Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My Parents Hate Apple
- Thread starter drs68
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Wow I forgot all about this thread. hah. I'm surprised to see it going. Guess that means I have to reply 
Top of the line? Not since IBM sold off their PC division to Lenovo, BEFORE you bought yours.
Bad karma? You should read some of my earlier posts here. You'll see that I loved OS X and my MacBook up until after I had a few crashes and realized that Macs are ripoffs when it comes to hardware. I was one of the platforms biggest defenders for years (not at this forum). But then I got my Mac and realized what using an Apple computer was really like (no wonder I went with Windows back in the 90s after using System 7 at school) and realized that Macs aren't all they're hyped up to be. Besides, when you can get a system with a GPU thats 2-4x faster than the MBP, blu-ray, faster CPU, 3GB of RAM, etc. for less than the cost of the middle MacBook... well, only the ignorant will defend the more expensive and underpowered platform at that point.
And thats a pain in the ***. The only time I hook either laptop I own up to an external display is when I want to use either one on my HDTV. With my HP, I connect the HDMI cable and audio is re-routed through it, Windows turns off the built-in display and displays only on the HDTV.
With the MacBook I have to connect the TOSLink cable with mini-TOSLink adapter, the mini-DVI to VGA adapter, and the VGA cable. Then if I want to have the built-in display deactivated, I have to close the lid to put the system to sleep and then hook up an external mouse and keyboard. Or I have to turn the backlight off and leave the display active but in mirror mode.
Neither option on the MacBook allows the display to be run at the native resolution of the TV. But Windows detects the native resolution out of the box.
First of all, none of that is true. You haven't had to restart to change resolutions since Windows 95. Windows 98 allowed you to change the resolution on the fly without restarting the system. I remember arguing this with an Apple fanboy 10 years ago. He shut up when I said "i'd rather have to restart the system for a resolution change than have co-operative multi-tasking". heh. Remember, OS X was the first Mac OS to finally have pre-emptive multi-tasking.
Anyway. When you first connect a new monitor in XP, it will automatically start up the second display in "Extended Desktop" mode. You can manage your displays with far fewer steps than you described. Right click the desktop, properties, then settings and its all right there. Theres no going through and telling XP that its connected or anything like that.
Every XP system I have ever used has always detected the optimal resolution for the display as well. When I had XP on my HP and I connected it to my HDTV for the first time, it recognized it as being a 1366x768 display and properly set to 720p60. With Vista it automatically detected the 1366x768 display and set the resolution to 1366x768.
And no, I NEVER had to restart when connecting displays. Never. Not even in Windows 98 when it would run the "New Hardware Found" wizard on new displays.
With Vista, when you connect a new display, it automatically clones the displays and presents you with a screen asking you what you want to do. You can run in extended desktop, mirror, presentation, or external only. It will remember the settings for that monitor indefinitely.
If you want to change the display settings, you can right click on the desktop, Personalize, Display Settings and its all right there. You can configure displays with drag and drop and simple clicks, just like XP (which you missed apparently).
Well, its apparent you haven't connected a new monitor to Windows since the 3.11 days...
FN+F7 only works on Macs. Other PCs have different functionality for the F keys. FN + F7 on my HP turns down the screen brightness, for example.
So the person in that link bought Vista immediately as it was ready and didn't do research to find out there were no drivers for his soundcard? How is that Vista's fault he didn't look before hand? If he had a Creative card, then thats his own fault. The cheap low end Conexant soundcard in my first HP had Vista drivers ready to go before the public betas of Vista.
Another example of the media slamming Vista to appease the fanboys. They publish a blog a year after Vista was released, right before SP1, suggesting people downgrade to XP due to things like IE crashing? Honestly, I've never had IE crash in Vista. I've had Safari crash in XP, Vista, Tiger, and Leopard. But I have yet to see IE crash in Vista.
They mention UAC. UAC only shows up as often as a password prompt in OS X.
Learning curve that comes with switching to a new UI? What new UI? Other than different placement of icons in Control Panel, Aero is just a pretty version of the same UI we've been using since Windows 95. Much the same way as Leopard's UI (can we even call it Aqua any more?) is just a prettier version of basically what Mac OS has ALWAYS been.
