PDA

View Full Version : MAC VS PC: Flawed Argument! (try comparing apples to apples)


Turnpike
Dec 15, 2011, 10:03 AM
As someone who's spent the last 10 years using PC based computers, and only now in my search/need for professional equipment & software (film editing and Adobe products) have started to investigate Apple products, and since I consider myself TOTALLY unbiased (or favoring PC's, if anything...), and am honestly searching for the best product, it seems to me that the (all too old) argument of "Mac vs PC" hasn't been a fair fight...

This isn't the Ford vs. Chevy type argument that people make it seem- we are not comparing Towncars and Sedan De Villes... two products that do about the same thing and cost about the same and just represent 2 different companies... it seems to me that often at least half of every argument that I've found tends to factor in price. People who complain in reviews or in forums about Apple products nearly always include phrases like "for what I paid" or "for even less I could...." and that a lot of the frustration that exists almost always (it seems to me) factors in the price they paid, since it was more than the other item they were considering... they never say (that I've found) "on a PC it's easier to..." or "Apple complicates it by..."

So if you COMPLETELY eliminate the money factor from the argument, and I do mean COMPLETELY, would it be fair to say that it's almost without argument that Apple products are completely (by far) superior to everyone else's? That the best Apple phone is far superior to ****'s (anybody's) best phone, that Apple's best desktop is far superior to HP/Dell/whoever 's best desktop, and so on? That once you learn to use it, you will be happier and more productive with something from Apple?

For the amount of time (all day every day) I spend on my computer, especially now that it will be increasing to even more time, I've been searching for an HONEST opinion as to what's the best product, and after reading review after review, and after reading complaint after complaint, and comparison after comparison, it seems to me that if you factor out any price-related influence, that there's not even an argument. The more I read/watch online about Bill Gates and or Steve Jobs (and how each very much represents their own company's philosophies) it seems to me that Bill Gates is the licensing/business genius, forcing his product into a zillion sections of the market and that Steve Jobs was the product/user experience genius making the best product possible with the available technologies and it being a runaway success based on the products simply being "insanely great"...

So a year later, after slowly switching to Safari browser (on my PC) and buying an iPhone and iPad, and now getting an iMac.... it seems to me that aside from price-related influence, the the argument for best product (and simply that- comparing PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT to find out THE BEST PRODUCT) it's fair to say that there is no comparison, that Apple is the best made, best designed, and most convenient and productive products out Ferrari to a Ford, but if you're simply going PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT, there is a clear winner, and that there is only an argument at all because the ARGUMENT itself is flawed. :apple:

r0k
Dec 15, 2011, 10:33 AM
I agree but people are still gonna include price in their arguments. Computers are becoming more of a commodity every day. I can read email on a PC or a Mac, edit photos on a PC or a Mac, and so on.

Some decades ago, Japanese cars started showing up in the US. A lot of people asked "How am I going to get parts when they break down?" Nobody could wrap their heads around the notion that the things would rarely need service. The same is true for the Windows user. They think "Who do I know who has a Mac and can help me with this thing?" The thought that they will NEVER NEED HELP hasn't crossed their minds.

This is why you see threads here on MR comparing Macs to PCs based partly on price. Quite often, people on either side of the argument simply cannot visualize how there could be any merit to the opposite side of the debate because they have no experience with the other type of computer or they base their opinions on obsolete information like OS 9 or Windows XP.

Then there are those who are ignorant of the details beneath the surface. For instance, turn on and off capslock on Windows 7. It requires a registry key entry and a reboot. On OS X it is about 3 clicks. Another example, change font and icon size OS wide. On windows it requires a reboot. On OS X again it's about 3 clicks. The last example mildly favors windows. "Move" a file to another folder. On Windows, it's two clicks. On OS X it's more clicks because you have to copy it first then move the old file to the Trash. The moral of the story is that both companies make mistakes but the mistakes on the Apple side are relatively minor and never lead to the dreaded REBOOT simply to apply a setting.

If you focus on the commodity aspect of computing, the argument will continue for a long time. It is only when you look beneath the surface you can find evidence of the inherent superiority of OS X based on the time it saves the user and inherent stability. This coupled with Apple's better than average quality and Apple's best in class customer care makes the decision to buy a Mac an easy one.

hydrophilic
Dec 15, 2011, 10:48 AM
You can upgrade (or buy stock) the components of a Ford (PC) as much as you want, it may even have similar specs on paper (horsepower, torque etc) but it will never be a Nissan GTR (Mac).

jmpnop
Dec 15, 2011, 10:55 AM
You're just trying to justify the high price of Apple products. No doubt Apple products are of great quality but THEY ARE OVERPRICED. If Apple priced Mac Pro at $10000, would you buy ignoring the price? In some aspects, Apple products are superior - like the build quality, design, consistent OS, etc. but Android offers so much more customization and features. So, its more of a personal choice, there's no definite winner. Same thing with custom-built PCs.

Orlandoech
Dec 15, 2011, 11:05 AM
You're just trying to justify the high price of Apple products. No doubt Apple products are of great quality but THEY ARE OVERPRICED. If Apple priced Mac Pro at $10000, would you buy ignoring the price? In some aspects, Apple products are superior - like the build quality, design, consistent OS, etc. but Android offers so much more customization and features. So, its more of a personal choice, there's no definite winner. Same thing with custom-built PCs.

^^^ What he said. I use both PC and MAC and love both for different reasons.

thejadedmonkey
Dec 15, 2011, 11:17 AM
So if you COMPLETELY eliminate the money factor from the argument, and I do mean COMPLETELY, would it be fair to say that it's almost without argument that Apple products are completely (by far) superior to everyone else's? That the best Apple phone is far superior to ****'s (anybody's) best phone, that Apple's best desktop is far superior to HP/Dell/whoever 's best desktop, and so on? That once you learn to use it, you will be happier and more productive with something from Apple?

it seems to me that aside from price-related influence, the the argument for best product (and simply that- comparing PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT to find out THE BEST PRODUCT) it's fair to say that there is no comparison, that Apple is the best made, best designed, and most convenient and productive products out Ferrari to a Ford, but if you're simply going PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT, there is a clear winner, and that there is only an argument at all because the ARGUMENT itself is flawed. :apple:

That's a nice opinion. My opinion is that Windows Phone 7, while lacking some things like apps, is a much better OS than iOS. Having used my girlfriend's droid, iPhone, and my WP7, I prefer my WP7 device the best.

Likewise, when it went to finding a laptop, I decided that a Dell Vostro was the best. It came in a 14" variety (non-existant with Apple) and a dedicated graphics card, again which is impossible to get on any mac that's smaller than a 15". I also needed a metal exterior because plastic feels cheap, a backlit keyboard, a comfortable keyboard (again, this keyboard is even better than a macbook). The best part was the price - about $500 cheaper.

However, since price doesn't come into the equation, all I can say is... I got what was best for me. It was a WP7 and a Dell Vostro.

Moral of the story: Don't make blanket statements, they're not true. Apple computers aren't the best computers ever, they're just another (overpriced IMO) commodity.

Neskeens
Dec 15, 2011, 11:39 AM
The answer to your question is very simple. Apple products, under the hood aren't very different from Dell, HP etc. although there are a lot of customization options for the latter. You mentioned you would want your 'Personal Computer' for the sole purpose of film editing and professional use. Since price is not an issue; I would recommend you doing a little bit of research where benchmarks of film editing software (FCP, Adobe Premier, Avid) has been carried out between Windows and Mac OS X and supplement that with real feedback from the gurus in the studios.

imahawki
Dec 15, 2011, 11:56 AM
I've noticed a few things being a recent convert in the last year.

1) OSX is nicer. This is subjective but I find it to be the case.
2) Bundled apps are nicer (largely related to #3).
3) No crapware. There are a few bundled apps but they are full versions and pretty decent. I don't need AOL pre-installed at this point and I don't need a bunch of Toshiba or HP custom apps (especially prevalent on laptops) that don't really make the experience better an in fact often its worse and can't be removed (or are very difficult).*
4) Fewer problems. My Toshiba was still a $700 laptop when it was new but the touchpad was always buggy. It would move the cursor when I was typing even though through troubleshooting I made 1000% sure I wasn't accidentally touching it and even turned off tap-clicking.
5) General aesthetics. If you can justify buying anything but the most basic products (do you own Oakleys or Ray bans instead of Target sunglasses? Do you a Columbia or Northface coat instead of a Wal-Mart special?), I don't understand how you can object to buying a computer that is just frankly better made. I'm not talking the CPU here, I'm talking the physical machine. No more broken laptop lid latches or trim pieces that broke off after a year.
6) Longevity. I have only had my Macs for a year, but they literally still look, feel, and run like brand new. I've never had a PC that didn't feel old after a year. And I see a lot more REALLY OLD (in technology terms) Macs in use than I do PCs.


*I recently restored a Toshiba laptop because of poor performance and constantly dropping wi-fi. It took THREE HOURS after the install was done to remove the crapware and Toshiba custom apps (like this stupid flashcards app that created a row of soft-buttons that popped down from the top of the screen. It was a host of completely worthless shortcuts that always popped down accidentally due to poor integration. NO, I'm trying to close this window, not launch control panel or whatever it was.

