Is a Mac worth it?

clyde2801 said:

Do you have to reinstall Vista every 6 months to a year like you did with XP? Do you have to run antivirus software on it that slows the computer down or risk picking up malware from just looking at the wrong frakkin' webpage like XP does with IE?

If so, that alone makes mac worth it.

Click to expand...

You've obviously not used Windows for a while. For one thing, Vista is now in my opinion just as stable as Leopard. I have never used antivirus software on any of my Windows machines and while there was the odd problem in the past in that method, I'm now confident that antivirus is no longer necessary on Windows because it is now much more secure. As for IE, they fixed a lot of the holes. If you install something dodgy using ActiveX, that's your fault.

sbb155 said:

Is a mac worth it?
depends.
If you do email, internet, photos, music, etc., it really doesnt matter.
If you do MS office, it really doesnt matter.
The benefit of the mac is for things it does better than the PC - like video editing.
The "cool" factor is something you pay for as well.
There are several reasons to get a mac, and none of them really matter for 90% of computing tasks.

Click to expand...

what he said....but before you drop $$ on any computer/laptop, check with the college b/c some provide a laptop as part of the Technology 'fee' you paid for tuition.

mac's initial outlay are more expensive then windows - you have to be willing to pay for the extra intangible stuff.

yes, it can run windows but if you do you have to buy the windows license - along with all the windows software (aka antivirus, etc.) that you get with a normal pc anyway so in essence you pay twice.

for some, mommy and daddy are paying for everything, so that thought goes right out the windows. like others stated, get in on the apple back to school deals if you really want one.

Or you could wait for Windows 7 which looks to be a huge step in the right direction for MS

neiltc13 said:

You've obviously not used Windows for a while. For one thing, Vista is now in my opinion just as stable as Leopard. I have never used antivirus software on any of my Windows machines and while there was the odd problem in the past in that method, I'm now confident that antivirus is no longer necessary on Windows because it is now much more secure. As for IE, they fixed a lot of the holes. If you install something dodgy using ActiveX, that's your fault.

Click to expand...

That's why I asked. The constant malware on XP, coupled with solutions that adversely affected the performance of my system as much as the problems, was the reason why I switched. I heard so much bad stuff about Vista when it first came out about driver problems, cancel or allow, stiff CPU, GPU and ram requirements that to be honest, I had written it off. Admittedly, I may have fallen victim to a little bit of apple's propaganda about Vista. I have been hearing good things about windows 7, but I think Microsoft has a habit of screwing up software between the beta stage and its release.

I'm actually happy to hear that Microsoft is improving its software. Healthy competition is good for everyone, as it won't enable Apple to rest on its laurels. It'll have to keep steadily innovating new features or have to get more competitive on its prices.

If Vista is as stable and secure as Leopard, doesn't that mean that Apple is playing fast and loose with the facts on its advertising? And why haven't I heard better things about Vista, even from my PC loving only, wirehead friends?

clyde2801 said:

That's why I asked. The constant malware on XP, coupled with solutions that adversely affected the performance of my system as much as the problems, was the reason why I switched. I heard so much bad stuff about Vista when it first came out about driver problems, cancel or allow, stiff CPU, GPU and ram requirements that to be honest, I had written it off. Admittedly, I may have fallen victim to a little bit of apple's propaganda about Vista. I have been hearing good things about windows 7, but I think Microsoft has a habit of screwing up software between the beta stage and its release.

I'm actually happy to hear that Microsoft is improving its software. Healthy competition is good for everyone, as it won't enable Apple to rest on its laurels. It'll have to keep steadily innovating new features or have to get more competitive on its prices.

If Vista is as stable and secure as Leopard, doesn't that mean that Apple is playing fast and loose with the facts on its advertising? And why haven't I heard better things about Vista, even from my PC loving only, wirehead friends?

Click to expand...

I haven't gotten one virus or piece of spyware on my vista 64bit machine, but then again, I don't do stupid things on my pc. My only problem with vista is that it doesn't work 100% after waking from sleep and its search service is buggy. Other than that, it's been pretty much golden for me.

I talked my aunt in to switching to mac when her dell laptop died. I installed Vista on her new macbook and she has not booted in to vista. She loves her macbook, and is happy she has one. I've decided that it isn't worth trying to force people to switch. Its a lot like trying to force people to change their beliefs.