They also say system "slowdowns". Whats a "slowdowns"? Vista boots up in about a cool minute with everything installed. That includes the time it takes for it to cache data so all of your most used software loads just about instantly. When you consider how long it takes some apps to load on a fresh start of OS X, I'll take that extra few seconds of boot time if it means FF3, iTunes, etc. all open nearly instantly, compared to the seconds of waiting in OS X.
I really don't understand the point of that link. You link to a forum post by someone who clearly has no idea what they're doing at all complaining that somethings wrong. Maybe if they kept their software up to date these things wouldn't happen. Besides, if you want to talk about software compatibility issues... well, how many pre-OS X apps can we still run on our Intel Macs? How many early OS X apps will still actually run under Leopard? Exactly. Vista is still compatible with the vast majority of all Win32 apps, and compatible with even more thanks to compatibility modes going all the way back to Windows 95.
As long as their Mac doesn't lock up when they click random things. After my experience with OS X, I'll put my trust in Windows before a Mac any day. Just the other day I had OS X lock up when I clicked "update" in iTunes for the new iPhone firmware!
Poor quality substitute at top price? Let's see, a $1099 MacBook has no DVD writer, a 2.1GHz low end Core 2 Duo, an Intel GMA X3100, and 1GB of RAM. A $1,000 HP will have a faster Core 2 Duo or Turion Ultra, 3GB of RAM, twice the HDD space, blu-ray, and dedicated graphics. Oh it'll have a bigger screen too.
So it sounds to me like you hate Apple
So you took a bunch of pictures of computers turned off. Good for you. Doesn't prove anything. I could take a bunch of pictures of computers turned off in a building and say "SEE!? I MANAGE ALL OF THOSE!" doesn't make it true.
Boot speed is a sign of performance? Well, have you paid attention to Leopard's actual boot process. You're presented with a useable desktop at about ~33 seconds, depending on your system. But if you pay attention to iStat Pro or any monitoring software, you'll see OS X still thrashing the CPU and HDD for about an additional 30 seconds. Vista pretty much presents you with a fully loaded system at 60 seconds. So OS X just kind of gives you the illusion of quick boot speed.
You want to talk about loading programs? Well, look how fast Firefox 3 opens on a fresh boot of Vista. Instantly, just like IE or Safari. In OS X? Several seconds. Thats thanks to Vista's caching though. Same thing with iTunes. Vista actually is faster in this regard because it learns what you use and it caches those applications.
If you want to talk about overall performance, you should watch Activity Monitor while using your Mac. You'll see that all software on OS X uses significantly more CPU time than it does on Windows. It seems Apple and 3rd party software developers don't focus on making things more efficient, they just throw more CPU cycles at their program to make it run faster. Look at Adobe Air. Listening to Pandora using the Pandora Desktop (which requires Adobe Air) eats up a good 20% or more of your CPU cycles in OS X. In Windows it peaks at around 5% in a reduced power state. Look at DVD Player too. I've been playing DVDs on PCs since you first could. Even without full hardware decoding, DVD playback software on Windows uses significantly less CPU time. Back on my old Celeron 1.1GHz, DVD playback with just HWMC enabled only ate up around 13% CPU time. Without HWMC, it would go up by 5%. Still less than the average modern Mac, even though the quality is worse.
Its also funny how Apple has changed their stance. They once tried to push the "MHz Myth" yet now they try to convince their customers that performance is all about having a fast CPU. Thats why you've got the MacBook with a 2.4GHz C2D at $1299 but all of the other components suffer as a result.
While other manufacturers realize that the overall package is even more important to performance than just one component being fast.
As I said before, this has a lot to do with Windows utilizing hardware for tasks and OS X being all software based. Anything that can be done in hardware in Windows is done in hardware. Audio tasks are handed off to the audio hardware, video tasks are handed off to the GPU, etc. In OS X, everything is done in software. And thanks to the general overall inefficiency of that coding, CPU cycles are needlessly wasted. Have you watched to see how much CPU time iTunes eats up while just playing MP3s or AAC files? I'm playing a song I encoded right now. Ripped from a CD encoded with LAME 3.98 using the -v 0 --vbr-new setting. iTunes is eating up 6.5% of 1 core. Same song in VLC? 7.6%. If I switch over to my HP and play it in Winamp? Winamp *peaks* at 1%. iTunes in Vista hovers around 2%. Windows Media Player (another hardware accelerated player) is the same as Winamp, 0-1%.