Also note that the existence of crapware and the difficulty in removing it is a big reason for the price differential. If you buy business class machines that don't come with this stuff pre-installed, the price is higher than the Best Buy rock bottom prices people quote when they do a price comparison to a Mac (again, especially with laptops).

snberk103
Dec 15, 2011, 12:03 PM
You're just trying to justify the high price of Apple products. No doubt Apple products are of great quality but THEY ARE OVERPRICED. If Apple priced Mac Pro at $10000, would you buy ignoring the price? In some aspects, Apple products are superior - like the build quality, design, consistent OS, etc. but Android offers so much more customization and features. So, its more of a personal choice, there's no definite winner. Same thing with custom-built PCs.
[bolding is added]
They are not "overpriced". I hate this argument when I see it. A fair "price" is set by the market-place, since we are in a free-market economy. If they were overpriced, they would not be selling. If they were underpriced, they would be selling - but the company would be suffering losses. Apple is both a) selling 'em as fast as they can make 'em, and b) is not losing money. Therefore - by definition - they are fairly priced.

If you can't afford one - don't buy one. It is as simple as that. It's called a "Free-Market". Sigh....

jmpnop
Dec 15, 2011, 12:09 PM
[bolding is added]
They are not "overpriced". I hate this argument when I see it. A fair "price" is set by the market-place, since we are in a free-market economy. If they were overpriced, they would not be selling. If they were underpriced, they would be selling - but the company would be suffering losses. Apple is both a) selling 'em as fast as they can make 'em, and b) is not losing money. Therefore - by definition - they are fairly priced.

If you can't afford one - don't buy one. It is as simple as that. It's called a "Free-Market". Sigh....

Don't tell me $2000 for a MBP is fair:rolleyes:

They still sell because they offer features that no one else does (design, Mac OS, etc)

imahawki
Dec 15, 2011, 12:17 PM
[bolding is added]
They are not "overpriced". I hate this argument when I see it. A fair "price" is set by the market-place, since we are in a free-market economy. If they were overpriced, they would not be selling. If they were underpriced, they would be selling - but the company would be suffering losses. Apple is both a) selling 'em as fast as they can make 'em, and b) is not losing money. Therefore - by definition - they are fairly priced.

If you can't afford one - don't buy one. It is as simple as that. It's called a "Free-Market". Sigh....

I have a good friend who is an economics professor. Products that are overpriced no longer exist. The fact that Macs still exist and in fact are increasing in market share is absolute proof they are not overpriced. But you're not going to win this argument. People are not interested in the actual definitions of words they use.

snberk103
Dec 15, 2011, 12:22 PM
Don't tell me $2000 for a MBP is fair:rolleyes:

They still sell because they offer features that no one else does (design, Mac OS, etc)

...But you're not going to win this argument. People are not interested in the actual definitions of words they use.

Thanks imahawki, your timing is impeccable....

Hellhammer
Dec 15, 2011, 12:25 PM
^^^ What he said. I use both PC and MAC and love both for different reasons.

So do I. Apple simply can't offer a desktop for my needs, and I need Windows anyway and double-booting or virtualization kind of sucks.

paulrbeers
Dec 15, 2011, 01:09 PM
I switched to Mac 3 years ago because I needed a test system that was OSX based. Then I got into VM which allowed me to cut down from having a Mac, PC, and a Linux box to just my Mac and I haven't gone back (except for my day job where I still rock an Win XP Laptop). To be honest, I did enjoy Windows 7. It was by far the least Suck of any OS released by Microsoft. However, I can't run OS X in a virtual machine so I stick with OSX (which is now my preferred anyway). Nice thing about VM's, I just keep a copy of all my VM's and if one hoses up (i.e. gets a virus), I just pull in the backup. That makes dealing with Windows and all it's "Quirks" much more agreeable....

Turnpike
Dec 15, 2011, 01:12 PM
You're just trying to justify the high price of Apple products. No doubt Apple products are of great quality but THEY ARE OVERPRICED. If Apple priced Mac Pro at $10000, would you buy ignoring the price? In some aspects, Apple products are superior - like the build quality, design, consistent OS, etc. but Android offers so much more customization and features. So, its more of a personal choice, there's no definite winner. Same thing with custom-built PCs.

This reinforces my point- the only regular, consistent complaint people have is "price" and not anything related to the quality/performance. We're talking about the better PRODUCT, not PRICE. Superior products SHOULD cost more! (not that I WANT to pay more)

Next time you hear someone say "Look- a Lamborghini!" and you hear someone else reply "stupid overpriced junk!" instead of "oooOOOooohh woow!" THEN you can start factoring the price into the Mac VS PC argument! :)

Hellhammer
Dec 15, 2011, 01:21 PM
We're talking about the better PRODUCT, not PRICE. Superior products SHOULD cost more! (not that I WANT to pay more)


It's not a better product, it's all up to one's usage. Want a machine primarily for gaming? You are better off with a PC. Want a mid-tower desktop? Apple doesn't make one. Need a laptop with CUDA-supported GPU? Apple doesn't make one. Just a couple examples of at least dozens of different usages where a PC is superior. Likewise, there are cases where a Mac is superior.

blue22
Dec 15, 2011, 01:32 PM
I've always hated the Mac vs. PC arguments as each system clearly has their benefits respective of each other.

But as someone who uses both systems I will say this much: Macs have by far the nicest looking form factor AND their operating system is the most friendly to use and learn. For most people (i.e. non-tech savvy people, those not interesting going "under the hood" of their computers, both physically and virtually) no one is really interested in getting bogged down with re-boots to implement basic system setting changes, nor do they want to deal with constant annoying popup notifications they didn't enable (or thought they turned off) and they value consistent OS stability that isn't compromised by adding an updated application or three. For these main reasons I find that most people tend to favor Macs over PCs in the long run, especially once they've had a chance to try them both out.

As for those that claim Apple products are "overpriced" you people are high. Just as ImaHawki pointed out earlier, nay-sayers are too indiscriminate with their hyperboles of accessing the matter fairly.

Sure, you can build out and DIY a PC yourself, and even get some good deals on some individual parts, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people DO NOT want to build themselves a computer, nor do they have the expertise/patience to do so -- they just want to buy a computer "pre-configured" that has most of what they already need to ultimately focus strictly on their software related tasks.

Unfortunately, people tend to "overbuy" regarding their electronics needs, but that's not the companies fault rather that's mostly the customers for not doing their homework better before settling on a particular product and/or brand. For everyone else, either you're too cheap/broke to afford a decent system out the gate, or you simply haven't done the math when pricing out a similarly spec'd Mac to a comparably spec'd PC to see for yourself that the price differential isn't much between the two systems (usually no more than 10%, with the Mac being more in most cases) so the actual price is a moot standpoint in the grand scheme of things. Those that continue to hang onto this element as their core argument against a Mac just don't know what they're talking about or greatly misinformed.

smali
Dec 15, 2011, 01:41 PM
I used to be like OP trying to justify paying more money for a mac than a brand new one from say Dell or even better self-built. I would say I most definitely bought into the who Apple thing and once you are in it hard to get out (emotionally).

The justification just isn't there anymore, not in this economic climate. Not when you see what windows 8 is shaping up to be and what Lion failed to be.

Seen plenty of videos of people on Windows 8 DP booting super fast and running fast on 5 year old hardware, no problems.

Don't get me wrong, Apple stuff is great (the Leopard years were great) but just not worth the premium they are asking for it now.

Orlandoech
Dec 15, 2011, 01:48 PM
I used to be like OP trying to justify paying more money for a mac than a brand new one from say Dell or even better self-built. I would say I most definitely bought into the who Apple thing and once you are in it hard to get out (emotionally).

The justification just isn't there anymore, not in this economic climate. Not when you see what windows 8 is shaping up to be and what Lion failed to be.

Seen plenty of videos of people on Windows 8 DP booting super fast and running fast on 5 year old hardware, no problems.

Don't get me wrong, Apple stuff is great (the Leopard years were great) but just not worth the premium they are asking for it now.

Apple products are retarded expensive, I hate it.

smali
Dec 15, 2011, 01:53 PM
Unfortunately, people tend to "overbuy" regarding their electronics needs, but that's not the companies fault rather that's mostly the customers for not doing their homework better before settling on a particular product and/or brand. For everyone else, either you're too cheap/broke to afford a decent system out the gate, or you simply haven't done the math when pricing out a similarly spec'd Mac to a comparably spec'd PC to see for yourself that the price differential isn't much between the two systems

You talk about people not wanting to get down on the basics of computers yet you say customers are at fault for not doing research into what computer they want to buy.

Mac's are more expensive and it's HILARIOUS (and rude) that you say price complainers can't afford a decent system yet I can show you a cheap self-build that can run-circles around the base macpro.

It's not about AFFORDABILITY it's about bang for buck.

Upgrading is also stupid on the mac side.

blue22
Dec 15, 2011, 02:06 PM
It's not a better product, it's all up to one's usage. Want a machine primarily for gaming? You are better off with a PC. Want a mid-tower desktop? Apple doesn't make one. Need a laptop with CUDA-supported GPU? Apple doesn't make one. Just a couple examples of at least dozens of different usages where a PC is superior. Likewise, there are cases where a Mac is superior.

I agree with you overall however MOST PEOPLE, the everyday Joe & Jane who are not techies and/or gamers, will prefer a Mac in most cases because of the friendlier environment and minimum learning curve to facilitate their software in via OSX. And it doesn't hurt that Macs are easier on the eyes too. ;)


Don't get me wrong, Apple stuff is great (the Leopard years were great) but just not worth the premium they are asking for it now.

