[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's get the facts straight here, you were the one that attacked the people 'on the other side' and contributed to what you call a flame war (maybe you just wanted to start one). This is not the only thread I have seen you post something deliberately provocative, but that's fine by me. I hope you are at least getting some kick out of it

Me attack?
I just wondered if RicHSAD could explain his statement, cause I could not get where he got parts of it from.

This one:
Quote:

Originally Posted by RicHSAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I don't understand is why people buy macs. Pay more to be able to do less? Ok..

 

[ear8dmg]

Gaming is the main reason why I'd always go for Windows. I would have to be absolutely sure I didn't want to game on a machine to go for linux or a mac. It's also one category where 'pay more to do less' is very appropriate for Macs.

 

[RicHSAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Be able to do less? Explain! Afaik a Mac can run Mac OS X, GNU/Linux and MS Windows, meaning you should be able to do anything another computer can do... Anyway, I guess it is this time of the month again. Mac vs. PC flame war!

I am talking about the OS+Hardware combo. My point still stand that you pay more for less when you buy mac. Sure you can install Windows on it, but that means spending even more money, which is just stupid really. You don't have to look very far to see that buying a Windows PC gets you more for your money. There are a **** ton more softwares on it and can you play any games you want too. Like I said, you pay more to be able to do less.

 

[fjf]

I would recommend to everybody here to try Ubuntu linux. It has an specific audio distribution (Home | Ubuntu Studio) and works flawlessly in audio reproduction (and more). In addition, some of you might like some of the (free) games there are in linux, some of them to be played in internet against other gamers (games:start [Ubuntu Gamers Arena]). There is a mith about no gaming in linux; this is not the case. There are very good games. Unless you use a specific software that has no linux version, most of us can use it at home and do everything we already do in other OS. Finally, there is a forum with more than 900.000 users that gladly help you when stuck with a problem; it usually gets solved fast.

 

[leveller1642]

Quote:

Finally, there is a forum with more than 900.000 users that gladly help you when stuck with a problem; it usually gets solved fast.

A link would be great.

I have a windows pc with a ubuntu partition, but have never been able to get the sound working. I must admit I have a hesitance asking for help with linux ( and windows for that matter), because of a perception of experienced users being dismissive and contemptuous of those struggling with its user unfriendliness.

I use macs because it what i am used to, but I also have a vista partition on my Macbook as well the PC mentioned above.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leveller1642 /img/forum/go_quote.gif A link would be great.

I suspect it is this one -> Ubuntu Forums
Quote:

Threads: 1,158,543, Beans: 7,421,272, Members: 915,253, Active Members: 60,855

 

[azncookiecutter]

Grew up using Windows (from 95). Guess it's natural for me, the way things are done in a Windows environment. Dabbled around with various Linux distros, and I like them and all, but there's a lot of things that I'm not accustomed to.

 

[DoYouRight]

I love linux but some drivers for audio are just not there yet. so dual boot for me. Atleast windows 7 is closer to xp stability and more features and goodies. vista killed me.

 

[dugq]

Clearly this thread has moved on since the original OP, but to answer the question...I have three PCs, a netbook dedicated to music, a laptop and a server/desktop. I use windows for the music PC because foobar2000 is by far my fav music player. The laptop uses windows because compared to Linux I find W7 a superior multipurpose laptop platform. Having tried ubuntu I had problems with wireless, and power management, particularly battery length and resuming from sleep, as well as experiencing lots of other bugs. I also found it to be unstable compared to MS's latest offerings. The server is my only machine which I would be tempted to move to Linux, but I doubt I'll be bothered anytime soon.

All versions of windows are legit and didn't cost me anything, so cost isn't an issue

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Me attack? I just wondered if RicHSAD could explain his statement, cause I could not get where he got parts of it from. This one:

Actually, you are right. I totally mistook you for someone else in another thread. My humble apologies, hope you don't mind

I think I will skip ubuntu this time and get CentOS with a VM server on it. People seem to think that's a better way go if you are in it for learning things.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, you are right. I totally mistook you for someone else in another thread. My humble apologies, hope you don't mind

Apology accepted!

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RicHSAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am talking about the OS+Hardware combo. My point still stand that you pay more for less when you buy mac. Sure you can install Windows on it, but that means spending even more money, which is just stupid really. You don't have to look very far to see that buying a Windows PC gets you more for your money. There are a **** ton more softwares on it and can you play any games you want too. Like I said, you pay more to be able to do less.

