JimmySeal Wrote:

marcmiddag Wrote:I still do my anki reviews on a 2002 mac Powerbook.. now show me a Windows PC that lasted more than 2 years...

Srsly? Has your Apple-induced haze really distorted your view of reality that far?

I still have a Compaq tower purchased in...2002. Running Windows XP and it works just fine. I have a Fujitsu laptop 3 years old that I've used mercilessly every day all that time. Still runs fine.
PCs don't last more than 2 years? Puh-lease.

Define lasting of a PC. Yes, most PC systems run fine for years on end. I have a Compaq tower from 1996 here, still with Windows for Workgroups 3.11, still works great. My other PCs i had during the years usually lasted four to five years. That's because i buy the components, so i can be sure, that i don't need to buy anything for quite some time. Cost more, but pays off, if you do. I have one notebook here from 1994, still running, but has a little hole in it's display. Not using it anymore though.

Talking about OS, well ... Windows 95 was a nightmare, 2000 was great, i loved Red Hat, and was fond of Slackware for quite some time. 2000 was the longest lasting system on a PC i ever had, 6 years, without formatting. Now it's the same with this system, it runs and runs and runs, with 7. Yes, i had to format, but not because my system wasn't functioning properly. Just had to make space, it was crammed full with stuff i did in my 3D app, and other Software.

So a PC can last as long as you wish it to run. Taking care of it and it will not fail you. A MAC can be defunct, so can a PC, it all depends on what you are doing with your system. When it comes to buying a system, everyone has to decide, what they want to do with it. A hardcore gamer would not buy a MAC, and a 3D-artist doesn't necessarily buy an Office PC. It all depends.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

damicore Wrote:Because:
#1 Apple products are wildly overpriced and they nowadays use regular intel processors (not like in the PowerPC days where mac could have been a little better at performance).
#2 If support for specific software is what you are looking for then go Windows, it's much more compatible with much more software (And I say this as a graphics design student who uses the adobe suit all the time).
#3 Linux for a change is the best operating system in terms of freedom, modability and for programming. I would change all my machines to Linux if I could replace Adobe CS haha.
I Personally wouldn't spend that much money just for an (arguably) good design. In fact if it were about the design of the product I'd go for the first square blocky notebooks, they just looked so nice

Tired myths are tired.

I'd be glad if you could explain further why any of those are myths?

Tell me how your mac interacts with lets say ANY game out there? What about many indie software tools?

Try, Gentoo, Arch linux or Open Bsd and tell me you've ever used another OS where you could change your Window Manager and that's just the begginning (Start up options and programs unthinked of in a windows or mac)

Apple product's price is high as f*ck, someone proove me wrong.

I'm not an Apple hater, I'm just a consummism hater maybe.

I would say you are a hater, since from your post it's clear that you do not know anything about macs and yet still hate them.

-Many major games also have mac releases such as on Steam
-All older games play fine in a VM
-All new games play fine in bootcamp
-Not everyone is a gamer anyways

Macs are unix based, so most "indie tools" can be built on it such as using fink. There are also a lot of very high quality "indie tools" that are mac native. For everything else, use Wine or a VM.

In any case, the software argument is pointless. It doesn't matter if Windows or whatever has more software. What matters is if it has the software the user wants. For most users, macs have all the software they need.

You can run KDE etc on top of OSX, or even run mac without the normal window manager if you really wanted to (such as on Darwin, which is free). In any case, this is again pointless because most people buy macs for OSX, not the spiffy Apple logo.

Macs are not more expensive than similarly equipped (and build quality) pcs. I priced out a computer for a friend last year and a base model macbook was the cheapest available for that level of cpu/gpu/ram/hdd. In any case, price is not directly comparable since macs are not pcs with an Apple logo. You are paying for the entire package which includes OSX. Yes there are some outliers such as the Mac Pro or the MBA (admittedly expensive for the performance, but so are similarly compact PC notebooks), however those are niche products.

Also, Macs tend to retain their value, so when it's time to upgrade you can often get over half of what you paid back by selling it used. I sold my $2000 MacBookPro for $800 after using it for 3 years and dropping it twice from chest height (causing big dents on the corners). This more than offsets any perceived price difference.

The word you were looking for was consumerism. By buying a PC you are also being a consumer.

There are of course cons to the Mac platform, but you missed all of them in exchange for old myths. It's also pretty lame to burst into a thread with "b..b..but.. macs suck!".