Overall system performance is affected by many many factors. Apple has to have ridiculously fast processors to make up for the inefficient coding and lack of overall hardware support. But as a result of them taking this route, other components suffer.
This also proves that a PC that costs half as much and has a Turion Ultra 2.2GHz will perform every bit as good as a MacBook. Inefficient coding means the Core 2 Duos power is wasted on tasks that could and should be handed off to other hardware components, and cycles are needlessly wasted due to bad coding.
It'd be hard to live in my mother's basement considering she died several years ago.
By the way, before you go flaming people with immature school yard style comments, you might want to learn to type properly and use full words, such as "people" not "ppl".
Oh yeah? If OS X is solid, then why did my MacBook lock up when I clicked "update" when the new iPhone firmware was released a few days ago? Thats not solid at all.
Actually, that was by a magazine that has shown a CLEAR bias towards the Mac in recent years.
As yellowdart said, I've been talking mostly about Vista. I only bring XP up pointing out that it has technologies that are close to a decade old now that OS X still lacks.
Being made in China has nothing to do with quality. It's just the fact that Lenovo is a stereotypical Chinese company in the way that it makes second rate products.
Actually, I have a 2G 4GB iPod mini which still holds almost a full charge, a 2G 1GB iPod shuffle, a 5.5G 80GB iPod, and a 3G 8GB iPod nano, as well as a 4GB iPhone.
And a MacBook.
Macs beat PCs? Then why is it my $1406 MacBook that showed up in September of 2007 can't play games, can't play high definition movies, and wastes endless CPU cycles on simple tasks like playing music, when my $950 HP that showed up a couple of weeks later can do all of that and not waste CPU cycles?
Thats not true either. I know someone who is a content producer for a major website in Japan, as well as several anime artists, and all of them rely on Windows for software that is not available on OS X.
I also know quite a few musicians that rely on Windows simply because of the wide range of hardware available for the platform.
How old are you? If you're going to post in a forum where the majority of users are adults, please try to act like one. At least show a shred of maturity.
Top of the line? Not since IBM sold off their PC division to Lenovo, BEFORE you bought yours.
Bad karma? You should read some of my earlier posts here. You'll see that I loved OS X and my MacBook up until after I had a few crashes and realized that Macs are ripoffs when it comes to hardware. I was one of the platforms biggest defenders for years (not at this forum). But then I got my Mac and realized what using an Apple computer was really like (no wonder I went with Windows back in the 90s after using System 7 at school) and realized that Macs aren't all they're hyped up to be. Besides, when you can get a system with a GPU thats 2-4x faster than the MBP, blu-ray, faster CPU, 3GB of RAM, etc. for less than the cost of the middle MacBook... well, only the ignorant will defend the more expensive and underpowered platform at that point.
And thats a pain in the ***. The only time I hook either laptop I own up to an external display is when I want to use either one on my HDTV. With my HP, I connect the HDMI cable and audio is re-routed through it, Windows turns off the built-in display and displays only on the HDTV.
With the MacBook I have to connect the TOSLink cable with mini-TOSLink adapter, the mini-DVI to VGA adapter, and the VGA cable. Then if I want to have the built-in display deactivated, I have to close the lid to put the system to sleep and then hook up an external mouse and keyboard. Or I have to turn the backlight off and leave the display active but in mirror mode.
Neither option on the MacBook allows the display to be run at the native resolution of the TV. But Windows detects the native resolution out of the box.
First of all, none of that is true. You haven't had to restart to change resolutions since Windows 95. Windows 98 allowed you to change the resolution on the fly without restarting the system. I remember arguing this with an Apple fanboy 10 years ago. He shut up when I said "i'd rather have to restart the system for a resolution change than have co-operative multi-tasking". heh. Remember, OS X was the first Mac OS to finally have pre-emptive multi-tasking.
Anyway. When you first connect a new monitor in XP, it will automatically start up the second display in "Extended Desktop" mode. You can manage your displays with far fewer steps than you described. Right click the desktop, properties, then settings and its all right there. Theres no going through and telling XP that its connected or anything like that.
Every XP system I have ever used has always detected the optimal resolution for the display as well. When I had XP on my HP and I connected it to my HDTV for the first time, it recognized it as being a 1366x768 display and properly set to 720p60. With Vista it automatically detected the 1366x768 display and set the resolution to 1366x768.
And no, I NEVER had to restart when connecting displays. Never. Not even in Windows 98 when it would run the "New Hardware Found" wizard on new displays.