Get one if you want one, but it isn't different at all from windows. There are a few differences but they're negligible.

The answer is simply yes.

The hardware design is far superior to majority of the computer cases put out by other notebook manufacturers. They use better materials and a more precise design and don't cut corners on models to make as many laptops as possible like HP,Toshiba and Acer. Plus who wouldn't want 4-5 hours from a battery.

The software is another aspect. The OS not even mentioning viruses/spyware is more stable and user friendly than windows. iLife software is always a plus as well.

Overall they are more expensive but the rule of thumb will always be "You get what you pay for". You can buy an HP and get 3-5 years out of it for $700 or buy a mac for $1300 and get 10+ years out of it. I still see people with clamshells and such.

PS. Don't be scared off by the differences between OS's. The biggest problem I noticed when I used to sell computers and turn people on to macs is the mindset. Most people are used to things being more difficult in Windows so they complicate things when trying to do the most basic tasks in OSX. All the software integrates together which makes things easier.

MacBook user x one month and I disagree

MacAgent84 said:

The interface is more intuitive than Windows ....

Click to expand...

The Apple interface is NOT so user friendly or intuitive. I have always hated this argument from the time my dad bought his first computer (a mac) while all his kidz had pc's. He called me frequently to help him out with his computer problems and I had a hard time figuring out how to get things done on his mac. That is not the definition of 'intuitive'. It wasn't long before dear old dad went out and got a pc.

That said, I've been using pc's since about 1993 and I just bought my first mac nearly a month ago. In short I can say I am a convert and don't think I'll ever go back to pc's. In the short period of time I've had my mac I've had my share of problems and I am the first one to tell you that the "intuitive" factor is NOT a reason to go mac. If the intuitiveness of a mac were a reason to buy a mac then it wouldn't have taken me over two hours to figure out how to burn photos to a DVD so they could be viewed on ANY computer (thank you, iPhoto, for making this such a difficult task).

My opinion is that "intuitiveness" is based on what you are brought up with. I've been using Windoze since late 1993 and it seemed pretty intuitive to me. If you are brought up on mac then, sure, it will seem intuitive for you.

If one is used to Windoze then there IS a learning curve you will have to work on. Not to mention ... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BACKSPACE KEY.

sbb155 said:

Is a mac worth it?
depends.
If you do email, internet, photos, music, etc., it really doesnt matter.
If you do MS office, it really doesnt matter.
The benefit of the mac is for things it does better than the PC - like video editing.
The "cool" factor is something you pay for as well.
There are several reasons to get a mac, and none of them really matter for 90% of computing tasks.

Click to expand...

Those are the only things I do. And a Mac is worth it. Windows is garbage.

convert09 said:

Not to mention ... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BACKSPACE KEY.

Click to expand...

Its still there on my iMac keyboard But no i know what you mean. There are a few small changes coming from the pc world such as the green button not doing what a pc user would expect it to but it doesnt take long to unlearn

AAPLaday said:

...it doesnt take long to unlearn

Click to expand...

Yes, I am UN-learning things.

What I forgot to mention was that in getting the computer home all I did was the (short) setup and BAM! I was ready to compute. Having no crap-ware is worth it for me.

neiltc13 said:

The fact that OS X does its best to hide what it's doing makes for a counter-productive experience when things go wrong.

Click to expand...

What OS X does is write stuff in the logs where it belongs instead of posting snippets on the desktop. I actually like not being distracted by balloons with information I already know, don't care about, or both

MacAgent84 said:

Yes, they are very much worth the money. Just the price for the LED Backlit LCD screens is worth it alone. No PC laptops on the market have the quality of contrast and color of the MacBook screens.

Click to expand...

I couldn't help but laugh at this comment. While we agree that the MacBook is a great laptop, the screens Apple is using in them are a far cry from what Sony is using in their 13" Vaio Z notebooks. There is absolutely no comparison between these two screens, besides the fact that they are both LED, the Vaio Z LED display blows the MacBook display one out of the water. The MacBook screen is okay, but it is very washed out in comparison to the Sony display. While it is true that this can be fixed to some degree, it still is somewhat disappointing. The MacBooks all have highly reflective glass screens, whereas the 13" Vaio Z notebooks by Sony use a matte display which is not as reflective as Apple's by a long shot. And if anyone wants to disagree with me, please go to your local shopping center and stop by an Apple store and look at the MacBook screen, and then go over to a Sony store and compare the two screens - yes there is that big of a difference. Now to be fair, the Sony laptop is much more expensive than the MacBook, but comments like "No PC laptops on the market have the quality of contrast and color of the MacBook screens" is completely inaccurate and misleading.

