# Why buy an Apple?



## cellfish (Apr 23, 2003)

I've been an iBook owner since November and I have to say that I'm satisfied with what this little machine can do. However, I've recently been in the market for a desktop and bought a PC and I'll explain why:

- I wanted to buy a Mac but wanted it to be upgradeable. This forced me to consider the PowerMac single processor. The tower alone with operating system cost 2399$ Canadian whereas I can get a new Athlon 2200+ for 650$ Canadian at an auction site.
- I wanted to buy a monitor from Apple to match the computer but all they gave me as choices are Cinema Displays, the smallest of which cost 1000$ Canadian. I can get a nice 17" CRT for my 650$ Athlon for 150$ at the same auction. It has speakers and a microphone built-in.
- I want enough ram on the Mac to match the specifications of the PC. For that and other equivalencies, I add 500$ to the price of the Mac. Total price with shipping for Athlon and monitor = 881$. It's missing an OS for the Athlon, but I can install a linux distribution since it comes with a CDRW at 48x. Total price for the Mac = 3800$.

*Now the argument will be*: Well, the PC doesn't allow you to run Mac OS X. Granted, OS X is the first decent operating system on the Apple front. It has terrible support for third-party peripherals like printers and scanners, but it is a nicer operating system than Windows.

However, Windows, for all of its security problems and virii possibilities is still a stable os (2000 + XP) that allows for thousands of different computer configurations. Drivers are not as bad as they are on the Mac front, and while the OS is plagued by something as stupid as the registry, it still is a host for way more software, more hardware and frankly, more standards compliance. While I might have to pay 150$ Canadian for the OEM windows, I can easily install OpenOffice and Gimp to take care of the most needed software and I can find drivers for whatever hardware I have. If I hate Windows, I can install any of the dozens upon dozens of Linux or BSD distributions. 

*Next argument*: Windows and Linux don't come with great software like iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iChat and Mail.

*My response*: It doesn't, and frankly I still think iTunes is the greatest piece of music entertainment software made. However, MusicMatch is a good substitute, Mozilla Mail's spam control takes care of Mail's best feature, for 75$ Canadian I can get Photoshop Albums as an iPhoto replacement and if ever I get a DVD player, it will come with half-decent software to make DVD's.

This will cost me at most another 600$ Canadian for a total of around 1500$.

*My question*: Is the Mac or the Mac OS X worth the extra 2000$? With the Mac you get a prettier computer with a better and more secure OS but is it worth the 2000$ when you consider that simple things like USB 2 will never be supported?

*My conclusion*: For all of the PC's faults, especially Microsoft's faults, the platform allows more choice to the consumer at a lower price. If you need FireWire or USB 2, you can easily add it onto the system with a card whereas you can't with a Mac.. at least not easily. If you're not satisfied with your CD-RW, you can easily replace it and know that your OS will fully support it unlike the Mac. If you want something compliant with 802.11g, you can easily add a card with any PC, whereas only certain Macs will allow for that to happen. If there is a certain file you need to run or view, you can be certain that Windows has an application to perform your desired task, whereas that is not the case with OS X (try to run an .s3m, .mod or .it).

In all, there are lots of advantages with the Mac, most of which are aesthetic. However, for the cost-conscious user, the PC remains the only choice.

Your comments are greatly appreciated. I didn't intend for this to be a rant but rather a message to Apple that they are certainly overcharging people.

Andre


----------



## Vash137 (Apr 23, 2003)

Your whole argument on PCs and Macs is perfectly valid, but of course the better thing is more expensive!  That is extremely obvious with anything anybody has ever bought.  The best speakers for a nice stereo system are WAY higher priced than normal speakers sets you can get at Best Buy or wherever.  Even though these high priced speakers are not that much better than cheap ones, they are far higher priced.  This is true for every thing in the world.  A Mac will cost more than a PC because it is just better overall.  So of course those with out the money will get a PC instead, as you stated.  That is the simple truth to why people buy PCs over Macs


----------



## fryke (Apr 23, 2003)

I can agree with most of this nicely clad troll post, but no, Apple is not overcharging people. I know many people who are just about happy using Macs. No, strike that, they're very happy using Macs. It comes at a price, but the choice is yours. Nobody gave you the right at birth to belong to the elite few who use Macintosh. It's a privilege that is paid with money. And guess what: Apple doesn't make computers that cost 10'000$ plus any more.

Sure, you can get a cheap PC. Done that myself. But for my work I choose Macintosh, and I tend to buy one every 1.5 years.


----------



## cellfish (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I can agree with most of this nicely clad troll post, but no, Apple is not overcharging people. I know many people who are just about happy using Macs. No, strike that, they're very happy using Macs. It comes at a price, but the choice is yours. Nobody gave you the right at birth to belong to the elite few who use Macintosh. It's a privilege that is paid with money. And guess what: Apple doesn't make computers that cost 10'000$ plus any more.
> 
> Sure, you can get a cheap PC. Done that myself. But for my work I choose Macintosh, and I tend to buy one every 1.5 years. *



Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better, even if they know what they are talking about, they are automatically called trolls and berated? 

The at 650$ is faster than the 3800$ Mac to start off so it's not much of a privilege unless being with something that looks good is a big privilege to you (which would make you superficial).

Now that I've mentioned that the PC is faster, the natural argument out of everyone here will be: 'the Mac allows me to work faster' which is not true

Loading a program is faster on the PC and executing just about anything within the program is faster as well. Menu navigation also is faster. Basically everything is faster.

Another argument will be: well at least the work I'm doing doesn't crash on me like it does on a PC which is not true as well. I've had AppleWorks crash on me repeatedly, Photoshop in Mac OS X.1 and X.2 crash repeatedly. I've had Mail crash of all things. Basically, there's no such thing as a crash-proof Mac. Plus there are people here who just recently purchased Macs, that with 1 GB of Ram or more and it still crashes so it's not even a ram issue.

I don't appreciate being called a troll either way when I am making valid points. Nobody would pay 2000$ or more extra for a PRIVILEGE. People pay that amount of cash to get more. Whether it's a car, a house or a computer, 2000$ gets you more, not less. From the 880$ I paid on my PC with standard configurations all over, I could improve my motherboard to an amazing one with FireWire and USB 2 built-in, I can get a SoundBlaster Audigy, I can get an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, I could get a 21" monitor, humongous speakers that destroy your eardrums, a laser printer, a scanner, a webcam, a digicam and even a second monitor and it would still cost me less than a standard Mac.

I don't like to think that my hard-earned money went into giving some anonymous loser at Apple the privilege of spending it. I like to think that I actually got something out of that money. If I'm a troll for looking over two things, making a valid comparison and making a good choice, then what the hell is your definition of a troll anyway?


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2003)

OK. Here's the short answer. The Mac OS just works!

Here's the long answer. As someone who teaches computer classes at the high school level, I have a hybrid lab that is a 50/50 split between PC and Macs. I also own two Macs and one PC. Between the two systems, whether you're talking hardware or software, I have hardly any problems with my Macs. I have DAILY (HOURLY) problems with my PCs. The PCs are newer, faster, and cost the school less than half of what the Macs did.

Remember, part of the cost of your investment is TIME. Speaking from a user interface point of view, the Mac is more user friendly. I use Photoshop/Illustrator on both machines regularly, and I ABHOR working with the programs on a PC. They work nearly identically, they are laid out the same, made by the same company, but it sometimes takes me twice as long to do certain things just because of the GUI.

