My Parents Hate Apple

[sabregreen]

Your previous posts and current post and posts after this clearly indicate you have no Vista experience.

Ok, now you are really either misunderstanding, choose not to care, or are made about my facts. Sorry that you can't agree on things that can be proven.

Here is some proof you either disregard or I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you just didnt see it. I can even do benchmarks, as I have before and post my results. The one benchmark that fails to not disappoint, is that Vista takes longer to boot up than XP. I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I have been using Vista since every beta released. Now where do you pull out of my posts that I have not used Vista? You are sadly mistaken and need to get your facts straight. To remind you as well, I never said Vista is completely terrible. I said it's certainly not way better than XP like you claim. Its better at some things, worse at others. By anyones definition, this would not indicate it is leeps and bounds better.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=4

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=5

http://tech2day.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/windows-xp-sp3-beats-windows-vista-sp1-in-benchmark-test/

I've had 3 different HPs from as many product lines and each one I just had to loosen a screw, pull, push, tighten screw. Its the same way on the Dells and Gateways I have access too as well.

Ok and I have had some that are not. Why are you arguing this I really dont understand.

I hear of more optical drive failures with Apple systems than with any other major manufacturer.

You've heard? Ok well I've seen this not to be true. I guess first hand experience doesn't count anymore apparently.

So how is it one OS would run flawlessly on faulty hardware while another wouldn't?

As you should know, when a hard drive has software installed on it, Its not installed "in order" from beginning to end. For example, XP could have installed most of the OS at the beginning, while OS X could have installed it towards the middle or end. It works based off of a page table and virtual memory space using such as modified algorithms as best-fit, worst-fit, first-fit, etc.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Seriously, what kind of statement is this? Personal attacking is not going to do anything for you, nor does it have any grounds for validity. But go ahead, it doesn't hurt my feelings nor do I care. I can fully explain myself and talk, in detail, about every statement I have made. Obviously, you don't understand what I'm talking about.

But every vendor besides Apple learns from those issues and updates their hardware accordingly. The MacBook Air has been around for what now? Five months and it still has rampant problems with heat. The MacBook and MacBook Pro still get ridiculously hot under regular use, the MBP still has denting, warping, and scratching issues, while the MacBook still has issues with plastic cracking, changing color, etc.

I've yet to see a macbook pro warp or dent. I manage a couple laptop carts full of these spec'd at the 2.33ghz Merom models used by 15-18 year olds. I'm not saying this doesnt exist but what you need to realize is that just because there is a problem with something you have had or read, does not mean that its the terrible product and all are bad. This is the mentality you are attaching to your posts. Like I already said, I agree with the macbook having cracks and changing color issues. Why are you arguing it? Just because I guess. I've seen this on my laptop as well as about 15%-20% of the 200 macbook carts that I manage.

My first hand experience is why I can say, without a doubt, that Vista is faster on the same hardware. All of the benchmarks out there now are from pre-SP1 Vista or on a fresh install of Vista that hasn't learned real world usage patterns.

My first hand experience is that this is not the case across the board. Some things yes, other things no.

Thats both true and false. Had you use Vista 64-bit, you'd know it uses no more RAM at startup than Vista 32-bit.

You'd also know that nearly all apps for both Leopard and Vista 64 are still 32-bit, so that portion of your argument is basically null and void Running in a 64-bit OS doesn't make the app itself 64-bit.

Yes and I said that its not a one-to-one ratio of twice the instruction length is not literally twice the amount of memory. I never said that it does. You cleary didn't understand my explanation of how 64-bit works. I never said it uses more memory at startup either, twisting my words here.

haha my arguments invalid? Somehow, OS X randomly freezing across two different versions while two different versions of Windows on the very same hardware has been rock solid is NOT OS X's fault?

Already explained this as I have never seen this across 2000 machines varying from G3 hardware to the latest dual quad core xServes on iMacs, eMacs, Macbooks, Macbook Pro's, Powermacs, and Mac Pros.