Again, price is not the issue here, people need to stop making it about that and remove this notion of a "premium" as if Apple is pricing their products out of the stratosphere because they're simply not. Yes, they overcharge certain elements (like RAM and HDD for instance) but you can still replace/upgrade these things yourself quite easily for less.

It all comes down to which operating system you feel most comfortable with using to facilitate the majority of your computing needs. Period.

Based on this preference/need is where you make your purchase decision(s). Yet regardless of which OS you're supportive of the market has already set the price for each of the system components, so ultimately the actual featured specs of each vendor's system configuration is going to reflect these combined prices in it's final asking price. If you only have $600 to spend on a computer system you get, for the most part, a $600 computer system, regardless of the brand.

Hellhammer
Dec 15, 2011, 02:20 PM
I agree with you overall however MOST PEOPLE, the everyday Joe & Jane who are not techies and/or gamers, will prefer a Mac in most cases because of the friendlier environment and minimum learning curve to facilitate their software in via OSX. And it doesn't hurt that Macs are easier on the eyes too. ;)

It's a preference. Using a Mac isn't any friendlier or easier than using a PC, it's all up to the person. Most people have grown up using Windows and hence they continue to use Windows today. Learning a new OS is much harder than doing something you learnt years ago, even if you never learnt it that well. Besides, most people's usage is so light that the OS doesn't really matter. Reading email and browsing the web don't really require any learning.

superfula
Dec 15, 2011, 02:30 PM
You're just trying to justify the high price of Apple products. No doubt Apple products are of great quality but THEY ARE OVERPRICED. If Apple priced Mac Pro at $10000, would you buy ignoring the price? In some aspects, Apple products are superior - like the build quality, design, consistent OS, etc. but Android offers so much more customization and features. So, its more of a personal choice, there's no definite winner. Same thing with custom-built PCs.

*sigh* This is such a tired, old argument. Build me a computer from Dell or parts from Newegg that matches what you get with a Mac Pro, part for part. Here's a hint, the prices are very close.

There's no reason to take a $500 Dell desktop and compare it to a Mac Pro when they don't have any parts in common. You can't claim a Jaguar is overpriced if you are in the market for a Lada.

Find me a comparably built laptop from Dell or HP that's significantly cheaper. And not some piece of crap plastic thing. You could do the same with with the MacBook Air and the iMac.

Hellhammer
Dec 15, 2011, 02:49 PM
*sigh* This is such a tired, old argument. Build me a computer from Dell or parts from Newegg that matches what you get with a Mac Pro, part for part. Here's a hint, the prices are very close.

There's no reason to take a $500 Dell desktop and compare it to a Mac Pro when they don't have any parts in common. You can't claim a Jaguar is overpriced if you are in the market for a Lada.

Find me a comparably built laptop from Dell or HP that's significantly cheaper. And not some piece of crap plastic thing. You could do the same with with the MacBook Air and the iMac.

Dell Precision T3500

Intel Xeon W3530 2.8GHz
AMD FirePro V4800
3GB DDR3
1TB 7200rpm hard drive

Total: $1550

Similarly specced Mac Pro: $2499

Samsung 7 Series

Intel Core i7-2675QM
AMD Radeon HD 6750M
8GB DDR3
750GB hard drive
Aluminum body

Price: $1199

Similarly specced MBP: $1799 ($2299 before the update)

ASUS Zenbook

Intel Core i7-2677M
256GB SSD
4GB RAM

Price: $1449

Similarly specced MBA: $1699

Enough? The Dell is from Dell's online stores, others are NewEgg prices so go ahead and check them yourself.

iMac doesn't have any real competitors, mainly because the AIO market is quite dead. iMac only sells because it's Apple.

GermanyChris
Dec 15, 2011, 03:21 PM
I thought the idea here was to take price out of the argument.

snberk103
Dec 15, 2011, 04:18 PM
I thought the idea here was to take price out of the argument.

These types of threads always degenerate into the "I can't afford it, therefore anyone else who bought this overpriced [insert Justin Trudeau's astute but unparliamentary language here] is an idiot, regardless of your personal circumstances!"

So - price over logic.... Too bad, eh?

blue22
Dec 15, 2011, 04:35 PM
It's a preference. Using a Mac isn't any friendlier or easier than using a PC, it's all up to the person. Most people have grown up using Windows and hence they continue to use Windows today. Learning a new OS is much harder than doing something you learnt years ago, even if you never learnt it that well. Besides, most people's usage is so light that the OS doesn't really matter. Reading email and browsing the web don't really require any learning.

So, you believe that with all things being equal, if one was to start out today for the very first time learning how to use both Windows and OSX that the learning curve would be more or less equal for someone figuring out how to manage each system efficiently?

If this is what you're saying then I simply don't agree. Apple has a much better OS GUI system overall to navigate through, especially with regard to first time computer users. Even with changing system settings to grasping the user directory file organization is waaaaay more intuitive to understand on OSX than compared to Windows.

Kilamite
Dec 15, 2011, 04:42 PM
Things I really like about OS X over Windows:

- Keyboard layout and keyboard shortcuts. Having to press CTRL on windows is a pinky job or involves moving your left hand. CMD is placed in an ideal place, and involves very little movement/effort. If you are using CMD a lot in applications, then the position really does matter. Though in saying that, I've remapped CTRL for ALT on Windows, though it gets confusing with the Windows key having functionality in shortcuts in 7.

- Keyboard shortcuts like CMD+TAB and CMD+` are really effective and involve moving the hand very slightly. Those two shortcuts are crucial in an effective workload environment.

- Things generally feel snappier in OS X. Even with Windows 7, I still feel a slight lag in using applications, browsing Windows Explorer etc.

- Hiding applications, using the Dock, Mission Control etc.

- No viruses, and less prone to catching malware or trojans


Things I really like about Windows over OS X:

- Better multiple monitor support. In OS X, if I have say the Dock on display A, and an application display B, the menu bar is always on display A, so even if the application is in display B, I still have to move the cursor over to display A to access the menu bar.

- Better customisation. Ironic, because I like OS X's simplicity, and customisation kind of goes against that.

- Runs Microsoft Office better, and you get MS Access (for when it's unfortunately required). The Mac versions of Microsoft's programs are good, but I find the performance is never great compared to the Windows equivalent.

- Microsoft has moved towards a one OS kind of approach with Windows 8 for tablets and desktops. Apple obviously has OS 11 in the pipeline to compete in that level, but what Microsoft has demonstrated so far looks promising.

--------

I'll always prefer OS X over Windows. I like Macs better than PCs for their build, user input methods (glass trackpad, multitouch trackpad that works well). I don't mind paying more for a Mac than a PC given that it is worth it. With the Mac you get a solid aluminium enclosure, among other good build techniques. Things like Thunderbolt are pretty useful too (I've always been a fan of daisy chaining FireWire stuff) - daisy chaining a display, external hard drives, external speakers etc all from one port makes life so much easier and quicker when using a laptop with that equipment.

Because Apple makes both the hardware and software, the integration and support can't be beaten. If something isn't right with the MacBook Pro drivers, Apple will release an update. If that were a PC, you'd have to get a manufacture update, which may be a separate update box on your task bar tray in addition to the Windows Update. Little things like that make life a pain, and Apple's integration makes it less painful.

blue22
Dec 15, 2011, 04:50 PM
...

ASUS Zenbook

Intel Core i7-2677M
256GB SSD
4GB RAM

Price: $1449

Similarly specced MBA: $1699

Enough? The Dell is from Dell's online stores, others are NewEgg prices so go ahead and check them yourself.

I'll happily pay a little extra if it means I don't have to see any of those stupid specification & product stickers littering my otherwise beautiful Mac laptop chassis right out the box. :D

blue22
Dec 15, 2011, 05:27 PM
You talk about people not wanting to get down on the basics of computers yet you say customers are at fault for not doing research into what computer they want to buy.

Yes and Yes.

Most people don't have the time/interest/patience to learn about their computers and what actually makes them run most efficiently, so they'll usually jump on board with the "pre-packaged" systems that simplifies things for them in this regard, and often they will be plenty satisfied that "it just works" for most of their needs. And nothing is wrong with this. However, companies like Apple exploit this technical ignorance by overcharging for components like RAM, HDD and even the chipset, and I agree that this aspect is not cool of them to do, but it's still the buyer's responsibility to know enough about the product they're looking to buy. Just because you may not be a computer wiz/tinker doesn't mean you can't educate yourself on a given system's performance capabilities in relation to the competition. Else you're going in blind every time, and why should anyone feel sorry for you?



Mac's are more expensive and it's HILARIOUS (and rude) that you say price complainers can't afford a decent system yet I can show you a cheap self-build that can run-circles around the base macpro.

By "cheap" I'm assuming you actually meant "inexpensive", correct?

;)

If you specifically want a Mac, expect to pay more to have one; generally speaking that's all I was trying to say before. Regardless, the reality is that many people do tend to be "cheap" regarding the electronics that they buy. And I don't mean this in an elitist type way, rather it has to do with the tendency of either of the following:


not having the cashflow to afford what they actually want.
not doing a better job researching what they're looking to buy and settling for a product out of ignorance.
overlooking overall value in favor of lower upfront hard costs, not factoring costs over time to operate.


