# Why buy an Apple?



## Annihilatus (Jul 7, 2002)

For starters, I don't want this to sound insulting. I would just like to start a thread in which Mac users would list their reasons for choosing the Mac over a PC and reasons WHY somebody should choose a Mac over a PC. This should be pretty interesting.

For myself, the aesthetics of both the physical computer and its operating, as well as the fluidity of its operation attract me. The security and stability further enhance my attraction

I'd like to read what others have to write about their little box.


----------



## kanecorp (Jul 7, 2002)

they look better


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Jul 7, 2002)

I do not think that the looks of the computer are that big of a deal.  But I think sometimes that a nice looking atmosphere can be an inspiration.

 OS X is my favorite OS.  It is a little slow right now, but I think Jaguar will fix that.  

No Windows OS.  windows is made by M$. A horrible monopoly that wants to control your life. need I say more ?


----------



## kanecorp (Jul 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nummi_G4 _
> *I do not think that the looks of the computer are that big of a deal.  But I think sometimes that a nice looking atmosphere can be an inspiration.
> *



lets put it this way..i wouldn't have this mac if it looked like my dells do


----------



## themacko (Jul 7, 2002)

I switched to an iBook 500 about a year ago after my PC was stolen out of my dorm room.  At the time, I did it because the guy in the campus book store told me it was coolest laptop he'd ever used and pretty much talked me into it.

Boy am I glad he did.  I actually sold my iBook on eBay a couple months ago in hopes of buying an iMac in a few weeks.  I'm living at home now and have been using my father's Gateway PC with Windows XP, and I've determined why I wouldn't even consider a PC for my next computer:

*Crashing:*  Mac OS X crashed on me, maybe 5 times in the 9 months I used it.  Windows XP has crashed on me 5 times in one hour.  Seriously.
*Installing:*  Installing apps on a Mac is as easy as dragging it to your hard drive.  Uninstalling is as easy as dragging it to the trash.
*iApps:*  iMovie and iPhoto really are two of my main reasons to go back to a Mac.  There just is nothing like them on Windows and they're FREE.
*Support:*  I was definately a newbie with my iBook.  Luckily I had an Apple Store that opened in the new mall near me, so whenever I had a problem I just carried my laptop over and they fixed it.  No questions were asked, no receipts were needed, they just replaced what was broken or reinstalled what I goofed and I left within the hour with a working computer.  

I recently went with my dad to the Gateway Country store with his PC because it was rebooting itself for no apparant reason.  I could tell they were trying to help us out, but after 3 trips to the store and them holding the PC for 3 days it is back in our house.  Still rebooting for no apparant reason.

It really was a very nice experience to go through.  I was never a big computer 'buff' until I got a Mac.  I joined these forums for help during my PC-Mac conversion.  I just can't say enough, it's a really great computer that doesn't hassle you.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 7, 2002)

to buy a Mac and not a PC...

1. Stability. No computer is impervious to system crashes *yet*, but OS X is much more solid than XP...

2. Virus. Not a worry on the Mac. On the PC, if you open the wrong attachment - boom - prepare for a headache...

3. iApps. As noted, they are free, and there is nothing of comparable quality on the PC side, whether you pay for it or not.

4. The widest range of compatability. The only platform that can run classic Mac OS apps, Windows apps (via VPC), UNIX apps, and of course, Mac OS X apps. 

5. Ultra cool hardware. Yeah, it's more expensive - but it looks great, it's much more reliable than comparable PC hardware, and it holds it's value better, allowing you to resell on eBay and get more of your money back when you decide to upgrade.

6. Easier to use. OS X is just easier to use on just about every level compared to WinXP. It's easier to navigate, easier to install/remove applications, easier to setup networks, easy to connect to wireless networks, etc. 

7. EULA. Or "End User License Agreement". Take a look at the EULA for Windows. It basically states that you don't "own" your OS. You are just granted a temporary "license" to use it. The WinXP EULA was enough to make one longtime Windows user switch to a Mac (can't remember his name - he's a Java developer formerly from  Sun, I believe).

8. Digital Hub. OK, both computers can interact with DVCamcorders, Digitial Cameras, MP3 Players, etc. But after you've used a Mac with these devices (usually by way of the aforementioned iApps), you just don't want to go back to using the Windows software. For example - I use iPhoto with my digital camera on my Mac. I loaded the cameras software on my PC to see how well it worked. It did the job, but was no where near as efficient, logical, or easy to use as the Mac. Same goes for iTunes and iMovie.

Hmmmm. That's all I have time to write. I could probably write an entire thesis on this issue....


----------



## themacko (Jul 7, 2002)

yeah, serpico reminded me of the compatability with hardware.  When you buy something new for a Windows machine, (as you know) you have install drivers and many times software in order to use that piece of hardware, be it a scanner, printer, digital camera, etc.  With a Mac, 98% of the time you plug it in and it's recognized.  Not only that, but it will work seemlessly with your OS and all your apps.

A lot of these things are hard to explain and even remember.  You pretty much have to experience it for yourself, how easy these Macs and OS X really make your [computer] life.


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *yeah, serpico reminded me of the compatability with hardware.  When you buy something new for a Windows machine, (as you know) you have install drivers and many times software in order to use that piece of hardware, be it a scanner, printer, digital camera, etc.  With a Mac, 98% of the time you plug it in and it's recognized.  Not only that, but it will work seemlessly with your OS and all your apps.
> 
> A lot of these things are hard to explain and even remember.  You pretty much have to experience it for yourself, how easy these Macs and OS X really make your [computer] life. *



Well with XP, that hasn't been a problem for me. Just about everything, except the printer, was recognized upon install. But I do agree that Apple is somewhat better on this front as well.

Andre


----------



## voice- (Jul 7, 2002)

I'd say simplicity. If you're a computer oldie you will find your way whatever the problems may be, but personally I've found a lot less trouble working with my Mac than with my PC. What's worse, it seems every PC app/system gives you phonebook-sized manuals explaining how easy the product is to use, with Mac the product is so easy to use that you don't even need this manual.

Just as an example, I once tried to get help with setting up a network card in Windows 98 SE(maybe not a fair conparison since it's like OS 9 to us) and "Help" basically just told me how much easier it was to do than if I were using Windows 95. The manual did the same. It had 2 pages each telling me that the solution was on the other one.

This was the last Windows OS I bought, but I've used ME and XP after this, both gave me a headache


----------



## edX (Jul 7, 2002)

> ...and "Help" basically just told me how much easier it was to do than if I were using Windows 95. The manual did the same. It had 2 pages each telling me that the solution was on the other one.



while i have never owned a pc personally and my only experience doing installs and stuff on one has been helping my stepdad on occasion, i have noticed that many manuals devote about 2-3 times the amount of space to windows installations and instructions as they do mac. i once thought this was the manufacturer treating us as an afterthought until i actually read the windows instructions and realized that it just took that many more steps to do what you can do on a mac with a simple drag and drop.

very good point voice!!!


----------



## xoot (Jul 7, 2002)

The graphical interface of the OS. Just great.


----------



## azosx (Jul 7, 2002)

Macs and PCs all boil down to personal preference.  I don't think one is superior to the other but I do believe PCs have a comparative advantage over Macs.

OS X is wonderful, and is the only reason I purchased a Mac in the first place.  OS 9 and below were never really that good, especially compared to Windows NT or 2000.  I rarely ran Windows 98 or below so never had to deal with the blue screen of death or crashing.  

Between memory management, or lack there, bomb windows popping up in OS 9, hockey puck mice and minature keyboards, the iMacs at the college were unusable to me.