RHatton said:

The answer is simply yes.

The hardware design is far superior to majority of the computer cases put out by other notebook manufacturers. They use better materials and a more precise design and don't cut corners on models to make as many laptops as possible like HP,Toshiba and Acer. Plus who wouldn't want 4-5 hours from a battery.

The software is another aspect. The OS not even mentioning viruses/spyware is more stable and user friendly than windows. iLife software is always a plus as well.

Overall they are more expensive but the rule of thumb will always be "You get what you pay for". You can buy an HP and get 3-5 years out of it for $700 or buy a mac for $1300 and get 10+ years out of it. I still see people with clamshells and such.

PS. Don't be scared off by the differences between OS's. The biggest problem I noticed when I used to sell computers and turn people on to macs is the mindset. Most people are used to things being more difficult in Windows so they complicate things when trying to do the most basic tasks in OSX. All the software integrates together which makes things easier.

Click to expand...

How is the hardware design far superior to that of other pc manufacturers? They use the SAME hardware. If you're talking about computer cases, not true. From a functional standpoint, cases from dell, hp, etc are more practical and allow for more airflow. Not as pretty, yes, but certainly not more functional.

Apple uses aluminum yes, but remember that it dents. Apple isn't the only one who uses aluminum either, so using better materials is not really a good point.

As to viruses/spyware, you have a small point, but any competent pc users can avoid them. It's not a big deal at all.

And I find that it is easier to do somethings in windows and easier to do somethings in MAC OSX, but it is definitely easier to get windows to act as you'd like than osx as it is much more customizable.

This whole 10 year nonsense doesn't make any sense either. Most laptops can easily last that long if taken care of. Really, that whole argument has no kind of substance.

im_noahselby said:

I couldn't help but laugh at this comment. While we agree that the MacBook is a great laptop, the screens Apple is using in them are a far cry from what Sony is using in their 13" Vaio Z notebooks. There is absolutely no comparison between these two screens, besides the fact that they are both LED, the Vaio Z LED display blows the MacBook display one out of the water. The MacBook screen is okay, but it is very washed out in comparison to the Sony display. While it is true that this can be fixed to some degree, it still is somewhat disappointing. The MacBooks all have highly reflective glass screens, whereas the 13" Vaio Z notebooks by Sony use a matte display which is not as reflective as Apple's by a long shot. And if anyone wants to disagree with me, please go to your local shopping center and stop by an Apple store and look at the MacBook screen, and then go over to a Sony store and compare the two screens - yes there is that big of a difference. Now to be fair, the Sony laptop is much more expensive than the MacBook, but comments like "No PC laptops on the market have the quality of contrast and color of the MacBook screens" is completely inaccurate and misleading.

Click to expand...

Ditto, I agree. A lot of pc vendors actually use led backlit displays now, and If i could go back in time, I would've gotten a Sony vaio z instead of my macbook.


But I disagree that matte is superior to glossy. That's just a matter of taste.

nutritious said:

Ditto, I agree. A lot of pc vendors actually use led backlit displays now, and If i could go back in time, I would've gotten a Sony vaio z instead of my macbook.


But I disagree that matte is superior to glossy. That's just a matter of taste.

Click to expand...

Had Apple used the MacBook Air display in their MacBook lineup, I might have gotten a MacBook over the Vaio Z, but the poor quality display was a large reason why I chose the Sony over the MacBook. The 13" MacBook Air glossy screen is fantastic compared to their MacBook displays.

In the end, if you aren't overly picky about screen quality, the MacBook is great laptop, it's just that there are other 13" laptops out there with better quality screens.

I got my Vaio Z for school as well, as I needed a portable, lightweight laptop for school. The laptop is awesome and definitely worth the original posters consideration, if cost isn't a major factor. It has a slightly wider screen when compared to the MacBook, which means that there will be no black bars when you watch most widescreen movies. It also has an HDMI port, which makes it really easy to connect to HDTV sets.