I love how the Apple fanboys act as if OS X can have no faults. Its perfect. Even though it has known stability issues (which Apple listed some as part of the fixes in 10.5.4 when seeded to developers), if it freezes its somehow bad hardware or the users fault. Even though Windows is rock solid on the same exact hardware and has no issues of any kind, OS X freezing is not the fault of OS X. Hah. Apple's fan logic is hilarious.

The funny part about this is that I stand in the middle. I don't praise Apple, nor do I praise Microsoft. Its not Apple's fan logic here. Just pure experience and deductive reasoning.

Actually, thats not true. Even though you can run Windows on a Mac, there is one thing you can't do

You see, HDCP is optional on all of the GPUs Apple currently uses. It has to be included in the BIOS. But Apple didn't put it in the BIOS of any of the GPUs they use. So what does that mean? Even with an external drive, you can't legally watch blu-ray discs in Windows on any Mac and OS X has no support for blu-ray or system wide hardware acceleration for video in the way that blu-ray playback requires.

Like I said, you can do nearly everything on a Mac that you can do on a PC, not 100%. If you need that feature, then why are you arguing? That would take a one sentence post here.

But theres no reason a $1099 system should be shipped without a DVD writer and with integrated graphics either

Just as there is no reason for a laptop to be 2 inches thick and weigh 10 pounds.



This post literally made me laugh out loud.

The average lifespan of a PC is 18 months? Why is that? You know that Macs use the same parts as PCs, right? And, in my experience, PCs are built better than Macs.

In my experience, they are both built with comparable quality. Apple focuses on looks and engineering, PC makers focus on higher volume and many different models.

And whats this with repairs? PCs generally use higher quality components (like LG drives instead of Matsushita, which tend to live up to 4 of the last 5 letters in their name) and most of the parts that are likely to die are user replaceable. And security updates are free. Microsoft only charges for major OS revisions and anti-malware software is free (and not needed anyway as long as you don't do things you probably shouldn't be doing anyway).

In my experience, PC's use some poor quality components. For example, Dells use a terrible quality power supply in numerous models of their desktops. HP does the same. HiprSecurity updates are free on a Mac also. What's your point?

I don't understand why you are trying to supply arguments that you apply to only Mac products when they apply just the same to a PC.

 

[queshy]

Can we try and get back on topic? This thread is really diverging...thanks people.

 

[Me1000]

Well I dont feel like reading all 8 pages of this thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

Honestly I think your best bet would be for them to sit one on one with an apple rep. However this isnt an option for you because (like me) your nearest Apple store is 2 hours away. However maybe you could ask them to call Apple and talk to a sales rep about it. This way they can voice all their complaints about it, and get set straight by someone who knows what their talking about.

On the other hand you could try some logic on them.
"The PC Repair man wants you to buy the Dell because he knows you are going to have problems with it and that he will be just about your only option when it comes to fixing it. He is wanting to keep business, and if you buy a Mac he will be out."

When price becomes a factor offer to pay the difference between the dell and the Mac.

 

[m1ss1ontomars]

Completely the same deal here when I was your age. Trust me, in a few years, you'll look back and be like, "Damn, Macs back then sucked. Good thing I waited until now."

Seriously though, just use whatever they give you. It's a FREE LAPTOP. I had to WIN a Mac for myself to use, since I don't have any money and my parents wouldn't buy me one.

When you're able to buy your own computer, you'll appreciate having a Mac a lot more than you would if you got it now.

P.S. Don't get a black MacBook unless you would literally become ill if your MacBook was white. You can get a white MacBook with the exact same specs for $100 less.

 

[patrickmacrumor]

Seriously though, just use whatever they give you. It's a FREE LAPTOP. I had to WIN a Mac for myself to use, since I don't have any money and my parents wouldn't buy me one.