OS X has never crashed on me and neither has Windows 2000.  2000 seems to have a lot better memory management while X seems to freak a bit when running large applications.  This can be remedied to a degree by installing over 512MB of RAM.

As for security, X has hardly been on the scene long enough nor has the market share to be thoroughly tested.  Unix is a bigger security nightmare than Windows ever dreamed of being.  It's only Windows market share that gives would be hackers the desire to exploit Windows over anyone else.

Driver support in 2000/XP is top notch as well as in X.  I've never had a problem as long as I buy name brand hardware and 2000/XP detect 95% of it without me having to install additional drivers.  Yes, X runs almost flawless on the hardware it ships with but you're kidding yourself if you think some 3rd party printers, scanners, cameras and so forth aren't a headache trying to run in X.  Also, you're lucky if drivers even exist for much of the hardware on the market today.  

iApps are cool and certainly a great value being bundled with X for free.  Windows 2000/XP has comparable apps but I do like iApps a lot more.

I have a Dell laptop and their support has always been top notch.  One thing I like is they own up to any defect found in their product, documented or not, and fix it with no questions asked.  Something no Mac user can claim, especially with cracked Cubes and peeling Titanium PBs and so on.

3rd party software is almost always released for Windows before Mac OS.  In a lot of cases it's never released for Mac OS, but then Mac OS usually has a comparable product.  When apps such as Office v.X, Norton Utilities, Flash and so forth are released for Mac OS, they seem extremely buggy and unstable compared to their PC counter parts.

Apple wins hands down on hardware design, yet this does add significantly to the cost of their products.  The only PC manufactuer that I'd consider comparable is IBM.  Their Thinkpad line of notebook computers are awesome but they to are considerably more expensive than most other PC manufacturers.

All in all my PB G4 DVI is a much better system than my older Dell laptop or any laptop Dell has to offer today.  I certainly don't see any PowerMacs replacing my PC desktop machine anytime soon though.  Cost/performance/productivity wise, my PC is a far superior machine running Windows 2000 Advanced Server than anything Apple has to offer.

Right now I'd never switch, but I'm happy to be using both a PC and Mac.  

One quick note.  I think there a lot of confusion about Windows and the fact that it sucks.  Yes, I'll admit Windows 98 does suck, but if you were ever to run NT, 2000 and XP Professional, you'd see there's and entirely different side to Windows.  It's like night and day and you really shouldn't judge Windows on only their consumer offering, XP Home especially.


----------



## simX (Jul 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *As for security, X has hardly been on the scene long enough nor has the market share to be thoroughly tested.  Unix is a bigger security nightmare than Windows ever dreamed of being.  It's only Windows market share that gives would be hackers the desire to exploit Windows over anyone else.
> 
> Driver support in 2000/XP is top notch as well as in X.  I've never had a problem as long as I buy name brand hardware and 2000/XP detect 95% of it without me having to install additional drivers.  Yes, X runs almost flawless on the hardware it ships with but you're kidding yourself if you think some 3rd party printers, scanners, cameras and so forth aren't a headache trying to run in X.  Also, you're lucky if drivers even exist for much of the hardware on the market today.*



I just wanted to disagree with these two paragraphs.

For the first and security, it's hardly an argument to say that the only reason Windows has bad security is because they have 95% of the market share.  I haven't heard of another platform (other than Windows) that has a browser that can pose a security flaw when you press the back button in the browser  and Microsoft says this isn't a security flaw because the hacker has to induce the user to press the back button.  How about the fact that Outlook and Outlook Express can automatically execute code on the opening of an e-mail?  And the time when IE (I believe this affected the Mac, too) was shown to automatically launch downloaded files even if they weren't compressed files, making people vulnerable to malicious code that could be downloaded.

I think it's ludicrous to say that UNIX is a less secure operating system when the people who make it actually CARE about security.  Anybody in their right mind can't say that Microsoft is committed to security.

My second beef is with third-party products and Mac OS X.  While there may be SOME scanners/cameras and stuff that is "a headache" to run on Mac OS X, they are few and far between.  In my experience, all I need to do in Mac OS X is plug it into my Mac, and it will be recognized.  Cameras, digital camcorders, MP3 players, etc.  They all work after JUST PLUGGING THEM IN.  Case in point: I plugged in my SuperDisk drive that I bought in 1998 when I got my ORIGINAL iMac.  When I put in a disk, it popped up on the desktop  whether it was a regular disk or a 120 MB SuperDisk  NO DRIVERS needed.  That's what I call plug-and-play, and I doubt Windows can match this ease of use.

Anyway, there are many other things that keep me on a Mac.  As has been noted, Mac OS X is just so much easier to use on every level.    When I went into my summer job the other day (which is to design a website), I tried to use the Windows PC they gave me for a few days, but I just couldn't do it.  I was always trying to mess around with getting it to do what I want  to get Windows to open the file in the correct program, to find a good program that would allow me to do something, even something as simple as changing windows/apps (which is SO ANNOYING in Windows because applications windows are often contained within another super-window, which GREATLY LIMITS your productivity).  Windows just sucks at helping you to do your work.

In contrast, when I started bringing my mom's iBook into work with me, I just started working right away, and I'm happy to say that the website is coming along very nicely, thanks to my Mac.  I'd still be having a headache had I been still using the PC.

Other factors: plug-and-play with third party devices out of the box is VERY convenient.  Column view and the Dock are very nice additions to the Mac OS that can't be matched by Windows.  iApps are TOTALLY unmatched  Windows Movie Maker doesn't hold a candle to iMovie.  Furthermore, it's really nice to be able to have both the power of UNIX and the simplicity of the Macintosh united in one operating system  I have learned to do some stuff with UNIX to troubleshoot the few problems I have, and I would never have been able to do that with either Windows or the Classic Mac OS.

The other thing is that beauty is VERY important.  I don't like using ugly boxes that are just slapped together  it just shows that the manufacturer doesn't particularly care about the consumer  they are just trying to make money.  On the other hand, Apple takes the time to design great, beautiful computers, and use much higher quality parts, and that's a main reason why I buy them.  With Mac OS X, the design of the system software UI perfectly complements the design of the hardware.

And the other thing is that the Mac is actually less expensive in the long run.  I spend much less time troubleshooting my Mac and less money repairing my Mac over the course of its lifetime.  You will eventually spend less money, and have less headaches, using a Mac than you will with Windows, and that's probably the most important thing in the long run.  I want my computer to work, not me to work trying to get the computer to work.

But again, like others have said, you can't really appreciate the Mac until you try one.  It's just so hard to put in words, because once you become a Mac user, you just take all that stuff for granted that you can't when you use Windows.


----------



## ex2bot (Jul 7, 2002)

I use both. I do prefer the Mac, however.

Mac:

Interface is much better looking, and when you look at it ~100% of the time when using a computer it should look good.

iTunes is sooo nice. Media Player is a frustrating nightmare.

iMovie and my digital camcorder are amazing. I can't find the Firewire port on my pc. Hmm. . .

Office 2001 is usually a joy to work with.

Unix is more cryptic and fun, although if that's not your thing you can avoid it.

There are enough top games on the Mac to keep gamers busy, especially now.


True geeks should have at least one of each. But, come on, Mac is better.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 7, 2002)

> Yes, I'll admit Windows 98 does suck, but if you were ever to run NT, 2000 and XP Professional, you'd see there's and entirely different side to Windows.



While NT and 2000 are rock solid, the reports I read of XP and XP Pro are not quite as stellar. I've got XP Pro here ready to install on my next box I build, so I can't attest to that.