With Vista, when you connect a new display, it automatically clones the displays and presents you with a screen asking you what you want to do. You can run in extended desktop, mirror, presentation, or external only. It will remember the settings for that monitor indefinitely.
If you want to change the display settings, you can right click on the desktop, Personalize, Display Settings and its all right there. You can configure displays with drag and drop and simple clicks, just like XP (which you missed apparently).
Well, its apparent you haven't connected a new monitor to Windows since the 3.11 days...
FN+F7 only works on Macs. Other PCs have different functionality for the F keys. FN + F7 on my HP turns down the screen brightness, for example.
So the person in that link bought Vista immediately as it was ready and didn't do research to find out there were no drivers for his soundcard? How is that Vista's fault he didn't look before hand? If he had a Creative card, then thats his own fault. The cheap low end Conexant soundcard in my first HP had Vista drivers ready to go before the public betas of Vista.
Another example of the media slamming Vista to appease the fanboys. They publish a blog a year after Vista was released, right before SP1, suggesting people downgrade to XP due to things like IE crashing? Honestly, I've never had IE crash in Vista. I've had Safari crash in XP, Vista, Tiger, and Leopard. But I have yet to see IE crash in Vista.
They mention UAC. UAC only shows up as often as a password prompt in OS X.
Learning curve that comes with switching to a new UI? What new UI? Other than different placement of icons in Control Panel, Aero is just a pretty version of the same UI we've been using since Windows 95. Much the same way as Leopard's UI (can we even call it Aqua any more?) is just a prettier version of basically what Mac OS has ALWAYS been.
They also say system "slowdowns". Whats a "slowdowns"? Vista boots up in about a cool minute with everything installed. That includes the time it takes for it to cache data so all of your most used software loads just about instantly. When you consider how long it takes some apps to load on a fresh start of OS X, I'll take that extra few seconds of boot time if it means FF3, iTunes, etc. all open nearly instantly, compared to the seconds of waiting in OS X.
I really don't understand the point of that link. You link to a forum post by someone who clearly has no idea what they're doing at all complaining that somethings wrong. Maybe if they kept their software up to date these things wouldn't happen. Besides, if you want to talk about software compatibility issues... well, how many pre-OS X apps can we still run on our Intel Macs? How many early OS X apps will still actually run under Leopard? Exactly. Vista is still compatible with the vast majority of all Win32 apps, and compatible with even more thanks to compatibility modes going all the way back to Windows 95.
As long as their Mac doesn't lock up when they click random things. After my experience with OS X, I'll put my trust in Windows before a Mac any day. Just the other day I had OS X lock up when I clicked "update" in iTunes for the new iPhone firmware!
Poor quality substitute at top price? Let's see, a $1099 MacBook has no DVD writer, a 2.1GHz low end Core 2 Duo, an Intel GMA X3100, and 1GB of RAM. A $1,000 HP will have a faster Core 2 Duo or Turion Ultra, 3GB of RAM, twice the HDD space, blu-ray, and dedicated graphics. Oh it'll have a bigger screen too.
So it sounds to me like you hate Apple
So you took a bunch of pictures of computers turned off. Good for you. Doesn't prove anything. I could take a bunch of pictures of computers turned off in a building and say "SEE!? I MANAGE ALL OF THOSE!" doesn't make it true.
Boot speed is a sign of performance? Well, have you paid attention to Leopard's actual boot process. You're presented with a useable desktop at about ~33 seconds, depending on your system. But if you pay attention to iStat Pro or any monitoring software, you'll see OS X still thrashing the CPU and HDD for about an additional 30 seconds. Vista pretty much presents you with a fully loaded system at 60 seconds. So OS X just kind of gives you the illusion of quick boot speed.
You want to talk about loading programs? Well, look how fast Firefox 3 opens on a fresh boot of Vista. Instantly, just like IE or Safari. In OS X? Several seconds. Thats thanks to Vista's caching though. Same thing with iTunes. Vista actually is faster in this regard because it learns what you use and it caches those applications.