+1

The reasons why I totally agree with this:

• It's free.
• Your parents are not really against you. They just want what is best for you. They probably feel that a Mac is too much money to put into a computer. You'll understand them once you have your own house, car, and kids and retirement to budget for. And since the computer repairman they know and trust cannot work on the Mac, they don't have peace of mind.
• Mac computers are not all free from defects (talking from experience here), and you need to get AppleCare. So the total cost of owning a Mac is not cheap. If you manage to convince them to get you a Mac + AppleCare, and start running into problems with the Mac (which I don't wish you), they'll tell you: "We told you so."
• Buying your own computer is a very nice feeling, regardless if its a Windows or Mac computer. I own both, and each gave me a lot of satisfaction.

 

[psyqd]

Sorry but I don't feel like reading through 8 pages, so there's probably a lot of redundancy here. I wrote a list for a friend's dad about why Macs are better; I'll copy it for you below.

Mac OS X is based on UNIX, the same OS used by corporations and the government, so it's secure and stable.

Apple makes both the hardware and software. This eliminates any sort of compatibility issues, as well as the blame game. The two were designed for one another.

Bill Gates has said himself that Microsoft Office for Mac is more advanced that the Windows version.

Because Mac applications don't share files like in Windows (DLL files), Mac apps don't hurt the rest of the computer when they crash. On Windows, the DLL files break other apps, and sometimes even the OS, causing blue screens.

Macs come with iLife, which really is a lot of fun to play with. It includes a photo manager, movie maker, music maker and webpage maker. You can also buy iWork, which is Apple's answer to Office. Personally, I think iWork documents are much more impressive than Office.

You won't get viruses and trojans, because no one makes them. I only know of one Mac virus, and the hole that it used was patched by Apple two days later. Microsoft only releases patches in monthly increments, so many known holes can be exploited for up to a month before being fixed.

Macs come with an automated and a really easy backup system called Time Machine that records everything you do, so you can easily recover anything.

Because Macs use Intel processors now, you can install Windows alongside Mac OS X, in case you have a Windows-only app. In fact, PC World rated the MacBook Pro as the fastest Windows laptop ever. Using Parallels or VMware Fusion, you can run the two systems next to one another, so you can run the Windows app at the same time as your Mac apps.

I hope this is actually helpful!

 

[Sky Blue]

Mac OS X is based on UNIX, the same OS used by corporations and the government, so it's secure and stable.

How many corporations do you know that run UNIX? Most use Windows.

Bill Gates has said himself that Microsoft Office for Mac is more advanced that the Windows version.

Office for Mac is garbage, even the die hards can admit that.

 

[patrickmacrumor]

How many corporations do you know that run UNIX? Most use Windows.

You've got a point. Most corporations are not ready to move to Vista, but they are not ready to move to Mac nor Linux nor UNIX either. As long as Microsoft keeps offering some kind of backward compatibility, and does not screw up exchange badly, it will rule the corporate world. On the other hand, Apple is not doing anything to really win the heart of corporations.

Office for Mac is garbage, even the die hards can admit that.

I don't totally agree with this statement though. For most people, Office for Mac does the job quite nicely, because most of us don't use Office to it's full potential.

--
Patrick

 

[alphaod]

How many corporations do you know that run UNIX? Most use Windows.

I willing to say most corporations use UNIX for their servers and mainframes.

Office for Mac is garbage, even the die hards can admit that.

No Office for Mac is very good; too bad macros don't work, but apart from that it's A-OK.

 

[Soreo]

From what I'm reading, your parents sound like they're loading a software on your computer which watches what you do.
When you buy your own computer (an Apple), they don't know (or won't be able to) load that software.
So they "insist" on not getting anything Apple.

That's my two cents.


And my dad DESPISES Apple also but really doesn't mind if get one. He just says that I need to buy it myself.

 

[Me1000]

[snip]

Mac OS X is based on UNIX, the same OS used by corporations and the government, so it's secure and stable.

Correction here: Mac OS X is unix...

 

[kovalchuk71]

I was surprised how lenient my parents were, as they have worked for IBM all of their careers.

But my $.02. If your getting it for free go for the Dell. Or wait one more year, and get a mac with your school discount. The next gen's will be out and you will get a nice laptop.