But that brings me to another plus for Apple -

Thanks to MS's new licensing scheme, I now have to get a code from MS when I install WinXP on my next computer. If I should alter that hardware setup, WinXP will tell me I've violated it's agreement and require that I retrieve another code, which means I have to call Microsoft, explain that I didn't steal their software, and that I've just changed a few components, and will they *please* give me a code to let me computer continue working.

I can't believe there isn't more outrage over this then there is. Especially since PC geeks are very keen on upgrading just about every component in their system, or at least that's what they'll tell you when you talk about Apple, and they try to tell you that you can't upgrade a Mac like you can a PC....


----------



## Koelling (Jul 7, 2002)

I have a bit of a hard time with that question because Apple may not be for everyone. Why buy an Apple? Try one, you'll see.

The question should be 'Why buy a Windows box?'
A: They have more games. 
	More games than a console system? Better hardware for the same price? I doubt it.
A: They are easier to use.
	Um.... no
A: They are cheaper.
	Time and again studies are released showing Apple to be cheeper, especially if time is taken into account. Less crashes = less time == less money. Better hardware == better life. Bundled software == less headaches when the borrowed digital camera doesn't have editing software for the class presentation.

People have other choices. If your purple helmeted warrior is too short to ride the pony and you must make up for it by having 2 GHz, use linux. If you want to get work done, Macintosh will be there for you.


----------



## voice- (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> once you become a Mac user, you just take all that stuff for granted that you can't when you use Windows. *



Absolutely true, you won't really know the simplicity till you switch back. When I started Mac-ing I knew every corner of Windows, now I can't install a simple network-card. I've been spoiled by stuff that just works...



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *
> I can't believe there isn't more outrage over this then there is. Especially since PC geeks are very keen on upgrading just about every component in their system, or at least that's what they'll tell you when you talk about Apple, and they try to tell you that you can't upgrade a Mac like you can a PC.... *



Also true. PC users seem to be talking notihing but trash about Windows...until you let them know you own a Mac, suddenly Windows is the best thing ever invented



> _Originally posted by Koelling _
> *Less crashes = less time == less money.*



Umm...
More crashes==less time==less money


----------



## azosx (Jul 8, 2002)

> For the first and security, it's hardly an argument to say that the only reason Windows has bad security is because they have 95% of the market share. I haven't heard of another platform (other than Windows) that has a browser that can pose a security flaw when you press the back button in the browser  and Microsoft says this isn't a security flaw because the hacker has to induce the user to press the back button. How about the fact that Outlook and Outlook Express can automatically execute code on the opening of an e-mail? And the time when IE (I believe this affected the Mac, too) was shown to automatically launch downloaded files even if they weren't compressed files, making people vulnerable to malicious code that could be downloaded.
> 
> I think it's ludicrous to say that UNIX is a less secure operating system when the people who make it actually CARE about security. Anybody in their right mind can't say that Microsoft is committed to security.
> 
> My second beef is with third-party products and Mac OS X. While there may be SOME scanners/cameras and stuff that is "a headache" to run on Mac OS X, they are few and far between. In my experience, all I need to do in Mac OS X is plug it into my Mac, and it will be recognized. Cameras, digital camcorders, MP3 players, etc. They all work after JUST PLUGGING THEM IN. Case in point: I plugged in my SuperDisk drive that I bought in 1998 when I got my ORIGINAL iMac. When I put in a disk, it popped up on the desktop  whether it was a regular disk or a 120 MB SuperDisk  NO DRIVERS needed. That's what I call plug-and-play, and I doubt Windows can match this ease of use.



Unix is a 30 year old monster.  Yes, over the past 30 years it's grown into a mature stable OS that comes in many different flavors but essentially nothing in it has changed since day 1.  Many would consider it antiquated and that is a lot of the reason why Windows controls 60% of the server market today.  Unix became a clunky beast that nobody wanted to pour the time and money into anymore.  Before Linux, Windows was a hell of a lot cheaper to run in the server market than VAX, BSDi or HP-UX.

Running OS X obviously doesn't mean you know the first thing about Unix.  For the past 30 years, Unix in the forms of HP-UX, VAX, Sys V, SCO, BSDi, and many many others have been plagued with worms, viruses, exploits and buffer overflows that would make Windows security issues look like a broken HTML link.

Also, Unix gave birth to a lot of the worms, viruses and exploits that exist for Windows today. 

Do a little research about the history of Unix before making incorrect generalizations about it.  You can start here .  My favorite quote is, "Linux and Unix users aren't immune to Code Red-style worms. In fact, we invented them."

It's ludicris to think Unix is any more secure than Windows is today.  Why don't you pick a flavor other than OS X, run it for the next 7 years like I have, then report back to me your insights on Unix security.

If I had a dollar for every exploit, backdoor and buffer overflow I've had to patch in Linux, I'd be richer than Bill Gates right now.

The bottom line is, Unix is *NOT* anymore secure than Windows and thanks to Windows current dominace in the server and home market, this isn't as apparent as it once was.  When you have 60 and 95% server and home market share, who do you think a*sholes are going to exploit, BeOS?  

As for plug-in-play, Windows pretty much pioneered it.  You'd be surprised if you actually used Windows.  You can plug in hardware circa 1994 and have it automatically detected by Windows XP.  That's the beauty of it's extensive driver library.  Something that OS X is trying to build with ever update and release.

Say what you will about Windows and security but until you have run more OS's than you can count on both hands, you really have no clue as to what you are talking about.


----------



## efript (Jul 8, 2002)

oof


----------



## simX (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *
> 
> Unix is a 30 year old monster.  Yes, over the past 30 years it's grown into a mature stable OS that comes in many different flavors but essentially nothing in it has changed since day 1.  Many would consider it antiquated and that is a lot of the reason why Windows controls 60% of the server market today.  Unix became a clunky beast that nobody wanted to pour the time and money into anymore.  Before Linux, Windows was a hell of a lot cheaper to run in the server market than VAX, BSDi or HP-UX.
> ...



Like I said, the argument that "Windows has 95% market share so obviously people will target it" holds no water.  Show me some actual evidence that UNIX is more insecure than Windows, and then maybe I'll believe you.  But not before.  UNIX is a decade-old system, and therefore it probably inherently has more security because it's been around longer.  Little snippets like the one you linked to doesn't enhance your argument either.

azosx: Feel free to prove me wrong, but you haven't yet.  I readily will admit that I probably can't shake a stick at some people in regards to UNIX knowledge, and if you can show me I'm wrong in regards to UNIX security, I can admit that too.  But I need evidence.

As for Windows inventing plug-and-play, I don't believe it either.  Plugging in 1994 hardware is not impressive.  It shows that PC users don't have the gall to give up years-old technology that has since been trumped by something like FireWire.  Prove that Windows can match the plug-and-play of OS X, where it automatically detects FireWire hard drives and mounts them without one complaint, then I might believe you.  But, as with the security argument, not before.

Oh, and just for the record?  I've been running OS X off and on since the public beta (regularly since OS X 10.1 was released), and I haven't had a single virus or security exploit yet.  That's.. what?  2 years, or 1 year regularly.  That's pretty good considering what Windows users have to live with.


----------



## themacko (Jul 8, 2002)

Norton Anti-Virus on my father's PC (with Windows XP) detects an average of 3 virus' a week.  And he wonders why I'd rather have a Mac than a Gateway.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Hey! i'm not so sure there, SimX. In the Past, Plug and Play alongside Windows 98 or even 2000 wasn't "all that". But From my opinion, in XP, this is greatly improved! When i plug in a Smartmedia Card, into the Reader, XP instantly recognises, and opens a Window, prompting me for what to do next. 

