I want a Mac!

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by macjealous, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. macjealous macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #1
    Greetings! I have been reading MacRumors: Forums for quite some time. I really want to buy a Mac computer. I currently have a PC and I hate it. I cannot get my wife to let me swith to a Mac. I enjoy gaming and a friend of mine thinks I am crazy for even wanting to buy a Mac. He is awfully proud of PC's and how Apple made the mistake years ago to not appease the masses and become the computer juggernaut like Gates. He tells me that is Apple was better and their computers were better then why don't we change? He thinks Macs are inferior and cost way too much money. I totally disagree but I honestly lack all the Apple/Mac knowledge to put up a good arguement.

    I would appreciate any help to better understand the history in a nutshell and why Macs are the better choice. I don't so much want to convince my friend but I want understand more why I want to switch. Everything I hate on a pc I love on a Mac.

    Thanks in advance ahead of time!
     
  2. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #2
    Better resale value than PC's

    No viruses, adware, spyware, trojans or variants.

    Programs rarely bring down the whole system if they fail.

    iLife - PC's come with a bunch of bundled BS. (Try burning a DVD on a straight out of the box PC - no treat).

    Very reliable - rarely crash (I won't say they never do - they are machines after all.)

    Much more elegant and intuitive GUI, much better productivity than on a PC, IMHO.

    Subjective, but PC's are fugly. Macs are elegant and beautiful industrial design that you can't buy in a PC.

    I'm sure you'll get all kinds of other ideas to work with. Gaming is not a strong point of the Mac, BTW.
     
  3. macjealous thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #3
    Thanks iGary. Should I buy Intel or can I get away with the last generation Macs? Also, what are you thoughts on Apples choice remain different?

    Just curious and thanks again!
     
  4. stonyc macrumors 65816

    stonyc

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Location:
    Michigan
    #4
    If you're getting a Mac to game, you'll likely be disappointed... especially when it comes to the cutting-edge FPS games like FEAR, HL, etc.

    I love Macs for the OS... everything feels more intuitive and smoother. Because of that I feel that anything and everything is available to me, and I know that it won't be all that hard to get to them... I feel like I can get things done easier and faster than I would on a PC.

    I (still) love PCs for the gaming... one advantage I see is the fact that I can custom-tailor every single component from the case (though mostly ugly in comparison to Macs) to individual fans and their controllers... and ahh, overclocking. The choices, though sometimes dizzying, allow me to go as cheap or as expensive as I want.

    With that in mind, really think about why you want to get a Mac. If the reasons are productivity, ease-of-use, security, aesthetics, etc. then by all means go Mac. If the reason is that you want to game, depending on the types of games you play, I think you might look again into a PC or a console system.
     
  5. stridey macrumors 65816

    stridey

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts, Connecticut
    #5
    That seems like a pretty good reason to me...
     
  6. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #6
    It depends on what you do...If you need to run pro apps like Photoshop or Maya, which it doesn't soundlike you do a lot of, you may want to wait.

    If you want to run the standard set of apps that the Mac comes with, the Intel Macs seem to be very speedy from what I saw in the store.

    I'll stick with my nice antiquated PPC chips for a while, though. ;)
     
  7. macjealous thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #7
    thanks stonyc.... I like gaming but I am not hardcore by any means. I really feel that I want a Mac for the ease of use and graphics, gui, etc... Games are fun but not what drives me to even have a pc. I appreciate all of your help. Should I wait to buy an Intel/Mac or get a last generation Mac?
     
  8. macjealous thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #8

    Good point -- I will not be doing any professional stuff anytime soon.
     
  9. thegreatluke macrumors 6502a

    thegreatluke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Location:
    Earth
    #9
    You might want to mention hardware quality.
    All those PC companies cut corners on the quality of their hardware so you get a PC box that craps out on you after six months because something fails for no reason.
    Macs generally have very high quality hardware. Many Mac owners are able to keep their computers for ten years or more without hardware failures.

