# What's so great about macs? Why are they better than PCs?



## dave-dave (Jun 13, 2006)

Isn't more software compatible with PCs? Such as though free song software, Monopoly and such? Why does everyone favor macs? What am I missing!


----------



## lilbandit (Jun 13, 2006)

Ahem..Monopoly and free song software? Are you serious?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 13, 2006)

Because Monopoly and "free song software" (whatever the hell that is) are the two defining factors between a "good" computer and a "bad" computer.  Right.

If you'd like to see what's so much better about Macs, head on down to your local Apple Store or authorized Apple reseller and try one out for yourself.  You may find it better, you may not like it at all -- just be open-minded when you try it and don't expect it to work like Windows (because it's NOT Windows).

Just a short list of things that I think most of us here will agree are better:
- Better user interface
- Ease of use
- Don't crash as much
- Spyware/Viruses are virtually non-existant
- High quality of craftsmanship
- They're aesthetically pleasing
- They last longer (I'm using a 7 year old computer and running the latest and greatest software available)
- They can run Windows now, negating your entire argument about quantity of software available


----------



## lilbandit (Jun 13, 2006)

Sorry for the sarky reply!


----------



## Timmargh (Jun 13, 2006)

Isn't "Monopoly" another name for "Windows" ... ?


----------



## camgangrel21 (Jun 13, 2006)

I will backup what ElDiabloConCaca had to say. I run a now 6 year old G4 Power Mac upgraded the video card and RAM and I'm runing 10.4.6 server and Shake 4 and The whole Final Cut Studio pack. Works great. Now what almost 7 year old PC could you run Hollywood Apps on? With just upgradeing the video card and RAM? I also run 10.4.5 on my "PDQ" Wallstreet G3 233 Mhz 160 MB of RAM and a 100 GB hard drive. This laptop was stop being made in 1999. Now what x86 laptop could you run Windows XP on that was a P1 or maybe a low end P2. And still be able to have it be usefull to you. Seeing as I have came back to the Mac from the dark side I can tell you this XP can run on as low as a 200 Mhz P1 with as much as 250 MB of RAM but it will take at lest 10 mins for it to boot. Then that long for any other app to run.
So I hope that helps you out to see why Apple hardware even realy old hardware can still kick a PCs butt any day of the week.


----------



## Qion (Jun 13, 2006)

camgangrel21 said:
			
		

> So I hope that helps you out to see why Apple hardware even realy old hardware can still kick a PCs butt any day of the week.



Haha, I agree. There's a lot of things even we who use older Macs can brag about, things such as being able to run the absolute latest and greatest installment of OSX -which in itself is more than Windows and all it's apps can do- on virtually any Mac with a stick of ram and a Rage 128. I have a 450 Mhz G4 Tower sitting in front of me that has better case design than any PC I can think of. Everything about a Mac is just generally higher quality, and works more smoothly than what you would get if you were to use a PC box. 

Like El Diablo said, why don't you just head down to the Apple Store?


----------



## mspain77 (Jun 14, 2006)

this might help:
http://www.apple.com/getamac/
very well written ads and they ring so true!


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 14, 2006)

The thing that strikes me as amazing with OS X is that newer versions run *better* than their predecessors.

That's like installing Windows Vista on a machine and having it run quicker than XP.


----------



## Tommo (Jun 14, 2006)

Playing Devil's Advocate here, yes Macs do last longer in general if you bought a top Spec Mac originally, drawback they are much more expensive, not necessarily if you are buying one of those crazy overpriced Dell gamer PCs perhaps. The G5 I have including the 17" Studio display cost nearly three times what the PC and its 19" Screen sitting next to it did so replacement on economic grounds is not an issue.

Secondly, if you buy a Mac now most software will work well but backwards compatability is not a phrase in Apple's vocabulary. Why is Vista taking so long, mostly software and hardwae comaptability testing, why will 10.5 be here sooner ? Because Apple don't care about compatability, either software companies 'fix' their software or it won't work. OK if they didn't force you to use the latest OS with a new Mac.

Finally, hardware support from Apple is appaling, we buy both Pcs and Macs and if a PC goes wrong we get a next day visit from an engineer to fix the problem. With Macs they have to be sent to an approved repairer who on average have it for three weeks before it is repaired and sent back. Both shipping costs have to be met by the customer.

Sorry for the ramble, but I don't think Macs are better than PCs or vice versa. They both do a job, they both generally do it well, but you don't see many PC users trying to justify why their PC is better than a Mac, that might be an interesting question to post


----------



## fryke (Jun 14, 2006)

Do we _really_ need yet another thread about this? Yeah: Watch the "Touché" clip on the getamac page at Apple (linked above). Should answer this specific question very easily, although not completely.


----------



## Bluesman (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm running OSX 10.3.9 on a Trayloading Imac G3 with 233Mhz, i believe that's an 8 year old system. The things i upgraded are: ram to 288MB, a new 30GB HD and a new case fan for the silence. Granted, i can only run simple apps properly like Word, web browsers, IM software and e-mail clients. But that's what i'm using this computer for. To do my college work and a little web browsing every now and then.