Networking is greatly improved, and my home LAN with DSL Connection sharing over two XP Machines Works a Charm, Without it asking you to restart the machine, if you tamper with any Settings. 

I Do think, XP has moved a Fair way forward with these kind of things. HOWEVER, i use XP 95% of the time, and 98 only to hack Crucial System Files for XP! (lol), and i do Find, XP is, well NOT unstable, but "Random". I assume i have a hardware problem, i now suspect my RAM may be at fault, but i get Daily BSOD's that point to Win32.sys and So forth, and quite frankly, it drives me mental, and strives me to move to Mac, or X, sooner! BUT, i was looking At XP on the Tablet PC's, and that looks impressive! Also, i assume Stability would be greatly improved due to their being less hardware to support! So i am "kinda" stuck between two minds, as to where to go, although i still find the Stability of X, and my past "eXPerience" with XP  Gives me a LOT of Direction! 

One thing i'd say XP has over X, is Customization! XP Can be Molded into something Quite different to out of the Box Luna, and Can GREATLY Change the way the computer works for you! Personally i find the Luna interface, and many of the things that tie in with it, difficult to use, and My present "System" works Far better for me! 

NeYo


----------



## azosx (Jul 8, 2002)

> *by SimX*
> 
> Like I said, the argument that "Windows has 95% market share so obviously people will target it" holds no water. Show me some actual evidence that UNIX is more insecure than Windows, and then maybe I'll believe you. But not before. UNIX is a decade-old system, and therefore it probably inherently has more security because it's been around longer. Little snippets like the one you linked to doesn't enhance your argument either.
> 
> ...



Why don't you do some research on your own?  I'm not here to hold your hand, but here, I'll help you out again since the first link wasn't "good enough."  Check out the URL below.

http://www.cybersoft.com/whitepapers/papers/networks.shtml 

This couldn't have come at a better time as well.  A security exploit for Mac OS X.  Check out the URL below.

http://www.cunap.com/~hardingr/projects/osx/exploit.html 

You'll find as OS X matures, more and more security issues will be found with it.  

"UNIX is a decade-old system, and therefore it probably inherently has more security because it's been around longer."

UNIX was developed in the early 70's by Thompson and Ritchie so it's actually 3 decades old.

Short from a history lesson, let's just say UNIX is not "new."  It's architecture and security are basically the same as they were since day 1.  This is both good and bad, but the fact remains, UNIX gave birth to the worms, viruses, exploits and buffer overflows you see in Windows and other operating systems today.  You have to realize as well UNIX lived in a time before the internet.  Exploits weren't so readily available or transferable as they are today.   You don't hear about exploits for Windows 3.11 do you?  It couldn't be that Windows 95 came along during the dawn of the internet that has anything to do with the amount of exploits available for Windows today could it?   I'm not defending Windows, yes, I think they could do better on security, but their not the only operating system to ever have a problem with it, UNIX in point.

"I plugged in my SuperDisk drive that I bought in 1998 when I got my ORIGINAL iMac. When I put in a disk, it popped up on the desktop  whether it was a regular disk or a 120 MB SuperDisk  NO DRIVERS needed. That's what I call plug-and-play, and I doubt Windows can match this ease of use."

So what is it?  You're impressed with plugging in old Mac hardware and having it detected but when it's PC hardware, it's not that impressive?  Make up your mind.  It's obvious you're a Mac zealot so any discussion highlighting the benefits of Windows or the PC are going to fall upon deaf ears no matter how true they are.

I'm sorry but woopadedoo.  Mac has a dozen devices you can plug in and have OS X detect automatically, so what?  Windows has hundreds.  The truth is, we don't know the numbers either way but we both no both operating systems can do it, and we know both operating systems stumble while trying to do it s well.



> *by SimX*
> 
> I do admit that I haven't used XP at all, and I've really only read secondhand reports about it. However, I've heard VERY mixed reactions. In the business community, like at work, I've heard that Windows XP is only a hell of a pain to integrate into existing networks. Then I hear from regular users, like you Neyo, who say that XP is much improved over previous versions. Of course, that's a relative statement.
> 
> However, when you hear about Mac OS X, you hear a resounding approval about its plug-and-play abilities. I haven't heard very many bad reports about OS X (actually, the only one I remember was an Ars Techinca article a few years ago when Mac OS X was in developer preview/public beta stages). I believe there was an eWeek article posted a week ago that was annoyed that XP had some issues with a FireWire hard disk, but when the author plugged it into a Mac, it "just worked", and mounted on the desktop. In addition, compared to OS 9, Apple has really improved the plug-and-play abilities of the Mac, especially since most of the third-party drivers are now built-in to Mac OS X. That's a big benefit.



You hear mixed reactions about any new product.  Should I get started on everything I heard about OS X.0?  No.  Why?  Because I never ran it, but from what I heard "second hand", there was very few good things to be found with it.

Your argument becomes increasingly weak when all you know is from "what you've heard."  The bottom line is you just don't know.  You have little to no real world applications with Windows or UNIX.  I don't know how people feel they have a right to comment on something they know absolutely nothing about yet they seem to do it all the time.


----------



## simX (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *
> 
> Hey! i'm not so sure there, SimX. In the Past, Plug and Play alongside Windows 98 or even 2000 wasn't "all that". But From my opinion, in XP, this is greatly improved! When i plug in a Smartmedia Card, into the Reader, XP instantly recognises, and opens a Window, prompting me for what to do next.
> ...



I do admit that I haven't used XP at all, and I've really only read secondhand reports about it.  However, I've heard VERY mixed reactions.  In the business community, like at work, I've heard that Windows XP is only a hell of a pain to integrate into existing networks.  Then I hear from regular users, like you Neyo, who say that XP is much improved over previous versions.  Of course, that's a relative statement.

However, when you hear about Mac OS X, you hear a resounding approval about its plug-and-play abilities.  I haven't heard very many bad reports about OS X (actually, the only one I remember was an Ars Techinca article a few years ago when Mac OS X was in developer preview/public beta stages).  I believe there was an eWeek article posted a week ago that was annoyed that XP had some issues with a FireWire hard disk, but when the author plugged it into a Mac, it "just worked", and mounted on the desktop.  In addition, compared to OS 9, Apple has really improved the plug-and-play abilities of the Mac, especially since most of the third-party drivers are now built-in to Mac OS X.  That's a big benefit.

About the customization, Neyo.. I don't think your statement is entirely correct.  XP probably has more "official" customization than Mac OS X, but I can probably still do many of the things you do with XP.  There are skin hacks for iTunes, theme hacks (I currently have been running one called AluniteX for a couple months now), and there are various third-party products that greatly enhance OS X, like FruitMenu, ASM, WindowShade X, Silk, Xounds, A-Dock, DragThing, Trash X, etc. etc. (funny how many of the ones I just named are from Unsanity).  It's just that all these things are "hacks" rather than officially supported theming.

Heh, it was funny.. I brought my Cube into the Palo Alto Apple Store the other day (my AirPort card is dead, and it's not covered under my cube's warrantee    ), and the Mac genius was appalled at how much "skankware" I had installed, and basically had me do all of the troubleshooting myself.   It was kind of fun, because I was doing all of the swapping of AirPort cards in front of everybody, and they all loved the look of my cube.