$800 for a replacement mobo for my Mac Pro? Please. The last time someone asked me for that kind of money for such a stupid cheap part, they used a gun.

Where is the like button? @Jarvik7

Yeah, factory options and parts can be a rip, but that's the same at every PC dealer I've seen. I'm guessing that price includes labor too.

One such con damicore failed to mention is that you can't really touch the hardware yourself like you can on a PC. Many pre-assembled PCs use custom mobos so you're still screwed there (unless you replace the case and maybe PSU), but it's still pretty easy to swap out anything else.

You still CAN do it on a Mac, but it's very difficult. I built my first macbook (ibook actually) out of parts scrounged on ebay.

Who cares if you hate Apple or not? If you hate it, don't buy it. When you see something who has one, instead of starting a flame war just think that they've wasted their money. If you love it, buy it. Just don't f***ing try to force your opinions onto someone else who clearly isn't going to agree with you and let the companies marketing department do the work.

I often correct mistakes I see on the forum. It has nothing particularly to do with Macs.

You'll notice I never went on about how Macs are awesome and Windows sucks etc, I just corrected errors the poster made. In fact my initial post was basically just "yawn", but he asked me for specifics...

When I get my MBA I'll be able to afford lots of MACs.

while i'm an anti-apple person (mainly because my brother once worked at the apple store and even now does not shut up about them), i still feel like macbooks are the only reliable notebook computers on the market. it seems that everyone i know who has a laptop has them fail to function properly after 2 years... like their battery dies in 15 minutes or something.

i'm a pretty basic desktop user and i have a small netbook that i carry around with me when i travel... both run windows and there's been no pressing need to switch.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I would say you are a hater, since from your post it's clear that you do not know anything about macs and yet still hate them.

-Many major games also have mac releases such as on Steam
-All older games play fine in a VM
-All new games play fine in bootcamp
-Not everyone is a gamer anyways

Macs are unix based, so most "indie tools" can be built on it such as using fink. There are also a lot of very high quality "indie tools" that are mac native. For everything else, use Wine or a VM.

In any case, the software argument is pointless. It doesn't matter if Windows or whatever has more software. What matters is if it has the software the user wants. For most users, macs have all the software they need.

You can run KDE etc on top of OSX, or even run mac without the normal window manager if you really wanted to (such as on Darwin, which is free). In any case, this is again pointless because most people buy macs for OSX, not the spiffy Apple logo.

Macs are not more expensive than similarly equipped (and build quality) pcs. I priced out a computer for a friend last year and a base model macbook was the cheapest available for that level of cpu/gpu/ram/hdd. In any case, price is not directly comparable since macs are not pcs with an Apple logo. You are paying for the entire package which includes OSX. Yes there are some outliers such as the Mac Pro or the MBA (admittedly expensive for the performance, but so are similarly compact PC notebooks), however those are niche products.

Also, Macs tend to retain their value, so when it's time to upgrade you can often get over half of what you paid back by selling it used. I sold my $2000 MacBookPro for $800 after using it for 3 years and dropping it twice from chest height (causing big dents on the corners). This more than offsets any perceived price difference.

The word you were looking for was consumerism. By buying a PC you are also being a consumer.

There are of course cons to the Mac platform, but you missed all of them in exchange for old myths. It's also pretty lame to burst into a thread with "b..b..but.. macs suck!".

Not KDE or Gnome, but DWM (http://dwm.suckless.org/screenshots/) or http://awesome.naquadah.org/. I think you can't even install openbox on a mac though I might be wrong there. Still if you could install KDE in a mac you should kind of hack it in a way, wouldn't you?

Consuming stuff doesn't make you a consumerist, but consuming stuff for their brand DOES. Everyone consumes nowadays, consumerism is more of a way of life (or lack of thereof). I think you should deepen a bit more on this subject as you seem not to quite understand what it really is.

I am not a gamer, but my point is most of the games aren't playable on a mac (we all know VMs are not that accurate, specially when it comes to Direct X). Try getting a mac version of Mabinogi, Talesweaver or most MMORPGs around the corner nowadays, or try running a powerful one in your mac.

How can the software argument be useless? What's a computer without software? :S
And if you want a good OS then go Open Source of course.

Quote:Macs are not more expensive than similarly equipped (and build quality) pcs. I priced out a computer for a friend last year and a base model macbook was the cheapest available for that level of cpu/gpu/ram/hdd.