I would take a mac over a PC anyday for almost everything. With almost i mean games. The only thing where Windows PC's are better are for games. I wonder what Windows Vista is gonna be like. According to beta testers and from what i've seen, it does have the potential of being better then OSX. But then again lets be fair, it's a next generation OS, i don't think it's a fair match to compare it to OSX. I really wonder how Mac OS 11 is gonna be like, lol.


----------



## davebz (Jun 15, 2006)

There is still much debate over quality vs. quantity.  Last I checked, the mac had over 15,000 apps available.  My question to dave-dave is as follows:

What good is an application if a:  it is poorly written and b:  has an interface that "only a mother could love"?


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 1, 2007)

camgangrel21 said:


> I will backup what ElDiabloConCaca had to say. I run a now 6 year old G4 Power Mac upgraded the video card and RAM and I'm runing 10.4.6 server and Shake 4 and The whole Final Cut Studio pack. Works great. Now what almost 7 year old PC could you run Hollywood Apps on? With just upgradeing the video card and RAM? I also run 10.4.5 on my "PDQ" Wallstreet G3 233 Mhz 160 MB of RAM and a 100 GB hard drive. This laptop was stop being made in 1999. Now what x86 laptop could you run Windows XP on that was a P1 or maybe a low end P2. And still be able to have it be usefull to you. Seeing as I have came back to the Mac from the dark side I can tell you this XP can run on as low as a 200 Mhz P1 with as much as 250 MB of RAM but it will take at lest 10 mins for it to boot. Then that long for any other app to run.
> So I hope that helps you out to see why Apple hardware even realy old hardware can still kick a PCs butt any day of the week.



I've got a Compaq SP700 dual PIII 550Mhz Xeon back from 1999 (well it started life as a dual 450Mhz Xeon). Its got 2 Gigs of RAM (PC100 ECC), dual channel UW SCSI controller with an 18gig 15,000RPM Seagate boot drive and a 36gig 10,000RPM Quantum Atlas as the second drive. There is an SATA controller added which has a pair of 250gig Samsung SATA drives on there. Video card is an AGP Geforce4 Ti4200 128mb. The box also has dual firewire 400 ports standard. Its running XP Pro and is currently my main scanning / photoshop computer for image manipulation - especially for digital files from my Canon 20D camera (love that camera).  Sometimes I burn DVD's on there as well since prices of burners are so low. Added an LG 16x dual layer.

I'm sure my 8 year old PC is not a slouch compared to your old G4. Please dont assume that all PC's are crap or slow. Thanks.


----------



## eric2006 (Feb 1, 2007)

In a nutshell: It just works.


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 1, 2007)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Just a short list of things that I think most of us here will agree are better:
> - Better user interface
> - Ease of use
> - Don't crash as much
> ...



-Better user interface?  Maybe. Thats debatable. Its 2007 and I still have to resize a window from one corner?  Still no real maximize window to fill the screen incase I need to squeeze every last drop of realestate on a spreadsheet

-Ease of use? Two of my friends have both Mac and PC and we had this discussion a short while ago. They both said that back in the days of OS9 this was true, but they actually find WinXP easier to learn/use or can imagine it being so for a new user.

-Dont crash as much?  Please dont even go there. I dont know how many months of uptime my Win2k server has rightnow which was only shut down for me to add more drives to it. Its not 1998 anymore. Things have improved since then in terms of stability. Win2k for example... XP another example.

-Spyware/virus ... I'll give you that. The mac has virtually none. Honestly though. Its not a big issue. There are at least 5 100% free antivirus software that update themselves. Just install and forget about it. Its not really an issue unless you want to turn it into an issue. I have not seen a virus on anyone's computer in the past 3 years. This is since everyone learned that it might be a good idea to install antivirus when surfing to 'warez' sites. If you dont do anything like that, you're pretty much safe anyway. I dont even run AV on my box. 

-High quality workmanship. I assume you mean the case and not the parts. If you mean the parts...then I'll take a picture of the ibook keyboard. Says Acer on the back. Even us PC people dont regard Acer as anything to write home about. 

-Aesthetically pleasing. Yes this is true, but honestly, I'll take expandability over appearance. Apple towers are very restrictive and barely hold anything - especially true in the older G4 days. My old Antec case (computer I'm typing from) may not look pretty, but its got room for 4 optical drives and 6 hard drives with good ventilation. Fans are quiet too.

-Last longer?  Umm so whats stopping a PC user? I've got a dual xeon box from 1999 (thats 8 years old) with 2 gigs ram, UW SCSI drives, SATA drives, 128mb AGP video card..etc. Its running XP with SP2, photoshop CS2..etc. Pretty current sounding to me for a really old box. Trust me, with the 15K and 10K SCSI drives, its not a slug either 

-Macs can run windows. True and it does so generally well, but some people having huge SATA performance issues, sound stuttering issues, strange clock issues when switching between OSX and Windows. You can run windows but its not a walk in the park always. 