----------



## simX (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Why don't you do some research on your own?  I'm not here to hold your hand, but here, I'll help you out again since the first link wasn't "good enough."  Check out the URL below.
> 
> http://www.cybersoft.com/whitepapers/papers/networks.shtml *



Now there's something substantial.  Heh, it'll take me a while to read that.



> This couldn't have come at a better time as well.  A security exploit for Mac OS X.  Check out the URL below.
> 
> http://www.cunap.com/~hardingr/projects/osx/exploit.html
> 
> You'll find as OS X matures, more and more security issues will be found with it.



Yeah, I heard about this, too.  But this is largely Apple's fault, not UNIX's.



> "UNIX is a decade-old system, and therefore it probably inherently has more security because it's been around longer."
> 
> UNIX was developed in the early 70's by Thompson and Ritchie so it's actually 3 decades old.



I meant to say "decades" old.



> Short from a history lesson, let's just say UNIX is not "new."  It's architecture and security are basically the same as they were since day 1.  This is both good and bad, but the fact remains, UNIX gave birth to the worms, viruses, exploits and buffer overflows you see in Windows and other operating systems today.  You have to realize as well UNIX lived in a time before the internet.  Exploits weren't so readily available or transferable as they are today.   You don't hear about exploits for Windows 3.11 do you?  It couldn't be that Windows 95 came along during the dawn of the internet that has anything to do with the amount of exploits available for Windows today could it?   I'm not defending Windows, yes, I think they could do better on security, but their not the only operating system to ever have a problem with it, UNIX in point.



Heh, I don't hear about exploits for Windows 3.11 because no one uses it anymore, and no one particularly cares about it anymore.  As for Windows 95, I don't see how coming along during the internet boom has anything to do with it.  We've been in an internet boom for at least half a decade, and you'd think that Microsoft would learn how to not expose security holes.  At least when you hear about UNIX security holes, they get patched up (case in point, the last Apache security exploit was fixed with the July Security Update, just about a week after it was revealed.  With the April Security Update, Apple fixed a security exploit within days of it being revealed).  Microsoft takes a "the back button is not a feature so it's not a security exploit" tactic to everything that is exposed.



> "I plugged in my SuperDisk drive that I bought in 1998 when I got my ORIGINAL iMac. When I put in a disk, it popped up on the desktop  whether it was a regular disk or a 120 MB SuperDisk  NO DRIVERS needed. That's what I call plug-and-play, and I doubt Windows can match this ease of use."
> 
> So what is it?  You're impressed with plugging in old Mac hardware and having it detected but when it's PC hardware, it's not that impressive?  Make up your mind.  It's obvious you're a Mac zealot so any discussion highlighting the benefits of Windows or the PC are going to fall upon deaf ears no matter how true they are.



No, you're right here.  My SuperDisk Drive was a bad example.  Probably a better example would be my Que Fire! FireWire 12x10x32x CD burner that I got for my cube.  I plug it in, and whenever I put in a CD, it mounts on the OS X desktop (no additional drivers needed), and when I put in a blank CD-R or CD-RW, Disc Burner automatically recognizes it and formats it so that I can burn stuff onto it.  Great plug-and-play abilities.



> I'm sorry but woopadedoo.  Mac has a dozen devices you can plug in and have OS X detect automatically, so what?  Windows has hundreds.  The truth is, we don't know the numbers either way but we both no both operating systems can do it. [/B]



Would you call this plug-and-play for Windows?  I certainly wouldn't.  You say Microsoft "invented" plug-and-play?  Well this article certainly doesn't show that.  Windows XP might have solved some of these problems, but like I said before, there aren't very many bad articles/reviews of plug-and-play abilities on Mac OS X as there are on Windows XP.


----------



## simX (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *You hear mixed reactions about any new product.  Should I get started on everything I heard about OS X.0?  No.  Why?  Because I never ran it, but from what I heard "second hand", there was very few good things to be found with it.*



Heh.  Go ahead, rant all you want about Mac OS X 10.0.  You know, just because I haven't tried something first-hand doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.  I frequently read articles from a wide variety of news publications, ranging from PC Magazine, to the newspaper, to things like appleturns.com.  And from what I read, Windows XP doesn't live up to the hype that it has been given and/or the abilities that the current version of Mac OS X has.



> Your argument becomes increasingly weak when all you know is from "what you've heard."  The bottom line is you just don't know.  You have little to no real world applications with Windows or UNIX.  I don't know how people feel they have a right to comment on something they know absolutely nothing about yet they seem to do it all the time. [/B]



Actually, I have used Windows many times, and I haven't seen any of the capabilities on Windows that Mac OS X offers.  And I have taken a class and read up on UNIX to familiarize myself with it since it's there under Mac OS X.  I have a lot of experience with Windows, mainly because 95% of the world is Windows-based, and so there's no way I can avoid it.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> I do admit that I haven't used XP at all, and I've really only read secondhand reports about it.  However, I've heard VERY mixed reactions.  In the business community, like at work, I've heard that Windows XP is only a hell of a pain to integrate into existing networks.  Then I hear from regular users, like you Neyo, who say that XP is much improved over previous versions.  Of course, that's a relative statement.
> ...



Yea, i think i've heard the same kinda of "Vibe" regarding networking! XP does have enhanced wizards from 2000, which i assume Helps Those not so Familar. But i set mine manually, and is quite simplistic really! Just Twisted Pair Cable, One comp to another with DSL Shared. But as i mentioned, i love how XP Can kinda Notice Stuff, in realtime, without you having to restart your computer! Another example would be, when i installed my PCI, DSL Card. i installed the Drivers, and then a tooltip pops from the clock area, and States that the hardware is INSTALLED and Ready to run, without restarting. it may seem trivial, But moving from time ago, back say With the wretched "Me" ... this is SOOO GREAT! i couldn't stand installing a new OS, and having to restart the system after installing every individual Driver, and even Some Software! 

I did Hear Peeps Who quote XP is a nightmare on a corporate scale, while inserting it into an existing network! i heard peeps say that one machine Took Down huge Networks! So, i don't know what the deal is there, that side of things is far from where i delve. My Personal opinion would be that if you want an OS to Just work, and Dont' need All this crap, and eye candy, WMP 8 and so forth, GO FOR Windows 2000! As a whole i'd hate to admit it, but it worked better for me, fewer Crashes, and Just worked! but i upgraded, and Got stung by the bug of all te niceties from XP. i still wouldn't call XP, and Experience, but merely i guess a step in the right direction, for Microsoft, something they can build upon! 

As for Customization, SimX, you're very right! The only reason i assume XP is So Customizable is due the market Share Issue, Obviously, there's more Software Written to Manipulate Windows, than Mac! but i guess, if you have interface you like, why would you want to Manipulate it anyhow?! i Really hope Microsoft Look at what people on the net have done to XP, and Take Note. Anyone with Personal Preference and relative skills wishes to get rid of Luna, and i hope they come up with something more comparable to Aqua in the Future.

NeYo


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *One quick note.  I think there a lot of confusion about Windows and the fact that it sucks.  Yes, I'll admit Windows 98 does suck, but if you were ever to run NT, 2000 and XP Professional, you'd see there's and entirely different side to Windows.  It's like night and day and you really shouldn't judge Windows on only their consumer offering, XP Home especially. *



XP Home to me is a God-send for operating systems. While I find it great that XP Pro allows you to run a telnet server and has remote desktop options, all I need is a stable OS that is usable for everything I want to do. XP Home is just that.

While there are glitches (essentially in the video playback department using third-party codecs), everything else is absolutely fantastic.