But regarding the "cheap self-build that can run-circles around the base macpro", I don't doubt it's less expensive to do it in this way but, OS platform choice to the side, how much time do you really expect the average person to want to spend DIY'ing their own system? 2, maybe 3 hours at the most? Not to mention all the time it takes to track down the needed parts, assemble them together, and get it all configured to run properly to do what you need it to do. Most people are not that technically savvy to do this for themselves, so even if it's Dell, IBM or Sony you buy your pre-assembled computer from you're still going to pay a premium over the cost of parts to have it assembled for you. Apple does a better job at the overall industrial design and build quality of their computers than compared to their competitors so of course there's at least some cost associated with that aspect of their products retail price don't you think?



It's not about AFFORDABILITY it's about bang for buck.

If it's only about getting the most "bang for buck" then you're looking for an "cheaper deal" upfront and that's not what you're going to find with any Apple product.

However, for what it costs, you generally get what you paid for AND you can trust that the product is going to serve you well for at least a few years in most cases (provided one actually takes care of it decently enough) if not have it last you several years from the date of original purchase. So in many ways it evens out price-wise over time with Apple by not having to service the thing as much, and for most people this is a welcomed benefit of owning a Mac.

thekev
Dec 15, 2011, 05:50 PM
[bolding is added]
They are not "overpriced". I hate this argument when I see it. A fair "price" is set by the market-place, since we are in a free-market economy. If they were overpriced, they would not be selling. If they were underpriced, they would be selling - but the company would be suffering losses. Apple is both a) selling 'em as fast as they can make 'em, and b) is not losing money. Therefore - by definition - they are fairly priced.

If you can't afford one - don't buy one. It is as simple as that. It's called a "Free-Market". Sigh....

OSX has become somewhat of a self perpetuating standard in certain industries due to the availability or stability of staple software in the past. These days they're a lot more interchangeable than before. There are a few areas (like OpenGL) where Apple has fallen behind in performance on comparable hardware, which runs contrary to the idea of getting more out of equivalent hardware under OSX.

On price the only thing that truly irritates me is when they pull something like what has happened with the mac pro. It's always had a high cost of entry, but they've continually downgraded the entry level configuration while inflating the cost of roughly equivalent hardware (adjusted for the current generation) to higher price points. If you look at Hellhammer's price comparison, up until 2009, or so, Apple actually compared pretty favorably with similar configurations on a Dell workstation (their workstations are definitely constructed a bit better than some of their consumer lines).

Don't tell me $2000 for a MBP is fair:rolleyes:

They still sell because they offer features that no one else does (design, Mac OS, etc)

OSX coupled with the hardware makes it difficult to break away from a company like Apple. It basically creates a situation where even if the hardware is less compelling, you're likely to stay due to software /OS. Windows and OSX both have irritating bugs and quirks, but you just kind of learn the workarounds for whichever you use most frequently.

Dell Precision T3500

Intel Xeon W3530 2.8GHz
AMD FirePro V4800
3GB DDR3
1TB 7200rpm hard drive

Total: $1550

Similarly specced Mac Pro: $2499

Samsung 7 Series

Intel Core i7-2675QM
AMD Radeon HD 6750M
8GB DDR3
750GB hard drive
Aluminum body

Price: $1199

Similarly specced MBP: $1799 ($2299 before the update)

ASUS Zenbook

Intel Core i7-2677M
256GB SSD
4GB RAM

Price: $1449

Similarly specced MBA: $1699

Enough? The Dell is from Dell's online stores, others are NewEgg prices so go ahead and check them yourself.

iMac doesn't have any real competitors, mainly because the AIO market is quite dead. iMac only sells because it's Apple.

Was there ever a real AIO market? It seemed like more of a fad than anything. The imac has simply functioned as a catch all kind of system for consumer desktops. In some cases it's cheaper to go that route than buy a mini once the entire purchase is calculated.

So, you believe that with all things being equal, if one was to start out today for the very first time learning how to use both Windows and OSX that the learning curve would be more or less equal for someone figuring out how to manage each system efficiently?

If this is what you're saying then I simply don't agree. Apple has a much better OS GUI system overall to navigate through, especially with regard to first time computer users. Even with changing system settings to grasping the user directory file organization is waaaaay more intuitive to understand on OSX than compared to Windows.

Neither is difficult to learn. There's just nothing difficult to them. The irritating things with Windows are mostly flare. If you use a wacom tablet (as an example) it has these irritating tablet pc animations that it will start up, without an easy solution for disabling them (I found the exe file responsible for these stupid animations, and replaced it with a blank text document of the same name). Aero also causes a few issues, but that can be disabled by choosing a non Aero desktop. In OSX, spotlight has caused more issues than any other feature ever added. I have helped people resolve spotlight issues since Tiger. New bugs just seem to pop up every time there's a new OS.

KnightWRX
Dec 15, 2011, 05:51 PM
iMac doesn't have any real competitors, mainly because the AIO market is quite dead. iMac only sells because it's Apple.

Yeah, the HP Omni AIO, the HP Touchsmart PC line-up, the Dell Vostro 360 and Asus' entire ET series (http://usa.asus.com/Allinone_PCs/) are all figments of our imagination. :rolleyes:

snberk103
Dec 15, 2011, 05:54 PM
....
Mac's are more expensive and it's HILARIOUS (and rude) that you say price complainers can't afford a decent system yet I can show you a cheap self-build that can run-circles around the base macpro.

It's not about AFFORDABILITY it's about bang for buck.

...

Comparing any self-build system to any off-the-shelf is, by definition, not comparing apples to apples - or "bang for buck".

No one seems to add
A) The cost of the labour (yours) for a self-build. This includes the time to build, time to research, time to get the parts or to order them online, etc;
B) The cost of not dealing with a unified warranty process (like AppleCare). With an off-shelf-system still under warranty if you have a problem, you take the system back to the store and they get to figure out which part is mis-behaving, and then repair it - or give you a complete new system;
C) The time to keep several SW bits up-to-date (Bios, Drivers, etc). With an off-the-shelf system most (if not all) of updates are collected for you in one place.

The reason why any self-bulld system is cheaper is because you are subsidizing the initial purchase, and the on-going operations, with your labour. Calculate how much "cheaper" that self-build system is if you pay yourself just minimum wage for the extra time spent. And if you are now so good at building systems that it only takes a few hours, don't forget to amortize the cost of all those hours you spent on building previous systems learning those skills.

I used to build my own systems. Loved it, and learned lots. I would never say however a system cost me "less" - it merely took less out of my pocket at the expense of less time doing other things. While the enjoyment of building systems was high, I didn't count that "cost" - but it was there nonetheless.

Now, I buy my systems... and I get to do other things I find more enjoyable now.

Adamantoise
Dec 15, 2011, 07:29 PM
Well honestly, I love OS X and my Macbook Pro, but I don't think there's anything inherently better about OS X compared to Windows 7.

I've owned my desktop for a year and I've had no issues with it whatsoever. I play a couple games here and there, but most of all I use it for picture editing in Photoshop CS5 and Adobe Lightroom 3.

I just don't see the OS X advantage for my uses. Still I use both OSes everyday.

jsgreen
Dec 15, 2011, 08:59 PM
Whether a product is overpriced or not has to be evaluated by the value the product delivers, not just the sum of its physical (and bundled software) parts.

For me (and I bet many others) Apple products simply deliver more value. In my case, spending 10+ hours a day on my Windows PC (a Dell) became unbearable...so I switched to a MBA.

Compared to the Dell, the MBA and OS X are just much nicer to use...using the MBA makes me happier and more productive - which makes the higher expense worth the cost.

Hellhammer
Dec 16, 2011, 03:18 AM
Yeah, the HP Omni AIO, the HP Touchsmart PC line-up, the Dell Vostro 360 and Asus' entire ET series (http://usa.asus.com/Allinone_PCs/) are all figments of our imagination. :rolleyes:

Find one that can actually compete with the whole iMac series. The person who asked this specifically wanted comparable PCs, not just random ones. The ASUS link would be comparing a $500 HP to MBP.

Being an AIO doesn't mean that it's automatically comparable to iMac. I have yet to see one that packs in the same components and has 27" hi-res display. Not that I really care because AIO is a stupid form factor anyway.

jmpnop
Dec 16, 2011, 04:29 AM
OSX coupled with the hardware makes it difficult to break away from a company like Apple. It basically creates a situation where even if the hardware is less compelling, you're likely to stay due to software /OS. Windows and OSX both have irritating bugs and quirks, but you just kind of learn the workarounds for whichever you use most frequently.

That doesn't change the fact that they're overpriced...

KnightWRX
Dec 16, 2011, 05:18 AM
Being an AIO doesn't mean that it's automatically comparable to iMac.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I was responding to this exact quip of yours :

mainly because the AIO market is quite dead. iMac only sells because it's Apple.

Never did I claim any of those AIOs were direct iMac competitors. I simply pointed out the fallacy of your statement that the AIO market is quite dead.

superfula
Dec 16, 2011, 09:05 AM
Dell Precision T3500

Intel Xeon W3530 2.8GHz
AMD FirePro V4800
3GB DDR3
1TB 7200rpm hard drive

Total: $1550

Similarly specced Mac Pro: $2499

Really, the Nehalem? One pos Dell based on a processor over a year old? Please, this isn't hard.

Samsung 7 Series

Intel Core i7-2675QM
AMD Radeon HD 6750M
8GB DDR3
750GB hard drive
Aluminum body

Price: $1199

Similarly specced MBP: $1799 ($2299 before the update)

Sure, it's cheaper. But it's also a poorly build computer (see the reviews). Perhaps I should have included crap metal computers as well, but it should have been obvious. Like I said, you can't compare a Lada to a Jaguar.