Anyway those are some of my observations. I do work with macs at work (supporting both platforms) and I do have a B&W G3 with 768mb RAM so yes its old but at least I have a mac. Not just a PC person who's never touched anything


----------



## eric2006 (Feb 1, 2007)

If you're used to PCs, and won't even look at the benefits of Macs, you won't see them. Many of your points are untrue or not completely correct, from a Mac user's perspective.

You've got to remember, though, that many people expect their Windows computers to "just work", with drastic consequences. I've seen many BSODS (in XP), removed thousands of adware, spyware, and viruses from XP machines, and replaced many different pieces of hardware on PCs. If you're an experienced Windows user, you can usually hold down the fort, avoid most spyware, and reinstall only once a year. But for people who use the computer only as a tool, the Mac requires little or no upkeep, and focuses on user experience.

Oh, and I have an SE/30 from 1989 that works like new, so I've got you beat


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 2, 2007)

See my experience is different. I have been building PCs for the longest time and almost nothing I've built has gone down due to faulty hardware. I believe generic PCs built by inexperienced builders may be unreliable but its not true to say that PCs are unreliable. It depends on the manufacturer. For example, at my current work we have about 20 macs and 120 PCs and at least in the past 3 years I've been there, I've seen more mac failures from power supplies, hard drives (in the G5 imacs...heat I guess), a logic board, ibook keyboard...etc. I've had between the 120 PCs, a HD that died, a PSU and a DVD burner.  Its luck of the draw if equipment is well built.

You may have a good point about the viruses and spyware because inexperienced users may get more of those.

PS. I still have my first PC and its running as well   Its a 386-25Mhz with 4meg RAM. Its a retro dos gaming box at the moment. Its also from around '89


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 2, 2007)

dave-dave said:


> Isn't more software compatible with PCs? Such as though free song software, Monopoly and such? Why does everyone favor macs? What am I missing!



I guess it's kind of like jazz: if you have to ask, you'll never know. 

Seriously though, why not give one a try?  If you have an Apple Store in your area, go there and take them for a test drive.  But I do ask that you be open to the operating system and not expect it to be like Windows because it's NOT Windows.  Being open is what allowed me to give Linux a try and I'm totally in love with it (I started as a Mac user, so you can imagine).  I also was open about learning Windows even though I didn't like it at all during the 90s.  I grew to like it, but then once I learned about Linux and opened up to that I eventually started moving away from Windows on my PCs to the point where now I don't even run Windows at home.  I'm still a Mac user, so I have my iMac G5 for mainstream use and a Macintosh Quadra 650 that's acting as a web server for my family homepage and some other uses.  This isn't to say that I don't use my Linux PCs for mainstream use....I do my surfing, e-mailing, productivity, and music composing on them as well.  So for me, the applications are there for Macintosh and even Linux....so why bother with Windows and all of its issues?


----------



## fryke (Feb 2, 2007)

contoursvt, you've revived a very old thread in order to continue its OS war bashing theme. I'm not sure whether this is really a healthy path. We all know that these things can heat up pretty quickly. You're content with your PCs that you put together yourself. You also don't find the fact that you have to use antivirus-software and anti-spyware a problem. Your Windows 2000 Server has a good uptime. Well: Be glad is all I can say. But you're not the average Windows user fed up with all the problems they encounter. I'm pretty sure there are _ways_ to make Windows work as intended, mainly because there _is_ an intended way. I remember being quite content with Win2K myself. But why _was_ it more stable at the beginning? Because Microsoft didn't let it run old problematic drivers and software in the first place. With XP, MS brought some compatibility back, and sure as hell many of the problems came back as well (plus a couple of new ones). I'm sure there are a lot of valid reasons for why Windows isn't that bad at all - even for less tech-avid users than yourself. But this thread's about what's better about Macs. And your personal experience, imho, doesn't defy the points set up by ElDiabloConCaca in June of 2006:

"Better user interface" - I guess there _can_ be a debate about that one. Maybe it's down to opinion. So let's forget about this one, although I *personally* strongly disagree with anyone saying Windows XP or Vista having a better user interface. You mention "no full screen button" for Mac OS X, neglecting the fact that making any app fullscreen kinda kills drag and drop or at least makes it a *lot* harder.

"Ease of use" - Well, that goes with above point, I'd say, so I wouldn't count it as a separate point.

"Don't crash as much" - I'd write "doesn't" instead of "don't", but in my years of experience with unexperienced users of both Macs and Windows PCs, I'd say statistics are with me. 

"Spyware/Viruses are virtually non-existant" - You yourself give that point a little validity and I agree with you there. I add some emphasis: It really _is_ a problem for many non-experienced users.

"High quality of craftsmanship" - Skip that one. If that was the _one_ point for decision, I'd be using an IBM Thinkpad by now. Well, a Lenovo Thinkpad, maybe.

"They're aesthetically pleasing" - It _is_ a reason, although maybe not the most important one.

"They last longer" - I think your 8-year-old PC is really a personal experience, and you have given it a _lot_ of not exactly inexpensive hardware upgrades in order to make it still a decent PC. And yet it's not exactly a good candidate for Vista compared to a cheap new PC. But I personally don't really enjoy that old G3 in my signature much with Tiger. It'd need updates as well.