And yet, I'd still rather use a Mac. Not because I don't understand or enjoy the PC (I can fix my own problems and there is a lot of fun to be had with the PC's extensive support), I simply like the fact that Apple innovates faster and in the areas where I would want a company to innovate.

When I read about the Jaguar release's new features, I was stunned. It's like Steve Jobs just scoped my mind and decided to put everything I wanted into the programs. On the other hand, I share his birthday so maybe we think alike.

Andre


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Thanks to MS's new licensing scheme, I now have to get a code from MS when I install WinXP on my next computer. If I should alter that hardware setup, WinXP will tell me I've violated it's agreement and require that I retrieve another code, which means I have to call Microsoft, explain that I didn't steal their software, and that I've just changed a few components, and will they *please* give me a code to let me computer continue working.*



This is one situation in which theory is scarier than practice. In theory, the licensing of Microsoft's products is absolutely horrid, in practice it's fine. I have three MS products that require online activation and I've upgraded some components in my PC over the past months. Never once was I asked to re-activate.

Andre


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by voice- _
> *
> Also true. PC users seem to be talking notihing but trash about Windows...until you let them know you own a Mac, suddenly Windows is the best thing ever invented*



I completely agree here but you'll notice that most of the people doing the complaining have always been around 95/98/Me. Those three systems are absolutely horrid. The second people make a clean install of XP or 2000, suddenly they enjoy windows.

Andre


----------



## azosx (Jul 8, 2002)

> I completely agree here but you'll notice that most of the people doing the complaining have always been around 95/98/Me. Those three systems are absolutely horrid. The second people make a clean install of XP or 2000, suddenly they enjoy windows.



I agree.  I'd have to say out of all the Windows offerings, Windows 2000 Advanced Server is the best for me.  The worst for me would have to be Windows ME.  I tried Windows XP Professional and love a lot of the new features but it had a few glitches that I just couldn't forgive.  I really like how you can switch between users while keeping their applications open.

When .NET Server is released I may give it a try.  I am also very excited about Windows "Longhorn."

Expect great things from MS in the near future.  

Have you tried PowerToys for Windows XP?  It has a lot of cool things.  One of the things I like with PowerToys is "virtual desktops."

The more I think about XP, the more I kind of miss it.  As for product activation, like you said, it's a much scarier idea in theory then it actually turned out to be.  I can understand MS wanting to protect itself.  You give the end user an inch and they walk all over you.

When MS starts to actually infringe on my freedom and not just in theory, I'll just switch platforms completely.  Until then, I'll continue to happily use Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and OS X.


----------



## drustar (Jul 8, 2002)

I am a student that is majoring in the multimedia and web design field. I must say the moment I started to use Apple (or Macs) - It was more practical and a lot easier. I get more work done.

I hear a lot of users that are very loyal to Windows. One point in class, I'd hear from some doof that Macs suck. I told him to suck it.

My reasoning behind that is because - well, it's good that you know both. I know my way around both OS, X and Windows. I just think that it's very beneficial for my part is because I just increased my chances of getting a job. As for the other guy - he's stuck in the Windows world.

I just think that it fits a designer's lifestyle and needs when he/she uses an Apple machine.


----------



## Koelling (Jul 10, 2002)

My parents are web/print designers, and they use Macintosh. As owners of the small business, they were approached by a senior graphic design student at the metro college asking if he could fill an internship requirement with them. They thought, "Why not? it's free labor and maybe we can teach him something." The first day he showed up, they realized that he had no Macintosh experience aside from the class labs. He got in the way more than he helped. Not only did he lack the required skills to work in their office, he complained about it in a very unprofessional way. He was impressed with their productivity but as for him, he would not have kept his job because he was unqualified. Point is: learn the tools of your career. Most of today's jobs can be done better with Macintosh. Some can't. Don't close your options by only learning Windows or Macintosh or Linux. Branch out as much as possible.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 12, 2002)

And don't you dare forget that multimedia on computers was born on the Mac.    I'd say most of the commercials and TV shows out there wouldn't look nearly as good if they had been done on a PC.  Yes, you heard me.  Haven't you seen the commercials?  Almost every commercial I see for major web sites is shown in a Mac interface with IE.  Why?  Because it looks so much better than Windows.  My dad's friend uses Final Cut Pro on a Mac for video production, and he uses Photoshop along with that.  They're an unbeatable combination.  And they were both created on the Mac platform.

Other reasons I use a Mac:


*Ease of use.*  When I want to get something done, I can do it without fussing over details.
*It stays out of your way.*  You can have a dialog box open and it won't command you to take care of it immediately.
*The iApps.*  I created a photo album in iPhoto in about two minutes, including the photo import.  iTunes is my music solution, and is much better than Windows Media Player on Win XP because the music doesn't hop around when you play it.  I don't use iDVD because I don't have a SuperDrive, but I will be using iMovie for school this upcoming school year.
*It connects to PC's.*  My work Mac works with our XP file server.  That's all I need for my job.[/list=1]
So, you can do everything on a Mac that you can do on a PC.  "Except crash, like the stock market."


----------



## MDLarson (Jul 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nummi_G4 _
> *No Windows OS.  windows is made by M$. A horrible monopoly that wants to control your life. need I say more ? *


That's funny I wore my Microsoft Monopoly shirt today!  

I got it at MacSurfShop.com a while ago.  It's my favorite T-shirt!


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 15, 2002)

...It's not from Wintel side of things which is the closest thing in the Dark Side of the Force in our realm 

Seriously though: Working as a technician for both Mac and PCs (for PCs for ages while for Macs only a year or so...) I found out the truth: The PCs no matter what you do to them or from where you buy them or even what OS they have (Win2k server editions included) they misbehave! For no apparent reason even if you reformat them, clean-install apps and OSes they work like bombs: They just tic-tac then BOOM even if you or someone else didn't press the button ;(

At the same time the worst thing that can happen to a Mac is to reinstall the OS, apps and any backup you may have in just under an hour at the most! Hardware related problems are nowhere to be found!

For those they say that their PCs with Win2k and/or XP are rock solid that's far from truth: I've seen Win2k servers crash on installing a network device or app, or even worse power-supplies burning, hard disks crashing, Geforce's not working ANY resolution above 1024x768, NAT services crashing, security holes, viruses and other stuff that you ALMOST never see at the Mac side of the force... Hell, I've seen PCs with XP rebooting themselves just by running Media Player on a fresh installation after a minute or two with ONLY office 2k and/or office XP installed... Modems disappear after turning off the PC and starting over again... CD-RW NOT burning disks or lose previously written contents!!! Inserting CDs, DVDs for 5 or 10 times and after that you cannot read optical media no matter what you do, only a reset will get things back to normal... I could go on and on but at M$, Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq, Intel sites and MANY other huge PC companies' sites ANYONE can read the BIG problems that Win2k and XP have... but hey: I forgot! Your PC with XP does not have any problems... Well I have news for you: The world has hundreds of millions of PC users out there and they DO have problems with Win2k AND XP and you know what? HUGE problems... Do you know how many human working hours have been lost on Wintel's avatar? Infinity! And that's only part of the problem because you see you lose time and money too! Time that you could read a book, watch a film or simply hang out with your friends... Money that you could buy that book or film-ticket...