ASUS Zenbook

Intel Core i7-2677M
256GB SSD
4GB RAM

Price: $1449

Similarly specced MBA: $1699

Seriously, do you have any clue about these computers or were you just looking at prices? The Asus is a nice computer, but the trackpad and dealing with Asus to get it serviced is EASILY worth $250. Not to mention OS X.

Enough? The Dell is from Dell's online stores, others are NewEgg prices so go ahead and check them yourself.

iMac doesn't have any real competitors, mainly because the AIO market is quite dead. iMac only sells because it's Apple.

Still waiting for one. You've already been called out on your AIO crap, so no need to do that as well. I wish I could say I expected better from you, Hellhammer.

Whether a product is overpriced or not has to be evaluated by the value the product delivers, not just the sum of its physical (and bundled software) parts.

For me (and I bet many others) Apple products simply deliver more value. In my case, spending 10+ hours a day on my Windows PC (a Dell) became unbearable...so I switched to a MBA.

Compared to the Dell, the MBA and OS X are just much nicer to use...using the MBA makes me happier and more productive - which makes the higher expense worth the cost.

Very well said. Apparently that point was missed in my post.

dejo
Dec 16, 2011, 09:12 AM
That doesn't change the fact that they're overpriced...

Quit stating this like it's a fact. It's simply an opinion... yours.

Hellhammer
Dec 16, 2011, 10:08 AM
Really, the Nehalem? Compare the Westmere builds. One pos Dell based on a processor over a year old? Please, this isn't hard.

W3530 is used in the Mac Pro Apple is selling today. Why? Because SNB-E Xeons aren't out yet and Westmere was just high-end for SP CPUs.

Change the CPU to W3690 (which is Westmere) and the price is $3030. Similar Mac Pro is $3699.

Sure, it's cheaper. But it's also a poorly build computer (see the reviews). Perhaps I should have included crap metal computers as well, but it should have been obvious. Like I said, you can't compare a Lada to a Jaguar.

And there's $600 price difference, one third of MBP's price. The build quality of MBP alone isn't enough to justify the difference, and I wouldn't say MBP's build quality is all that great (thermal paste, anyone?).

Seriously, do you have any clue about these computers or were you just looking at prices? The Asus is a nice computer, but the trackpad and dealing with Asus to get it serviced is EASILY worth $250. Not to mention OS X.

Maybe for you. Not everyone is ready to fork off $250 because of a trackpad.

Still waiting for one. You've already been called out on your AIO crap, so no need to do that as well. I wish I could say I expected better from you, Hellhammer.

What crap? I said the AIO market doesn't do that well, which is true. The only reason iMac sells is that it's Apple and Apple doesn't make a similarly priced tower.

Turnpike
Dec 16, 2011, 10:33 AM
See how the people want to introduce PRICE into the argument...? People comparing Ferrari's and Fords dont hate on the Ferrari because of the price- they are more likely to point out how the Ford is a lesser product.

Looking through the post, 90% of the time when people are saying something non-pro-apple, they are bringing up the PRICE again.

The whole point of this thread- TO LEAVE PRICE OUT OF IT keeps getting missed.

Plus, as I mentioned somewhere else- what other phone would not look AS MUCH like product placement if the Leader of the MI:4 team were using it. If he pulled out any other phone it wouldn't blend with the movie as well. Right...? :)


http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n639/Vanpictures1234/MI4iphone.png

notjustjay
Dec 16, 2011, 10:48 AM
The whole point of this thread- TO LEAVE PRICE OUT OF IT keeps getting missed.


I'm still not clear on what your point is, then.

That the more expensive product has more features? This is somehow a revelation?

Pricing aside, Macs and PCs have precious little differentiation nowadays. They share all of the same sets of components: same CPUs, same chipsets, same video cards, even the same factories churning them out in China.

Yes, if you have more money to play with, you can get better components. A higher-performance CPU. A heavier-duty chassis. But that's the case whether you get a PC or a Mac.

And OS X versus Windows isn't a matter of "better" or "worse", it is a matter of personal preference.

UlsterApple
Dec 16, 2011, 10:56 AM
I thought the idea here was to take price out of the argument.

Ok lets take out price and put in depreciation.
My G4 Quicksilver cost me 1000 around 2004 and is now worth about 30 on eBay.
The quad-core G5 I had cost around 2000 new in 2005, but sold for under 300. That's SIX years later.
My PC is a quad-core 3.4 Ghz that I built myself seven years ago, and frequently upgrade by replacing the individual bits as required. Cost in total has been under 700, and I recently replaced the case for 30.
I can't do that with my Apple.
My current flat-screen G5 21" cost me around 1000 two months ago. How long is it going to last?
I love Apple to bits, but they can be a real money-pit.

snberk103
Dec 16, 2011, 11:11 AM
Ok lets take out price and put in depreciation.
My G4 Quicksilver cost me 1000 around 2004 and is now worth about 30 on eBay.
The quad-core G5 I had cost around 2000 new in 2005, but sold for under 300. That's SIX years later.
My PC is a quad-core 3.4 Ghz that I built myself seven years ago, and frequently upgrade by replacing the individual bits as required. Cost in total has been under 700, and I recently replaced the case for 30.
I can't do that with my Apple.
My current flat-screen G5 21" cost me around 1000 two months ago. How long is it going to last?
I love Apple to bits, but they can be a real money-pit.

See my post above.... any self-built system is cheaper than an off-the-shelf system, if you count the dollars/pounds/lira/etc alone. Factor in your time (all of your time, to research, build, repair, and play telephone tag to see whose warranty is covering an issue that could be either a SW or HW caused) to get the true cost.

I too used to build my own systems, and keep them running for years with incremental upgrades... but I would never claim that they were - in the final analysis - "cheaper". They require you spend the time to save the dollars/pounds/lira/etc, that's all.

Turnpike
Dec 16, 2011, 11:59 AM
See my post above.... any self-built system is cheaper than an off-the-shelf system, if you count the dollars/pounds/lira/etc alone. Factor in your time (all of your time, to research, build, repair, and play telephone tag to see whose warranty is covering an issue that could be either a SW or HW caused) to get the true cost.

I too used to build my own systems, and keep them running for years with incremental upgrades... but I would never claim that they were - in the final analysis - "cheaper". They require you spend the time to save the dollars/pounds/lira/etc, that's all.

AGAIN- price, money, depreciation.... they keep popping up. If you want the best products available to mankind, you'd buy a Mac. It's that simple. People kept confusing the issue when I asked which was better before I started to learn CS5 (because I had to buy the CS5 Master Suite for PC or Mac) and if they would have elimintated the price from the argument, I'd have gotten my answer.

NOT CARING ABOUT MONEY, only THE PRODUCT, Apple products are (far) superior.

AdrianK
Dec 16, 2011, 12:11 PM
My current flat-screen G5 21" cost me around 1000 two months ago. How long is it going to last?
Wait... you bought an iMac G5 two months ago for 1000?! :confused:

snberk103
Dec 16, 2011, 12:15 PM
...
NOT CARING ABOUT MONEY, only THE PRODUCT, Apple products are (far) superior.

Personally, I agree with you - but only to a point. For you and me, Apple products do what we ask them to do. But.... they are not, across the board, "superior". They are merely "superior" for our needs. For other people, maybe not.... and that is a decision that only they can make. I am often asked by friends to help them decide whether to transition to a Mac. I usually can recommend the change to Macs, but not always.... it depends on their circumstances. For some people, Windows and non-Mac PCs are "superior" for their needs, and I tell them so.

I went from building my own systems directly to Apple products. Both models of computing were "superior" for my needs, at that time.

63dot
Dec 16, 2011, 12:23 PM
From my experiences of using and owning both since 1999, my Macs have been more durable than my PCs. With cost thrown out of the equation, then the Mac is a far better computer on the hardware side.

As for Mac OS vs. Windows, the former was easier to learn how to use but after a long time, one gets used to both platforms and it doesn't really matter what the OS is. I would say that overall, Mac OS is somewhat better than Windows once you know both. However, for a new user, Mac OS is far better.

Then let's get to the real world where most of us have to buy this stuff. You get far more for the money with a PC. Right now, for a desktop, the Mac mini is hard to beat and it's what I have used for a few years without any issues. For laptops, you can get a lot for the money and since Windows 7, the experience has been very good. BTW, my main laptop is a mid-level Gateway and I love it.

boss.king
Dec 16, 2011, 02:19 PM
AGAIN- price, money, depreciation.... they keep popping up. If you want the best products available to mankind, you'd buy a Mac. It's that simple. People kept confusing the issue when I asked which was better before I started to learn CS5 (because I had to buy the CS5 Master Suite for PC or Mac) and if they would have elimintated the price from the argument, I'd have gotten my answer.

NOT CARING ABOUT MONEY, only THE PRODUCT, Apple products are (far) superior.

Their cases are better than most pc cases (most, not all) but that is it. The rest is of exactly the same quality. If you were told different you were lied to.

snberk103
Dec 16, 2011, 03:00 PM
Their cases are better than most pc cases (most, not all) but that is it. The rest is of exactly the same quality. If you were told different you were lied to.

That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.

For better or worse, Apple only uses a small selection of all parts that are available. Which, arguably, restricts a user's choices. However it means the whole package (OS and HW) can be optimally tuned (in theory at least, and in my experience is usually true). Non-Apple PCs are often assembled without a lot of thought about how all the parts are going to work together, and then they often leave it up to the OS provider to figure out the optimal settings within the OS.

