Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why do many Mac User believe that Macs have better hardware then all PCs

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know how this became about fingerprint readers but it isn't just about security. Fingerprint readers generally come bundled with password manager software which can be a huge benefit. It doesn't matter if you don't use it, someone else might. Not everyone uses FW800 but how many of you whine and moan about it?

This didn't start as an Apple bashing thread. What is wrong with pointing out where you think your computer is lacking?

Do you remember the huge step forward Apple took with USB and the iMac? Probably not. This "I don't need it so nobody else should use it" attitude is extremely stupid.
 
One day, the operating system with the most applications developed for it will be well designed and work reliably across an almost countless number of different hardware configurations. As of right now, neither of those considerations are being met by the Windows operating system. So, yes, sometimes it makes sense to pay more for last year's technology if more time was spent making sure the drivers are reliable instead of just thrown together in an afternoon as is the case with many of your precious Windows drivers (i.e., writing drivers takes time, testing them takes longer). And, this year, Apple does at least have Thunderbolt first (not that you can buy any hardware to go with it just yet).
 
Mactrillionaire said:
One day, the operating system with the most applications developed for it will be well designed and work reliably across an almost countless number of different hardware configurations. As of right now, neither of those considerations are being met by the Windows operating system. So, yes, sometimes it makes sense to pay more for last year's technology if more time was spent making sure the drivers are reliable instead of just thrown together in an afternoon as is the case with many of your precious Windows drivers (i.e., writing drivers takes time, testing them takes longer). And, this year, Apple does at least have Thunderbolt first (not that you can buy any hardware to go with it just yet).
Click to expand...

I agree. In my opinion, XP was the closest to get the "all different hardware config" working. Much of the problem is due to the manufacturers and not Windows providing faulty drivers. It is heavily dependent on them as much as it is dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft is making it complicated with each iteration in Windows. Complication is followed by the hardware. It is very recent that Microsoft is promoting 64-bit architecture due to the more readily available 64-bit hardware which makes it very difficult for manufacturers who are used to making 32-bit software.
 
Mactrillionaire said:
One day, the operating system with the most applications developed for it will be well designed and work reliably across an almost countless number of different hardware configurations. As of right now, neither of those considerations are being met by the Windows operating system. So, yes, sometimes it makes sense to pay more for last year's technology if more time was spent making sure the drivers are reliable instead of just thrown together in an afternoon as is the case with many of your precious Windows drivers (i.e., writing drivers takes time, testing them takes longer). And, this year, Apple does at least have Thunderbolt first (not that you can buy any hardware to go with it just yet).
Click to expand...

If you did a tiny bit of research you may find that Windows 7 is alive and doing quite well in design and works across the multitude or hardware configurations out there. And OSX works quite well for Apple. To say that Windows 7 isn't well designed is laughable.


Radex said:
I agree. In my opinion, XP was the closest to get the "all different hardware config" working. Much of the problem is due to the manufacturers and not Windows providing faulty drivers. It is heavily dependent on them as much as it is dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft is making it complicated with each iteration in Windows. Complication is followed by the hardware. It is very recent that Microsoft is promoting 64-bit architecture due to the more readily available 64-bit hardware which makes it very difficult for manufacturers who are used to making 32-bit software.
Click to expand...

Windows Vista was available in 64 bit over 4 years ago and initially there were compatibility issues which were overcome well before Windows 7 was released. There is no new complication with Windows 7 and the product works well. Take a look at how many people here run it on their Mac along side of OSX. If you don't like Windows or it doesn't suit your needs fine, but to say it doesn't work well is just as false as saying OSX doesn't work well and is poorly designed.
 
AppleScruff, if it makes you feel better, yes, Windows 7 is definitely a big step up from Windows Vista. It does require a bit longer for the power user to figure out how to blue screen it. Maybe if Microsoft focused more on perfecting one particular operating system, it might be worth my time (other than for the Windows programs I have to run, I can run from WINE). As it stands, they release new operating systems every two to three years, just in time to focus on something new and exciting as a distraction from the mounting number of problems discovered with whatever the current version of Windows is. Good design would have figured out a way to address these recurring issues instead of having to release multiple patches per week for the same operating system version instead of embarrassing the current version of that operating system into retirement when there are no more plans to patch the plethora of known problems with it. Windows was not designed to last longer than many hard disks typically last. It just succumbs to the problems over time and you have to wipe your hard disk, but that translates into getting another computer (and another version of Windows) for most people who are not technically competent (and that's exactly how Microsoft wants it to stay).
 