"They can run Windows now, negating your entire argument about quantity of software available" - Heck, that _is_ true, you know. But I'm glad my copy of Windows XP that I can run in Parallels Desktop stays closed for all but the occasional time when I have to test websites against IE. I often decide to let users do that nowadays, though. It's just too much hassle. Start up Windows, hope that the virus defs are not tooooooooo old by now, let Windows do all its updates and let the antivirus software do all _its_ updates, then reboot and finally load _one_ page in IE. Err...


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 2, 2007)

Mac has :

Faster searches in files
Boots up and shuts down quicker (and the former probably applies to Vista too).
In 10.5 - full 64-bit operating system, without driver hassles
Sharp, uncomplicated display.
Dont have to worry about DRM issues
Dont have to worry about authorising the operating system.
Dont have to worry about silly security systems.
Using standby actually works, and doesn't crash the machine a couple of minutes after coming out of said system.
No need for frequent updates.


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 2, 2007)

MrTAToad said:


> Mac has :
> 
> Faster searches in files
> Boots up and shuts down quicker (and the former probably applies to Vista too).
> ...





Hmm from this page, it looks like you do have DRM
http://www.matthewgifford.com/2005/08/01/drm-in-os-x-might-drive-me-away/

You might find the search faster but searching by file type and or file extensions dont work nearly as well. Guess you could drop to commandline. Pitty that sharp clean shell doesnt do it all 

OSX has less driver hassles because it has very little hardware selection and options. I dont like paying 2x the price for the exact same card just because its a Mac card. Hardware options are a good thing.

Please define silly security systems. If you mean Vista, well you can turn that off with a couple clicks and never deal with it again. 

Dont know what PC you've tried standby on but please dont base your experience on some 5 cent computer or one from 5 years ago. I use standby all the time on my boxes and on one of them I also implement suspend to disc which works great as well. 

Less frequent updates... just huge lumps to download at one time. I'd rather I get an update every day thats tiny than to be notified that I have to download 25 megs and have to reboot. I also enjoy having updates install themselves without any user intervention other than it telling me its done. 

I also actually like that XP has been around so long. That means that since buying XP Pro as an OEM license with my HD purchase when it first came out for $150, my mac friends had to go through 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4.  I dont think each revision was a free upgrade if you didnt buy a new machine each time. My guess is if you wanted to keep up, you needed to purchase it. You could just stick with 10.1 and not pay, but I love to see how well 10.1 is supported by apple and other software vendors. Chances are a lot of new software may not run right on such an old version.


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 2, 2007)

fryke said:


> contoursvt, you've revived a very old thread in order to continue its OS war bashing theme.



Ya I looked back and noticed that I didnt see how old the thread was...just read a post and thought I'd respond. Oooops


----------



## MrTAToad (Feb 3, 2007)

> Dont know what PC you've tried standby on but please dont base your experience on some 5 cent computer


You may be interesting in cheapo computers - but I certainly am not.  All desktop machines I have had have trouble returning from standby.  The only ones that dont, were my laptops...

And I forgot to add to the list :

No need to defrag


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 3, 2007)

Windows really isn't all that bad.  it's just... there's a lack of direction, i think.

windows is now pretty much as stable, secure and powerful as OS X is.  
if there is a superior system for these aspects, it's so negligible at this point that there's really no point using these as points to argue.  early builds of consumer release XP really hurt MS.  but they have recovered, and it looks like they've learned their lesson.

(also, i think there is some truth in rumours that the redmond photocopiers weren't the only active photocopiers in the last 5 years.)

the  thing that makes me think that os x is superior is that while MS have really improved windows, and raised the bar of graphically what a system can do, there a distinct sense of graphical whizzery for the sake of it, while actually being counter-productive.  Windows Flip, as a rival to Exposé is more impressive to watch, but actually, works slower in the brain as you have to physically scroll through your open windows.  Exposé has all the windows tiled, with the entire point being that nothing is overlapping.  you can see everything all at once.

the new UI design in Vista is curious as well:  who in Redmond thought that making the 'minimise/maximise/close' widgets _smaller_ (and thus harder to point at) was a good idea?  there's no reasoning behind some things that they've done.  the translucency has no merit from a human interface design at all (in fact, it's counterproductive, as it muddies up a clean space).  it's eye candy, and absolutely nothing more.

to say that MS should have the biggest R+D budget in the world, theres not much forward thinking in Vista;  i'm not aware of anything in Vista that is really going to move the industry forward, and i think that's what aggravates me.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 3, 2007)

It was mentioned that Mac users have to pay for every point release.  Consider that Windows users did as well, but because of the names they have thanks to MS marketing monkeys they had no idea.

Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4
Windows NT 5 (aka "Windows 2000")
Windows NT 5.1 (aka "Windows XP")

There's more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

I believe that Vista is considered Windows NT 6, but don't quote me on that.  All you have to do is open up a Command Prompt and you'll see the revision number right above the c:\> prompt.  If I'm not mistaken, those are point releases just like Apple has done.  Also pay close attention to the times of release on the link I provided.  They've been from 1-3 years between releases.  Apple does them every 2-3 years.  So i ask you, is that really much different from what Apple does?

As for Vista taking 5 years, the only reason for that was because they kept delaying.  It was meant to be released in 2003, not 2007, and was promised with some groundbreaking features for Windows users.  After 5 years, MS comes up with this "Vista?"  How disappointing after such a long wait.

And consider that the Service Packs for Windows are like the Combo Updaters for Mac OS X.  All they have are a bunch of rolled-up patches and features that you can download for free.

So your point about point releases has no point.


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 3, 2007)

nixgeek said:


> It was mentioned that Mac users have to pay for every point release.  Consider that Windows users did as well, but because of the names they have thanks to MS marketing monkeys they had no idea.
> 
> Windows NT 3.5
> Windows NT 4
> ...



ummm no. The point is in 5 years, apple as release 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and XP is still XP. Each time apple releases the next version, support for people who purchased their machine with the previous version decreases. If they want to stay on top of the game (as well as maintain compatability with new hardware/software) they have to spend $$ to upgrade. Your windows point release info was pointless because the frequency of those releases are spaced so far apart. Also you can STILL buy new hardware and software that runs on win98 which is 9 years old. I'd like to see brand new printers, scanners, network cards, raid controllers, sata controllers...that would come with OS 8.6/os9 drivers. Apple makes you spend money on the newer point release much more frequently unless you're ok with little support.

Also vista may seem dissapointing as a release but you know, nobody really cares. XP still has full support for software and hardware and as an XP user myself, I'll probably just wait until the NEXT version. There are tons of people that still run win2k even. Why bother changing if almost all CURRENT  hardware and software run great on your OS?


----------



## fryke (Feb 3, 2007)

You're right: Why bother. That's the point Lt. Major Burns was trying to make. If basically what you can do with Vista you can also do with Win2K - but with less hardware upgrades necessary - then by all means: Stay with Win2K. I don't think Win2K was too bad for a Windows system. But the reason for upgrading to a newer version like XP or Vista shouldn't be that it _looks_ different or adds hurdles for the user, the reason should be innovation, stuff that really makes working with a system easier, better, more productive. Vista, five years after XP, simply _doesn't_ bring that much to the table. If you compare that to, say, comparing Puma to Leopard (10.1 to 10.5), that looks quite different to me. Now you could say that Puma simply wasn't such a good OS back then - and you may have a point. But at the same time, Windows had its _worst_ time, what with worms infecting systems before they even were correctly installed... (Sure you can say it's stupid to install Windows XP without a hardware firewall present, but most home users do _not_ have a hardware firewall, and Windows XP _wants_ to connect to the 'net in order to download the newest updates before installation.)

All that being said: For me it comes down to _one_ big difference that has been true for oh so many years:

Windows is obtrusive. It gets in the way. All the time. The Mac doesn't.

Points:
- Windows is eager to have apps full screen and is laid out for it. This doesn't give drag and drop its full potential. It gets in the way.
- Windows tells me that I need to take certain steps. It asks me to go "there" and adjust software updates and security settings, which means it clearly _has_ a preference for me, but then why isn't there a button to "go ahead and do it for me"? It gets in the way.
- MSN is pushed so hard that it starts by itself and asks me to use its network - whether I want to or not.
- Plug n'Play USB? Nono. You have to go to some widget in the taskbar, open it and select the right hardware to pop out. Often, devices have more than one entry there and it's unclear to the user whether it matters which entry you select. Obtrusive.
- Wizards and assistants everywhere. They're a way to hide that preference windows just aren't that good in Windows. They often offer you a thousand options at a glance. Only that you need a book to find your way around them. Well: You can use the wizards. But they force you to work them through with a lot of - at least seemingly - stupid questions. Either way: Obtrusive. Very.

This list does _not_ count for all the instances where dialogue boxes are very unclear. Why would an Office installation tell me that x32340.dll installed is newer than the one I'm about to install and ask me what to do about it? Those file names do _not_ tell the user what should be done. The user can only assume that newer is better, but at the same time it's quite probable that the software he or she's installing depends on a certain version. The _least_ this is: Obtrusive.

The Mac thing is: It lets me work. I can write an entire shortstory without having to deal with anything but my writing. In order to do that on Windows, I'd have to first turn off every little bit of software that's automatically run, then (or better before that) knock out the network cable and use Notepad.exe to write, because everything else wants to reformat my text while I'm writing it.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 3, 2007)

XP was still XP because Vista wasn't finished in time.  Did you miss me saying that?  Vista was meant to be released in 2003 when it was still called Longhorn.  In all the time it took for Microsoft to "finish" Vista, all they came out with were 2 Service Packs.  It's not that they didn't release anything because they were satisfied with the product.....all of the malware and security issues made sure of that.  They were busy patching something that wasn't good enough for release to begin with.  Now with Service Pack 2, XP has become much more stable but it's still far from perfect.