The time I spend repairing student PCs is not worth the money we saved on them. One of the reason we keep getting cheap PCs is because we have to replace them about every 1 to 1 1/2 year. I have 10 original Bondi Blue iMacs that have never had one single problem. We bought 10 PCs at the exact same time, and do you know where they are all at now? The local landfill!

We are using Windows 2000 Professional on the computers, and do you know how long it took me to install that OS on 10 computers? Nearly 40 hours! An entire work week gone, just to install an OS on only 10 computers. Total install time to put 10.1 on the Bondi iMacs: less than 8 hours. Less than a days work!

I could go on for 40 more hours, but I digress.....

(Added edit)

OK, I re-read some of the statements, and I can't keep silent. When we talk about a crash-proof Mac, I don't think any of us are talking about a computer that never has a program dump on them, or a computer that is 100% problem free. I believe what we're talking about (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that when a program crashes on a Mac, you don't have to reboot your computer to fix the mess made of the OS. I repeatedly have to do this on Windoze, even in XP, even though Microsoft claims that I don't have to. Tell that to my computer.

It's like comparing my two cars. I have a Volvo and a Saturn. The Volvo, even though I bought it used, cost 5 times more than the Saturn. Which one do you think will come out better in a crash. My money's on the Volvo. They both do the same thing, have  4 wheels, a sunroom, power everything, and neither really goes faster than the other. But which one is still the better quality vehicle? The answer is obvious to me, and probably to anyone else.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *...
> Remember, part of the cost of your investment is TIME. Speaking from a user interface point of view, the Mac is more user friendly. I use Photoshop/Illustrator on both machines regularly, and I ABHOR working with the programs on a PC. They work nearly identically, they are laid out the same, made by the same company, but it sometimes takes me twice as long to do certain things just because of the GUI.
> *



You say they work the same but yet the PC version takes you twice as long to do certain things, what are these things since they must obviously differ?



> *
> The time I spend repairing student PCs is not worth the money we saved on them. One of the reason we keep getting cheap PCs is because we have to replace them about every 1 to 1 1/2 year. I have 10 original Bondi Blue iMacs that have never had one single problem. We bought 10 PCs at the exact same time, and do you know where they are all at now? The local landfill!
> *



Could you elaborate more on why they're "in a landfill now".  Since PC's and Macs share many components (motherboards being the major exception), what was failing on these pc's that warranted throwing them out?



> *
> We are using Windows 2000 Professional on the computers, and do you know how long it took me to install that OS on 10 computers? Nearly 40 hours! An entire work week gone, just to install an OS on only 10 computers. Total install time to put 10.1 on the Bondi iMacs: less than 8 hours. Less than a days work!
> *



What, you didn't just clone the disks?  By far the way to go.  You want to talk about saving money by saving time, purchase yourself Ghost or something like it.



> *
> OK, I re-read some of the statements, and I can't keep silent. When we talk about a crash-proof Mac, I don't think any of us are talking about a computer that never has a program dump on them, or a computer that is 100% problem free. I believe what we're talking about (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that when a program crashes on a Mac, you don't have to reboot your computer to fix the mess made of the OS. I repeatedly have to do this on Windoze, even in XP, even though Microsoft claims that I don't have to. Tell that to my computer.
> *



Well where I am now and the last three places I've worked have used NT4 and Win2K and for us reboots are few and far between.  Now you go mucking with stuff, then your hosed.   And I also had to shutdown my pismo because the app that mounts .dmg files wouldn't work (it would hang), I could kill it, but it wouldn't work, so a reboot cleared things up.  Then again my Win2K machine at home hasen't been rebooted in over a month and my work machine has been on so long I can't remember the last time I rebooted.  So as with anything else YMMV.



> *
> It's like comparing my two cars. I have a Volvo and a Saturn. The Volvo, even though I bought it used, cost 5 times more than the Saturn. Which one do you think will come out better in a crash. My money's on the Volvo. They both do the same thing, have  4 wheels, a sunroom, power everything, and neither really goes faster than the other. But which one is still the better quality vehicle? The answer is obvious to me, and probably to anyone else. *



Heck, for 5x the cost, it damn well better be "better" now shouldn't it? 
"Quality" is relative.  I have a BMW 750il, fast, quiet, safe, but maintanence costs are horrendous.  I also have a Japanese "rice burner" motorcycle.  It has one known defect that has bitten me several times now ($150 repair 3x in the last 8 years), but other than that, put gas in it and go.  The motorcycle cost 1/10th of the cost of the BMW new.  Which is the better quality vehicle?  I've had Toyota's that were similar, put gas in and go that are significantly cheaper than the BMW.  Which is the "better" vehicle?  The answer of course is "depends".  Each vehicle has it's strengths and weaknesses.  Not only that, but peoples experiences with the EXACT same vehicle differ.


----------



## Cat (Apr 23, 2003)

I don't know if it's a good argument or even very fair to compare the price of a brand new mac to that of a PC at an auction ...
Moreover all the free OSes and Apps you mention for the PC (x86) also exist for the Mac (PPC), so you don't really have to buy an OS if you don't want to.

The difference in price is obviously what is bugging you, so let's address that. Somewhere else there's a whole thread on price comparisons where you can check the price performance ratio more exactly, but the basic point is that Apple's hardware is more expensive because it has more quality. Apple chooses certain hardware components, not the cheapest indeed, for two reasons: quality (durability, performance etc.) and control.
The control they have over the used hardware guarantees an optimal performance and interaction between hardware and software.

You can go out there and buy a HD for $ 10,- or one for $ 100,-. If you just want it to be cheap, pick the first, if you want it to be good pick the second.

Moreover "performance" isn't just about raw processor speed. You would definitely have gotten bang for your buck with a PowerMac.

Your point is a very simple one, made often already and just as often proven wrong: bringing the issue up again is definitely trollish...


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better, even if they know what they are talking about, they are automatically called trolls and berated?
> *



Well three things were going against you.  First, you compare a computer that would be purchased from a manufacturer with full warranty, etc; against a computer that "you can get at an auction".  Now that computer at an auction might be a major manuf. computer, or it may be something thrown together by the seller, we don't know.  But to compare the two in price doesn't make much sense.  If you said you walked into CompUSA (or someother retailer) and spec'ed a Sony, that would give you more credibility vs the countless "yeah, well I can build a PC from parts from ebay, stuff I find in my closet, and some cool stuff my buddy  has for $XXXX less than you can buy your brand new Mac for" comparisons.  

But secondly, and probably most importantly, it was your comment about "Apple certainly overcharging people" that gets peoples panties in a bunch.  Those types of acusations quickly turn any "meaningful" discussion into a flame fest.  

And lastly, most Mac people are tired of hearing how "Macs are too expensive, yadda yadda".  It's a old argument.  What's just as old though (in my book) is the counter of "it's just better that's why".  That argument holds absolutely no water at all (and that's with as many car analogies as you can muster).  There may be certain benefits to the Mac that may warrant a certain price premium over a pc, but it's a matter of degrees.  If someone legitimately has a PC config that undercuts a comparable Mac by something like 2x, unless we're talking about some special case, there is no amount of "better" to justify that significant a premium.  And this whole elitist attitude ("privilaged few" indeed) is very counter productive and only serves to propagate this myth of Mac fanatics that only see things through rainbow coloured glasses (sorry, I'm old school, still can't get used to these monochromatic Apple logos).