    There's also ease of use. Using a Mac is a treat. It's kind of like when you get a brand new PC and you open it up and it runs like a charm (if you turn off the "Welcome to Windows!" crapware). Using a Mac is like that every day.
    The interface is nice, too. On a PC, deleting a program is a)looking for the obscure uninstall file, b)uninstalling it, c)getting all the shortcuts/things the uninstaller missed, and d)praying the registry didn't get messed up any more. On a Mac, deleting an application is a)dragging it to the trash.
    No worrying about drivers, no worrying about viruses, no worrying about hardware problems, no worrying about software problems. It's just nice.

    Remeber, those who bash Macs have never used a (modern) Mac. :D
    It's true- some people I know have "switched" people just by having them use their Mac.
    You should force the guy to make him use your Mac!



    Looks like you might want an Intel Mac, since you're not doing anything too professional. Have you tried any out? Those things are wicked fast- most apps open up instantly.
     
  10. ahunter3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    #10
    To answer some of your "history in a nutshell" questions:

    1. This entire article is interesting, but in particular go here, the page that covers the 4 years just prior to the introduction of the Apple Macintosh, i.e., the years during which it was in development. Scroll to the bottom to see the market share graph. As you can see, the IBM-PC wasn't some kind of monolithic presence in the market, with Apple performing some kind of silly Don-Quixote nonconformist act. The market was split and variegated and none of the platforms were very compatible with any of the others. So there was absolutely no reason for Apple to not design and release an entirely new design of computer.


    2. Apple had a vision of a computer that would totally revolutionize the personal computer. It would have a graphical user interface (GUI). It would use a mouse. It would have menus from which commands would be issued. Their first deployment of this vision was an expensive model aimed at the business office, called the Lisa. The far more successful Macintosh followed a year later. At a time when all other personal computers were text-based screen, command-line or numbered-menu driven, these Apple computers let you point and click. See screen shots below.


    3. Apple got a lot of inspiration for the GUI from Xerox. Some people say that Apple stole the OS from Xerox but that isn't so. The OS used on the Xerox machines was not borrowed, stolen, or bought; instead, its ideas, the concepts, the motif of using a mouse and on-screen icons, having been seen there, were reimplemented from scratch at Apple. (Not without permission from and payment to Xerox, btw). In case it isn't obvious, the Xerox computers that had GUIs — the Alto and the Star —*were not computers that you would buy at the Computer store and take home with you and install software. They weren't personal computers and weren't marketed or priced as such. It was more of a minicomputer like the Digital Equipment VAX and probably cost around $25000-30000.

    4. The hegemony of the PC occurred for two main reasons. First off, none of the companies making personal-sized computers was a traditional business-centric company, and using such machines was regarded as a "hobbyist" kind of thing, until IBM released the PC. IBM, producer of huge business mainframe computers and the Selectric™ printball typewriters on every executive secretary's desk, was such a company. Then, once the IBM-PC had a solid lead in the business environment, their architecture was cloned by other manufacturers. IBM did not license this, IBM did not encourage this, and it took away market share from IBM when it happened. What made it possible for it to happen was that IBM used off-the-shelf parts for the PC instead of designing their own from scratch, and they contracted to another company, Microsoft, to produce and maintain the operating system instead of doing OS design in-house. So keep that in mind when folks talk about why Apple should've licensed their architecture like IBM did. That's not how it was. But it did happen, and the price wars made PCs cheap.

    5. Microsoft came out with its own graphical user interface OS, Windows, but I believe that the first version, although it did draw square windows representing directories & etc, was still text-based, designed to work with a text-based screen like most PCs had back then. And the windows would not overlap. No one bought. They made improvements and by Windows 3.1, it was a true GUI (you needed a VGA monitor with actual pixels). It worked a lot like a Mac: double-click things and they open or they launch; click and drag and they move. Overhead menus. The next major version, Windows95, converged even more with the MacOS — the separate Program Manager and File Manager were ditched in favor of a more Mac-like unified Finder-like environment; you could have actual files on your Desktop, like a Mac; there was a Trash Can equivalent (the Recycle Bin) and a customizable Apple Menu equivalent (the Start Menu) and the equivalent of aliases (shortcuts) and individual document icons now had distinctive appearances that indicated what kind of document they were, just like on a Mac. And for the first time, Microsoft had features that the Mac would end up copying later: the contextual right-click menu (present but useless under Windows 3.x), the even-longer file names (the Mac did 32 characters, earlier Windows and DOS did only 8 plus a 3-character file extension), and some industrial-strength OS features (preemptive multitasking and protected memory) — even though the Windows95 implementations of these were very buggy and imperfect, the MacOS just didn't have them at all.