I'd like to know more about that since last time I checked to get me my notebook, macs were ridiculously expensive compared to local production or brands as toshiba or even HP.

Why aren't macs PCs with an apple logo? Their sort of that nowadays without their PowerPCs.
And then you talk about how people buy macs for OSX when you previously stated it wasn't for the software.
And according to apple's website OSX lion's price is 23,99 €.

I would really want to understand what would make anyone want to overpay for a mac when all the answers you can get are trying to state macs have almost the same capabilities as a PC. You never talked about any pros.
I'm being honest here, I just don't get it. I'm not trying to flame, to start any arguments or anything.
I'm just mad at Apple and Microsoft for making the software and information company more of a benefit to their investors than to the humanity so to speak.

damicore Wrote:Not KDE or Gnome...

So?

damicore Wrote:... macs were ridiculously expensive compared to local production or brands as toshiba or even HP.

Obviously, and that's specially true in the Latin American market. If you research what goes into a Mac you will see that you are paying for the best components and a tested configuration guaranteed to perform much better than the average Toshiba or HP.

damicore Wrote:Not KDE or Gnome, but DWM (http://dwm.suckless.org/screenshots/) or http://awesome.naquadah.org/. I think you can't even install openbox on a mac though I might be wrong there. Still if you could install KDE in a mac you should kind of hack it in a way, wouldn't you?

A quick google shows that it is possible to run both DWM and openbox. I'm not sure why you'd want to buy a Mac to run a Linux gui though. They are both *nix so once you take away the Aqua WM and apps there is no advantage to running OSX. Might as well just install ubuntu or whatever on your Mac.

Quote:Consuming stuff doesn't make you a consumerist, but consuming stuff for their brand DOES. Everyone consumes nowadays, consumerism is more of a way of life (or lack of thereof). I think you should deepen a bit more on this subject as you seem not to quite understand what it really is.

You are confusing buying a luxury brand for the status you think it will give you with buying a high end brand because it has a reputation for ease of use and reliability. People who buy Apple as a fashion statement are a small minority.

Quote:I am not a gamer, but my point is most of the games aren't playable on a mac (we all know VMs are not that accurate, specially when it comes to Direct X). Try getting a mac version of Mabinogi, Talesweaver or most MMORPGs around the corner nowadays, or try running a powerful one in your mac.

Games are even less playable on linux by that standard. VM/Wine on OSX seem to play popular stuff pretty well from what I can see, and for everything else you can reboot into Windows just like you'd have to on linux. Again, most popular titles have native mac ports nowdays.

Quote:How can the software argument be useless? What's a computer without software? :S
And if you want a good OS then go Open Source of course.

You completely misunderstood. The AMOUNT of available software does not matter as long as the software you NEED is available. Example: It makes no difference to me if AutoCAD is available on OSX or not because I do not need to use AutoCAD. The software needs of most users are met with native mac apps, and most other users can be satisfied with VM/Wine unless it's extremely processor heavy.

Quote:

Quote:Macs are not more expensive than similarly equipped (and build quality) pcs. I priced out a computer for a friend last year and a base model macbook was the cheapest available for that level of cpu/gpu/ram/hdd.

I'd like to know more about that since last time I checked to get me my notebook, macs were ridiculously expensive compared to local production or brands as toshiba or even HP.

You were likely comparing vastly different laptops. Plastic crap that implodes in a year (looking at you Toshiba) vs aluminium etc. You can't compare a Mercedes to a Ford Taurus just because they both have V6 engines, there are many other factors to compare as well. There are high end PC laptops, but they tend to cost even more than Macs and are frequently just better design not backed up by build quality or special features. People seem to get confused about this because Apple does not target the netbook or low-end market. The pricing may differ by region (often due to import taxes), but my experience represents Canada/America/Japan.

Quote:Why aren't macs PCs with an apple logo? Their sort of that nowadays without their PowerPCs.
And then you talk about how people buy macs for OSX when you previously stated it wasn't for the software.
And according to apple's website OSX lion's price is 23,99 €.

They aren't PCs with an Apple logo because they are a total system. The integration of hardware and OS is not something you can really compare to an HP with Windows on it. I consider a Mac as an appliance and OSX as it's firmware.
The shelf price for OSX is for an upgrade, since every Mac includes a license for the OS. OSX clearly represents more value than $24.

