[roadcykler]

Quote:

Similarly, Linux just works.

A reason I forgot. I believe it is the Mac OS-10 that is essentially a re-packaged version of Linux but costs much, much more.

 

[Sherwood]

Well, many Linux builds are free, so it's not hard to cost more than that.

Also, OS X (and all Mac OS'es, IIRC) are built around UNIX, not Linux. Same way Windows is built around DOS.

Roadcykler, considering your displayed knowledge about computers, you may well really like Mac

 

[roadcykler]

And if I someday come into some money or need one for it's specific applications I may well get one but until then my PC's will do just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I think they make great products but I'll not be adding to the CEO's bottom line any time soon.

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

I have a Ford, but want to be able to use GM parts in it. No fair!! Ford is a monopoly!!

Also, comparing Apple and Microsoft is like comparing apples and oranges until Microsoft starts making their own hardware. Microsoft began life by leasing an already existing OS, they did not have a unique product. Microsoft is dependent on other companies' hardware, Apple is not, so Apple is completely within its rights to limit what can and can't run on their hardware. (BTW, can't windows be run on Apple hardware? I believe it can.)

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadcykler /img/forum/go_quote.gif A reason I forgot. I believe it is the Mac OS-10 that is essentially a re-packaged version of Linux but costs much, much more.

No, it isn't. OS X runs on top of a modified version of BSD (also used in NeXTStep).

BSD, like Linux, is a free *nix developed by volunteers. It's older than Linux, as well. However, there are serious differences between how the BSD and Linux kernels are implemented.

And, yes, BSD is a terrific option, as well. It doesn't have as much software as Linux, but is highly secure and stable.

Apple did develop the GUI that sits on top. Does that not deserve credit?

I'll agree that $29 is a lot more than free, but I still preordered 10.6.

You know, I've seen some companies charge much more for a GUI that sits on top of legacy code from the 1970s.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadcykler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll not be adding to the CEO's bottom line any time soon.

Suit yourself, sir. I felt my $1100 were better spent on a Mac the last time around, and in almost two years I've never once wondered if I made the right decision.

I do hate sounding like a Mac fanboy, as I still use and enjoy PCs at home and at work, but the Mac is a better machine.

I give no thought to ad campaigns, environmental efforts, CEO personalities or the like. It's a machine, built to serve you. Choose whatever serves your particular needs better.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know, I've seen some companies charge much more for a GUI that sits on top of legacy code from the 1970s.

Snap!

 

[Zanth]

The article is a turd, but I do find myself reluctant to take the plunge into iPhone/iTouch-land because of lock-ins. That said, Macbook Pro/OS X is just a blissful experience in every single way. I'm a computer scientist working with 4 dozen other computer scientists. Want to know what we all use? Macs with OS X. Sure we have dual booting XP/Vista installs and a linux box under the desk, but overall the lot of us use our Macbook Pros/Mac Pros + OS X 99% of the time. And it is 99% of the time because there was an internal study to determine if the 6 groups really required the pricier systems (since we are a government facility).

Why do we all use Mac/OSX? Because it works. We have the luxury of a *nix (Unix certified) OS with a capable and organized GUI with a generally very stable and reliable work experience. We don't nail bite when we have a presentation to make. We don't sweat when a deadline approaches, worrying that the system might crash at a crucial point. The stuff just works.

Some will argue that a well maintained XP-SP3 system will be rock solid too. Perhaps, but it also takes a lot more to maintain that level of reliability. With OS X it just works.

Our IT/IS support folks all use Windows of some flavour and not so coincidentally they are often found working on their own systems, keep them going rather than dealing with us. Save for maintaining our large server farms (all running linux) they don't interact with us much, not just because we are power users or above, but because there isn't much to be done. Buy or write software, install/run it, done! That's it. Unless we have hardware failures, which are rare, the IT folks get to hibernate in their tech cave.

The problem I have with Apple isn't with their computers or OS, it is the peripheral devices like the iPods or iPhones. Why can't we have FLAC support? That is such a simple implementation and FREE from a licensing perspective for Apple, yet no...because it might compete with ALAC. I seriously believe I have purchased my last iPod at this point and I have avoided the iPhone like the plague. Lock in, insane contracts with the only legal provider in Canada (though that may be changing very soon) means I won't go for it. iPod/iPhones need to be opened up for me to bite again, but their computer systems? Laptops in particular? For work and home use, I'm a Mac addict, at least until something better comes along. Linux I use on the desktop at home but the software isn't there yet, we need companies to release their stuff for Linux, until such time, I need a Mac around.

 

[dan1son]

I've been an almost full-time Linux user for about 15 years (jeesh... doesn't feel that long). I'm actually on a Gentoo box at work right now (development machine), have a Debian server at home, Ubuntu (with dual-boot XP) on my desktop, Ubuntu on a small netbook, and Gentoo on an older laptop now used as a photo-frame at home.

I needed a Windows box or Mac to run Adobe Lightroom for my photography. I originally purchased a very nice Asus laptop running Vista. After setting it up and installing what I needed it blue-screened the first evening so I restored it and brought it back to the store and exchanged it for a black Macbook. I like it, but it is far more limiting than I'm used to (as expected after coming from Linux). Decisions were made by Apple that can't be changed. I won't go into details... but the list is extensive.

These limitations aren't enough for me to not use and enjoy the machine. What it does, it does well. My wife really enjoys it too... but even she has found limitations and has to work around them from time to time.