With each major release of Mac OS X, there have been significant changes made under the hood.  Moves to the current FreeBSD branch with the Mach kernel and various other improvements have justified the releases.  Besides, this has always been the case even before Mac OS X was released.  System 6, System 7, System 7.5 (didn't mention 7.1 because I don't know if that was a pay release), Mac OS 8, Mac OS 8.5, Mac OS 8.6, Mac OS 9.  Each one of these brough about improvements that made it better than the previous version, regardless of the duration time between releases.  Same for Windows.  You can't tell me that the 2-3 year difference from Win NT 4 to XP wasn't the same as the difference from 10.1 to 10.4.  That's about the same amount of time, man!  And Windows was SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive on all major revisions compared to the $129 charged for Mac OS X.

As for Mac OS 9, there's still hardware coming out that is compatible with it.  However, as we move from the PowerPC to Intel that's waning faster.  We're going to start seeing that with legacy Windows operating systems if we haven't already.  At this point, I don't know how common it is to have computer users with Windows 98 especially with how cheap PCs are nowadays, so that would negate the need for companies to support Windows 98 at all.

And as far as upgrading, no one is forced to upgrade.  There are people here who are using 10.3.9 quite happily and don't have the need to update to upgrade to 10.4.x.  That might change with 10.5, but only because it brings some good stuff to the table.  With 10.4, we got some nice speed bumps and features, but nothing that significant to make those using 10.3.9 to jump to the next version.  Just like those using Windows 2000 and are quite content with it.  So your point on this is not valid either.

To be honest, you sound more and more like a shill for Windows and Microsoft.  It's rather obvious that you are content with Microsoft and Windows....that's good for you.  If you have to ask why people need to change without even giving it a chance, you're just wasting everyone's time on frivolous chatter.  This topic has been discussed since the early days of Macintosh and Windows....it is getting quite old.  The proof has been presented to you as to why.  If you're not willing to accept the truth and keep fighting it, then there's nothing more to say really.


----------



## contoursvt (Feb 3, 2007)

nixgeek said:


> ...To be honest, you sound more and more like a shill for Windows and Microsoft.  It's rather obvious that you are content with Microsoft and Windows....that's good for you.  If you have to ask why people need to change without even giving it a chance, you're just wasting everyone's time on frivolous chatter.  This topic has been discussed since the early days of Macintosh and Windows....it is getting quite old.  The proof has been presented to you as to why.  If you're not willing to accept the truth and keep fighting it, then there's nothing more to say really.



So wait, you're saying that unless I conform and forced to understand why your point of view is the right one, then I'm wasting everyones time?  Just making sure I understand. I have both Windows machines and a B&W G3 with 10.3.9 on there so I have used both but choose to use Windows as my primary machine and through my usage of both, I am giving my point of view. Anyway nobody has to change and nothing anyone will say can change my point on windows. Maybe I'm exceptionally gifted or something and can make a bulletproof computer and run windows without any issue for years...who knows  

Anyway this discussion is over. Afterall this is an OSX forum and my G3 is a secondary machine so it doesnt really matter where this discussion goes.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 3, 2007)

contoursvt said:


> Maybe I'm exceptionally gifted or something and can make a bulletproof computer and run windows without any issue for years...who knows
> 
> Anyway this discussion is over. Afterall this is an OSX forum and my G3 is a secondary machine so it doesnt really matter where this discussion goes.


I am exceptionally gifted, I run a bullet-proof and crash-proof Windows XP machine, and still prefer Mac OS X.

No one's opinion is right or wrong -- but it is a boneheaded person that refuses to see another's point of view.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 3, 2007)

I'm not saying for you to conform.  You can use Windows for all you want.  If it works for you, great.  For the record, I haven't had any issues with Windows either, but I find Mac OS X and Linux to be far superior.  Seems like the world doesn't entirely revolve around you as being the uber-ly gifted person that can build a bulletproof computer either, and I'm sure I can speak for many of the other experienced "sliders" here as well ("slider" being someone who goes back and forth between various operating systems).

Seriously, it just sounds like you're trolling at this point.  People have given the rebuttals to your claims, but you refuse to accept that you might be wrong on certain instances. No one is trying to change your choice....that's up to you.  But to add fuel to the flamewar isn't very productive, especially on a site that's meant to help other switchers and veterans with their problems.  Case closed, as you say.  Agree to disagree, and so on.


----------



## fryke (Feb 3, 2007)

M'kay. Let's give this thread some moderation instruction.

No more personal attacks, please.
No more trolling, please.

It just isn't healthy. People _do_ feel strongly about their platform(s) of choice, and therefore, they're not likely to be their nicest when their choice is attacked. We all know that. Since there is no-one around anymore with an actual _need_ to know why Macs are better (I think the original poster is long gone or at least not following this particular thread anymore), I'd also say the thread's done as for now.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 3, 2007)

i thought of a microcosm for the current mac/windows debate.

the USB Memory Key.

plug it into a windows pc, and windows' highly intelligent driver system gives me a little 'ding-dong', and tells me that a usb mass storage device has been found;  that a USB device, and a Hi-Speed USB2.0 device has been found and that it's ready to use, as all the drivers have been installed for this device.

on Mac OS, it places it on my desktop and lets me use it, without fussing over me like an overprotective mother. I know it's a USB Mass Storage Device, i had it in my hand before i plugged it in.