AndroidfoLife said:
I attempt to tell them the only actual difference between mac and "PC's" is the OS and in actuality Apple buys its hardware from the same people that the PC vendors get their hardware from.
Click to expand...

You should "attempt" to do some research before posting what you would like to believe.

Apple motherboards are custom designed. Their displays are to their specs which nobody else uses. There may be some display parts commonality but not the entire package. This is why Apple has much better displays than almost all PC laptops. The chassis is certainly custom Apple and none else uses it. Those parts that are standard PC parts are subjected to much higher scrutiny and tolerance by Apple than anyone else. I've been to the factories that produce Apple and other laptops like Dell and HP. Dell and HP allow much more inconsistencies and minimal testing in order to save money. Higher quality control and tolerances cost money but Apple pays for it. So Apple requires their vendors to toss parts that Dell and Hp accept and ship. Most importantly Apple provides a much higher level of service and support that cost more as well.

Mactrillionaire said:
AppleScruff, if it makes you feel better, yes, Windows 7 is definitely a big step up from Windows Vista.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 is just Microsoft's latest mediocrity. It may look good in comparison to Vista and Xp but that isn't saying much. It's a better but still horrible interface pasted on top of the same underlying junk with some modest tweaks. You can't say you have a modern OS that requires manual defragmenting, registry cleaning, mounds of anti-malware apps, and millions of lines of underlying legacy cruft legacy code that does nothing but consume resources and cause instability. Read up on Windows internals. What a nightmare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's the operating system that Apple makes and that itself allows what makes the hardware better. It's the "synergy" between the OS and the hardware that makes Apple hardware "better." Plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ZZANG said:
It's the operating system that Apple makes and that itself allows what makes the hardware better. It's the "synergy" between the OS and the hardware that makes Apple hardware "better." Plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What 'synergy'? Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
 
altecXP said:
What 'synergy'? Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
Click to expand...

Such as yourself? :p

Why the hostility?
 
altecXP said:
What 'synergy'? Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
Click to expand...

You use one why hasn't it occur to you yet that the touchpad on the MBP is pretty well done? I mean every time I go use a PC laptop I feel a bit annoyed till I get use to lower level of ergonomics. The touchpad hardware software seems to synegize quite well.

I think you are just picking on the bits you don't like. And if you were honest you'll admit the things you point out aren't just problems unique to Apple's product line up.

Apple does do a good job. And people who complain about the supposed mark up aren't comparing apple to apple (LOL pun). I mean look at the Samsung 9 series. Yes it's more powerful than the MBA but ouch look at the prices! Quality is going to cost more. It's not an Apple tax. It's not an unreasonable mark up. I dare people who complain to find me an equal to the MacPro's construction at the lower price. I have a unused one in my cube that's a visitor's seat. And the big 300+ lb guys in my group have never damaged one serving as a seat yet.
 
Last edited:
altecXP said:
What 'synergy'? Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah because Aluminum and glass (amongst other things) are nearly free to procure and utilize.

-_-
 
Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
Click to expand...

I certainly would not say Apple makes "generic" hardware.

Apple always seems to under spec its RAM capacity. This is seen with the 2009 Mac Pro. Apple states the total memory can only go up to 16GB for the Quads and 32GB for the Octo. When they can actually go to 32GB & 64GB respectively as tested by macsales.com.

Even now some of the newer MacBook Pro's can actually go to 16GB instead of 8GB also stated by apple.
 