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Blah-blah
> 
> Andre *



The answer is SO simple... Because an Apple a day keeps Wintel away...


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 23, 2003)

*Originally posted by cellfish
Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better*

And most of us around here in www.macosx.com suggest that Macs are better... Heck, what did you expect in a place which is called MAC OS X? If you want to read otherwise go at www.microsoft.com but don't go into their www.mactopia.com

*even if they know what they are talking about*

Do you know what you are talking about and most important where are you talking to?

*they are automatically called trolls and berated?* 

Because 99% of the cases they are trolls... Now, are you in the 1% area?

*The at 650$ is faster than the 3800$ Mac to start off so it's not much of a privilege unless being with something that looks good is a big privilege to you (which would make you superficial).*

Oh, I get it! Come on give us a break! Of course looking nice and cool is one VERY important reason to own a Mac! The same applies to everything else in life... Heck, we, humans, even pay millions in order to buy things that just look cool and nice... Others have professions which make things and other people how to look good! We even create nice looking ads for crap looking products like Wintels  

*Now that I've mentioned that the PC is faster, the natural argument out of everyone here will be: 'the Mac allows me to work faster' which is not true*

Aha... I bet that you can import DV, edit and record it to a DVD (playable to other DVD players), faster than say compared to an iMac G4/1GHz with your Athlon XP 2200 now, can you? Can you post a video which will beat my video showing people around here how puny and slow Wintels truly are? Oh, I forgot you need to install cards, drivers, pay AND pray some more in order to do something that a puny iMac can do so fast and easy while at the same time looking so DAMN cool...

*Loading a program is faster on the PC and executing just about anything within the program is faster as well. Menu navigation also is faster. Basically everything is faster.*

Including crashing too! 

*Another argument will be: well at least the work I'm doing doesn't crash on me like it does on a PC which is not true as well. I've had AppleWorks crash on me repeatedly, Photoshop in Mac OS X.1 and X.2 crash repeatedly. I've had Mail crash of all things. Basically, there's no such thing as a crash-proof Mac. Plus there are people here who just recently purchased Macs, that with 1 GB of Ram or more and it still crashes so it's not even a ram issue.*

No, there is no thing as a crash-proof Mac... But neither a Wintel... 

*I don't appreciate being called a troll either way when I am making valid points.*

Where are those valid points? Are you sure that you aren't trolling?

*Nobody would pay 2000$ or more extra for a PRIVILEGE. People pay that amount of cash to get more. Whether it's a car, a house or a computer, 2000$ gets you more, not less. From the 880$ I paid on my PC with standard configurations all over, I could improve my motherboard to an amazing one with FireWire and USB 2 built-in, I can get a SoundBlaster Audigy, I can get an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, I could get a 21" monitor, humongous speakers that destroy your eardrums, a laser printer, a scanner, a webcam, a digicam and even a second monitor and it would still cost me less than a standard Mac.*

But people actually give away, even millions, just to have "privileges"... If you cannot afford the "privilege" of owning a Mac, let us enjoy our Mac based privileges, like www.macosx.com, iWhining-free 

*I don't like to think that my hard-earned money went into giving some anonymous loser at Apple the privilege of spending it. I like to think that I actually got something out of that money. If I'm a troll for looking over two things, making a valid comparison and making a good choice, then what the hell is your definition of a troll anyway? *

Exactly! Let us enjoy our Apple based privileges that most of us bought with our hard earned cash and also let us help those anonymous losers(!?) at Apple enjoy their spendings some more... They deserve it...


----------



## cellfish (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *We are using Windows 2000 Professional on the computers, and do you know how long it took me to install that OS on 10 computers? Nearly 40 hours! An entire work week gone, just to install an OS on only 10 computers. Total install time to put 10.1 on the Bondi iMacs: less than 8 hours. Less than a days work!*



Ok, this is an exaggeration. It takes me as much time to install OS X on my iBook G3-600 as it took to install Windows 2000 on a K6-2 366. To say it takes less time to install OS X is just wrong.




> OK, I re-read some of the statements, and I can't keep silent. When we talk about a crash-proof Mac, I don't think any of us are talking about a computer that never has a program dump on them, or a computer that is 100% problem free. I believe what we're talking about (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that when a program crashes on a Mac, you don't have to reboot your computer to fix the mess made of the OS. I repeatedly have to do this on Windoze, even in XP, even though Microsoft claims that I don't have to. Tell that to my computer.



Ok, that is a good point I admit. I have to say that the only time I ever restarted my Mac is when there was a new program installed.


----------



## cellfish (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> The difference in price is obviously what is bugging you, so let's address that. Somewhere else there's a whole thread on price comparisons where you can check the price performance ratio more exactly, but the basic point is that Apple's hardware is more expensive because it has more quality. Apple chooses certain hardware components, not the cheapest indeed, for two reasons: quality (durability, performance etc.) and control.
> The control they have over the used hardware guarantees an optimal performance and interaction between hardware and software.



I have a lot of difficulty believing that. The CRT on the old iMacs was ridiculously bad. The sound system on Macs is also horrible. 



> Moreover "performance" isn't just about raw processor speed. You would definitely have gotten bang for your buck with a PowerMac.



Snappy, fluid and responsive are three things the Mac simply is NOT. People here will say the opposite and go on tirades talking about how snappy everything is for them, but I don't consider having a program take 5 seconds to load snappy when the equivalent on a slower PC takes .5 seconds.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Ok, this is an exaggeration. It takes me as much time to install OS X on my iBook G3-600 as it took to install Windows 2000 on a K6-2 366. To say it takes less time to install OS X is just wrong. *



Ummm.....

[RANT]

No it's not an exaggeration. binaryDigit asked above why didn't I do something like clone the drives or use Ghost. I tried. But the PCs were such pieces of cr*p that it never work on any of them. NOT ONE!!!!

Don't presume that you know what happened in my situation. I understand that in a case where the hardware is working the way it should and the planets are all perfectly aligned, and there is world peace, that the install time for the two operating systems should be roughly the same. But since those conditions did not obviously exist (and again if reference my statement about the PCs being cr*p) it DID take me an ENTIRE WEEK OF WORK TIME!!!! If I'm exaggerating, could you tell me where I can get those hours back. I could have done something much more productive with my time!

I answered you with no reservations and tried to give you an honest opinion. When others accused you of being trollish, I overlooked it and answered you unselfishly. 

You wonder why you're being accused of being trollish?

YOU CALLED ME A LIAR!!!!!

Forget about any further help from me, man!

[/RANT]


----------



## cellfish (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _Aha... I bet that you can import DV, edit and record it to a DVD (playable to other DVD players), faster than say compared to an iMac G4/1GHz with your Athlon XP 2200 now, can you? Can you post a video which will beat my video showing people around here how puny and slow Wintels truly are? Oh, I forgot you need to install cards, drivers, pay AND pray some more in order to do something that a puny iMac can do so fast and easy while at the same time looking so DAMN cool...[/B]



Here's the thing though. Using the equivalent software and a DVD writer of the same format, I can most definitely record the DVD faster. Not only that, but the DVD will be playable in more DVD players. Besides, you're bringing up the point about drivers and 'praying.'

Installing drivers is extremely easy. The reason it's necessary is because Windows opens itself up to the possibility of installing all sorts of different peripherals. If XP for instance doesn't automatically detect and install the DVD player, the drivers included will allow it to be recognized and used. On a Mac, if OS X doesn't recognize your peripherals, in most cases you're fucked. It ends there. That's it folks. You guys laugh about drivers but guess what, they're used for something important. Drivers are what allow PC users to choose from hundreds of different peripherals, and not just a dozen or so models with Mac support. 