Anyway, I think that no matter what I or anyone says, a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC... Which one is better? Mac of course... Why? Because:
-Crashes less than ANY windows version
-You can troubleshoot a Mac with less time and knowledge
-If looks can kill, Mac is a serial killer 
-Mac's TCO is cheaper
-I can GUARANTEE to someone that his/her Mac will work with his Digital devices
-Mac has the iPod (I know that it works with PCs but NOT that good)
-You plug devices and they work even if you HAVE to install the drivers
-When you put your computer to sleep you can have that word processor or app open and still got it back when you wake your computer and after all said and done Mac does it faster and 99% of the time
-Mac has the eject button on the keyboard 
-Mac has the Dock
-Mac has the Column View
-You can be sure that when you shut down your Mac that it will do just that while a PC, yes even with XP, will tell you something that says that you, the user, HAVE to END NOW that stupid app that doesn't respond ?!?!
-Viruses? What viruses?
-Security holes getting fixed in less than a week by Apple and not after a month or more like that M$ company or dare I say that M$ DOES NOT fix 'em at all 
-iApps rule!
-When you install Mac OS X.x.x you can guarantee that old-Mac-fella that his 10 year old app and/or device will work with the new OS but can you say the same thing with Win2k and/or XP?
-You can be sure that in a presentation that you will make at your boss, your clients, your friends, et al. your Mac will not make you feel uncomfortable by crashing on you 
-You do not restart your computer after installing a 400KB update or a simple system utility... Even when you MUST do that at a Mac you can log out and log back in!
-Mac is like wine and/or whisky... After some time, it works better and most reliable while a PC gets slow, slower, slowest and then dies... Mac's life is closer to human's life time while a Wintel PC's life is closer to dog's time 
-Aqua looks and acts better than Luna in any area
-No System Restore! If XP was THAT good then it would not needed such a feature (or is it another problematic utility from M$, hmmm?)
-No Activation procedure... Since when I have to buy 2 or more XPs just to use them for my 3 or more PCs? No thanks! I can be sure that when I buy Jaguar I can install it at my 3 Macs (for home use) without letting Apple knowing if and when I do such a thing... What the fack? Since when I have to buy 2 or more DVDs, Audio CDs or games to use them in my car, in my wife's car, in my living room, console and/or DVD player et al? Come on! We all know that Activation Procedure is NOT democratic by any means and M$ MUST be punished for wanting to act Big Brother on their customers...
-You can listen to the music, burn that audio CD, download from the internet, read/write/view that presentation for your work, have misc apps open and ALL these in an iMac 500Mhz/512 RAM/20GB/CD-RW without worrying that the system will crash or anything...
-Hell, even M$ says that some features in their Office:Mac are MUCH better than their windows counterparts at their own site!
-Hardware/Software MEGA compatibility! You can be sure that TiBook/iBook/PowerMac/iMac et al. can use the same apps, devices/peripherals with NO problems...
-Airport: You cannot find a wireless network solution that works THAT good in a Wintel PC with any OS installed...
-No floppy!
-No COM, LPT, IRQ, DMA, etc. BS that you find in that arcane Wintel platform
-Gigabit ethernet
-Xserve + unlimited licenses = less money and headaches than ANY Wintel solution
-Mac OS 9.x.x... Yes, I know that is old but it still does MANY things that no new OS can do and also you can have it at the SAME time with the new OS... Can you say that with ANY Windows version? Nope! For God's sake they went on and decreased DOS support into a minimal one in the new Windows versions!
-Final Cut Pro + DVD Studio Pro + Cinema Tools
-Photoshop, Quark, et al simply work better at the Mac side of the force...

Oops! The time passed and I still write why I use a Mac: Well, enough time lost explaining, lets get back using my Mac


----------



## Dehuti (Jul 26, 2002)

I'll try to write brief: it's not about stability of OS (I hanged AIX, Linux, W2k, OS X also), it's about what lies beneath. I think Apple has got themself rank of immortal company, because of switching to UNIX in technical layer of OS. I saw many things in my life, but X is coolest system ever. That's why whitout any doubt I bought myself G4, gathering possibility to run commands like VI or ps -aux | grep <smething>. It makes life much easier when you can carry all power of that tools in you suitcase. Microsoft can't do that. I'll not deal with who is going to win on the market and (Apple or Soft&Micro) and which computer is better - it's worhtless. Apple makes computers for choosen ones, they are for sure better designed and more practical but still not for everyone (in terms of price for example or avaliability - in Europe/Poland it's hard to find reseller!). I'm proud owning one and be different than anyone here.  Originality - that's what is all about.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 26, 2002)

Hulkuros is right about one thing...  the longetivity of the Mac.  The PC seems to wear out after a couple of years...  We have an 800 MHz Compaq in our offices that couldn't be more than a year old, and it's already almost dead...  I know people who still use their Mac IIci's!

Apple is like a brand name shoe.  If you buy shoes at a local K-mart, they fall apart in a couple of months.  If you buy a pair of $50 Nike's, they'll last for about a year to a year and a half.  So for $30 extra, you get so much more life out of the shoe.  It's the same with Macs and PC's...  People complain about the hafty price tag for a Mac, but you get what you pay for and then some.  It lasts a long time.

This is why Macs are in the Industrial class of computers, while Dells are only Consumer class.


----------



## marmotton (Jul 26, 2002)

I use both Windows 2000 at work and Mac OSX at home. I have to say that my experience with Windows 2000 is really bad in terms of stability: it crashes on me completely at least 2-3 times a week (however, this was a tremendous improvement compared to Window98 on the same system (multiple daily crashes) and Windows NT (about the same as now)).
I also waste a huge amount of time fixing stuff. Lately my problem was trying to uninstall some applications before installing a new version that my company required. A nightmare. 

So this is why I like  my Mac at home. If my company chooses to give me a Windows machine, it means they are ready for me to spend countless hours fixing it or being on the phone with IT support. I can't afford to do this at home, neither do I want to since it would take time away from my family.

Macs really just work. I have used MacOSX at 100% since last Fall. I had one kernel error one day (I still don't know why because it happened while I was away. Your guess is as good as mine) and that was my one and only crash. My computer is on all the time. Application-wise my biggest problem is Internet Explorer (Microsoft), which I have to Force Quit pretty often. 

Installing applications on MacOSX is ultra easy. So is removing them. They are very well compartmentalized, so they don't interact with each other. I can have 20 applications running at the same time, I can't even tell the difference (well, OK I have over 1GB of RAM on my system so there is room)

I can move hundreds of file around and my system is still usable while it's happening (try doing that on a PC: take a folder full of images and copy them somewhere else: the system goes down to its knees and you can barely use it to do anything else. I was trying that on a brand new 2.4GHz P4 Compaq last week and I just could not believe it). On a Mac, not a problem. You have to love multithreading. That's a really pro system

I also like the fact that I can name my files anyway I want, and am not constrained by extensions.

And obviously I love iTunes. I was never able to find anything close to being as good to install on my Windows work PC ... still waiting. Bummer

So get a Mac, you won't regret it.


----------



## fryke (Jul 26, 2002)

It's also a matter of style. Either you've got it or you don't.


----------



## boi (Jul 26, 2002)

i bought my mac because:
1) OS X. it's cool, it's stable, it just works. people gawk over it often because of all the bells and whistles. i plugged in my printer, and it worked (i still can't get this printer to work on my pc- it's a network printer. my wintel machine can't find a network). i called Roadrunner once for tech support on my cable modem, the troubleshooting steps they had were "is the ethernet cable plugged into the card?" "yes" "hmm... well, according to this, that's all you need to do."
2) iApps. i can't live without them. i love the jukebox system of itunes (no messing with files!), the ease of use (albeit slow) of iphoto, the simplicity of creating movies in imovie, i haven't played with iDVD2 yet, but i can't wait until i can make a DVD with all my recorded episodes of cowboy bebop!
3) iPod. EVERYONE wants my iPod. it never leaves my side.
4) hardware. the hardware is generally all integrated, so everything just works. firewire and usb is a GREAT way to upgrade a system. external HD, external floppy, external burner, external TV recording, etc is great because they usually don't require software to install. you can remove it as you please, etc. i don't know why PC people say macs are impossible to upgrade. if you want to start yankin' out motherboards and video cards, you can do that on a tower G4.