I did not, and will not, purchase an iPhone. I bought a T-Mobile G1 and haven't looked back. Openness is very important to me (being a software developer relying on open source projects helps). Platforms with a single opaque approval process is beyond what I can accept especially when they go out of their way to disapprove anything that might "compete" with their own software.

We wouldn't have apps like Firefox, Thunderbird, Photoshop, AIM, etc. if Microsoft could disapprove anything that competes with their own products. Nobody would allow that on a computer, why allow it on a phone... especially one the manufacturer basically calls a computer.

 

[aaron313]

I rarely use my cell phone (once a week, if that often), and I refuse to "text" people. So I really don't need an iPhone. Those who wish to contact me can feel free to use email, where they will get a fully thought out response.

I have no problems with Vista, as it works flawlessly for me. All of my audio and video needs are fulfilled by my PC, and I am a very advanced user with regard to those technologies. I have no doubt that a MacBook could accomplish the same feats, but for a higher price.

I will resist joining the Apple cult as long as is possible. With Windows 7 getting early raves, it will not happen soon.

 

[EugeneK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender Rodriguez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Microsoft is dependent on other companies' hardware, Apple is not, so Apple is completely within its rights to limit what can and can't run on their hardware. (BTW, can't windows be run on Apple hardware? I believe it can.)

The current generation Apple PCs and laptops run intel processors and ATI/Nvidia graphics cards, just like almost every other PC out there. And you can bet that the other components like the harddrive, RAM and motherboard aren't Apple-made either.

Apples are essentially PCs built into a MAC chassis, with a MAC OS installed - Sold at an amazing markup for just the shiny chassis and OS.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I rarely use my cell phone (once a week, if that often), and I refuse to "text" people.

You're awfully young to be such an old man.

 

[Kirosia]

^ I rarely use my phone nor text, but that's because no one likes me.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugeneK /img/forum/go_quote.gif Apples are essentially PCs built into a MAC chassis, with a MAC OS installed - Sold at an amazing markup for just the shiny chassis and OS.

That isn't quite true. Though some of the parts are definitely off the shelf, other parts are specifically designed for Apple computers. Motherboards being the major one.

An Apple computer is not a bunch of parts + any old OS. It is a system and it is this system that one is paying a premium for.

Dell + Windows or Lenovo + Windows may work some of the time or not at all, or be rock solid, the difference is that Microsoft isn't sitting there designing their OS to run on those platforms specifically. They leave much of the driver issues up to the hardware manufacturers whereas Apple provides the drivers for the hardware they have selected. The integration with the OS is generally flawless.

I prefer linux to OS X and I use linux almost exclusively at home. I'm at a point now that things are about as smooth as I can expect from a homebrew OS but this has not always been the case and unless I roll my own (and that is a whole other headache in itself) I tend to go with a highly supported distro like Ubuntu. Ubuntu upgrades every 6 months and often kills quite a bit of hardware support and it takes a few months to iron out the kinks. Try to get things like cameras or wireless running and it can be tricky, particularly on a laptop. Same goes with Windows (anyone having worked with Vista in the early stages knows what I mean).

This generally doesn't happen with OS X upgrades because everything is designed around 4-5 hardware configurations.

There will always be those who enjoy penny pinching. There will also always be those who love to tinker. Apple computers at first glance may be counterintuitive to those two actions, but, they aren't when one considers two things:

1) time is money
2) the flexibility of the platform

At some point, most of us realize that our time is worth a lot and screwing around getting our computers to work becomes less and less of a hobby and more and more of a chore. This won't be true for everyone but it sure is true for the vast majority of users out there. If I want to tinker, I'll play with linux, but I don't want to have to do first aid on my computer every few months because of the inherent ineptness of the platform. That is what Windows is all about. When I want/need to work, I must rely on a reliable system and Windows + PC is far less of a guarantee than Linux + PC or worse, than a Mac. If I were able to pay myself my hourly rate for all the hours I have had to fix and maintain my Windows boxes I'd easily have a very very nice speaker system, if not a sweet Mercedes.

The second point off putting perhaps at first until one realizes that Apple has made it dirt simple to install multiple operating systems on their machines without the need to tinker with boot loaders, fight with the original operating system etc.

Want Windows on there? No problem. Linux too? Sure why not. Takes all of 1 minutes to ready the system and then the usual time of installing the OS.

Don't want to go that route? What about linux packages or bsd ones via Macports or Fink? Or what about really smooth VM enviros? A Mac has become THE development platform because of its flexibility.


Upfront, a Mac will set someone back more. However the time and money necessary to keep it running will be significantly less over time than a similarly spec'd Windows/PC system. Moreover, the ease of use for the average user will be significantly greater and for the power user, one enjoys about the best there is outside of a custom build mega machine.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugeneK /img/forum/go_quote.gif The current generation Apple PCs and laptops run intel processors and ATI/Nvidia graphics cards, just like almost every other PC out there. And you can bet that the other components like the harddrive, RAM and motherboard aren't Apple-made either. Apples are essentially PCs built into a MAC chassis, with a MAC OS installed - Sold at an amazing markup for just the shiny chassis and OS.

You might have been able to make that argument 10 or 15 years ago, but not today.

What you're doing is comparing the absolutely cheapest PC to Apple products. If you compare similarly-equipped machines of similar quality, there isn't that much of a difference.

Also consider resale. If you upgrade every two or three years, the money you get makes the upgrade very reasonable. I'm thinking of trading up to a new MacBook. If I buy a refurb (as I usually do) and sell the old one, the upgrade will cost me about $300. $300 every two years is entirely reasonable for a quality laptop.

Also, isn't this the OP's fourth or fifth "I hate Apple" thread?

Look, we get it already.