No. It used to be worth it when Windows has holes (Pre- XP SP 2), you couldn't get fancy extras like a backlit keyboard, and the Powerbook was thinner then a Dell pro laptop.

Now Windows is better protected from holes then even OS X, the Dell isn't much thicker, they both have a backlit keyboard, and now it's the Dell even has things like a SATA drive and Blu-Ray, for less.

But hey, if you get a mac at least you won't be the dude who got a Dell and put an Apple sticker on it.

Buy a MacBook. But wait for the Back-to-School promotion that Apple hosts every year (last year's started from June) which gives you a free iPod and $100 value printer. In any case, should you have to use Windows for a certain program, you can always install Windows XP/Vista/7 (I'm using Windows 7 right now to type this) using Boot Camp. Boot Camp lets you boot Windows and is entirely native. It's the same as having Windows on a PC. You get the best of both worlds.

nutritious said:

How is the hardware design far superior to that of other pc manufacturers? They use the SAME hardware. If you're talking about computer cases, not true. From a functional standpoint, cases from dell, hp, etc are more practical and allow for more airflow. Not as pretty, yes, but certainly not more functional.

Apple uses aluminum yes, but remember that it dents. Apple isn't the only one who uses aluminum either, so using better materials is not really a good point.

As to viruses/spyware, you have a small point, but any competent pc users can avoid them. It's not a big deal at all.

And I find that it is easier to do somethings in windows and easier to do somethings in MAC OSX, but it is definitely easier to get windows to act as you'd like than osx as it is much more customizable.

This whole 10 year nonsense doesn't make any sense either. Most laptops can easily last that long if taken care of. Really, that whole argument has no kind of substance.

Click to expand...

Toshiba, Dell, HP, Acer/Gateway all use cheap plastic on their cases. They allow for better venting of the fans but you can't deny that they are not durable. Aluminum if dropped will withstand far better than their supposed "durable" plastic which Apple's entire product line now has, opposed to the other manufacturers who only use these materials on certain models. Hell even the polycarbonate macbooks withstand better. The keyboard is still better made on the macbooks with it being unibody. The screen lids and hinges are better made on the macbooks. For years Gateway overtightened the hinges on their notebooks causing the infamous screen crack. Macbooks use slot loading drives without CD trays which Dell JUST NOW adopted. I fail to see how any of these arguments have no substance.

PS. You are forgetting that quite a bit of the computing markets users are not "competent". They do click on stupid links/ads, download bogus torrents and need a more fool proof OS to save them from their ignorance.

RHatton said:

PS. You are forgetting that quite a bit of the computing markets users are not "competent". They do click on stupid links/ads, download bogus torrents and need a more fool proof OS to save them from their ignorance.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I checked my vista machine this morning and had a trojan. No clue how it got there and I'm a pretty responsible user.

Point is, its far too easy for a virus, trojan, or malware to infect a pc. Last I heard, there were about 400,000 in the wild viruses for windows, while mac has 0 in the wild viruses with a handful of trojans and malware, and linux has about 50 or so viruses. The numbers may be off, but it just goes to show that you are safer on a mac or a linux distribution than on vista, xp, and probably even the upcoming windows 7.

Windows Vista and 7 may look pretty to the average joe and have some nice features, but I'd rather have the security and peace of mind that comes with not worring about a trojan stealing your information.

RHatton said:

Toshiba, Dell, HP, Acer/Gateway all use cheap plastic on their cases. They allow for better venting of the fans but you can't deny that they are not durable. Aluminum if dropped will withstand far better than their supposed "durable" plastic which Apple's entire product line now has, opposed to the other manufacturers who only use these materials on certain models. Hell even the polycarbonate macbooks withstand better. The keyboard is still better made on the macbooks with it being unibody. The screen lids and hinges are better made on the macbooks. For years Gateway overtightened the hinges on their notebooks causing the infamous screen crack. Macbooks use slot loading drives without CD trays which Dell JUST NOW adopted. I fail to see how any of these arguments have no substance.

PS. You are forgetting that quite a bit of the computing markets users are not "competent". They do click on stupid links/ads, download bogus torrents and need a more fool proof OS to save them from their ignorance.

Click to expand...

You're wrong in that you think all pc manufacturers use plastic. Not all of their models are made out of plastic, and a lot of the times, their models that are not made out of plastic are cheaper than a comparable mac. And it's not like plastic is necessarily bad as long as it is well put together.