But either way, XP has done a very very good job at detecting just about everything that'S plugged to the computer. If you plug a digicam, chances are Windows will allow you to use it without drivers. If you plug in a mouse, it will allow you to use it at the same level as the Mac (you need drivers to unlock the extra features on Windows just like you do on the Mac), if you plug in a scanner, Windows might not install the scanning software for you, but it'll notice there's a scanner there and only if necessary will it prompt you to install the drivers. Mac won't do anything. You're left to simply assume that it's ready to go.

In the case of my graphics tablet, Mac OS X has a driver but it's terrible. In the case of my scanner, the OS X driver didn't even work and I was required to download a 250 meg file to correct the situation. For my mouse, I couldn't do anything with it until I installed the driver. My printer doesn't even have an OS X driver, lucky for me a unix driver was ported to the OS but just as every other printer in Mac OS X, it doesn't print properly.

Those same peripherals, under Windows, worked perfectly. I should mention that in the case of the scanner, it shipped as being 100% OS X compliant. However, every time Apple releases a new version of their OS, some support is lost.

Andre


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *You say they work the same but yet the PC version takes you twice as long to do certain things, what are these things since they must obviously differ?*



It all stems from the GUI. In MacOS, I can easily hide/minimize the palettes and so forth, but cannot as easily do it in Windoze. Just working with the mouse is a chore, at least for me. It just doesn't flow like it does on my Macs. Every window has its own menu bar, what a pain.



> *
> Could you elaborate more on why they're "in a landfill now".  Since PC's and Macs share many components (motherboards being the major exception), what was failing on these pc's that warranted throwing them out?*



You pegged it! The motherboards. Every single one of them had some problem or another. Some of them just quit. One was corrupting the RAM. Another had built-in components like the LAN, instead of having a separate LAN card, and that part just quit. And on and on. We obviously salvaged the components that were still usable, but what a pain. And BTW, these were not just some obscure branded machines. Five of them were Dell, and five were Gateway. I understand that computers get a lot more wear-and-tear being used by students all day at a school, but why is it that only the PCs died, and all the Macs are still in use. That can't be a fluke, there has to be a reason. My answer: QUALITY!



> *
> What, you didn't just clone the disks?  By far the way to go.  You want to talk about saving money by saving time, purchase yourself Ghost or something like it.
> *



I answered this in my last post. I hope you didn't think I was upset with you. Not at all. I tried this method, but It just didn't work.

As for each person having a separate experience with the machine. I whole-heartedly agree. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Mac user, so I'm obviously biased. But, most of my bias has come from years of using both types of machines. I've owned a Mac of some sort since the original in 1984, and I've owned a PC of some sort for most of that time as well. My experience on the Mac has BY FAR been the better experience. They could double the price and I would still pay it


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *Ummm.....
> 
> [RANT]
> ...



Hold yer horses there pardner.  I don't think that he was calling you a liar.  It sounded more like he was implying that you were doing something wrong, or that there were some extenuating circumstances that lead to such a long install time (which you allude to in your above reply).  I understand where he's coming from as I've done more Win2k installs than I'd would want to, and it _usually_ doesn't take the order of magnitude of time you've mentioned.  On the other hand, I have been through some installs that have wasted days because of various issues.  So I get where you're coming from to (hence my suggestion to use Ghost).



> * You pegged it! The motherboards. Every single one of them had some problem or another. ... And BTW, these were not just some obscure branded machines. Five of them were Dell, and five were Gateway. I understand that computers get a lot more wear-and-tear being used by students all day at a school, but why is it that only the PCs died, and all the Macs are still in use. That can't be a fluke, there has to be a reason. My answer: QUALITY!*



I've always maintained that Dell esp, but also Gateway uses the same crap components that your average Joe would use.  Some of them are pure junk.  But then again, that's the good and bad thing about the pc market.  There is such a depth of offerings that finding the "good" matches can be a challenge.  I swear every company I've worked at for the last 8 years has used Dell's exclusively, and though various components have had problems (esp cdroms), for the most part they have been solid.  I think what happens is that companies have IT people that are more familiar with the "safe" machines to get, and are much less likely to buy a batch of bad machines.  Small buyers like yourself don't have that luxury.  So my experience has been positive while yours and I'm sure many others like yourself have not.  For my own personal use, all my machines are hand built, so I know what goes into them.  That being said though, I tinker considerably with my hardware.  I often get stuff that I'm trying out and installing drivers, uninstalling drivers and I must say, I haven't had to do a complete OS re-install in years (since NT4 days).  I know it sounds kinda funny, but back in the day (early NT4, NT3.51, OS/2) those OS's were VERY fragile.  But then again I still have nightmares about my wifes PB180 and the rats nest of extensions, and the Umax S900 with it's oddball DIMMS, non-Apple scsi devices and FWB, and we can go way back to things like software compatibility with the IIfx (and more wacko memory) and 32bit clean code and color quickdraw clean code, SE/Plus/512/128 floppy drives getting dirty/gumming up, multifinder (nuff said), heinous early tcp/ip support (ping, a ping, my kingdom for a ping), etc, I know that you can probably relate 



> * It all stems from the GUI. In MacOS, I can easily hide/minimize the palettes and so forth, but cannot as easily do it in Windoze. Just working with the mouse is a chore, at least for me. It just doesn't flow like it does on my Macs. Every window has its own menu bar, what a pain.*



Actually I like every window having it's own menu bar.  I'm not at all a fan of the single menubar at the top of the screen.  I like to work with many apps open at a time and I like the concept of the desktop (or a dedicated part of it) being reserved for a single app.  Like in OSX, I have the dock disappear when not in use.  I think stuff like this is just personal preference and what a user is used to.  I personally am considerably more productive navigating on a Windoze machine than the Mac, but that's just me.



> * I answered this in my last post. I hope you didn't think I was upset with you. Not at all. I tried this method, but It just didn't work.*



Oh no, not at all.  Just as I hope that my responses are coming across too negatively.  It sounds like your negative opinion of pc's comes from quite a bit of experience, I can appreciate that.  Many on this site have a rather comic book view of the PC world in particular and the computing world in general, so it gets a bit frustrating (I can relate to cellfish in this regard).  But the fact is that a great many users of PC's are doing just hunky dory.  The occaisional glitch here or there, of course.  But nothing that the Mac world can claim to be free from either (like why the heck Apple can't seem to get the Pismo's battery to behave correctly with OSX, they are NOT cheap).  Hulkaroos mentions being able to do things like create dvd's.  Well I have a pal that has a pieced together PC who got a firewire card and whatever cheap software came with it and is capturing and creating movies just fine.  He had no problems, card installed fine, software worked fine.  He exported to mpg and burned a vcd.  He also burned a dvd (though he took the files into work and burned it there since he doesn't own a dvd burner), worked like a charm.  PC's don't ALWAYS fail, and lots of people are being very productive.  In the begining I even tried to convince him to get a Mac (told him all about iMovie, built in firewire, etc).  Actually came this close to having him convinced that the addon card route would be too much of a hassle.  Do you think I can convince him now that the price premium for a Mac would be "worth it", nope.  Did he get lucky?  Perhaps, but that doesn't make his experience any less valid than the experience of someone who had bad things happen.  OK, it's past midnight and I've rambled on long enough 

Parting shot, Macs are "better", yes in most regards, but PC's are not "that bad" and ARE better in MANY regards as well and I don't think that the differences are as stacked as many Mac fans think/wish/"delude themselves into thinking" they are.  Are Macs worth the extra cost, well that's up to the user to decide.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Here's the thing though. Using the equivalent software and a DVD writer of the same format, I can most definitely record the DVD faster. Not only that, but the DVD will be playable in more DVD players. Besides, you're bringing up the point about drivers and 'praying.'
> 
> Installing drivers is extremely easy. The reason it's necessary is because Windows opens itself up to the possibility of installing all sorts of different peripherals. If XP for instance doesn't automatically detect and install the DVD player, the drivers included will allow it to be recognized and used. On a Mac, if OS X doesn't recognize your peripherals, in most cases you're fucked. It ends there. That's it folks. You guys laugh about drivers but guess what, they're used for something important. Drivers are what allow PC users to choose from hundreds of different peripherals, and not just a dozen or so models with Mac support.
> ...