Quote:I would really want to understand what would make anyone want to overpay for a mac when all the answers you can get are trying to state macs have almost the same capabilities as a PC. You never talked about any pros.
I'm being honest here, I just don't get it. I'm not trying to flame, to start any arguments or anything.
I'm just mad at Apple and Microsoft for making the software and information company more of a benefit to their investors than to the humanity so to speak.

I never mentioned any pros because I'm not a fanboy/hater sticking their neck into threads with worthless posts that contribute nothing to the discussion. I also never ragged on windows or Linux..
Again, there is no overpaying. They might have larger price tags but you are getting your money's worth. Perhaps I am better paid than I thought but $1-2000 is not a bank-breaking amount of money to me, especially whenI can get 50%+ back when I sell it.
No idea where you're going with contributions to humanity. Has the Linux kernel cured cancer or something while I wasn't looking? The whole "greedy corporation" concept is laughably stupid. How dare they make money by providing products people want! How dare they update last year's model! Apple is hardly Halliburton.
It's even more hilarious how people counter "greedy Apple" with MS, a company who got to where they are with shady/illegal business practices instead of desirable products.

Jarvik7 Wrote:The whole "greedy corporation" concept is laughably stupid. How dare they make money by providing products people want! How dare they update last year's model! Apple is hardly Halliburton.
It's even more hilarious how people counter "greedy Apple" with MS, a company who got to where they are with shady/illegal business practices instead of desirable products.

It's not simply a matter of them selling expensive products. Apple is now engaging in the same anti-competition, monopolistic practices that people love to give MS flack for, even though MS straightened out their act a while ago. The fact that I own a $3000 MacBook is a testament to that.

Want to make iPhone apps? You'd better have XCode and a $99/yr membership in the developers' network.
Need XCode? You'd better have OS X.
Need OS X? You'd better have an Apple computer.

With the hardware internals for all intents and purposes the same as a PC, there's no reason that the OS X license agreement should forbid installing it on a non-Apple except that they want to force people to buy their expensive hardware. Hell, you can't even change the battery on one of their portable devices without being at the mercy of their technicians.

Yeah, there's more to the "greedy Apple" claim than just "providing products people want."

"Greedy Company" claim. Let me pose you all a question.
The main goal of a company is to generate profit. Other than the a company's own goals, do they have any other legal or moral obligation in regards to what you are saying?

If, under the assumption in which they don't, is it the consumers right to dictate the decisions of the company or is that the companies job?

DevvaR Wrote:Other than the a company's own goals, do they have any other legal or moral obligation?

If, under the assumption in which they don't, is it the consumers right to dictate the decisions of the company or is that the companies job?

It is the customers' and potential customers' right to point out companies' immoral practices, so that others may judge companies upon their merits and include that in their decision to patronize or not patronize said company. That's why the concept of a boycott exists.

JimmySeal Wrote:It is the customers' and potential customers' right to point out companies' immoral practices....

And is that immorality to any set guideline or standard? Or is it simply the customer's own opinion?

This is not the place to start a philosophical discussion on morality, but within the confines of the law, consumers are entitled to make buying decisions based on their own moral outlook, and to share those opinions with others. Whether others agree with them is yet again, the prerogative of those people.

DevvaR Wrote:The main goal of a company is to generate profit. Other than the a company's own goals, do they have any other legal or moral obligation in regards to what you are saying?

In other words, "they want to make money, so whatever they do is right"?

DevvaR Wrote:"Greedy Company" claim. Let me pose you all a question.
The main goal of a company is to generate profit. Other than the a company's own goals, do they have any other legal or moral obligation in regards to what you are saying?

If, under the assumption in which they don't, is it the consumers right to dictate the decisions of the company or is that the companies job?

These assertions lead towards WW1, 2 and the invasion of several middle-east countries by not just the whole USA-Europe establishment but also the major greediest companies.
Selling weapons to the civil guerrillas and the governments at the same time.
They've killed Osama Bin Laden for christ's sake, a former CIA Agent during the cold war.
"Capitalism and its engine: Consumerism" are a social illness, much more dangerous than what most people think.