EDIT  sorry fryke, wrote that, then saw your post, then felt silly, but still thought it were valid.


----------



## fryke (Feb 3, 2007)

i think it nicely brings to the point what i was laying out more extensively about Windows being obtrusive.


----------



## wolf_pack (Mar 13, 2007)

to each his own ya know? everyone has a os that the like or dislike right? that's cool we live in america you like windows buy windows you like mac buy mac right? I've been into windows for awhile now and to me it seems like vista is going to be the down fall of windows, I got a computer shopper in the mail yesterday and to tell you the truth all the stuff you have to go through just to install it just to me isn't worth it so my wife's computer will stay xp which will probably be what 98 was... I'm not gifted with the computer by no means i get by like everyone else in this forum to help one another to make the computing experience funner isn't that what this is all about to enjoy playing and having fun on the net with whatever system you have or can afford... I love my g4 system because it was free and to tell you the truth this machine runs alot faster than my wifes xp and i only have osx 10.2.8 and i'm happy when time and money comes around i'll go tiger and upgrade the memory but i say for myself listen learn to everyone when you want an honest answer noone is here to get mad at one another just to learn....have a nice day...Bo


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 13, 2007)

wolf_pack said:


> I love my g4



Wait until you get a Intel Mac. It's a whole new Mac experience.



wolf_pack said:


> ... money comes around i'll go tiger and upgrade the memory



Wait until 10.5 comes out in a little while. Then Tiger disks will be discounted at resellers.


----------



## knight885 (Mar 14, 2007)

wolf_pack said:


> ...to me it seems like vista is going to be the down fall of windows...



I agree with Wolf_pack, I can see Vista being a huge disaster.  I decided a while back to avoid it completely, and not just because it's ugly.

There are two reasons I prefer MacOS to Windows - Windows is too intrusive, and Mac just works.


----------



## LanceWright (Jan 2, 2008)

The main reason Macs are considered better is simply the fact that Apple:

1) Builds the Hardware
2) Builds the Operating System

Most of the fundamental applications are written by Apple, ensuring that IF there is a problem, you have only Apple to blame.

In the PC world, there is a plethora of motherboards, memory, hard drives, and other hardware.

This, coupled with the large number of software makers, just means the experience _can_ be more frustrating.

I can use pretty much any type of computer, but I prefer the Mac.

Why?

I think of the computer, like I think of my car:  I just want to aim the damned thing in the direction I want it to go, and for the damned thing to get me there.


----------



## fryke (Jan 2, 2008)

Erh... Reviving old threads, eh? (I've removed the double, btw.)


----------



## vanostade (Jan 4, 2008)

Lilbandit , your motto "I hate Meath" puzzled me ...Just to enlighten myself ( & because it's snowing ), I looked into Webster's Unabridged Dict.( 3/3 , p.1397) : "meath : old word for fermented drink , water +honey+malt+yeast..." .Nothing loathsome , looks to me , but maybe a little strong ... .Or any other signification ?   signed vanostade , a friend in Macs love  ( vanostade : pseudo. found out  with dictionnary & knitting-needle   - motto not yet choosen...)


----------



## Rhisiart (Jan 4, 2008)

Surely County Meath, i.e. gaelic football rivalry (let's not mention the hurling).

I'm rather impressed with Vista. If Apple went belly up tomorrow, I think I could live with Vista.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 4, 2008)

rhisiart said:


> Surely County Meath, i.e. gaelic football rivalry (let's not mention the hurling).
> 
> I'm rather impressed with Vista. If Apple went t*ts up tomorrow, I think I could live with Vista.



I've played around with Vista, and I can definitely say that once the eye candy wears out it's just so disappointing.  I actually much rather enjoy using XP over Vista.  Sure, Apple has the eye candy but the rest of the system is just so much more elegant.  Personally, if Apple went "nips up" then I would probably go full force GNU/Linux.  I'm already using Ubuntu 7.10 as my primary OS on my work laptop and it does the job for me (sans Compiz Fusion...I prefer the performance ).  Plus with the "ubuntu-studio" metapackages, I can use many of the audio applications for DAR and MIDI sequencing that I'm already using on my iMac G5 running Tiger.


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2008)

Vista: Too much eye-candy trying to cover the fact that they've eliminated the most important features from the original plans.

Leopard: Mainly eye-candy plus TimeMachine (with eye-candy) and QuickLook.

The time for revolutionary new operating systems was in the 80s 'til 2001 or something. Nowadays, it's more about the glitter and gold. Functionality takes a backseat (see Leopard's changes to the Dock for example). Here's to the hope for a better 10.6. (Maybe we'll even see the day when Apple goes back to calling their OS by the numbers instead of stupid names that have *nothing* whatsoever to do with the content? Naah. It'll have a big cat's name, I guess.)

