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 :)
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
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:
Here's a MacBook Pro (15" display) for $350:
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.
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,
Where is the Apple computer for people with average needs? You know, the person who receives and answers email, does Facebooking, logs into and participates in TA, watches Youtube videos, and plays DVD's?
Why can't/won't they make a laptop even at the $500 price point and let dealers do price competition?
I have some personal knowledge (not anecdotal knowledge, but professional knowledge) that Apple computers aren't particularly better built than HP, Dell, Gateway, ASUS, Lenovo, and other competing products. They show up DOA, fail after short periods of use, and develop other problems pretty much just as frequently as Windows laptops.
It says something about who they (Apple corporate) are that this is the market they want to take advantage of. To me, that's a "real reason" in terms of Mac vs PC.
I have no doubt.
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 hereby throw my hat into the ring in terms of the value proposition.
Consider the hardware. The processing power, memory, and storage contained in a laptop costs more than the equivalent power in contained a desktop (no matter who makes it). It must be smaller, lighter, and more energy efficient. Portability, in other words, costs dearly. (It doesn't always have to cost YOU dearly as a user, but there are ways around that.)
Now consider the software. Virtually all (but not quite all) of the software you'll ever need, from operating system to applications, is now available free of charge. Office Productivity. Video Editing. 3D animation. CAD. Tens of thousands of applications; installable with one click.
As such, the value proposition in paying for software seems rather like paying to have bottled water and bottled air flown in by courier jet when one lives in a remote network of sparkling river valleys in Alaska. At least it does to me as a private computer user.
The system below is what I use at home. It would cost $2,820 if ordered fully assembled in today's dollars, a price which includes the cost of 4 monitors, 3 of which are 1080HD flat panels. The software didn't cost a dime, so every penny went into the cost of the hardware.
Now go to the Apple store and put together a Mac Pro. You're at $3,474.00 with a slower processor, half the RAM, one fewer graphics card, and no monitor. And that's before you've dropped another $300 on Final Cut Pro. Not that the rest of this is Apple's fault, but then you're looking at another $600 on Photoshop, another $700 on Flash, another $400 on Dreamweaver, another $100 for MS Office for Mac, plus whatever other software you're going to pay for. Sheesh.
But with Linux the cost of software is fixed at $0. Want an OS? $0. Want to switch to a different OS? $0. Need some software? $0. Need an upgrade? $0. New version of the OS just came out? $0. (But even if you really do want to pay for some software, you even have that option too.)
Now that's a proposition to really like. There are other things to like about Linux, but being rather fond of money, this one is my favorite.
Quad-Core Intel i7-3820 3.60GHz w/10MB Cache
Intel LGA2011 Motherboard / DX79TO ATX-X79 E Chipset /1xGB Ethernet
64 GB DDR3 RAM (8 x Crucial 8GB PC3-12800 1600MHz DDR3)
2 x PNY NVIDIA GeForce GT610 1GB DDR3 (1xDVI,1xHDMI,1xVGA)
Seagate Barracuda HD 1.0TB SATA 6.0Gbps 7200RPM 3.5"- 5.25" Bay
Samsung 24x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer (SATA)
Corsair HX650 - 650W Modular Power Supply
Antec P183 V3 ATX Mid Tower w/Thinkmate 700/500RPM Case Fan
1 X 27" LED-Backlit LCD - 1920x1080 - ASUS VE278H (VGA, HDMIx2)
2 X 22" LED-Backlit LCD - 1920x1080 - ASUS VE228H (VGA, DVI, HDMI)
1 X 19" LED-Backlit LCD - 1440x900 - ASUS VW199T-P (VGA, DVI)
Logitech Keyboard K120 (USB)
Cyber Acoustics 2pc Speaker System
UBUNTU LINUX Operating System
(Note: The fifth monitor below is connected to TV card.)
These application suites are, at their core, designed for professional use, so I always find it odd that people point out the cost.
What's so odd about pointing out costs, whether as a professional, a consumer, or a business? Professions exist for profit. Businesses exist for profit. Maximize incomes; minimize costs.
Now, Adobe is doing pretty damn well, so they could afford to lower their prices and still remain quite lucrative, but all told, Photoshop represents a fraction of one percent of the income I make using the software and there are no free equivalents. Alternatives? Yes. Equivalents? No.
If an alternative can get the job done without being an equivalent then what difference does it make? My ex-girlfriend was a freelance photographer and picture editor for the Boston Globe and Harvard University. She started using GIMP at my place rather than leave (heh) and go back to her place to use Photoshop on the Mac at her apartment. It took some time to learn her way around but ultimately there was nothing she needed to do in Photoshop that she couldn't do on GIMP. Her Mac cost her over $2500 plus the software and my Linux box at the time was cobbled together from junk I bought at tag sales and eBay.
GIMP may not replace Photoshop in every situation (and I said as much originally) but if finding out doesn't cost a dime, then why not find out?
Why? Likely because of the money Adobe invests in development and in acquisition of solutions not developed in-house.
According to their annual report, Adobe was sitting on a gigantic pile of money last year: $4.3 billion, most of which was cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. They spent $738 million on development, nothing on acquisitions, and $1.3 billion on sales and marketing.
They're not taking your money and using it to build or acquire a better Photoshop product. They're taking your money and using it to convince you it's a good idea to keep giving them your money. At least, that's the way it was in 2012.
If you don't have professional level requirements from what these applications offer -- and not even all professionals in relevant fields require them --, there are free alternatives to a number of the applications* above as well as cheap alternatives with different functionality, as well as expensive alternatives with different functionality for Linux, OSX, and Windows. I mean, why would I put MS Office on my machine unless it was absolutely necessary? That's gross.
If we're looking at a Mac as platform to run primarily one must-have application, then it makes even less financial sense to buy one.
Let's continue to use Photoshop as an example. Absolutely gotta have it? No problem.
Instead of a high-end Mac Pro desktop, buy a more powerful Linux PC. Then buy Windows, install that under Linux, then buy Photoshop and install that on Windows. Done.
Now take the thousands of dollars you just saved buy not buying that Mac and spend them on a nice vacation to the Galapagos Islands. Or maybe go on a pilgrimage to see Steve Jobs' luxury yacht.
A lot of people without much in the way of means could probably compete with or even surpass the results professionals get, if they could only afford the software.