Because you seem to avoid my question about DVD recording with nice evasive manuevers (=you haven't even tried it and still you think that you know the answer), answer this: Are you happy with your Windows system? If the answer is yes, good for you... Now, go back and enjoy it some more and quit telling us about your great experience with a Wintel system...

I for one know that Wintels are 99% crap... Believe me I know!

I work as a PC and Mac tech person and each and everyday we have 4-5 Wintel systems for every kind of problem imaginable or not... While we get 1 Mac problem each month at the most! And no I'm not talking about "I cannot install this scanner" problems and no I'm not talking about Win9x boxes... I'm talking about expensive systems with Asus, MSI, Abit, Intel, QDI, et al mainboards and other exotic parts running anything above Windows 2000 Pro... And this is beyond personal experiences ladies and gentlemen... And others that (have to) work with Wintels they know better but they don't want to admit it simply because they can run Quake 3 at 300fps and they can DivX movies at real time or faster, or simply because they bought anyways those systems $1000 less than a comparable Mac so they expect it to act sometimes as a cheaper system!!!!!

Anyways, if you want to share your happiness with a Wintel system, as I said before, go at www.microsoft.com and praise the Lord (aka Bill Gates) as much as you feel like it...


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Parting shot, Macs are "better", yes in most regards, but PC's are not "that bad" and ARE better in MANY regards as well and I don't think that the differences are as stacked as many Mac fans think/wish/"delude themselves into thinking" they are.  Are Macs worth the extra cost, well that's up to the user to decide. *



100% true! Wintels are better than Macs in some areas and Macs are better than Wintels in other areas... And yes, I don't think that the differences are as stacked as many Wintel fans think/wish/"delude themselves into thinking" they are.  Are Wintels worth the cheaper cost, well that's up to the user to decide.


----------



## Cat (Apr 24, 2003)

BTW. Try installing the latest OS from M$ and from Apple on the newest machines ... then try to install them om two three year old machines ... chances are OS X will install and run perfectly while XP will balk. This kind of implicit support is also a very valuable component of using a Mac. My GF is running exactly the same OS as I am, but she runs it on my old G3@366MHz clamshell iBook and I on a G4@867MHz 12" PowerBook. If you succeed to install XP on two so utterly different machines, try to compare their performance, chances are XP will perform relatively much worse on older hardware.


----------



## pds (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *"The CellFish" Andre M.
> "I'm not a jerk, I just play one in real life!"
> 
> *




"You are what you pretend to be so you must be careful what you pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut Jr.


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

um i had xp installed, and running fine on a now 3 year old machine (its with a friend now, and running fine), so i dont honestly see where you are getting that info?

and hulk.... remember your experiences arent necessarily fact for every one bro, calm down 

I've probably had just as many mac negative moments as you have had pc negative moments.... why? because of the environments we've worked in 

anyways pc's arent as "100% crap" as most mac users would like to think and vice versa... some people need to have a more open mind


----------



## mr. k (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Why is it that when ANYBODY suggests that a PC is better, even if they know what they are talking about, they are automatically called trolls and berated?
> 
> The at 650$ is faster than the 3800$ Mac to start off so it's not much of a privilege unless being with something that looks good is a big privilege to you (which would make you superficial).
> ...



I can't believe what you just said.  You are in a mac board, are accused of being a troll, and then you shoot out at all the mac users for calling you a troll.  You continue on with your blunt argument "pc's are faster and cheaper."  And my iMac (stats below) DOES allow me to work faster through sheer intuition and a superior OS.  I don't think that windows works well because frankly, it is just a choppy, unpolished OS.  Ask anyone who has used both Mac OS X and windows which operating system has a better window based navigation system and the answer will no doubt be MAC OS X.  It is smooth, efficient, and stable.  I can't say the same for windows.  In my limited experience with windows I have been amazed at how much this lack of interface show's.  I updated my pc to XP about a month ago, and now find myself using it even less.  If you want to convince people that pc's are better then Mac's, this is not the board to do it.


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

--- "trolling" he shouldn't be berated for having a positive opinion on pcs, plain and simple... as long as his arguments are rationa, which they have been thus far. i am much in the same boat as him.

--- "ask anyone..." do i count as anyone? give me a new pc and a new mac... i'll get more done productivity wise on a pc, because it is faster in my extensive usage, there is no getting around it...

--- "why are you here blah blah..." i dunno about him and cant speak for him. But i like OSX alot, and I like XP alot, XP is faster IMHO, OSX is purtier and more interesting IMHO... why is it a crime to like both systems and to admit the faults and goods of both?


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *BTW. Try installing the latest OS from M$ and from Apple on the newest machines ... then try to install them om two three year old machines ... chances are OS X will install and run perfectly while XP will balk. This kind of implicit support is also a very valuable component of using a Mac. My GF is running exactly the same OS as I am, but she runs it on my old G3@366MHz clamshell iBook and I on a G4@867MHz 12" PowerBook. If you succeed to install XP on two so utterly different machines, try to compare their performance, chances are XP will perform relatively much worse on older hardware. *



I ran Win2K on my AMD 233 up until last year.  I was running NT4 on 486/120's (made a great low volume web/dns/smtp server).  You CAN'T run OSX on anything less than a G3 (well, not supported anyway).

And are you saying that OSX runs no better on your G4 than on her G3 (otherwise why make the statement that XP would run worse on 3 year old hardware).  OF COURSE it will run faster on a machine with 3ghz/512MBDDR400/ATA133/Radeon9700pro vs the 1.4ghz/256MBDDR2100/ATA100/Radeon machine of yore.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

*Originally posted by Jason 
anyways pc's arent as "100% crap" as most mac users would like to think and vice versa...*

Did I say that Wintels are 100% crap? Sorry, I wanted to say that 99% are crap!  

*some people need to have a more open mind  *

I have my mind wide open... At 360 degrees that is!


----------



## monktus (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *My GF is running exactly the same OS as I am*



What is this GF of which you speak?! A new Motorola chip and no rumours flying about? How does it compare to an IBM 970?