Tiger's still the best OS around, but over time, Leopard's inevitable.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jan 5, 2008)

I am not against a little eye candy if it is subtle. Personally, I rather like the new Mac dock (beauty lies in the eye of the beholder of course). As far as Vista is concerned, I like the fact that the icons are sharper. 

The mechanisms of Time Machine (as opposed to its usefulness) does seem a bit OTT. QuickLook is snazzy, but could be improved, in that I find a lot if images are blurred.

Vista seems closer to something I could live with even if it wasn't my first choice. Perhaps I should explore Linux.

Apple could have named its OS releases after planets. That would take them neatly to 10.9 ready for Mac OS XI. Hardly more relevant I guess, but starting with Mercury and ending with Pluto (if it is a planet) seems more sequential.

I agree that overall, functionality should be the No.1 priority.


----------



## bbloke (Jan 5, 2008)

When OS X was about the be released for the first time, I was very "wowed" by the eye candy and looked forward to seeing it in action.  It was rather more novel back then and, although I was a bit unsure at each stage, I'm glad Apple has toned things down with time.  It prevented the OS aging too quickly, and we're probably less impressed with the eye candy than we used to be, as there is a lot more of it about.  

 I very much agree that functionality should come first, but I like using software that is both functional and pleasing to the eye.  I'm also glad Apple has taken steps to make the GUI more consistent (eg. Aqua vs. Brushed Metal, etc.).  With regards to the Dock, I originally thought the 3D Dock was horrible when it was first shown, but I've come to quite like it after use.  Although users can make the Dock 2D with certain roundabout methods, it would be good if Apple gave users the option to choose in the System Preferences.  Also, I'd really like the menu bar transparency to be customizable, as that *does* cause me problems sometimes...

Time Machine was not a feature I was eagerly awaiting, but now that it's here and I've played with it, I'm glad to have it.  It makes sequential backups very simple and almost invisible to the user.  That said, I still make my own backups, using a different method, in addition.  The graphics are a little over the top, but I don't mind too much.

As for QuickLook, sometimes the images are blurry when first on screen, such as when using CoverFlow.  If you wait a few seconds after the images have first appeared, they become sharper soon enough.  My only complaint with QuickLook that I can think of is that EPS files are, bizarrely, not previewed.


----------



## Soulwar (Jan 5, 2008)

As fryke once said; "Windows is obtrusive. It gets in the way. All the time. The Mac doesn't."
I am a Mac user, forced to deal with windows, because of my wife and children. I have tried. I swear I have. For a few years now. "Annoying" doesn't even justify it. Windows software, will let anybody that can put a computer together, run it's OS. (For the right price )
 Let's stick to the basics for a moment...
Have you ever tried to update a "windows" machine?? First, it has to run an "active X" plug-in to make sure you have the latest updating software. Then it has to check if you have a legal copy of it's OS, before it even checks for an update. (every time) And if you are lucky, you might get some 3rd party hardware updates.
 Do we have to even talk about updating drivers??? Unless you want to pay to get a 3rd party driver finder, it is a JOKE. 
How many different machines are out there, with different internal hardware, that a user has to deal with? And if a piece of hardware breaks, or you want to update it, you'll have to call Microsoft and inform them so you can get a different product key, just so windows won't shut itself off in 30 days.
How about pop up "bubbles" to inform me of things that I already know or don't care about? Does it think that all users are ignorant or just stupid?
 fryke is right. Windows has it's own preference about what it wants to do and how to behave. To Windows, users minds, are a 3rd party software conflict.
   Anyone have an update for that?


----------



## jerrag (May 21, 2009)

dave-dave said:


> Isn't more software compatible with PCs? Such as though free song software, Monopoly and such? Why does everyone favor macs? What am I missing!



Why a Mac huh, well there is the fact you don't have to worry about all the  blasted viruses, then there's the spyware that doesn't effect the system, oh did I say you don't need to worry about viruses, you don't need to run software in the background eating up your valuable RAM to keep the viruses out of your system and you don't need to run anti-spyware in the background to keep spyware from eating your RAM.

Oh then there's the fact that Macintoshes WORK!! Believe me, I have a DELL sitting beside me, what does it do you may ask?  Well apart from regularly crashing, and having to reformat it about every six months because it is screwed up by viruses, or just plain screwed up because windows gets that way by itself, so I use it to download and burn flicks, that's it, oh and I do use incredimail to work with my email.  Sometimes when my G4 PPC duel 1.25 ghz processor, 2 GIG RAM is busy I may burn a DVD on it, but some of them fail to work, while using my Mac I have never had a DVD fail to burn properly and they always work on my DVD player.

Now someone may say it's the equipment however because I needed  a duel layer to burn a copy of OS X 10.5 one time, I pulled one of the two burners out of my DELL and placed it in the lower tray slot of my old mirror front.  I usually burn with that bruner cause it's a bit faster.

So to sum it up, the reason a person would use a Mac is simply because THEY WORK!!!!


----------