 

[sabregreen]

Correction here: Mac OS X is unix...

One of few opearting systems of today at that.

 

[D4F]

Just as there is no reason for a laptop to be 2 inches thick and weigh 10 pounds.

So it's ok to pay twice for 50% less performance just so it's a bit smaller right?

 

[Father Jack]

Trade your parents in for a Mac loving couple....

 

[theyellowdart]

So it's ok to pay twice for 50% less performance just so it's a bit smaller right?

Please, please find me a laptop that will give a user 200% the performance of ANY mac laptop, for half the price.

I'll be waiting patiently.

 

[halcyo]

Why are there so many Apple haters on a MAC community discussion forum!? Maybe I'm missing something - do you guy's have some weird love/hate relationship with your Macs or something?

Don't get me wrong, it's sort of refreshing to have some opposition on a Mac forum, but I can't figure out why you guys would spend so much time on here if you don't even like Macs! Maybe you are out to save the world, and us poor saps, from Apple and the 'inferior' technology?


How many people even push their computers to their limits anyway?! I do pro audio stuff with my Macbook and it handles quite a workload with relative ease, so I'm sure the 'average' computer user (messing with iTunes, watching movies, editing photos, surfing the net) is gonna be FINE with just about any modern machine... I think that unless you are a real power-user, specs aren't really the issue. It's preferences that count. I can't stand Windows. I don't like the way it looks, the way it's setup/organized, and the workflow in Windows drives me nuts. As long as the Apple OS is stable, and stays at the forefront of USEABLE design, then I'll stay with Macs... OS X is Apple's crowning achievement, and it makes my technological life run much smoother....


halcyo

 

[sabregreen]

It's not about hating one or the other. It's not even about opposition. If that was the case, I don't think I would use both. I respect your opinion on why you like your Mac. You are very correct that most people do not push their machine to even close to the max.

 

[D4F]

Please, please find me a laptop that will give a user 200% the performance of ANY mac laptop, for half the price.

I'll be waiting patiently.

It's a Dell
PROCESSOR Intel® Core™ 2 Duo (T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB/6MB cache) (chip used in a $2500+ MBP)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1
HD DISPLAY Hi Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch display (1920x1200)
VIDEO CARD 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450
MEMORY 3GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2
HARD DRIVE Size: 250GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
INTERNAL OPTICAL DRIVE 8X Slot Load CD / DVD Burner (Dual Layer DVD+/-R Drive)
WIRELESS NETWORK CARDS Dell 1397 Wireless-G Card

$1299 after rebate and it comes with 2 years warranty.
You can watch HD movies on your laptop for less than you pay for a Macbook with a GPU that hardly handles anything.
Sorry but it blows any Macbook (it's price range) by lightyears.
It's a fact so no need to sweat bro. Apple sucks in any hardware/price comparision against PC notebooks.

 

[theyellowdart]

... yup... still waiting for you to post a laptop that meets the statement you orginially made.

Still haven't done that one yet. You know, the one where you said it that a laptop costing half the price was 200% better performance. (Since stating the apple laptop gave you 50% less performance, that inturn means the laptop you're talking about would be 2x as good for half the price).

All you showed is that you can get a laptop with the same processor as the MBP, a few weaker specs, and a few stronger specs. That's nowhere close to being 2x better.

Now, I don't (nor have I) disagreed you can get a much better laptop than the macbook or Macbook Pro for the same price, and cheaper. But you will not be able to find one that is half the price and 2x as good... period. Which is why I called you out on your statement to begin with.

 

[sabregreen]

And that gives 200% the performance? First of all, the processor gives neglible performance gains to the macbook. The video card is by far much better than the integrated graphics in the macbook, and not much better than the 8600GT 256 in the macbook pro. Also the memory is not dual channel. Dual channel requires identical sticks of memory.

No sweat involved at all, bro.