Usually it works out. But how often do our Windows colleagues need to find, download, and install some software to resolve a driver incompatibility. How often do we hear about our Windows friends having to resolve a DLL conflict. At least they got past the IRQ conflicts a couple of versions ago.

Windows has an immense challenge - it needs to know about just about every kind of HW it might encounter, and to know how to resolve issues when two pieces of HW don't get along well, or if the SW that drives the HW is conflicting with other things. It is actually a tribute the MS programmers that they can make Windows work as well as it does!

Apple doesn't have that problem. They just need to make the OS work with a very small sub-set of HW parts. And it they can't make a part work well, Apple won't use that part. Problem solved.

Also keep in mind that just because the specs on the outside of the box list better numbers, doesn't mean that the user sees better performance. There's no point putting a kick-tush fast HDD into a laptop if the memory controller throttles the transfer speeds because the computer maker picked an incompatible (but $cheap) north-bridge (or south-bridge, I don't know).

And one final thought. Many many non-Apple PC companies change the versions of the parts going into a single model of system over time. Makes it even more difficult to tune the system since you need to know which parts, and which versions of each part, go into each system.

I like the boring-ness of my Macs. Boring. Predictable. Reliable. Get the job done.

And people wonder why old Macs hold their value so well.

63dot
Dec 16, 2011, 03:11 PM
That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.

(snip)



but I thought all parts inside were made in Cupertino, and that the Macs are fully American made...heck, only the PC side uses offshore parts and labor! ;)

Consultant
Dec 16, 2011, 05:21 PM
1. http://www.apple.com/why-mac/
2. PC / windows frustration tax. Seriously, why does it take so long to install a driver?

smali
Dec 16, 2011, 08:07 PM
AGAIN- price, money, depreciation.... they keep popping up. If you want the best products available to mankind, you'd buy a Mac. It's that simple. People kept confusing the issue when I asked which was better before I started to learn CS5 (because I had to buy the CS5 Master Suite for PC or Mac) and if they would have elimintated the price from the argument, I'd have gotten my answer.

NOT CARING ABOUT MONEY, only THE PRODUCT, Apple products are (far) superior.

Hmm I don't think you're making any sense.

I'll explain.

The Apple "product" you are talking about it just a computer. The thing that makes it different to computers from other vendors is that only Apple branded is allowed to run Mac OS X.

If people must have mac os x (legally) for whatever reason then they have to go with Apple. Apple has no competition in this situation.

If people don't care about the OS but what the computer can actually do for them, then Apple most definitely does have competition. From other vendors, self build, specialists who can build using your parts...the list goes on.

A computer can be a number of things, a gaming machine for one person or just an fuss free internet box for another. Therefore someone after a gaming machine would rather choose a windows gaming pc (for obvious reasons) and therefore that machine would be superior for him.

The guy who wants a fuss free internet machine might say hey Macs are are pretty easy to use, great battery life etc etc, so for him a Mac might be superior.

By coming out with all guns blazing saying MACS ARE FAR SUPERIOR makes no sense. Yes a mac might be superior for you but from some of us it isn't.

Note I didn't even say anything about price yet...

Try to think outside the box a little.

wonderspark
Dec 16, 2011, 10:30 PM
My Mac does almost everything I need, except run Adobe Audition. If I want that on Mac, I have to upgrade CS5 to 5.5. No thanks.

If I were building an edit suite today, it would be PC. Especially an Adobe edit suite. There is no question that PCs run Adobe better than Macs at ANY price. I hope to become a beta-tester for a Mac version of Adobe's benchmark program (http://ppbm5.com/), and see how far down the list the fastest Mac resides on that list.

There's too much focus on PCs with overclocking and what-not for a Mac to compete with a PC in terms of performance. So no, barring price, no Mac is better than the best PC.

I love my Mac Pro, and thankfully, figured out how to upgrade it like it should be... no thanks to Apple!

Suno
Dec 17, 2011, 02:18 AM
Why do you people keep insisting on leaving the price out of the debate? Price is a pretty crucial part of the equation and leaving it out for the sake of simplicity leaves a whole lot unaccounted for.

I keep seeing the word "superior" pop up everywhere. If you are talking about the overall build quality, than yes, Apple computers are levels ahead of their competitors. That's about where the line ends for what Apple computers are superior for.

Let's talk specs. Spec for spec, I could get a cheaper (or better) PC laptop than the MBP. I can probably build one for cheaper as well. In terms of performance and usage, I can basically do anything for cheaper on a PC than on a Mac. And if you include Hackintosh as well, iOS isn't even exclusive anymore.

With that in mind, let's delve into the realm of need. To put it short and simple, if you don't need the computer for a whole lot, than Apple computers are perfect for you. They have incredible build quality and will last you for a very long time. If you need the computer for some heavy duty work that requires some beefy specs, than the PC is obviously superior performance wise.

Hellhammer
Dec 17, 2011, 04:04 AM
Non-Apple PCs are often assembled without a lot of thought about how all the parts are going to work together, and then they often leave it up to the OS provider to figure out the optimal settings within the OS.

Not true. All this "how parts work together" is bullcrap. You can't install a CPU into PCIe slot, every freaking PC OEM knows that and they are not trying to do that. If your part is physically compatible with your motherboard, then it will work with all the other parts. Sure, you still need software to use that hardware in OS but that is rarely a problem.

63dot
Dec 17, 2011, 11:11 AM
Why do you people keep insisting on leaving the price out of the debate? Price is a pretty crucial part of the equation and leaving it out for the sake of simplicity leaves a whole lot unaccounted for.




He he, based on some of the signatures of the regulars here, I don't think price is a consideration at all.

thekev
Dec 18, 2011, 11:29 PM
See how the people want to introduce PRICE into the argument...? People comparing Ferrari's and Fords dont hate on the Ferrari because of the price- they are more likely to point out how the Ford is a lesser product.



I use Apple hardware too. Your analogy is unrealistic as the gap really isn't that wide. Apple chooses their price points, which is fine. On some of them they could do better on their offerings (especially the single socket mac pro).

That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.



I'm not going to quote that whole trash post. You're assigning meaning where none exists and making blatant incorrect assumptions that no one else knows how to build a functioning computer. All oems do rounds of testing. In laptops they don't use that much broader of a range than Apple these days. Apple uses quite a few different skus these days, even if they have fewer lines than a company like HP (although I haven't counted recently). The parts are made by the same manufacturers. Foxconn builds for both Apple and other oems. Apple has never catered to the budget end. With Windows, a wide range of hardware is supported no matter what parts an individual OEM decides to use. This does not mean they put all of the work on Microsoft.

Anyway Apple does have to charge enough to recoup the costs of development for the newest versions of OSX, but the way you're reading into it simply isn't how it works.

Steve121178
Dec 19, 2011, 05:01 AM
It's a stupid argument.

Some people prefer Macs, most people choose PC's. As long as you are happy with what you have, who cares what everyone else is using?

The beauty of PC's is that they can be customised to whatever specification you choose and that they are as cheap or as expensive as you want. Whatever budget you have, their is a PC for you, even if you build it yourself. It's easy to see why most of the world opts for the Windows PC.

----------

2. PC / windows frustration tax. Seriously, why does it take so long to install a driver?

It doesn't. Unless the driver has been badly complied, but that's not a Windows problem, that's the fault with the third party for doing such a poor job.

august.eighty
Dec 19, 2011, 06:48 AM
The reason that the MAC vs. PC argument is flawed is because it is comparing a company that bundles hardware / software together in a very consistent manner (making it extremely stable) and a company that doesn't manufacture hardware (or bundle it in any way) but allows third parties to make those choices for it (making it potentially very unstable).

To argue MAC vs. PC should actually be framed as MAC vs. Windows - arguing from the software element alone. Saying MAC vs. PC means you are comparing a very consistent hardware / software system against any of the 100 companies that create desktop computer builds that happen to be running Windows. A better argument would be comparing a particular Mac Pro with a particular DELL Desktop for example.

You can buy a PC from DELL, HP, Toshiba, ASUS, ACER, Compaq, etc., all with different hardware specs, different compatibilities, different motherboards, different processors, different cases - all with their own benefits, problems, advantages, and levels of stability, etc.

When it comes to pre-built hardware / software builds, MAC will always win - because it is the most consistent. When it comes to custom hardware / software builds, Windows (PC) will always win - because it is the most customizable and most easily upgradable. (more on this later).

The value placed on MACs is almost entirely due to the fact that, *out of the box* a MAC will outperform a PC - but only in the short term. It is less bloated, has less compatibility problems, much easier to troubleshoot - it is built as a beautifully efficient workhorse. You don't get this from a PC, 'cause you are at the whim of whatever your particular manufacturer has decided to put together - which often is highly untested hardware configurations, and hardware that will often become unsupported in a few months after purchase (the nature of PC based computing is that products become obsolete on a daily basis.) PC manufacturers are in a race to stay competetive and will often throw things in the machine to increase their specs, at the cost of very unstable builds. (Notice that DELL has new desktop builds on an almost monthly basis - and will constantly throw new hardware into their customization checkout on a DAILY basis.)