If you want to talk about overall performance, you should watch Activity Monitor while using your Mac. You'll see that all software on OS X uses significantly more CPU time than it does on Windows. It seems Apple and 3rd party software developers don't focus on making things more efficient, they just throw more CPU cycles at their program to make it run faster. Look at Adobe Air. Listening to Pandora using the Pandora Desktop (which requires Adobe Air) eats up a good 20% or more of your CPU cycles in OS X. In Windows it peaks at around 5% in a reduced power state. Look at DVD Player too. I've been playing DVDs on PCs since you first could. Even without full hardware decoding, DVD playback software on Windows uses significantly less CPU time. Back on my old Celeron 1.1GHz, DVD playback with just HWMC enabled only ate up around 13% CPU time. Without HWMC, it would go up by 5%. Still less than the average modern Mac, even though the quality is worse.
Its also funny how Apple has changed their stance. They once tried to push the "MHz Myth" yet now they try to convince their customers that performance is all about having a fast CPU. Thats why you've got the MacBook with a 2.4GHz C2D at $1299 but all of the other components suffer as a result.
While other manufacturers realize that the overall package is even more important to performance than just one component being fast.
As I said before, this has a lot to do with Windows utilizing hardware for tasks and OS X being all software based. Anything that can be done in hardware in Windows is done in hardware. Audio tasks are handed off to the audio hardware, video tasks are handed off to the GPU, etc. In OS X, everything is done in software. And thanks to the general overall inefficiency of that coding, CPU cycles are needlessly wasted. Have you watched to see how much CPU time iTunes eats up while just playing MP3s or AAC files? I'm playing a song I encoded right now. Ripped from a CD encoded with LAME 3.98 using the -v 0 --vbr-new setting. iTunes is eating up 6.5% of 1 core. Same song in VLC? 7.6%. If I switch over to my HP and play it in Winamp? Winamp *peaks* at 1%. iTunes in Vista hovers around 2%. Windows Media Player (another hardware accelerated player) is the same as Winamp, 0-1%.
Overall system performance is affected by many many factors. Apple has to have ridiculously fast processors to make up for the inefficient coding and lack of overall hardware support. But as a result of them taking this route, other components suffer.
This also proves that a PC that costs half as much and has a Turion Ultra 2.2GHz will perform every bit as good as a MacBook. Inefficient coding means the Core 2 Duos power is wasted on tasks that could and should be handed off to other hardware components, and cycles are needlessly wasted due to bad coding.
It'd be hard to live in my mother's basement considering she died several years ago.
By the way, before you go flaming people with immature school yard style comments, you might want to learn to type properly and use full words, such as "people" not "ppl".
Oh yeah? If OS X is solid, then why did my MacBook lock up when I clicked "update" when the new iPhone firmware was released a few days ago? Thats not solid at all.
Actually, that was by a magazine that has shown a CLEAR bias towards the Mac in recent years.
As yellowdart said, I've been talking mostly about Vista. I only bring XP up pointing out that it has technologies that are close to a decade old now that OS X still lacks.
Being made in China has nothing to do with quality. It's just the fact that Lenovo is a stereotypical Chinese company in the way that it makes second rate products.
Actually, I have a 2G 4GB iPod mini which still holds almost a full charge, a 2G 1GB iPod shuffle, a 5.5G 80GB iPod, and a 3G 8GB iPod nano, as well as a 4GB iPhone.
And a MacBook.
Macs beat PCs? Then why is it my $1406 MacBook that showed up in September of 2007 can't play games, can't play high definition movies, and wastes endless CPU cycles on simple tasks like playing music, when my $950 HP that showed up a couple of weeks later can do all of that and not waste CPU cycles?
Thats not true either. I know someone who is a content producer for a major website in Japan, as well as several anime artists, and all of them rely on Windows for software that is not available on OS X.
I also know quite a few musicians that rely on Windows simply because of the wide range of hardware available for the platform.
How old are you? If you're going to post in a forum where the majority of users are adults, please try to act like one. At least show a shred of maturity.
And if the computers were turned on that would somehow be different? I think the pictures are proof enough he does what he says he does. Unless the IT staff lets random people wander into their Head End.
mosx, I have to tell you that you are a funny guy who makes interesting posts. I like to read your posts. They "entertain" me.
On a side note, mosx, do you believe in the Secret? If not, maybe you should start believing. Believe that your MacBook is good/not problematic and it will be good/not problematic. The Secret is very real.
On a side note, mosx, do you believe in the Secret? If not, maybe you should start believing. Believe that your MacBook is good/not problematic and it will be good/not problematic. The Secret is very real.