And let's face the facts, the #1 reason for apple using aluminum is aesthetics and #2 might because it's "more green" The only advantage aluminum offers over plastic is that it'll help protect the laptop in case of a fall better and that it possibly dissipates heat better, but it's not like the aluminum is directly covering the cpu or anything, so that's not really a big deal. Other than that, there aren't really any advantages besides looking pretty.

Also, it's not like aluminum is immune from everything. I remember the macbook pros suffering from uneven hinges, keyboard leaving marks on the display, smudge marks, swollen batteries, warping, corrosion, and the list goes on. Even the old macbooks would suffer from cracking in the casing, discolorations, etc. That's not also taking into consideration other things besides the aluminum, such as way too much thermal paste being used on the cpu, which would result in increased temps and the poor quality displays apple uses. Really, apple laptops aren't the end all when it comes to quality.


And as far as the OS, OSX is not fool-proof, it's just not many people target it because of the small market share. Whenever hackers try and take down systems at these hacker competitions, OSX is always the first to fall. It's happened the past 2 years. As OSX gains market share, eventually you'll see people targeting it, and I'm afraid osx users will be unprepared for it, so anyhow, it's always in someone's best interest to be a competent computer user, whether OSX or windows. In fact, I remember an ilife 09 torrent 2 months ago was packed with a virus, so getting one is even possible today: http://blargkaboom.com/2009/01/27/ilife-09-iwork-09-torrented-with-virus/

nutritious said:

And as far as the OS, OSX is not fool-proof, it's just not many people target it because of the small market share. Whenever hackers try and take down systems at these hacker competitions, OSX is always the first to fall. It's happened the past 2 years. As OSX gains market share, eventually you'll see people targeting it, and I'm afraid osx users will be unprepared for it, so anyhow, it's always in someone's best interest to be a competent computer user, whether OSX or windows. In fact, I remember an ilife 09 torrent 2 months ago was packed with a virus, so getting one is even possible today: http://blargkaboom.com/2009/01/27/ilife-09-iwork-09-torrented-with-virus/

Click to expand...

I never stated OSX was fool proof but it is far better in terms of security when it comes to an average user surfing the web and downloading files. The market share argument has been proven over and over to not be valid. Its an excuse people have used for years to explain why OSX hasn't been exploited to the extent Windows has. The architecture of the OS makes it viruses/spyware proof but it is possible to infect it with a Trojan since they are embedded in the software like the example you just presented. Simply finding the file that contains the Trojan and deleting it fixes the problem. This is why I don't download torrents no matter which OS I am using.

RHatton said:

I never stated OSX was fool proof but it is far better in terms of security when it comes to an average user surfing the web and downloading files. The market share argument has been proven over and over to not be valid. Its an excuse people have used for years to explain why OSX hasn't been exploited to the extent Windows has. The architecture of the OS makes it viruses/spyware proof but it is possible to infect it with a Trojan since they are embedded in the software like the example you just presented. Simply finding the file that contains the Trojan and deleting it fixes the problem. This is why I don't download torrents no matter which OS I am using.

Click to expand...

Um, it was NEVER debunked that marketshare has nothing to do with--people just say that. OSX has been exploited before. Care to explain why OSX is always the first to fall at these hacker events: http://edge.i-hacked.com/mac-os-x-first-to-fall. What does that tell me from a logical standpoint? OSX can easily be exploited, but it's just not the main target of people who exploit operating systems because there is really no benefit considering the market share.

I suppose we will continue to watch apples marketshare rise and by your theory the number of hacks will increase. Its been known that Safari has holes so that still doesn't prove your point. I could go on all day about how exploited Internet Explorer as a browser is but that doesn't mean the Windows OS is to blame.

RHatton said:

I suppose we will continue to watch apples marketshare rise and by your theory the number of hacks will increase. Its been known that Safari has holes so that still doesn't prove your point. I could go on all day about how exploited Internet Explorer as a browser is but that doesn't mean the Windows OS is to blame.

Click to expand...

http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/0422, and that's just from a 1 minute google search. What's funny is Internet Explorer 8 is actually more secure than safari.

Look, I'm not a pc fanboy or a mac fanboy. I own both a macbook and a my pc I built, and I just am realistic about macs. there's no point in sugarcoating them.