You are not considering all of the cost factors.

When your time is valuable and you can bill out at a considerable sum (I didn't spend nine years in higher education for nothing) then wasting several hours futzing with Windows to get it to work right is lost money.

The MacBook works every time I open it. I update once a month or so and it takes 15 minutes.

If I have to waste time on Windows, the cost to me mounts greatly. My experience with Windows, so far, is that it requires much time and effort to be able to do basic tasks. That is, unquestionably, a monumental waste of time and money. Computers should unquestionably work when needed. Mac and Linux give me that. By the way, Mac System 6.0.7, NeXTStep and IRIX also give me that. (I like vintage computing

) Windows is a massive waste of time.

Further, Macs hold their value. The initial cost of a laptop might be higher, but selling it every 2-3 years and rolling the proceeds into a new one yields a cost difference of very little.

When you factor in the time-wasting factor of Windows, it becomes incredibly expensive. In my case, Windows would cost thousands more in lost productivity. Even someone earning minimum wage would probably come out ahead in terms of lost time using a Mac.

I don't particularly care about thousands of apps and a variety of video cards. I need maybe ten apps and just one working video card. The rest is superfluous.

Before you strictly adhere to a $300 or $400 price difference, consider the opportunity cost of blowing 50 or 100 hours of patching and registry scrubbing. Even at $10 an hour, Macs and Linux are unquestionably superior.

Finally, if OS X or Linux ever turn to unreliable crap, I'll gladly pull theplug on them. I am not going to waste my time on something unreliable. Not the least of which some kludge of legacy code from 1978.

 

[taiyoyuden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are not considering all of the cost factors. When your time is valuable and you can bill out at a considerable sum (I didn't spend nine years in higher education for nothing) then wasting several hours futzing with Windows to get it to work right is lost money. The MacBook works every time I open it. I update once a month or so and it takes 15 minutes. If I have to waste time on Windows, the cost to me mounts greatly. My experience with Windows, so far, is that it requires much time and effort to be able to do basic tasks. That is, unquestionably, a monumental waste of time and money. Computers should unquestionably work when needed. Mac and Linux give me that. By the way, Mac System 6.0.7, NeXTStep and IRIX also give me that. (I like vintage computing ) Windows is a massive waste of time. Further, Macs hold their value. The initial cost of a laptop might be higher, but selling it every 2-3 years and rolling the proceeds into a new one yields a cost difference of very little. When you factor in the time-wasting factor of Windows, it becomes incredibly expensive. In my case, Windows would cost thousands more in lost productivity. Even someone earning minimum wage would probably come out ahead in terms of lost time using a Mac. I don't particularly care about thousands of apps and a variety of video cards. I need maybe ten apps and just one working video card. The rest is superfluous. Before you strictly adhere to a $300 or $400 price difference, consider the opportunity cost of blowing 50 or 100 hours of patching and registry scrubbing. Even at $10 an hour, Macs and Linux are unquestionably superior. Finally, if OS X or Linux ever turn to unreliable crap, I'll gladly pull theplug on them. I am not going to waste my time on something unreliable. Not the least of which some kludge of legacy code from 1978.

Umm...

Mac = noob.

 

[azncookiecutter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taiyoyuden /img/forum/go_quote.gif Umm... Mac = noob.

Great blanket statement. You sure sound smart in calling another OS noob.

There are merits for OSX and Macs, especially for those who don't spent all day on their computers, since it's so easy in keeping the OS in shape. Windows will give you headaches if you don't know exactly what you're doing (thankfully, I do), and in these situations, having a Mac for that initial higher cost is advantageous. Personally, I still have to live with a Mac for a month, see how it pans out. All of my Mac time has been spent borrowing a friend's Macbook for a couple minutes. Would not make a full time switch though, as I still enjoy video games on the computer, as I'm too cheap to buy a full blown gaming console. And, who actually enjoys playing FPSes on consoles? (mouse and keyboard FTW)

 

[RicHSAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...

How about giving us more details as to the kind of maintenance that you had to do? I don't even have to do anything to keep my computer working. Vista defrags on its own, I have no anti-virus(I install one to scan every couple of weeks and it never ever finds anything) and Windows update are getting done automatically. I update my graphics drivers once a month because I'm a gamer and that's pretty much it.

So I ask again, what is it that you had to do that was so time consuming? No offense, but as someone working in IT, my experience tells me that you were probably creating your own problems.