Just got an old Apple Power Mac from my work. This is the kind manufactured in the spring of 2001 which is not even supposed to run Leopard.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_733.html
I followed instructions on some website and installed Leopard on it by running it as a virtual disk for another more modern mac. And guess what? Leopard installed without a hitch, runs beautifully (a bit slow, of course, it's 733 Mhz, 512MB computer), and the computer is ready to be used.
Compare that with a 2001 PC. No chance it would even run. Vista? What Vista, even PCs which are a year old cannot run Vista.
That Mac apparently was sold for $3499 back in 2001. Was it worth it? I bet it was. 8 years of nonstop usage, I'd recommend that to anyone.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_733.html
I followed instructions on some website and installed Leopard on it by running it as a virtual disk for another more modern mac. And guess what? Leopard installed without a hitch, runs beautifully (a bit slow, of course, it's 733 Mhz, 512MB computer), and the computer is ready to be used.
Compare that with a 2001 PC. No chance it would even run. Vista? What Vista, even PCs which are a year old cannot run Vista.
That Mac apparently was sold for $3499 back in 2001. Was it worth it? I bet it was. 8 years of nonstop usage, I'd recommend that to anyone.
What? I'm sorry, but thats just stupid to say that PCs that are a year old can't run Vista.
Its also stupid to say that PCs from 2001 can't run Vista.
Vista's requirements are about the same as Leopards. 800MHz CPU, 512MB of RAM, ridiculous amounts of HDD space.
In 2001 you had Pentium 3s running over 1GHz, you had Pentium 4s at 1.4GHz and above, you also had AMD Athlons running at 1.4GHz and above. Motherboards at the time could handle 2GB of DDR RAM, not the old 90s SDRAM like that PowerMac was limited to. You could also throw in any AGP card from the last 10 years since the standard has been available. Throw in any Radeon 9550 or better or GeForce FX 5200 or better and you'll get yourself Aero. A PC from 2001 is far more powerful and usable in todays world than any PowerMac. A 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird system with 2GB of RAM and either one of those GPUs will mop the floor with any PowerMac from the same generation. Not only that, that PC will run Vista just fine. It will not be "slow" or anything.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/stats/powermac_g4_1ghz_dp_qs.html August 13th 2002 was when PowerPC finally hit 1GHz. Pathetic. Roughly 2 and a half years after AMD flew past it.
Here is a very informative article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista
Some useful quotes:
"According to Microsoft, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista" and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista." (Oh yeah, what about the claims that any 2001 PC will run it??!!)
"In addition, many Vista early adopters faced hardware incompatibility problems due to drivers not yet being available for Vista."
"Windows Vista executes typical applications more slowly than Windows XP, even with the same hardware configuration."
"Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.
Moreover, it has been suggested that the real upgrade to Windows Vista is Windows XP SP3 because XP SP3 is significantly faster than Vista[85] by all comparisons."
"According to industry-sources, Windows XP is still outselling Windows Vista, especially by business-sales. "
Speaks for itself!
If I was the OP I would of just stopped bothering to check the thread after the *****how that opened up in here happened.
Wow I forgot all about this thread. hah. I'm surprised to see it going. Guess that means I have to reply
No thanks, go back to the hole you came from. Your PC vs Mac comments are not useful to the OP.
He said he is getting a Mac, he doesn't want a complete thesis + essay why PCs are better than Macs. [which of coarse is not helping has OP does not want a PC but a Mac. Get it thru your thick skull.]
Also, continuing the whole Vista vs Leopard thing is just plain trolling, for any side. Drop it, its ruining the thread.
Hey, I dissect others' posts too and I indeed lack a life. However, I sleep in a second story bedroom, not the basement. In fact, I've never met anyone who has ever slept in a basement.
I had G4 733 Mhz from 2001 as well - great machine.... I sold it to a friend, and it still runs GREAT! Believe it or not, on the way to a DJ'ing gig, the computer FELL OUT THE BACK OF HIS STATION WAGON at 45 mph and bounced along the road into a ditch! He was freaking out, took it home, set it up and it still ran FINE! The case is all scratched up, but it's amazing the abuse those G4 cases could take!
halcyo
Spent a couple of minutes reading through the last few posts and from what I've seen whatever mosx stated and said throughout his posts is pretty much the truth in most cases. I'm having a difficult time understanding why members are stating rubbish figures and stats in trying to prove that no matter what OS X is better than Vista, and Mac is better than PC.
