OMG, your really blind to the possibility that macs are anything but a complete rip off aren't you?
I'll give you a windows world example of Matrixi's post, my crappy old P2 300mhz toughbook. It used nothing cutting edge when it was made, just tried and trusted components with proven reliability and good performance in a balanced package. When put head to head against a mid priced laptop (core duo) running vista it gave much better performance for real world tasks, browsing, word processing, spreadsheets even for video and music playback it was more responsive than the vista laptop. These things had an extortionate $3000 pricetag when new but considering its still in daily use 15 years later the price is almost justifiable.
Mac's rule in the video, photo editing and CAD world for much the same reason, many motorola macs are still in daily use because the package as a whole (hardware and software) is good quality and has a long lifespan. Its horses for courses, Mac servers get good performance from their hardware as do mac workstations along with the best screens I have ever seen, mac laptops go well with latemochachino's and BS, etc etc.
Now microsoft have finally understood the operating system is not supposed to waste system resources and should manage memory and running tasks effectively and also have security built in from the foundations there is a chance windows PC users can enjoy the same kind of lifespan from their hardware that mac users have become accustomed to.
BTW, I use neither but have a respect for quality in both hardware and software.
Still not native. It's not just about the games, it's about lot of other application. I just used LFS as in more of a joke. Hence the smiley.
No matter how you turn it, or how you praise it, it's still overpriced.
Yes the price contains the price of the OSX. But so do other computer contain the price of Windoze. So for me a weak argument.
And even if OSX is more expensive, you're actually paying more for and OS that can actually do less? I mean, if I'll have to run some Bootcamp or a VM for every other application I want to run, I don't want to pay for such OS. It's like if you bought a super cool car and you'd need a tow truck every time you want to go with it to the store i.e.
I've used Macs before as well, they never impressed me so much that I would actually buy it, because I still see them as pointless toys for people who need something to show to the others how much money they have so they can afford the largest, the best and the most expensive Mac there is on the market atm.
And the argument how you can change internal components in a moment without touching any wires. Really? So now we're buying computers for changing stuff all the time, or using them?
I've never actually opened up a Mac laptop, but I must admit, some HP notebooks are complete and utter crap when it comes to design. Basically because you have to disassemble the whole damn thing before you even get to see the heat sink.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan in M$ or any of their crap either. i just use Windoze for LFS and work, basically because we're developing in .NET.
I'm also not an Apple hatter, it's just my personal view on their computers.
I've been now using and abusing Linux and *BSD for about 10+ years. Usually I just sit back and watch these Winblows/MacOSX fights.
I thought we were talking about current scenarious? Not from when the first computer was born. Still, a PC from nowadays is faster. Maybe Mac's used to rule in video editing and all that, but last time I checked some benchmarks, W7 was faster in most cases with the same software on a Mac 'PC' thing.
That must be the most funny piece of a phrase ever. Sure, they're good, but the best? Any consumer-DELL screen (they use panels from DELL) will out-do them. (like DELL gives better screens to their competitors).
I have to stop you there. I don't know what you call wasting?
Windows has security built in from its foundations since the start.
And to top it, how is an OS relevant to the lifespan of your hardware? Besides, last time I checked, a current Apple device uses mid-end ordinary hardware found in every cheap PC you can find.
Proven wrong how? This is not an objective assessment, this is an opinion. You consider Macs ripoff, some other people don't. Just because you (IMHO for no good reason) fail to understand what people see in MacOS X doesn't make that an absolute truth.
I'm sorry, but you don't have much of an idea what you're talking about, do you? Macs and "PC's" are absolutely the same basic hardware-wise. You can install and run MacOS on any modern "PC", you'll just have a hard time finding drivers for WebCams, WiFi and BT adapters and such kind of hardware. If you bothered to check some real data, you'd find that Windows and Macs are pretty much on par in terms of performance. You cannot really compare performance of two OSes, there are just too many variables.
End-users don't care that much if CINEBENCH finishes in 110 or 116 seconds anyway. Smart, intuitive and responsive user interface is what a BFU is after. A neat UI can actually more than compensate for a few percent slowdown because the user can work more effectively.
Bottomline? Macs are a higher-end devices with according price. You can buy a Corolla, or you can buy a Mercedes. Both will do a perfect job getting you from A to B, it's up to you if you want to enjoy AC'd seats and HiFi stereo while driving and pay extra for that.
I know Mac's use the same hardware. Where did I say otherwise? All I said was they use old stuff.
I was talking about a 'superior' macbook with Windows 7 that out-does the natively installed OSX. It was a while ago on tweakers.net
Exactly, that's why the majority of the people choose wisely and use Windows.
I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion... You said a mac uses the same hardware, so there's no advantage in there, a PC is upgradeable and more versatile.
I can google up some benchmarks that say otherwise and you could probably find yet another win of Win over MacOS; every OS can be tweaked to perform well under certain workload and BFU does not care about the raw performance anyway unless the system is really sluggish. I suggest we stop arguing about performance, if you need it, you can probably also set your computer up to get it...