All of this is ignoring the 'custom build' side of PC computing. Personally, I custom build my own PC desktop every 12 - 15 months. Every part, from the fans to the CPU cooler, to the case, castors, to the GPU, etc. is bought seperately and put together on my kitchen table. The OS (currently Win 7 Ultimate) is installed from the disc with nothing else installed, and then I quickly over about 1 hour customize the OS to be extremely light - removing every single thing that I don't use; in additional to modifying every customizable option, modifying the registry, editing the BIOS, experimenting with overclock settings, etc. Then one by one install the software / drivers that I need - testing beta versions, diffrerent driver setups, etc. Takes about one day to set up, but in the end, the computer sitting on my kitchen table will be more stable, and outperform (by a large margin) any Mac Pro on the market. (Of course this also depends on how stable some of the hardware drivers are - these days it's rare to run into problems)

So in the end - I would say - a general argument about Mac vs. PC comes down to how familiar a person is with the actual inner workings of a computer. If you just want stability and something that works out of the box - buy a MAC. Hugely stable, very efficient, very well made. If you're up to the task of understanding a great deal about your OS, and researching everything there is to know about hardware and how all the hardware works together (from the fans, to BIOS to the registry) buy a PC.

For me, Mac's are hugely overpriced - only because I know what's going on inside and know that the price is a reflection of stability and not actual performance. But the price is justified for the lack of problems inherent in pre-built PC systems. A good analogy would be - Mac is like a Ferrari. An amazing car that works great right out off the lot. PCs are like hotrods - if you build them from scratch it'll be the best car on road - but if you get it from Ford, it'll be an unreliable, cheaply made mess.

*LTD*
Dec 19, 2011, 07:12 AM
As someone who's spent the last 10 years using PC based computers, and only now in my search/need for professional equipment & software (film editing and Adobe products) have started to investigate Apple products, and since I consider myself TOTALLY unbiased (or favoring PC's, if anything...), and am honestly searching for the best product, it seems to me that the (all too old) argument of "Mac vs PC" hasn't been a fair fight...

This isn't the Ford vs. Chevy type argument that people make it seem- we are not comparing Towncars and Sedan De Villes... two products that do about the same thing and cost about the same and just represent 2 different companies... it seems to me that often at least half of every argument that I've found tends to factor in price. People who complain in reviews or in forums about Apple products nearly always include phrases like "for what I paid" or "for even less I could...." and that a lot of the frustration that exists almost always (it seems to me) factors in the price they paid, since it was more than the other item they were considering... they never say (that I've found) "on a PC it's easier to..." or "Apple complicates it by..."

So if you COMPLETELY eliminate the money factor from the argument, and I do mean COMPLETELY, would it be fair to say that it's almost without argument that Apple products are completely (by far) superior to everyone else's? That the best Apple phone is far superior to ****'s (anybody's) best phone, that Apple's best desktop is far superior to HP/Dell/whoever 's best desktop, and so on? That once you learn to use it, you will be happier and more productive with something from Apple?

For the amount of time (all day every day) I spend on my computer, especially now that it will be increasing to even more time, I've been searching for an HONEST opinion as to what's the best product, and after reading review after review, and after reading complaint after complaint, and comparison after comparison, it seems to me that if you factor out any price-related influence, that there's not even an argument. The more I read/watch online about Bill Gates and or Steve Jobs (and how each very much represents their own company's philosophies) it seems to me that Bill Gates is the licensing/business genius, forcing his product into a zillion sections of the market and that Steve Jobs was the product/user experience genius making the best product possible with the available technologies and it being a runaway success based on the products simply being "insanely great"...

So a year later, after slowly switching to Safari browser (on my PC) and buying an iPhone and iPad, and now getting an iMac.... it seems to me that aside from price-related influence, the the argument for best product (and simply that- comparing PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT to find out THE BEST PRODUCT) it's fair to say that there is no comparison, that Apple is the best made, best designed, and most convenient and productive products out Ferrari to a Ford, but if you're simply going PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT, there is a clear winner, and that there is only an argument at all because the ARGUMENT itself is flawed. :apple:

Nice to see someone accepting reality rather than fighting it.

These obviously don't happen by accident, and especially not over consecutive years:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/apple-tops-u-s-pc-customer-satisfaction-survey-for-eighth-consecutive-time/

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/08/apple-again-tops-j-d-power-rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

http://www.macprices.net/2011/07/12/ipad-defies-skeptics-user-satisfaction-still-increasing-university-of-missouri-survey-finds/

Apropos . . .

http://www.cultofmac.com/135844/why-the-ipad-is-the-most-hated-gadget-ever/

Bloodbath: Why Apple’s iPad is the most hated gadget ever

“As the Apple iPad succeeds beyond expectations, it leaves in its wake an enormous body count of dead and dying products,” Mike Elgan reports for Cult of Mac. “While consumers love it, several major industries have grown to hate it. And for very good reason.”

“It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The iPad was supposed to usher in a new era of tablet computing, creating a thriving new market that looked a lot like the world of smart phones,” Elgan reports. “After gaining an early lead, the iPad was supposed to settle in as a big seller, dominating the high end of the market. Android tablets were supposed to grab most of the unit sales, offering a variety of successful sizes, options and price points. And tablets running proprietary platforms like HP’s WebOS and RIM’s BlackBerry Tablet OS were supposed to bring healthy new sources of revenue to those companies.”

Elgan reports, “But that’s not what happened. What happened is that Apple has asserted an unshakable lead, and no other company has taken significant share.”

Elgan continues, “What’s worse, the vast distance between expectations for non-iPad touch tablets and the ugly reality is causing havoc and possibly even wrecking companies and even transforming entire industries.”

“The first major casualty was the HP TouchPad, which shipped July 1. Although HP had enormously high hopes for the tablet, its reception in the market was so bad that seven weeks later HP announced the termination of all WebOS hardware products,” Elgan reports. “The bloodbath was just beginning. Next up: RIM.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation? It's brutally simple. Apple is very simply a far different tech company from the rest - unusual in nearly every respect. So what happens? They get unusual results, in nearly every respect.

KnightWRX
Dec 19, 2011, 09:17 AM
To argue MAC vs. PC should actually be framed as MAC vs. Windows - arguing from the software element alone. Saying MAC vs. PC means you are comparing a very consistent hardware / software system against any of the 100 companies that create desktop computer builds that happen to be running Windows. A better argument would be comparing a particular Mac Pro with a particular DELL Desktop for example.

Mac vs PC is right. In the end, you're buying these machines not for the OS it runs, but for the tasks you want to accomplish. OS wars are just religious crap some geeks on the Internet like to fight. In the end, what matters is the tasks you want accomplished and if they can be done.

And frankly, between OS X and Windows, about every tasks you'd want done can be done (and for a bit more limited tasks, Linux can fit the bill quite nicely too).

So it really is about hardware features/specs/price. When I bought my MacBook Air, I wanted light, I wanted portable, I wanted full desktop CPU and good GPU. The MBA fit the bill perfectly while nothing on the PC side came close.

Unless you have some tasks that is tied to some platform exclusive application, you shouldn't worry about the OS.

linux2mac
Jan 11, 2012, 06:12 PM
1. http://www.apple.com/why-mac/
2. PC / windows frustration tax. Seriously, why does it take so long to install a driver?


That's the Windows way!! Don't miss those days one bit.

McGiord
Jan 11, 2012, 06:20 PM
With a Mac you can run any software out there.
And with a Mac you can develop for iOS and Mac OS X.
The End.

linux2mac
Jan 11, 2012, 06:50 PM
With a Mac you can run any software out there.
And with a Mac you can develop for iOS and Mac OS X.
The End.

One thing I really like about OSX is Disk Utility. I can make backup images and clone partitions without the need for buying third party software like Norton Ghost during my Windows days.

roadbloc
Jan 11, 2012, 07:20 PM
I'll happily pay a little extra if it means I don't have to see any of those stupid specification & product stickers littering my otherwise beautiful Mac laptop chassis right out the box. :D

An extra 200 for the sake of a few peelable stickers? :rolleyes:

smoledman
Jan 11, 2012, 07:54 PM
So, you believe that with all things being equal, if one was to start out today for the very first time learning how to use both Windows and OSX that the learning curve would be more or less equal for someone figuring out how to manage each system efficiently?

If this is what you're saying then I simply don't agree. Apple has a much better OS GUI system overall to navigate through, especially with regard to first time computer users. Even with changing system settings to grasping the user directory file organization is waaaaay more intuitive to understand on OSX than compared to Windows.

So what you're really saying is OS X is better then Windows 7 for kids learning their first OS. Why not just stick Kubuntu in front of them?

blue22
Jan 12, 2012, 01:45 AM
So what you're really saying is OS X is better then Windows 7 for kids learning their first OS. Why not just stick Kubuntu in front of them?

Whether they're 5 or 55 years old, it's my opinion that OSX is the easier OS to figure out in a shorter timeframe then when compared to doing the same in Windows. But if you want to throw Kubuntu in the mix, sure, go for it, but Windows still ranks last in that new list.

smoledman
Jan 12, 2012, 01:50 AM
Whether they're 5 or 55 years old, it's my opinion that OSX is the easier OS to figure out in a shorter timeframe then when compared to doing the same in Windows. But if you want to throw Kubuntu in the mix, sure, go for it, but Windows still ranks last in that new list.

I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.

blue22
Jan 12, 2012, 03:13 AM
I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.

1st: children are lot smarter & intuitive than you're apparently giving them credit for.

2nd: just because you found a gigantic book holding your hand helpful on a particular topic for furthering your understanding on how to use/do something doesn't mean others will be as comfortable learning in the same manner (or even able to) and ultimately you have to "just do it" in order to finally "get it" and some GUI systems are easier to navigate than others, which was my point earlier regarding OSX over Windows.

