what to do. It's just intuitive. OSX is not - to me anyway. 

Even Windows has become foreign to me with Win8. I can't even figure out how to search without undertaking an 8(exaggeration)-step process. I've had to install a Freeware search application (which does Just what I need).

I got pissed off when MS introduced multiple paths to the same folder. Win 8 has taken that to the nth degree. I'm spending my time trying to get the beast to behave like XP.

Remember, of course, that I'm old and I did a lot of drugs in my youth.

What were we talking about again?

Remember, of course, that I'm old and I did a lot of drugs in my youth.

What were we talking about again?

Oh, you mean Dave! Dave's not here.  :p

Havn't read all the posts on here but one thing i want to mention is how overpriced macs are (not sure if it has been mentioned).

Anyways, I won't go into the mac pro because it is hilarious how much they expect you to pay (they even expect $1950 for 64 gb of 1333Mhz ram, which is slower than 64gb of 1600mhz ram i found on new egg for $520) but even the imac, likely their most reasonably priced product is about 120$ more expensive than this computer 

which has a faster cpu that is quad core rather than dual, a bigger monitor, a better graphics processor, and costs $1179.59. (rounding up 99 cents on some things) 
Anyway, I would never buy a mac or any apple product, because you can always find a cheaper product that gives you more performance.

Your specs on the low-end iMac are incorrect, though on raw processing power you have produced a superior machine at 90% of the cost. Memory and graphics card are quite similar on both machines. iMac is quad-core, though only 2.7GHz with 'Turbo Boost' to 3.2GHz. Which has superior display? I would need to test both to say. My personal order of need goes fidelity > size> response. Fidelity is hard to determine from specs and features alone without actually testing displays, and if I was going to go that package route, even sticking with ASUS, 

My point his is not that your general assessment is wrong, but that that the appreciable differences in the machines are going to vary depending on user end needs. If I went with your package, I'd likely have to go up in price to get a better display, and I'd have to up the memory on either machine which may or may not be the same cost (depending on whether or not Apple fucked users on upgrading with third party RAM in this iteration). Given the appreciable performance differences for my needs, I'd rather the more compact iMac design over a tower, and stick with OSX as the default OS instead of Windows.

I did price it out the last time I bought a machine, and while I could have saved a little money staying away from Apple, it's not really the grand difference people make it out to be.

I think the price/performance difference is very dramatic for the person just wanting a reasonably priced laptop that will answer all his needs. Yes, the Windows world is more like The Wild West when it comes to reliability of applications, but there's more variety. 

You can always find a decent low-end dual-core laptop for $350 with very little looking around. I just found this machine for $349:

  • 2.5GHz AMD A4-4300M Dual-Core
  • 4GB of DDR3 RAM
  • 320GB 5400rpm Hard Drive
  • Integrated AMD Radeon HD 7420G Graphics
  • 15.6" HD BrightView LED-Backlit Display
  • 1366 x 768 Native Resolution
  • SuperMulti DVD Burner
  • 802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi, 10/100 Fast Ethernet
  • Integrated Altec Lansing Stereo Speakers
  • Windows 8

Here's a MacBook Pro (15" display) for $350:

for $500:

for $750:

for $1000:

for $1500:

for $2000:

for $2200: Finally, Apple has a comparable offering at this price point

True, you do get a denser Retina display on a somewhat smaller screen and the CPU is a 2.7Ghz quad-core, but I have a 1366x768 Windows laptop on which Netflix or DVD movies look great and, really, who needs an i7 quad-core processor? Not me. Not most of you. When are you going to see the difference?

On my 2 year old dual-core laptop I can have a movie running while I'm transferring large files between my three computers in my home network and all the while I have email running. My computer does that without the movie looking jerky. I don't know who needs the extra clock speed or CPU power. It's certainly not your average user. Compared to most people, I'm a fairly heavy user.

I am not saying you can't get cheaper options especially with lower performance requirements, but the price point differences spec for spec aren't always as dramatic as they seem and don't necessarily take other design features and production costs (for better or worse) into account. 

Even within the Mac line, the MacBook Air costs more for less power than the MacBook Pro largely owing to the differences in design and the associated complications with making the more compact version functional at minimal size.

Again, it becomes a function of user end needs. The HP computer you linked would likely do quite nicely for a great many users -- I am not arguing to the contrary --, but your concept of 'comparable' is nonsense unless display size is one of the few things you care about. It wouldn't suffice for me at all so I would never entertain buying it at any price point.

"It's certainly not your average user."

The MacBook Pro has changed it's demographic after the MacBook line seems to have ended, but initially it was never aimed at the 'average' user.

They are comparable in terms of running the usual apps for a normal user. I've no doubt that while there are many who have good reasons for paying $2200 for a laptop, they are not your run-of-the-mill users. I often do batch processing of several thousand photos and my machine (a $499 one) does them just fine in the background and I can watch a movie while that is going on. That is much heavier use than the average person is going to need.

If one is willing to go with a smaller screen, there's always the MacBook Air. Retail prices start at about $1000. Whoopee!

Apple started out as a computer for Everyman. They have d/evolved into a company oriented almost exclusively toward people addicted to early adopting, and people with unusual needs for especially high performance. Also, there are people who want to be seen with an Apple for the same reason some people want to be seen wearing an expensive watch that keeps no better time than an $18 Casio,

Apple started out as a computer for Everyman.

No they didn't. The initial offering was $666.66 in 1976. Since then they have tried to hit all sorts of different demographics in different ways. The 'Pro' in MacBook Pro is not entirely decorative, y' know, though they did soften the offerings in the line quite a bit over the years.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service