OSX vs. Windows - Page 8

Porce · #57 November 19th, 2005, 06:19 AM

Browsing is faster on Windows XP than Mac OS X [but the PC is 512 MB while the iBook is 256, so I don't know if that has any effect], but nearly everything else about Mac OS X is better now. I only turn on the PC when I have to burn a DVD or leave [something] downloading over night. It's such a chore to use.

nixgeek · #58 November 19th, 2005, 08:44 AM

My issue has never been with PC hardware. I absolutely LOVE PC hardware. This is why I use it to run Linux or other open source operating systems. My issue has always been with Windows. Just using it, in my opinion, is akin to that feeling you get before you go to work on a Monday.

You have to do things in Windows' way even though your way might be the most optimal. That, and all of the useful stuff that is lacking in it (security, performance, etc.). The only thing that it has going for it is games.

I love having control of my system, and Unix variants help me do that on my PC. Mac OS X also lets me do that, but it goes way beyond what even the other Unix variants have yet to accomplish: a wonderful user experience on a robust Unix system.

Viro · #59 November 19th, 2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nixgeek

I love having control of my system, and Unix variants help me do that on my PC. Mac OS X also lets me do that, but it goes way beyond what even the other Unix variants have yet to accomplish: a wonderful user experience on a robust Unix system.

To be honest, I've found that the latest stable GNOME release is very very usable. It's been very user friendly (IMHO) since 2.8 and I would move to Linux in a heart beat if I wasn't saddled with a Powerbook

.

nixgeek · #60 November 19th, 2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viro

To be honest, I've found that the latest stable GNOME release is very very usable. It's been very user friendly (IMHO) since 2.8 and I would move to Linux in a heart beat if I wasn't saddled with a Powerbook

.

I'm doing just that on my HP laptop from work using Ubuntu. I'm quite impressed with Gnome 2.12, especially now that someone had the brains to include the hierarchical tree list in spatial view. This is the only thing that was missing from spatial view that made it worth using, something that the Mac OS in its Classic day had for a while.

128shot · #61 November 19th, 2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viro

So.... I fail to see your arguments and I think you're just trolling. Firstly, you're saying that Macs are more expensive because you can cobble together a PC for cheaper. As Eldiablo pointed out, Macs don't cost too much compared to similarly configured PCs. Such cobbled together PCs aren't used by the majority of PC users, only the enthusiasts like yourself. By the above quote, you've basically agreed since how many home users know how to fix PC problems?

What would you pay for a machine that was easy to maintain and you didn't need to ask for favors from a technologically knowledgeable friend? Compared to Dells, HPs, and other large PC manufacturers, Macs don't cost too much.

Apple isn't the be all end all of computers. If they don't suit you, go elsewhere. Just because it doesn't fit your needs, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of other people.

Seems like the idea of cost cutting isn't conveying here very well...

ElDiabloConCaca · #62 November 20th, 2005, 12:20 AM

We'd all jump for joy if Apple slashed prices on all or some of their machines. We're not against lower prices here -- you'd have to be a fool not to be happy about a lower price.

We're just saying that we understand why Apple doesn't cut prices on their machines. Apple offers plenty of low-cost solutions for those that cannot afford a G5 tower machine.

Plus, Apple is not saying (nor are we saying) that purchasing an Apple machine for $XXXX.XX will get you hosepower on par with a PC that costs the same amount. There's a lot more built into Apple's pricing than raw horsepower -- just because it costs more doesn't mean it'll crunch a floating point operation quicker. If you think that's just crap coming from an Apple apologist, it's not... take a look at how comfortable we Mac users are with our computing experience (from the price to the OS to the computer) vs. how frustrated and/or unaccepting you seem to be with yours.

contoursvt · #63 November 20th, 2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

...We're just saying that we understand why Apple doesn't cut prices on their machines. Apple offers plenty of low-cost solutions for those that cannot afford a G5 tower machine.

I think the problem is that a lot of people - at least the ones I know in PC land like the idea of towers because of their upgradability in terms of adding more drives as well as having better cooling solutions. Nobody wants to be boxed in.

Heck I'd guarantee that if apple released a single G4 1.25 or 1.42 in a 3/4 sized tower similar to the G5 towers for quite a bit less (but more than the price of the minis), that they would have a ton of sales. Maybe its just me thinking that but I'd never buy a mini. I dont see 'cute' as a reason to buy a computer. I want speed and sometimes speed is not just processor related but RAM and HD related...

Heck just take a G4 tower, toss in an SATA controller and a pair of WD raptors and tell me that wont feel like its more peppy than even a G5 for all but number crunching tasks

Anyway I will stop rambling. I know I'd buy a G4 tower with SATA support.

Viro · #64 November 20th, 2005, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by contoursvt

Heck just take a G4 tower, toss in an SATA controller and a pair of WD raptors and tell me that wont feel like its more peppy than even a G5 for all but number crunching tasks

Anyway I will stop rambling. I know I'd buy a G4 tower with SATA support.

I'll bite. It won't feel more peppy than a G5

. That's due to the lack of FSB bandwidth the G4 suffers from. Unless of course, you're talking about the new dual-core G4 processors, which IMHO rock as they have an on-die memory controller (a la Athlon64/Opteron).