I work in retail and I use laptops day in and day out. I've spent hours using Leopard, and numerous hours using Vista. At home I've used XP for the past 7 years and have been thinking about making the switch to OS X before I goto university this fall. I can't praise OS X and Vista for many things because using a computer for 10-15 minutes at a time on the internet is much different then using it for 2-3 hours daily at home. I can't really comment much on the operating systems themselves because I simply haven't used both of them enough.
I'm buying a Mac because I want to see what all the fuss is about.
Some truths I want to add:
- I can sell you a HP laptop with 4GB of RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.0ghz, Dual-Layer DVDRW, 350gb HDD, great graphics card, and it can read Blu-Rays for $1199.
- That means you get +3gb of Ram, + DVD Burner, + 270gb of HD space, + Blu-Ray reading for $50 more than a base MacBook.
- That cheap $600 PC laptop will average roughly $300 worth of repairs in a short time frame.
- Macs to tend to be more reliable from a hardware breakdown perspective. We average 1 Mac notebook with a hardware problems per week.
I work in retail and I use laptops day in and day out. I've spent hours using Leopard, and numerous hours using Vista. At home I've used XP for the past 7 years and have been thinking about making the switch to OS X before I goto university this fall. I can't praise OS X and Vista for many things because using a computer for 10-15 minutes at a time on the internet is much different then using it for 2-3 hours daily at home. I can't really comment much on the operating systems themselves because I simply haven't used both of them enough.
I'm buying a Mac because I want to see what all the fuss is about.
Some truths I want to add:
- I can sell you a HP laptop with 4GB of RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.0ghz, Dual-Layer DVDRW, 350gb HDD, great graphics card, and it can read Blu-Rays for $1199.
- That means you get +3gb of Ram, + DVD Burner, + 270gb of HD space, + Blu-Ray reading for $50 more than a base MacBook.
- That cheap $600 PC laptop will average roughly $300 worth of repairs in a short time frame.
- Macs to tend to be more reliable from a hardware breakdown perspective. We average 1 Mac notebook with a hardware problems per week.
So, OP. Did the shopping trip happen? Are you getting a Macbook? Did your Mom faint at the gorgeousness of design and OS that is the Macbook?
To the others, who post LONG OFF TOPIC multi-quoted crapola, that I stopped reading about 5 pages ago (you know who you are), back the he!! off and give this kid his day and stop ruining his "I need some help" thread.
He's made up his mind, DROP IT. It serves no useful purpose, and the moderators here should have split this mess up ages ago.
Now, OP. If they insist that it's a Dell/HP/Acer that they want to get you, don't settle for the cheapo crapola stuff. At least pick out one that's got decent specs (IE over $1K) and name brand parts (motherboard, HDD, Optical Drive, RAM, etc). If they balk at that, it's not the PC/Mac thing they're stalled at, it's the money thing.
Maybe they just don't know that the cheapo Dells are junk, while the higher end ones are decent, as are the Macbooks. Maybe they just need to know that you pay for brand name innards, no matter who the "builder" is.
Oh, and for goodness sakes, if you do get a PC, be sure and get the XP SP2 version WITH the install discs, not just the repair discs that most PCs come with.
That way you can wipe the drive and do a clean install and get rid of most of the crapware that comes with PCs. you can also GET RID of Norton this way too. Norton = spyware, AFAIC.
To the others, who post LONG OFF TOPIC multi-quoted crapola, that I stopped reading about 5 pages ago (you know who you are), back the he!! off and give this kid his day and stop ruining his "I need some help" thread.
He's made up his mind, DROP IT. It serves no useful purpose, and the moderators here should have split this mess up ages ago.
Now, OP. If they insist that it's a Dell/HP/Acer that they want to get you, don't settle for the cheapo crapola stuff. At least pick out one that's got decent specs (IE over $1K) and name brand parts (motherboard, HDD, Optical Drive, RAM, etc). If they balk at that, it's not the PC/Mac thing they're stalled at, it's the money thing.
Maybe they just don't know that the cheapo Dells are junk, while the higher end ones are decent, as are the Macbooks. Maybe they just need to know that you pay for brand name innards, no matter who the "builder" is.
Oh, and for goodness sakes, if you do get a PC, be sure and get the XP SP2 version
WITH the install discs, not just the repair discs that most PCs come with.That way you can wipe the drive and do a clean install and get rid of most of the crapware that comes with PCs. you can also GET RID of Norton this way too. Norton = spyware, AFAIC.