    Be that as it may, Windows95 still lacked a lot of things the MacOS had, or had more sophisticated versions of: multiple monitor (extended desktop) support, speedier file-level operations, sophisticated file-finding, zero-configuration local-area networking, excellent color-management, font management, and precision graphics routines, ability to boot from almost any device containing a copy of the OS (second internal drive, external drive, Zip drive, Jaz drive, CD-ROM, PCMCIA Card, you name it) and so forth; and Windows still came encumbered with lots of negatives that the MacOS was free from: path-dependencies and the registry making it difficult-to-impossible to move applications and still use them; by extension from that, inability to run applications located on a different machine over the network; the morass of ".dll" files used by multiple apps that wanted different vintages, to the point that installing any piece of software could make anything else unstable, including the OS itself; the horrid "multiple document interface" (MDI), or "document-window-within-an-application-window" modality which made graphic multitasking nearly impossible; the operating system's clipboard wasn't as versatile about transferring information (especially formatted text) from one app to another; and installing new hardware generally required far more headaches of driver-installation and configuration than the equivalent maneuver on the Mac.

    No two ways about it, though, the Microsoft OS was no longer a laughable relic that was only market-competitive with the MacOS for unrelated reasons. We Mac folks had reason for preferring MacOS 7.x, 8, and 9 over Windows95 and Windows98, and different ones for preferring ours over NT, but it was at least believable that someone could, conceivably, actually like those other operating systems, could even perhaps prefer them, without being certifiably non compos mentis or lying when they said it.

    And a word about the old MacOS: it did a far better job of handling memory than Windows 3.x, and in many ways a better job of handling a large amount of memory than Windows95/98/ME, despite not having protected memory. And its cooperative multitasking worked far better than, by rights, it should've, making it a viable OS long after preemptive multitasking was necessary in anything else that would be considered a "modern" OS. Individual badly-coded programs could break it, but you could run an impressive slew of well-coded ones side by side if you had the RAM for them. Windows users with their (allegedly) preemptive multitasking and protected memory would be amazed to find us able to run 15, 20, 30, 40 applications concurrently. And we could. (There are MacOS X users who find it hard to believe, too!).
     

    Attached Files:

  11. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #11
    I just got a 17" Intel iMac (I had the Developer Transition Kit, a loaner Intel PowerMac from last June, and Apple offered to give me - and anyone with one - the iMac in exchange for returning the other one a few months early - a clear no-brainer).

    I must say, the Intel iMac is utterly silent unless you hold your ear up to it. I've heard reports of noisy fans on the PPC ones, but the Intel one is silent. I used HandBrake to convert a DVD, and, after well over an hour of pegging the CPU, no noise. None.

    Also, there are apps which won't run on the Intel Macs, but a surprisingly large number do. As an example, I played WarCraft III (I know, not stunningly new) over the net with my brother while conversing via Skype - both apps were emulated, and both ran just fine.

    If you're thinking of getting a 17", get the Intel one. However, as the 20" G5 iMacs are now hovering just above the cost of a 17" Intel iMac, that's a tough call. Depends on how big a screen you want - but the Intel iMacs have a better GPU and two processors.
     
  12. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #12
    Try this test

    Have your friend try Linux for about an hour. Then have him tell you why he likes Windows XP more than Linux. Say that is how most Mac users feel about Windows XP when compared to a Mac.
     
  13. macjealous thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #13
    This is perfect. Thanks a bunch!!
     
  14. macjealous thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Location:
    minneapolis, mn
    #14
    Thanks for your help as well!!
     

Share This Page