Last edited:
AndroidfoLife said:
I have been told by many owners of macs that simply because they have a Mac that their hardware is better then any other computer. I attempt to tell them the only actual difference between mac and "PC's" is the OS and in actuality Apple buys its hardware from the same people that the PC vendors get their hardware from.
In fact I have often dug up evidence that Macs do not have the best Hardware. Currently ASUS and Toshiba lead with mac in fourth of the largest 8 PC manufactures.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this,

Do you own a Mac?
 
linuxcooldude said:
Apple always seems to under spec its RAM capacity. This is seen with the 2009 Mac Pro. Apple states the total memory can only go up to 16GB for the Quads and 32GB for the Octo. When they can actually go to 32GB & 64GB respectively as tested by macsales.com.

Even now some of the newer MacBook Pro's can actually go to 16GB instead of 8GB also stated by apple.
Click to expand...

They spec it with the max that is readily available at the time. In the case of the current MBP, no 8GB modules (has to be 8 as there are only 2 slots) didn't exist when they built and designed the notebooks. Only within the last few weeks did 16GB come into play (and it is still only 1 manufacturer making it). How can you spec it with something that doesn't exist, and may never exist< Would you rather they said it would support 32TB of RAM? People would then complain that Apple was out of their mind in their specs.
 
squeakr said:
They spec it with the max that is readily available at the time. In the case of the current MBP, no 8GB modules (has to be 8 as there are only 2 slots) didn't exist when they built and designed the notebooks. Only within the last few weeks did 16GB come into play (and it is still only 1 manufacturer making it). How can you spec it with something that doesn't exist, and may never exist< Would you rather they said it would support 32TB of RAM? People would then complain that Apple was out of their mind in their specs.
Click to expand...

+1

The other advantage with this is that even when the bigger modules get released, if they don't work for some reason and you take it to Apple they can point to their specs and say that it doesn't support it.
 
squeakr said:
How can you spec it with something that doesn't exist, and may never exist< Would you rather they said it would support 32TB of RAM? People would then complain that Apple was out of their mind in their specs.
Click to expand...

Why can't they? And since when has Apple really cared what outlandish statements people make anyway? As long as its supports the amount of RAM it claims is all that matters. In computing, theoretical limits are are always being stated, so its nothing new.
 
altecXP said:
What 'synergy'? Apple takes generic hardware and makes terrible drives for it for it's OS then charges a 50% mark up. If there was any 'synergy' then Apple wouldn't be known for terrible GPU drivers, or MacBooks that falsely limit the amount of RAM you can put in your laptop.

They give you the lowest they can get away with cuz they know people will blindly pay for it.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you must be one of those people judging by your signature.

altecXP said:
Work pays for mine. :) Aside from an iPod Apple has not a single cent of my monies.
Click to expand...

You still chose them. Why not a pc? Thought so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Better hardware" - come on, give me a break.

For me its just this: A PC is a bunch of hardware cramed into a standard case. A Mac is just an all-in-one system in the very sense of the word, most of the circuit boards ARE custom designed and fit into a very unique and technically challenging enclosure (iMac, MBA...). OSX is just one of many reasons, why it is not a PC. Every single Mac model demands a lot of custom engineering and design development. In my opinion this is in no way comparable, and as people with a bit of common sense know, specs aren't everything - not with computers and not in life.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Why can't they? And since when has Apple really cared what outlandish statements people make anyway? As long as its supports the amount of RAM it claims is all that matters. In computing, theoretical limits are are always being stated, so its nothing new.
Click to expand...

So which is it? Are you fine with the specs as long as it supports what they say, or is it that they underspec it?? You sure have flip flopped between statements.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
If you did a tiny bit of research you may find that Windows 7 is alive and doing quite well in design and works across the multitude or hardware configurations out there. And OSX works quite well for Apple. To say that Windows 7 isn't well designed is laughable.




Windows Vista was available in 64 bit over 4 years ago and initially there were compatibility issues which were overcome well before Windows 7 was released. There is no new complication with Windows 7 and the product works well. Take a look at how many people here run it on their Mac along side of OSX. If you don't like Windows or it doesn't suit your needs fine, but to say it doesn't work well is just as false as saying OSX doesn't work well and is poorly designed.
Click to expand...

I do not hate Windows at all. Not at all. I am predominantly a Windows user who happens to have a Mac. True, I forgot about Windows Vista being available in 64 bit, years back and that's my fault for lacking that knowledge. I am not trying to OS bash and I apologize if it seems like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back