Over here we have to types of companies, greedy companies and statal companies. Greedy companies generate false necesities and compete using whatever means they have (Even if that means bribing funcionaries, pressing gobernments, give economical coup d' états, and engaging in monopolistic practices). Greedy companies defeat the whole concept of democracy.
In the middle we have the whole Open Source thing which is quite a step forward in every way (Which is being sabbotaged by both MS and Apple).
On the other hand we have statal companies who really give people what they need, doesn't mind if it means some sort of loss, they'll REALLY try to fit people's pockets and needs.

If you think money is the only motivation a person might have to improve their products then I should point you're awfully wrong there. Once again look at Open Source, profits are not huge but they keep on advancing and making awesome stuff.

+1 for Jarvik7

yaah , let the market be the cure for all of our problems hahaha.
BTW OSX is not nearly a firmware :S It looks like one because of it being so closed. That's what makes it a con.
It practically converts a full fledged PC into a big smartphone (I may have gone too far here but how could an OS having certain Firmware feel be a pro at all?).
Jarvik you certainly sound like a fanboy to me, because of statements like the last one and the statement that all other laptops are "plastic blocks" and how macs are the ULTIMATE LAPTOP. That's mystifying Apple way too much.
I mean come on, ask any programmer what he thinks about Apple.

It seems to me you are too biased towards a side @damicore. Capitalism vs socialism, closed source, open source, right, left, black, white. The world today is much more civilized than it was 50 years ago. I think these ideas are awfully outdated, specially when you look at them as absolute answers or absolute opposites.

Has anyone watched the documentary that the brain scan came from?

http://consumerist.com/2011/05/mri-shows...igion.html (I love that picture. ;p)

damicore Wrote:yaah , let the market be the cure for all of our problems hahaha.
BTW OSX is not nearly a firmware :S It looks like one because of it being so closed. That's what makes it a con.
It practically converts a full fledged PC into a big smartphone (I may have gone too far here but how could an OS having certain Firmware feel be a pro at all?).
Jarvik you certainly sound like a fanboy to me, because of statements like the last one and the statement that all other laptops are "plastic blocks" and how macs are the ULTIMATE LAPTOP. That's mystifying Apple way too much.
I mean come on, ask any programmer what he thinks about Apple.

Please quote where I said any of that stuff (that you just made up). I haven't really made any comments about what I perceive as downsides to other platforms, nor boasted about the platform I use some of the time other than to correct your FUD.

Being closed? A large part of OSX is open source! Sure Aqua and the apps are closed, but they are mostly based on open standards for protocols and file formats. Please stop talking from a position of ignorance. It feels like a firmware because Apple makes both the software and the hardware. Creating that feeling of fit is the whole point, so how is it a con? What you wrote doesn't even make sense logically. It makes the OS like a smartphone? Have you ever even used OSX before?

I am a programmer. Many other programmers use OSX. That is how OSX programs get made. Many computer "hobbyists" use a mac because it's a powerful unix platform that doesn't require the user to waste time fiddling with things to make it work properly. Take your "Macs are for the computer illiterate" stereotype back to the 1990s.

Do you really deny that most PC laptops are creaky plastic? The PC industry is in a "race to the bottom" because they compete mainly on price. Plastic cases are a lot cheaper to manufacture than aluminum.

Only one of us is talking from a position of complete ignorance, and that is you. I actually use PCs more than Macs due to my work and used Windows at home for a decade and a half before switching.
I get it, you love Linux. Grow up and don't jump into threads with your offtopic fanboyish whining about how you perceive something as overpriced (this goes for other posters too). I'd think that If you were actually confident about your platform you wouldn't feel the need to lash out any time Apple is mentioned.

Re: greedy corporation
Apple does plenty that I don't like (like only supporting a single video codec on iOS), but from my POV it usually seems more like an emphasis on design, ease-of-use, cost-benefit, and eliminating legacy than malice or underhanded practice. Not supporting iOS dev on Windows is not a very spectacular example. Most dev environments for embedded platforms only support a single OS. It is logical for Apple to support their own platform before a competitor's. Consider XCode etc isn't available for other platforms, so they'd have to make an entirely new dev environment, or code addons for a competitor's product so they can support devs on a competitor's platform. As Android gains steam I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a minimal Windows dev environment though. How well does MS support embedded development on OSX?

Anyways, it's clear that you know absolutely nothing about and have never used something you clearly hate with a passion (even though it is substantially the same as something you love at its core). OSX is what Linux needs to be like if "year of Linux on the desktop" will ever come true.

There is no real point in my further contributing to this thread since it's clear that I'm talking to a fundamentalist.