Bernard SG
Jan 12, 2012, 03:17 AM
I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.

What is there to figure out about Spotlight?
Anyway it's not for those basic OS tasks that Mac OS makes the difference. It's really when you start to optimize your system setup to your way of working and your specific usage and when, inevitably, you need to troubleshoot. First of all, it will happen much less often on a Mac and when it happens it's usually easy to figure where to look at.
With Windows, you always get the impression that Microsoft engineers are taking a sadistic pleasure at dissimulating the solutions to everyday usage problems.

roadbloc
Jan 12, 2012, 05:18 AM
I'm sorry but this 'OS X is easier to learn' argument is stupid. No desktop operating system is 'easier to learn' than the other. Both Windows and OS X took me time to learn. Both have features that are more simple than the other OS. The preferability comes after you have learnt them. Which OS works with you the best? And that is down to opinion.

dgree03
Jan 12, 2012, 09:01 AM
I'm sorry but this 'OS X is easier to learn' argument is stupid. No desktop operating system is 'easier to learn' than the other. Both Windows and OS X took me time to learn. Both have features that are more simple than the other OS. The preferability comes after you have learnt them. Which OS works with you the best? And that is down to opinion.

I would argue that for MOST people who have used computers for years, windows is much easier to navigate than OSX!

I have never walked into a Bestbuy, Sony Store, Fry's etc and had people there teaching Joe Somebody how to use Windows??

*LTD*
Jan 12, 2012, 09:28 AM
I would argue that for MOST people who have used computers for years, windows is much easier to navigate than OSX!

I have never walked into a Bestbuy, Sony Store, Fry's etc and had people there teaching Joe Somebody how to use Windows??

The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful. It's the Kitchen-sink mentality.

If consumers *already* know how to use Windows, it's because it has been inflicted on them at work and at some point they've had to use a PC. It isn't because of ease, but because of unfortunate necessity.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/563/exphe.png

Good god . . .

dgree03
Jan 12, 2012, 10:07 AM
The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful. It's the Kitchen-sink mentality.

If consumers *already* know how to use Windows, it's because it has been inflicted on them at work and at some point they've had to use a PC. It isn't because of ease, but because of unfortunate necessity.

Image (http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/563/exphe.png)

Good god . . .

Cool so you agree then. For people who use windows for most of their life. It is easier for them to stay one windows, than to switch to a completely different OS?

You always try to dismiss argument with some ridiculous paragraph about something that is always "A Mess" "Or not right". You fail to answer my question...and most peoples questions.

I made no comment on the specific functionality of either OS. I just stated that it was easier for people who are familiar with it. Don't move goals posts.

Steve121178
Jan 12, 2012, 10:08 AM
The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful.

Actually, it works superbly well. I know as I've been running & testing it for nearly 10 months now.

Even the copy & paste of multiple items has been condensed into one box, you can suspend & prioritise jobs, it's ingenious and will be copied by everyone else.

Alaerian
Jan 12, 2012, 10:13 AM
it's ingenious and will be copied by everyone else.
I highly doubt this. :rolleyes:

roadbloc
Jan 12, 2012, 10:43 AM
The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful. It's the Kitchen-sink mentality.

If consumers *already* know how to use Windows, it's because it has been inflicted on them at work and at some point they've had to use a PC. It isn't because of ease, but because of unfortunate necessity.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/563/exphe.png

Good god . . .

[Citation Needed]

Stella
Jan 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
Actually, it works superbly well.

Apple could improve Finder a lot by looking at windows file explorer. For example, IMO, having the directory structure on the left that is expandable is extremely handy - something that should be in the Finder.

*LTD*
Jan 12, 2012, 11:23 AM
Apple could improve Finder a lot by looking at windows file explorer. For example, IMO, having the directory structure on the left that is expandable is extremely handy - something that should be in the Finder.

It's extra cruft. That sort of ancient clutter from the early days of Windows doesn't need to be there.

In fact, Apple is challenging our conventional assumptions about filesystems (iOS), and doing quite a successful job of it at that.

Hellhammer
Jan 12, 2012, 11:25 AM
That sort of ancient clutter from the early days of Windows doesn't need to be there.

That's your opinion. Just because you don't think it should be there doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same way. Having an option for it wouldn't hurt anyone.

KnightWRX
Jan 12, 2012, 11:29 AM
If you ask me, all GUI file managers suck. Windows Explorer, Finder, Nautilus, Konqueror, Dolphin, whatever. They all suck and are quite inefficient.

However, I find that all players involved need to look into Konqueror and their use of kparts. 10 years ago, this was the complete bomb and Apple and Microsoft have yet to even approach the level of functionality and ease of use this provided.

*LTD*
Jan 12, 2012, 11:39 AM
If you ask me, all GUI file managers suck. Windows Explorer, Finder, Nautilus, Konqueror, Dolphin, whatever. They all suck and are quite inefficient.

However, I find that all players involved need to look into Konqueror and their use of kparts. 10 years ago, this was the complete bomb and Apple and Microsoft have yet to even approach the level of functionality and ease of use this provided.

Spotlight what you want and you're there. Bypass file managers entirely. This is what Jobs wanted in 2004. However, he underestimated our habits (which, though habits, aren't always efficient.)

In any event, iOS is tackling this issue.

thejadedmonkey
Jan 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
Spotlight what you want and you're there. Bypass file managers entirely. This is what Jobs wanted in 2004. However, he underestimated our habits (which, though habits, aren't always efficient.)

In any event, iOS is tackling this issue.

If by spotlight, you mean "Find" or "Search", on sterorids, which has existed for years, you'd be correct. And it exists in Windows as well as OS X...

Spotlight is, by definition, a search feature, not a file manager.

If you're claiming that Spotlight is actually a finder replacement (which it obviously isn't, no cut/copy/paste/rename, to name just 4 features), then instead what you're arguing is that Apple did what it always does when it can't figure out how to make something more simple - throw it out and make it completely different and incomprehensible as a replacement.

KnightWRX
Jan 12, 2012, 11:51 AM
If by spotlight, you mean "Find" or "Search", on sterorids, which has existed for years, you'd be correct. And it exists in Windows as well as OS X...

And even then, Spotlight throws out so much crap (like all plist files, headers, libraries, basically anything that contains the sub-string you typed...) it's not even great at searching unless you use the more advanced filters.

NutsNGum
Jan 12, 2012, 12:00 PM
And even then, Spotlight throws out so much crap (like all plist files, headers, libraries, basically anything that contains the sub-string you typed...) it's not even great at searching unless you use the more advanced filters.

True dat.

roadbloc
Jan 12, 2012, 12:13 PM
Spotlight what you want and you're there. Bypass file managers entirely. This is what Jobs wanted in 2004. However, he underestimated our habits (which, though habits, aren't always efficient.)

In any event, iOS is tackling this issue.

Oh ****, I forgot what I named my file...

Hiding File Systems on full desktop OSs from the user will cause nothing but problems. On a mobile device, there isn't much need, as all you want to do is call, text, Facebook, camera, music. However I do think the iPad needs some sort of filesystem implementation from Apple if they are to target it as a replacement to computers.

*LTD*
Jan 12, 2012, 12:18 PM
Oh ****, I forgot what I named my file...

Hiding File Systems on full desktop OSs from the user will cause nothing but problems. On a mobile device, there isn't much need, as all you want to do is call, text, Facebook, camera, music. However I do think the iPad needs some sort of filesystem implementation from Apple if they are to target it as a replacement to computers.

Type in any word or phrase within your file. There it is.

----------

And even then, Spotlight throws out so much crap (like all plist files, headers, libraries, basically anything that contains the sub-string you typed...) it's not even great at searching unless you use the more advanced filters.

How on earth are you getting plist files, libraries and other crap? :confused:

I actually have to dig to find those. What are you using Spotlight for?

I have: Top Hit, Documents, PDF Documents, Look Up, and Web Searches. I type in a phrase in an article or the author's name, and boom, it's there. I want to refer to a paper I wrote last year, or to an idea in it, I type in some keywords and it pops up. There's no confusion.

Insanely useful and convenient.

Stella
Jan 12, 2012, 01:02 PM
It's extra cruft. That sort of ancient clutter from the early days of Windows doesn't need to be there.

In fact, Apple is challenging our conventional assumptions about filesystems (iOS), and doing quite a successful job of it at that.

But if Apple had implemented the expandable directory leaf, it would be fantastic. A gamer changer. Evolutionary.
:rolleyes:
File systems are going to be around for a long time. They are a way of organizing files to security reasons. SJ may have said file systems were the thing of the past, but he was referring to consumer based products, targetted towards the the iCrowd. He wasn't thinking of businesses, or anything more than very light casual computing.

--
KnightWRX , I also get header files (.h) and other results as a spotlight search - to be honest, its a PITA.. and yes, adds so much crap, especially when these files are ranked higher than more revelent results. Therefore you have to use more advanced search filters, which takes more time etc etc.

smoledman
Jan 12, 2012, 01:08 PM
The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful. It's the Kitchen-sink mentality.

If consumers *already* know how to use Windows, it's because it has been inflicted on them at work and at some point they've had to use a PC. It isn't because of ease, but because of unfortunate necessity.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/563/exphe.png

Good god . . .

As opposed to Finder where I can barely perform any file operations efficiently.