So Windows 7 interface is somehow axiomatically better than MacOS X interface? I hardly think so. I have experience with quite a bit of UI's and I'm still looking for the perfect one
You took my analogy too literally. With Macs you're not paying for the hardware (although HD WebCam or multitouch touchpad are nice too), you're paying for the whole ecosystem, centralized AppStore and lots of services tied directly to the OS, autoupdates for everything - not just security patches, customer care, it's a bunch of small things you just don't get when you buy an ordinary laptop. Some people enjoy is, some don't need it, but that doesn't mean Macs are overpriced piece of turd and their users bunch of gay wackos.
ive used apple machines on and off and you couldnt get me to use one for a prolonged time if you held a gun to my head
first of all all laptops these days even cheap eeepcs have multitouch pads (although i do have to agree that the one on the mbp is oen of the best)
pretty much every singe workstation case has has hard drive backplates since before jesus was born
its nothing special at all if youre willing to pay the premium for a workstation (which doesnt necessarily include the additional apple premium)
oh boy what an utter load of uninformed bs
just to name a few catia hfss cst and pretty much every other ansys product arent even available for macos
correct me when i write nonsens, but shouldnt Macos beat windows in performance in every single situation? windows has to be shipped as compatible as possible, supporting thousands of intel/amd/via cpu, i guess it doesnt even use sse because there are still some CPU around that doesnt support it. Mac os on the other hand was made especially to work with intels core2 and later processors, which all support up to sse3 at least, they can make use of all the neat features and instruction sets that modern x86 chips come with. it would be bad for for Mac os if its not faster than windows
Fun fact: Windows not only supports and uses SSE, SSE2, SSE4 and SSE4, but it even supports and uses AVX instructions which ONLY are able to run on Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Bull****r CPUs.
Depends more on the coding than the platform optimisation. Osx's bsd origins support nearly everything that can be called a computer, mac have done a lot to it but it wont all be tuned.
Not much to shout about when it took them 10 years to get 64bit stable enough for business use.
Do ou really want scawen to try and replace DirectX with OpenGL? You realize there's a hell of alot of work to do here just to switch to an API that works on mac before cross platfrom code can even be cared about?
This is not an Apple vs. Windows situation here but more of an Open vs. Closed source development thing.
Think of Mac's like the US and SOPA. Tiny little spec on the world trying to stop everyone doing what they normally do, just adding to the financial issues of the world as businesses can't survive on this model.
Think of Windows and Linux users as the rest of the world, sure they sometimes do the wrong things, and break the system, but they are also the realists who know things will sometimes go wrong and accept that you have to experiment to find the good solution that'll actually work.
Rarely is the incorrect term, never is.
Part of User Experience is Usability. You've just contradicted yourself by telling us it took you years to figure out how to use a Mac, which indicates a failure in usability, possibly counter intuitive features such as a lack of a right click?
No different to today then
What you can get out of a Mac OS is very little - The closed source nature means that your Mac is neither personal - Can you make your own taskbar in Photoshop to use? Can you decide what type of menu you want? If it has useful widgets or not?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Generally speaking, only very mainstream developers who are already big can afford to develop for apple - Your computer can do very limited amount of things as a result and just causes compatibility issues with the standard windows OS.
If I recall correctly, apple charges mobile developers to make products for there phones.
Furthermore, the apple OS is as good as worthless to the tech savy person like me. My little netbook already has a hack for it that'll allow it to run your OS, umadbrah? It's got the same components as Your Mac too. Sure it looks more like a cheap netbook, but it also cost me the price of a cheap netbook.
For example, I've been given an iPhone before, and a HTC Desire. The iPhone runs the iOS, my HTC Desire runs the iOS. And Sense. And MIUI. And Cyanogen Mod. And BlackIce. And Icecream sandwich. (Just to name a few) - The developers for my product design for a hobby, in such a nature that I can see what they do as they develop my product and give them feedback! It's an open forum! (XDA )
Same can't be said about an apple product.
There are very logically reasons why you should not buy an apple product and unfortunately it's the misinformation to the public that results in people buying them and getting poor user experience for the money they've paid..
I know everyone comes across as some douche hating on apple products but we're just doing our bit to deter more people from making these mistakes. Y'know
To be fair - they charge very little. And it means that apps are generally of a slightly better quality...
Sony did the same with the PS2 and I think they do the same with the PS3 / Microsoft with the 360.
I've yet to see any Apple product with "netbook components"... can't think of any with Atoms, VIA C7s or AMD Cs?
I never said you couldn't DIY an OSX install - but in no way does an OSX 10v have "the same components" as any Mac.
You implied that there were *no positives* to the Apple platform, at all, and that someone would only purchase one if they were "misinformed".
At no point did I imply there were no benefits to using a Mac based OS, I'm sure if you really scrounge around you can find some Maybe after the 'years taken to figure out', you will xD Oh my.
I'm sorry, I know it's probably provocative of me to argue over stuff like this, and don't get me wrong, I don't like stock windows very much either or linux, or android. Windows isn't true open source and stock android is counter intuitive, difference is you can change them.. Wheras I feel that Apple trains people to be technophobes.. I'd certainly become one spending years learning how to use the basic features of a computer, followed by the rest of my life to make it look how I want it to y'know..
hahahaha, you spent all that money on a new BMW when my 20 year old Lada does exactly the same thing. It's got the same components* as your BMW too. umadbrah?
*and by "components" I mean they both use internal combustion engines... hey, it's all the same, right?
Of all the Mac vs Windows arguments I've seen accross the internet that weren't done by 13 year olds flaming, the quality of the arguments in this thread have to be the worst (ignoring Shotglass and Matrixi)
You're missing the point, and being very obnoxious about it too.
The computers parts in a mac are nothing special, and it's easy for something as crappy and '20 year old lada' esque to emulate. Even though Mac boasts top of the range security that'll never get ported onto other machines; it has. The OS is nothing special. The parts on a mac are nothing special.
Combined with the poor user experience and money drain, it would be shallow to consider the Mac special because it is shiny like a bmw, when the 20 year old Lada can keep up with it.
Sure, if you're the shallow kind of person who likes shiny objects that give you a false sense of social status, it is perfect. But I've yet to hear one genuine good feature about a Mac other than 'it's shiny'.
)