... basically, it just works; and i'm the envy of all my friends.


----------



## Annihilatus (Jul 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *The more I think about XP, the more I kind of miss it.  As for product activation, like you said, it's a much scarier idea in theory then it actually turned out to be.  I can understand MS wanting to protect itself.  You give the end user an inch and they walk all over you.
> 
> When MS starts to actually infringe on my freedom and not just in theory, I'll just switch platforms completely.  Until then, I'll continue to happily use Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and OS X. *



Personally, I don't mind Linux. In fact, I can actually use it. The only thing that bothers me is how much of what I usually use every day changes once Linux is my OS. The extra keys on my kb not working, the extra buttons on my mouse, my graphics tablet... it's a pain really but I understand why there's such a problem.

As for product activation. Frankly, I'm all for it. I paid for Windows XP Home, I paid for Office XP and I paid for Frontpage. I don't want people making copies of the programs I paid for and using them for free. Screw them. They're mine, I paid for them, let them get their own licenses. I understand that some people may want to share, but when you spend so much money on a product and someone expects to use it for free 'just because', they deserve to have Microsoft sh*t all over them. If I was running Microsoft, I'd probably be way more strict with piracy that MS already is. 

Andre


----------



## Cheryl (Jul 28, 2002)

I get razed about using a machine that only has an 8% market share. It is a shame that a lot of people select their computer using market share as their point. 

M$ has done a good job with XP. My husband has installed that on his Dell. A smooth operation compared to the 98 and ME he did work on. But to add equipment, forget it. 

All of the points you gave is exactly what I use to convince someone to buy a Mac. Even the learning curve is outstanding compared to a Windoz machine. (go to start to shut down??)

I volunteer on a free tech support web site(www.protonic.com) and you would not believe the amount of questions and problems with Windows(hundreds!).  The Mac section has a question posted maybe once a week, if that.   And most of the time those Mac questions are answered with just one email. Problem solved.


----------



## azosx (Jul 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Cheryl _
> *I get razed about using a machine that only has an 8% market share. It is a shame that a lot of people select their computer using market share as their point.*



I bet you would get down right beaten if they knew that 8% market share was actually between 2.3-2.6%.  Ouch.

People don't buy computers based on market share.  They buy computers based on what's available and what they can afford.  That's like saying not everyone buys Mercedes-Benz because their market share is smaller than Ford or GMC.  I'm sure we'd all like a Mercedes right?

You can go into just about any consumer electronics retail store and buy a PC compared to the few select retail stores that actually sell Macs.  Same with Mercedes.  You'll have 10 Ford dealerships in your city but only one Mercedes-Benz.  It's all based on demand.

Second.  Rarely do you find a Mercedes dealership next to a Ford dealership.  The same reason why Apple doesn't like to sell Macs next to PCs.  People who go looking at Fords typically don't have Mercedes in mind as well.

My point is Apple has tried it's damnedest to be different than a PC and they've succeeded.  At the cost of a 2.6% market share.

Whether it's PCs and Macs, Fords and Mercedes or unleaded and diesel fuel, they're all basically the same thing but at the same time, meet completely different demands of individual consumers.


----------



## raisinsc (Jul 30, 2002)

I am actually a mac-newbie.  I recently got my taste of mac with my ibook and the reason I changed was because ibook is one of the best laptops I've used but OSX was the one that really pushed me to it.  The thought of learning a new OS didn't appeal to me, but since OSX was UNIX based, I figured if I hate the GUI, I could always muck around in console since I had some experience with linux/unix.  To my surprise, the UI is so beautiful and intuitive I felt just like at home.  Not to mention the added bonus of never compiling kernels/driver modules or messing with any .conf files, but everything just working when you plug in peripherals or pop in the CD, all with the stability of UNIX.  

It's also kind of nice to know that if my IE crashes, it won't bring the entire OS down in another mysterious "fatal exception" error (although Win98SE is the last Windows I've used so the later ones are probably more stable)


----------



## toast (Jul 30, 2002)

I design a lot.
I want to get my poster done fast.
I like to spend 1% of my time installing fonts and opening Photoshop.
Then I like to spend 99% of my time designing.

That's why I have a Mac.
The Mac does not bore me with the computer side of design.

But of course if you like to spend 75% of your time installing .pfb/.pfm fonts, trying to get ATM to handle them all without errors, if you like to track down ICC profiles that disappear in your hard drive, if you like to call all your friends to find where are the Gamma settings on XP, and if you eventually like spending 25% designing, then that's your choice.

I have friends on PC. Their own choice. They *like* hunting bugs, configuring the PC under DOS, and so on. I don't, I like browsing tons of stock graphics under iPhoto 

So I tell them that if one day they quit blue screens for stock graphics they can join me.


----------



## ladavacm (Jul 31, 2002)

Because theft is illegal.


----------



## wtmcgee (Jul 31, 2002)

haha, well said. 



> _Originally posted by ladavacm _
> *Because theft is illegal. *


----------



## ex2bot (Jul 31, 2002)

Okay, I'll jump in. 

As I was reading this thread, Outlook Express on my Compaq said, "Unknown error has occured." 

Also, why is it that when I open a new window (such as going from Outlook to Explorer) the XP window manager leaves contents of the old window in the new one for a few seconds before it FINALLY updates. This is SLOPPY. XP is SLOPPY and UGLY. 

OS X is so pretty! It's so pretty! Sorry, but looks matter. I prefer my iBook even though the hard drive is slow. 

Still, the solution is to get one of each. Or, get two Macs and one PC. That would be even better. 



Doug


----------



## mdnky (Aug 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Annihilatus _
> *For starters, I don't want this to sound insulting. I would just like to start a thread in which Mac users would list their reasons for choosing the Mac over a PC and reasons WHY somebody should choose a Mac over a PC. This should be pretty interesting.
> 
> For myself, the aesthetics of both the physical computer and its operating, as well as the fluidity of its operation attract me. The security and stability further enhance my attraction
> ...




I bought my computer to use for various tasks.  Work, play, etc.  In terms of work I need to be productive, not having to worry about crashing every 20 minutes or about any of the numerous other standard Windows issues.  Speed is nice, but not a necessity.  Being able to utilize the computer for more than 6 to 12 months is also nice.  The 300 G3 DT I have was new technology in or around 1998.  My old job saw me stuck with a 300 P-II Gateway with Win98SE.  I had to reformat and install all programs and files almost every month or two to maintain the speed and integrity of the machine.  As far as speed, it was slow as he||!  The 300 g3 runs Photoshop 6 or InDesign 1.5 under Classic in OSX much, much better than the Win98SE machine ran Photoshop 5.5 or InDesign 5.5.

Security is a big issue, and need I say anything about Micro$uck's security?

Finally, I just plain like them better for all the reasons above and for other insignificant ones.


----------



## mdnky (Aug 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> * I found out the truth: The PCs no matter what you do to them or from where you buy them or even what OS they have (Win2k server editions included) they misbehave! For no apparent reason even if you reformat them, clean-install apps and OSes they work like bombs: They just tic-tac then BOOM even if you or someone else didn't press the button ;(*




I couldn't agree more!  Actually, to everthing in the original message, but especially the quote above.


----------