 

[D4F]

And that gives 200% the performance? First of all, the processor gives neglible performance gains to the macbook. The video card is by far much better than the integrated graphics in the macbook, and not much better than the 8600GT 256 in the macbook pro. Also the memory is not dual channel. Dual channel requires identical sticks of memory.

No sweat involved at all, bro.

The Radon is about 10 times better than the integrated Intel crap.
CPU gives you 30% boost compared to different version (please check the numbers)
We are not talking Macbook pro with the 8600 (we can if you want but then the price difference is +/- $700 so it is NOT the SAME CATEGORY)

So stop being a Apple fanboi and open your eyes. With the Dell you will have performance that will go over 500% (if not more) in simple video encoding session with Adobe Premiere against the Macbook.
CPU is only 1 thing but general performance that is what you look at.
So technically I was wrong. The Dell will be 500-700% faster than the Macbook for almost same ammount of $$ spent.

 

[D4F]

... yup... still waiting for you to post a laptop that meets the statement you orginially made.

Still haven't done that one yet. You know, the one where you said it that a laptop costing half the price was 200% better performance. (Since stating the apple laptop gave you 50% less performance, that inturn means the laptop you're talking about would be 2x as good for half the price).

All you showed is that you can get a laptop with the same processor as the MBP, a few weaker specs, and a few stronger specs. That's nowhere close to being 2x better.

Now, I don't (nor have I) disagreed you can get a much better laptop than the macbook or Macbook Pro for the same price, and cheaper. But you will not be able to find one that is half the price and 2x as good... period. Which is why I called you out on your statement to begin with.

GENERAL PERFORMANCE. So simple. That Dell eats the Macbook alive and still some.
Way over 500% faster in most application thx to the Video card alone not mentioning about 30% faster CPU performance, Hi Def DISPLAY.

Lol you are a fanboi if you can see simple numbers.
Look up benchmarks between the new CPUs and the old ones. Also do a benchmark and compare intels GPU from Macbook agains the Radeon.
LOL

 

[theyellowdart]

GENERAL PERFORMANCE. So simple. That Dell eats the Macbook alive and still some.
Way over 500% faster in most application thx to the Video card alone not mentioning about 30% faster CPU performance, Hi Def DISPLAY.

Lol you are a fanboi if you can see simple numbers.
Look up benchmarks between the new CPUs and the old ones. Also do a benchmark and compare intels GPU from Macbook agains the Radeon.
LOL

Yet again, that's not proving the 200% performance increase for HALF THE PRICE. You can't pick one or the other and say you're proving your point. So you have (arguably) twice the performance for the same to more than the macbook... that's not half the price there kiddo.

And no, trust me... I'm no fanboy. Also, i would LOVE for you to provide some benchmarks proving your claim of "The Dell will be 500-700% faster than the Macbook."

Yet again, i'll be waiting patiently (Also, just so you know. Since you made the claim it was faster, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not for me to disprove it).

 

[sabregreen]

The Radon is about 10 times better than the integrated Intel crap.
CPU gives you 30% boost compared to different version (please check the numbers)
We are not talking Macbook pro with the 8600 (we can if you want but then the price difference is +/- $700 so it is NOT the SAME CATEGORY)

So stop being a Apple fanboi and open your eyes. With the Dell you will have performance that will go over 500% (if not more) in simple video encoding session with Adobe Premiere against the Macbook.
CPU is only 1 thing but general performance that is what you look at.
So technically I was wrong. The Dell will be 500-700% faster than the Macbook for almost same ammount of $$ spent.

Ok. First of all. Don't call me a "fanboi", and spell it right. I have a dell laptop and a macbook. The only difference you will see in performance is video accelerated tasks. If thats what you are doing, then the macbook isnt the laptop you should be doing this comparison on. Also, this dell you spec'd out isnt even a 13.3 in screen. You are comparing a multi-purpose laptop to a general purpose laptop. Comparing graphics performance to the integrated graphics in the macbook is a moot point. Its an integrated graphics implementation, making it a general purpose laptop right from the start. You wouldn't use this for video accelerated tasks. So why are you comparing to it?