Sorry, I'm being silly


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

lol thats cold


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mr. K _
> *...
> And my iMac (stats below) DOES allow me to work faster through sheer intuition and a superior OS.  I don't think that windows works well because frankly, it is just a choppy, unpolished OS.  Ask anyone who has used both Mac OS X and windows which operating system has a better window based navigation system and the answer will no doubt be MAC OS X.  It is smooth, efficient, and stable.  I can't say the same for windows.  In my limited experience with windows I have been amazed at how much this lack of interface show's.  I updated my pc to XP about a month ago, and now find myself using it even less.  If you want to convince people that pc's are better then Mac's, this is not the board to do it. *



Good thing you mentioned intuition.  Can people here at least accept that ones personal experience plays a HUGE part on how comfortable on is with a GUI?  If you came up from the Mac world, then of course OSX will feel much more intuitive than Windoze.  I came from the PC world (well been doing Macs forever to, but most of my day to day is on PC's) and I find the Windoze interface MUCH more intuitive (hell I've been using Windows literally since 1.0).  I like multiple menus, I like pressing <end> to go to the end of a line, I like "thou shalt be able to do anything with the keyboard that you can do with a mouse, within reason",  I like right click context menus (as a long standard feature, I know you can do that on Macs too now), I don't like a single master menu bar, I don't like expand to max document size vs maximize to screen, I don't like the finder.  I'm not saying these things to argue, THEY ARE MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES.  But at least I have enough sense to say that the GUI's are different, not that the MacOS gui is somehow magical (it's not).  When I use Win2K, it's smooth, efficient, and stable, but again, that's because I'm very familiar with it.  Now does MacOS LOOK nicer, yup, eye candy galore.  Do I really care, well a little, but then again looking nicer doesn't make me any more efficient.

The Mac gui is the SAME as the Windoze gui in that in both cases users have to be trained on how to use it.  The relative intuitiveness of the ui stems greatly from this training.  Now is the Mac a bit easier for the beginner to understand, well maybe, I can't say, I'm not a beginner.  But I have helped other beginners with both OS's, and it's been my experience that it's the broader concepts that trip them up (what is a folder, what's a file, what does click mean, what's the diff between a single click and a double click).  The other mechanical things like which button hides windows, how do I copy this file thingy are just a matter of teaching and then the user remembering.

As to "convincing people on this board that PC's are better", well hopefully it's hard because in many/most cases they are not, not because people are so closed minded that they believe that their OS's poo doesn't stink.  Meaning when there are times when a PC is demonstrably better (or at least no worse) that Mac people can acknowledge that.  And most importantly be mature enough to understand when something truely is better vs simply being what they're used to or at the very least understanding that better looking doesn't equate to better productivity.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

*Originally posted by Jason 
--- "trolling" he shouldn't be berated for having a positive opinion on pcs, plain and simple... as long as his arguments are rationa, which they have been thus far. i am much in the same boat as him.*

Yeah, me too! Wintels are faster, better, cheaper and in general offer a lot more than Macs...

*--- "ask anyone..." do i count as anyone? give me a new pc and a new mac... i'll get more done productivity wise on a pc, because it is faster in my extensive usage, there is no getting around it...*

Yeah, me too! I can do a lot more on any Wintel that I can do on any Mac...

*--- "why are you here blah blah..." i dunno about him and cant speak for him. But i like OSX alot, and I like XP alot, XP is faster IMHO, OSX is purtier and more interesting IMHO... why is it a crime to like both systems and to admit the faults and goods of both? *

No crime there... XP is much better than OS X will ever be and not to mention billions times faster and cheaper too (you can get it for free aka cracked)!

I totally agree with you guys... I really do! Now, let's rename this forum from www.macosx.com into something like www.macro$xp.com or www.intelppa.com and praise the powers that be at Redmond... Now, if only Scott(ie) will beam us up too!


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by monktus _
> *What is this GF of which you speak?! A new Motorola chip and no rumours flying about? How does it compare to an IBM 970?
> 
> Sorry, I'm being silly  *



If you don't know what a GF is, then perhaps you need to put the can of Jolt (oops I forgot, this is 2k3 not 1998, that would be put the triple latte) down and go outside.  See those individuals with two large deformities in the upper torso?  Notice how they strangly resemble those images on those websites that you have to provide a cc# to access?  Try talking to one, oh, well first take a shower and get cleaned up.  You might find your life richer (and your wallet the opposite)


----------



## cellfish (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *Don't presume that you know what happened in my situation. I understand that in a case where the hardware is working the way it should and the planets are all perfectly aligned, and there is world peace, that the install time for the two operating systems should be roughly the same. But since those conditions did not obviously exist (and again if reference my statement about the PCs being cr*p) it DID take me an ENTIRE WEEK OF WORK TIME!!!! If I'm exaggerating, could you tell me where I can get those hours back. I could have done something much more productive with my time!*


*

Well I work at an ISP where there are around 350 computers. After what you said, I asked the admin there how long it took to ghost the exact same configuration to those 350 computers. There are two people doing the job (two admins) and it took then 2 days. How you managed to do 10 computers in 40 hours is beyond me.




			YOU CALLED ME A LIAR!!!!!
		
Click to expand...


I said you were exaggerating, I never called you a liar.*


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *...intuition...*



great post 



> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *...trolling... *



smart arse  at least its in good humour this time 

-----

cell is it possible your friends were talking work days and not 24hour days?


----------



## cellfish (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *Because you seem to avoid my question about DVD recording with nice evasive manuevers (=you haven't even tried it and still you think that you know the answer), answer this: Are you happy with your Windows system? If the answer is yes, good for you... Now, go back and enjoy it some more and quit telling us about your great experience with a Wintel system...*


*

Here's the thing. I don't currently even own a PC. I had a great one that I sold and got a Mac thinking that the grass was greener on the other side. Now I'm looking at this machine and I still like it, but found myself realizing that if I want to use Airport Extreme, I need to buy another machine. If I want to ever have support for USB 2.0, I'll have to send tons of emails to Apple begging for it and if I want my scanner to work perfectly, I'll have to try it on another operating system. I bought a PC two days ago (and it will be coming in by courier) because I'm sick of nothing working properly except Apple-branded stuff. On a PC, I can configure ANYTHING to work seamlessly. I can't do that on a Mac.




			I work as a PC and Mac tech person and each and everyday we have 4-5 Wintel systems for every kind of problem imaginable or not... While we get 1 Mac problem each month at the most! And no I'm not talking about "I cannot install this scanner" problems and no I'm not talking about Win9x boxes... I'm talking about expensive systems with Asus, MSI, Abit, Intel, QDI, et al mainboards and other exotic parts running anything above Windows 2000 Pro... And this is beyond personal experiences ladies and gentlemen... And others that (have to) work with Wintels they know better but they don't want to admit it simply because they can run Quake 3 at 300fps and they can DivX movies at real time or faster, or simply because they bought anyways those systems $1000 less than a comparable Mac so they expect it to act sometimes as a cheaper system!!!!!
		
Click to expand...


People like DivX, and they especially like running games in the smoothest possible way. People don'T like being limited, I know I don't. Part of my decision to get a PC is watching my cousin fill out his parents' request to watch certain movies. They want to see recent movies, but don't speak good enough english to understand them. With his PC, he was able to get the DVD, rip the movies out, download polish subtitles found on the Internet, create the movie and then put it on tape for his parents. They were thus able to watch the movie while reading subtitles in their native language. Seeing that, I wondered how the hell I was supposed to do the same thing on the Mac.

No matter how you look at it, that is damn cool. And to top it off, his system has been on for 8 months without ever being restarted. That's stability for you.