@MOSX
Even though I think you're wrong and I love my Mac, excellent points. Sure, Vista isn't perfect, but Leopard isn't either. Albeit Leopard is a whole lot closer to perfect.
Even though I think you're wrong and I love my Mac, excellent points. Sure, Vista isn't perfect, but Leopard isn't either. Albeit Leopard is a whole lot closer to perfect.
To all the people being rude to Mosx...stop. To Mosx...stop.
Seriously, man, if people are going to just sit there and bash it, and then continue to bash you when you've made it very clear it's personal experience, then just ignore them.
When people make statements like, "Vista/Leopard always crashes and it can't do this and this and this," is generally when I jump in and go "Hey, wait..." Leopard and Vista both have problems that are very real. While I don't think Leopard is as problematic as Vista was in the beginning, I don't Vista is terrible, and I don't think Leopard is perfect. You did very good at using statements like, "after this happened to me..." which is why I support your post 100% and think anyone who attacks you for it is just being rude. While you did make a few in-general attacks on Macs based on your personal experiences, people here do it all the time, so I'm not going to play favourites. For such a long post, though, it was well thought-out and indeed very fair.
So, in other words: To everyone, the Mac vs. PC arguments are tired. Mosx has had bad experiences and wants nothing to do with Macs anymore, so leave him alone. It doesn't aid the OP, and it doesn't do anything but start a flame war. If a person asks for answers, give them to them. I would say the same to you, Mosx...when you're faced with people who question every motive of a PC user (or a PC user who questions every motive of a Mac user, which is more often the case), it's best to just ignore them. Especially if they don't get the point when you do answer is calmly.
So, let's all just get along.
Edit:
Just so you know...The PowerPC processors and processors most PCs used at the time were not comparable in terms of specs as they are now. In other words, a PowerPC Processor that was, spec-wise, slower, was actually a lot of times faster. Nowadays, they use the same processor types, so it's easier, but back then, there were substantial difference.
Edit 2: I'm speaking from anecdotal evidence and side-by-side comparisons, by the way There was a youtube video that I saw not long ago where this guy had a Mac Mini that was like 4/6 of the processor power of this Dell tower it was being pitted against, and it smoked it in pretty much everything.
Seriously, man, if people are going to just sit there and bash it, and then continue to bash you when you've made it very clear it's personal experience, then just ignore them.
When people make statements like, "Vista/Leopard always crashes and it can't do this and this and this," is generally when I jump in and go "Hey, wait..." Leopard and Vista both have problems that are very real. While I don't think Leopard is as problematic as Vista was in the beginning, I don't Vista is terrible, and I don't think Leopard is perfect. You did very good at using statements like, "after this happened to me..." which is why I support your post 100% and think anyone who attacks you for it is just being rude. While you did make a few in-general attacks on Macs based on your personal experiences, people here do it all the time, so I'm not going to play favourites. For such a long post, though, it was well thought-out and indeed very fair.
So, in other words: To everyone, the Mac vs. PC arguments are tired. Mosx has had bad experiences and wants nothing to do with Macs anymore, so leave him alone. It doesn't aid the OP, and it doesn't do anything but start a flame war. If a person asks for answers, give them to them. I would say the same to you, Mosx...when you're faced with people who question every motive of a PC user (or a PC user who questions every motive of a Mac user, which is more often the case), it's best to just ignore them. Especially if they don't get the point when you do answer is calmly.
So, let's all just get along.
Edit:
Mosx said:
Just so you know...The PowerPC processors and processors most PCs used at the time were not comparable in terms of specs as they are now. In other words, a PowerPC Processor that was, spec-wise, slower, was actually a lot of times faster. Nowadays, they use the same processor types, so it's easier, but back then, there were substantial difference.
Edit 2: I'm speaking from anecdotal evidence and side-by-side comparisons, by the way
There was a youtube video that I saw not long ago where this guy had a Mac Mini that was like 4/6 of the processor power of this Dell tower it was being pitted against, and it smoked it in pretty much everything.
Nah, not closed, but SPLIT, so that the original thread was still pertinent, and the Apple/Mac vs PC/Windows has it's own thread.
Even that doesn't deserve to exist. There are countless threads on that topic, and this has to be one of the worst.
- Status