Andre*


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Well I work at an ISP where there are around 350 computers. After what you said, I asked the admin there how long it took to ghost the exact same configuration to those 350 computers. There are two people doing the job (two admins) and it took then 2 days. How you managed to do 10 computers in 40 hours is beyond me.*



OK then. Now I'm stupid? I told you how it took nearly 40 hours. The PCs were cr*p. I acknowledge that NOT ALL PCs are cr*p, just most. You ask why people automatically assume that you are trolling when you say something Windoze/PC positive? I say: "Why do PC people automatically assume that Mac people are stupid or doing something wrong if they are having PC problems?"


*



			I said you were exaggerating, I never called you a liar.
		
Click to expand...

*
If I was relating a personal experience that really happened, and you accuse me of exaggerating the truth, then you are calling me a liar. Plain and simple.

Now, no further posts from me on this. This thread has gotten out of hand, and some of it's my fault.


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

its gotten a tad out of hand but it takes two to tango, im sure there are no hard feelings between you'all this has been a good convo so far actually

especially the intuition post (which is kinda related to that article i put out)


----------



## cellfish (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mr. K _
> *I can't believe what you just said.  You are in a mac board, are accused of being a troll, and then you shoot out at all the mac users for calling you a troll.  You continue on with your blunt argument "pc's are faster and cheaper."  And my iMac (stats below) DOES allow me to work faster through sheer intuition and a superior OS.  I don't think that windows works well because frankly, it is just a choppy, unpolished OS.  Ask anyone who has used both Mac OS X and windows which operating system has a better window based navigation system and the answer will no doubt be MAC OS X.  It is smooth, efficient, and stable.  I can't say the same for windows.  In my limited experience with windows I have been amazed at how much this lack of interface show's.  I updated my pc to XP about a month ago, and now find myself using it even less.  If you want to convince people that pc's are better then Mac's, this is not the board to do it. *



I honestly feel that Windows XP is more polished than OS X. While OS X is prettier, it lacks so many things that are easily available in Windows. Windows is faster, supports a wider array of hardware and frankly does more. However, the reason I'm replying is because you said the Windows navigation in OS X is better. That is a matter of opinion but let'S face it, it's not:

When you press the green button in Mac OS X, you expect it to maximize the screen but instead it decides on its own what to do. It  never takes the whole screen no matter what you do, and it never remembers your settings if you do end up maximizing it manually. I have no complaints about the yellow button. The red button, you would expect to close the program. However, this always depends on what program you're using. If you're in iPhoto, press the red button and you close the program. For Mail and now Address Book, the red button will take away the window but the program will continue to run in the background. If you end up wanting to get rid of the program, you have to right-click and quit. It is possibly the most annoying thing ever and Apple is moving more and more toward it (Address Book only recently starting acting this way)

On Windows, press the X and it's gone. For a FEW program, it'll remain in memory but otherwise it kills the program entirely. Maximizing does exactly that.

Andre


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *smart arse  at least its in good humour this time *
> 
> Thank you! I did my best!
> ...


----------



## cellfish (Apr 24, 2003)

All I wanted to add here is that when I bought my Mac, I made an experiment by giving my girlfriend an old P3-533, putting 256 megs ram on it and the cheapest video card on it possible. 

Since June of last year, she has never had to reinstall, never had to remove and re-add programs, never had troubles with anything. Aside from needing me to configure her internet connection, she has not needed anything. I figured she would have tons of problems because she never runs my registry cleanup utilities, runs without an anti-virus and never defragment (even though she downloads like crazy). Yet, she's had nothing.

In my case, I reinstalled OS X a few times when trying to install OS 9 over it for Classic to operate (I then found out you can't install a french OS 9 on an english OS X). I've had permission troubles, a scanner whose software wouldn't install because my hard drive wasn't defragmented (seriously), a printer that works and doesn't work depending on the operating system's mood (it stopped working when I needed it most and it ended up being OS X's fault). I've had trouble getting identd to work on OS X and it STILL doesn't work because apparently it can't work through a router (even though it did so fine in Windows). It's basically been one problem after another.

To say the least, I did not end up very satisfied with my experience. The errors the operating system causes, ESPECIALLY with Classic mode, are ridiculous. 

Then, frustrated with my OS X experience, I decided I'd give the Mac a second shot and installed OS 9 thinking it might be somewhat better. The end result was my realizing that OS 9 is the worst piece of crap operating system I have ever used and wondering how anybody in the time of OS 9 could ever have claimed that their garbage OS was better than Windows.

Anyways, maybe it's because I come from  PC background like someone suggested (and frankly I agree with that). But on the other hand, coming from a PC background, especially one that required me to know the inner workings of the PC, has only more strongly made me realize what's missing in OS X. If you're a first-time user and are faced with OS X and XP, OS X will most likely win out because it's so simple to use and easy to learn whereas XP tries to be easy, but still caters to the techie crowd. However, if you're a techie and are faced with both OS', while OS X will appeal to you because of its BSD core and because the machine is technically more reliable, you will soon realize that the BSD core is simply a decoration with no real compatibility with unix applications and that most of the things that you can do with BSD cannot be done as easily with OS X. A tech would also be quicker to notice what's missing and what should be added. 

Lastly, I even tried installing Mandrake Linux 9.1 on my iBook from utter frustration and boredom with OS X. While I had to figure out that you have to first format with OS X's disk utility and convert to free space, then delete a few partitions that aren't supported by UNIX and then finally install, I have never figured out why the iBook never actually RAN linux after restarting from install. The OS was basically installed, but it would not appear. Is Apple forcefully removing my right to run an OS of my choice?

I mean on the PC I can run Windows, Linux, OS2, BSD, BeOS or even DOS without any limitation. On a Mac, I used to be able to run OS 9 or OS X or even Linux, but Apple has confirmed that OS 9 cannot be run in any way. Is Linux blocked out as well? Why should Apple decide what I can and can't run? Are they communists?

Andre


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> My question would be: Did they actually tried to Ghost 350 Wintels (same configs?) and they managed to do it in only in 2 days (any explanation of 2 days) and those systems actually worked flawlessly? Without any additional real work to be done? And your ISP was what? Closed for 2 days or something? Hmmmm... Strange! Or simply their answer was very theoritical without doing any real thinking/planning or something... [/B]



Can't speak for cellfish, but I can tell you that Ghost is a wonderful product (well at least for this particular application).  At the last place I worked we used it extensively and it rocked.  Makes doing multiple machine setups a breeze.  Not quite as good as doing remote machine installs over the lan once you have things setup, but to get a bunch of systems up and going for the first time it's hard to beat.  350 is not a major stretch when you do the math.  That's 175 per person, assuming a 12 hour day (not too bad), that's about 8/hour.  If you have 4 machines a piece then 8/hour is easily doable.  Disconnecting the drives and rebooting would be the most annoying thing and the process would be tedious as hell, but doable.

If the machine configs that these hd's were going into were the same (or very similar), then there shouldn't be any other config/mucking about necessary other than to change their machine names on the network.

While we're on this subject, is there an equivilent app for the Mac (other than dd)?


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *Blah-blah
> Andre *



I can understand your frustration of using something that it works different from they way you used to know... You were the master while you had your Wintel and now you are a mere padawan... I can relate to that...  

If all you wanted was help from Mac users you should ask... Example: You said that you cannot add USB2 to your Mac... Your Mac has a FireWire port, hasn't it? If you have a FireWire you can buy an adapter in which you will be able to use USB2 devices just fine, thank you very much! Search this forum and you will find out what I'm talking about...

Anyways, most of your Mac problems are "artificial" and you will understand that if you are willing to ask around and not just curse your bad Mac luck or something, most of your problems will go away...

Still, if you think that your Mac cannot offer you anything else, sell it to someone else and leave all these problems behind you... Move along! Go on!


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

thats a good question... can new macs work with linux? 

---

Hulk i understand where you are coming from, its a fine line really, but i think if a pc user comes here to get info about macs, we should be truthful about pros and cons, or if a pc user switches and has complaints we should listen and try to help instead of jumping on them for being a pc user....

you know im not saying blindly agree with anything pro pc, i just think that trashing on someone who switched and was a little dissapointed, but still likes his mac, is a bit harsh.. is no one allowed to used a pc once they use a mac? as mac users i thought on a whole we were above that... part of our elitist-ness


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

*Originally posted by Jason 
thats a good question... can new macs work with linux? *

Mandrake 9.1 PPC and YellowDog Linux PPC work just fine with new Macs too... I don't know about other distros however...

*Hulk i understand where you are coming from, its a fine line really, but i think if a pc user comes here to get info about macs, we should be truthful about pros and cons, or if a pc user switches and has complaints we should listen and try to help instead of jumping on them for being a pc user....

you know im not saying blindly agree with anything pro pc, i just think that trashing on someone who switched and was a little dissapointed, but still likes his mac, is a bit harsh.. is no one allowed to used a pc once they use a mac? as mac users i thought on a whole we were above that... part of our elitist-ness  *

As I posted before your own post, I can understand someone who has problems with Macs (and I know that many people do have problems with Macs) and wants to solve his/her problems but in this post, one more time, we simply had Wintels VS Macs...

Of course I can post a book about how bad the situation here in Greece is about Macs and that Apple sucks HUGE time for not giving us greeks the fair treatment and how great Wintels are here in Greece but would this really do us any help here as community? I think we all know that it would be hopeless if not stupid...

When you want Apple to treat you right you go ahead and give them some feedback here: http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html instead of posting left and right, iWhining about anything Apple...

As for being truthful here about Macs and Wintels, I think that people around here are a lot more truthful than other computer forums... Maybe we are a bit more passionated about our Macs but that's it


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Can't speak for cellfish, but I can tell you that Ghost is a wonderful product (well at least for this particular application).  At the last place I worked we used it extensively and it rocked.  Makes doing multiple machine setups a breeze.  Not quite as good as doing remote machine installs over the lan once you have things setup, but to get a bunch of systems up and going for the first time it's hard to beat.  350 is not a major stretch when you do the math.  That's 175 per person, assuming a 12 hour day (not too bad), that's about 8/hour.  If you have 4 machines a piece then 8/hour is easily doable.  Disconnecting the drives and rebooting would be the most annoying thing and the process would be tedious as hell, but doable.
> 
> If the machine configs that these hd's were going into were the same (or very similar), then there shouldn't be any other config/mucking about necessary other than to change their machine names on the network.
> ...



I think that even you replied a bit too fast...

We were talking not about just 350 Wintels in a building but about 350 Wintels which are part of an ISP company... I don't know about your experience with ISPs but the situation is A LOT trickier than just installing basic stuff like OS and apps with Ghost or other similar apps... It takes research, planning,  etc. and in the end you need more than 2 days work to accomplish such a deal... And this is before we even bring stuff up like Wintels not being all the same hardware and stuff... 

I think that in order to reply for such a project one should pay a visit to the ISP, keep notes, analyze then fall into any conclusions and not reply ASAP just because you have to say something... I for one, know for a fact that you need more time... A lot more time than 2 days...  If you think otherwise please find an ISP of a similar size and have a go... I'll be around here!


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

hulk, i say send a bunch of angry letters to apple, all in your jedi speak, im sure that would work 

anyways i think this is all said and done


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *I think that even you replied a bit too fast...
> 
> We were talking not about just 350 Wintels in a building but about 350 Wintels which are part of an ISP company... I don't know about your experience with ISPs but the situation is A LOT trickier than just installing basic stuff like OS and apps with Ghost or other similar apps... It takes research, planning,  etc. and in the end you need more than 2 days work to accomplish such a deal... And this is before we even bring stuff up like Wintels not being all the same hardware and stuff...
> ...



Actually I was assuming that he was talking about the time to actually do the physical ghosting, not the planning etc.  I would agree that 2 days to actually start from scratch ("hey Bob, we just got these here 350 machines from Dell today, what should we do with'em?") is not realistic, but then again I didn't think that's what he was referring to.  Once you've settled on a proper image, then the actually mechanics are very simple.

Not sure about your comments about ISP's.  What are they like that makes them so different that a ghost solution is somehow out of whack?  I've seen many well funded isp's with rack upon rack of the same server, perfect fodder for ghost images.  Now I've also seen smaller isp's with all manner of junk scraped up as well, and this scenerio would obviously not lend itself to ghosting.  Is that what you're talking about?  Please elaborate.

Oh, and btw, have you seen the latest Hulk trailer?  Actually pretty cool.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *hulk, i say send a bunch of angry letters to apple, all in your jedi speak, im sure that would work
> *


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *hulk, i say send a bunch of angry letters to apple, all in your jedi speak, im sure that would work
> 
> anyways i think this is all said and done *



Hulk to PC fans:

hulk, "These are not the computers you're looking for"
pcf, "these are not the computers we're looking for"
hulk, "99.99% of all pc's suck, they are the pathway to the darkside"
pcf, "pc's suck, the darkside"
hulk, "the Apple Store will show you the way"
pcf, "lets go to the Apple Store, they will show us the way"


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2003)

<---officially confused


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 24, 2003)

I said I would shut up on this thread, but that is too good!!!!!

Maybe I'm just in need of a good laugh, binary, but that's hilarious.

Have a good weekend everybody, I'm internet deprived until next Tuesday.


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Actually I was assuming that he was talking about the time to actually do the physical ghosting, not the planning etc.  I would agree that 2 days to actually start from scratch ("hey Bob, we just got these here 350 machines from Dell today, what should we do with'em?") is not realistic, but then again I didn't think that's what he was referring to.  Once you've settled on a proper image, then the actually mechanics are very simple.
> 
> Not sure about your comments about ISP's.  What are they like that makes them so different that a ghost solution is somehow out of whack?  I've seen many well funded isp's with rack upon rack of the same server, perfect fodder for ghost images.  Now I've also seen smaller isp's with all manner of junk scraped up as well, and this scenerio would obviously not lend itself to ghosting.  Is that what you're talking about?  Please elaborate.
> ...



He he he...  Ang Lee makes me look cool, ain't he? 

Ghost is fine in some cases and surely will find a use in the scenario mentioned here but the problem is that ISPs never have the same hardware... They never have all their computers doing all the same tasks... They have mostly vertical customization here and there... Actually one may use a lot more than 10 different Ghosts for 350 boxes... And even then problems appear in settings here and there... Also, you have to spread the installation/setup according to the way the company works and ISPs work 24/7 if not some times 25/7  And no matter how much of planning one does always something out of the blue occurs in such operation... 

Anyways, that's not the point... The point is that Macs are better than Wintels by a long shot!

 

I'm just kidding


----------



## hulkaros (Apr 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *Hulk to PC fans:
> 
> hulk, "These are not the computers you're looking for"
> ...


----------

