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

Mac has :

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

I also actually like that XP has been around so long. That means that since buying XP Pro as an OEM license with my HD purchase when it first came out for $150, my mac friends had to go through 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. I dont think each revision was a free upgrade if you didnt buy a new machine each time. My guess is if you wanted to keep up, you needed to purchase it. You could just stick with 10.1 and not pay, but I love to see how well 10.1 is supported by apple and other software vendors. Chances are a lot of new software may not run right on such an old version.
 
Dont know what PC you've tried standby on but please dont base your experience on some 5 cent computer
Click to expand...
You may be interesting in cheapo computers - but I certainly am not. All desktop machines I have had have trouble returning from standby. The only ones that dont, were my laptops...

And I forgot to add to the list :

No need to defrag
 
Windows really isn't all that bad. it's just... there's a lack of direction, i think.

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

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

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

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

to say that MS should have the biggest R+D budget in the world, theres not much forward thinking in Vista; i'm not aware of anything in Vista that is really going to move the industry forward, and i think that's what aggravates me.
 
It was mentioned that Mac users have to pay for every point release. Consider that Windows users did as well, but because of the names they have thanks to MS marketing monkeys they had no idea.

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

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

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

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

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

So your point about point releases has no point. :D
 
nixgeek said:
It was mentioned that Mac users have to pay for every point release. Consider that Windows users did as well, but because of the names they have thanks to MS marketing monkeys they had no idea.

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

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

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

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

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

So your point about point releases has no point. :D
Click to expand...

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

Also vista may seem dissapointing as a release but you know, nobody really cares. XP still has full support for software and hardware and as an XP user myself, I'll probably just wait until the NEXT version. There are tons of people that still run win2k even. Why bother changing if almost all CURRENT hardware and software run great on your OS?
 
You're right: Why bother. That's the point Lt. Major Burns was trying to make. If basically what you can do with Vista you can also do with Win2K - but with less hardware upgrades necessary - then by all means: Stay with Win2K. I don't think Win2K was too bad for a Windows system. But the reason for upgrading to a newer version like XP or Vista shouldn't be that it _looks_ different or adds hurdles for the user, the reason should be innovation, stuff that really makes working with a system easier, better, more productive. Vista, five years after XP, simply _doesn't_ bring that much to the table. If you compare that to, say, comparing Puma to Leopard (10.1 to 10.5), that looks quite different to me. Now you could say that Puma simply wasn't such a good OS back then - and you may have a point. But at the same time, Windows had its _worst_ time, what with worms infecting systems before they even were correctly installed... (Sure you can say it's stupid to install Windows XP without a hardware firewall present, but most home users do _not_ have a hardware firewall, and Windows XP _wants_ to connect to the 'net in order to download the newest updates before installation.)

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

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

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

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

The Mac thing is: It lets me work. I can write an entire shortstory without having to deal with anything but my writing. In order to do that on Windows, I'd have to first turn off every little bit of software that's automatically run, then (or better before that) knock out the network cable and use Notepad.exe to write, because everything else wants to reformat my text while I'm writing it. ;)
 
XP was still XP because Vista wasn't finished in time. Did you miss me saying that? Vista was meant to be released in 2003 when it was still called Longhorn. In all the time it took for Microsoft to "finish" Vista, all they came out with were 2 Service Packs. It's not that they didn't release anything because they were satisfied with the product.....all of the malware and security issues made sure of that. They were busy patching something that wasn't good enough for release to begin with. Now with Service Pack 2, XP has become much more stable but it's still far from perfect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway this discussion is over. Afterall this is an OSX forum and my G3 is a secondary machine so it doesnt really matter where this discussion goes.
Click to expand...
I am exceptionally gifted, I run a bullet-proof and crash-proof Windows XP machine, and still prefer Mac OS X.

No one's opinion is right or wrong -- but it is a boneheaded person that refuses to see another's point of view.
 
I'm not saying for you to conform. You can use Windows for all you want. If it works for you, great. For the record, I haven't had any issues with Windows either, but I find Mac OS X and Linux to be far superior. Seems like the world doesn't entirely revolve around you as being the uber-ly gifted person that can build a bulletproof computer either, and I'm sure I can speak for many of the other experienced "sliders" here as well ("slider" being someone who goes back and forth between various operating systems).

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

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

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

the USB Memory Key.

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

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

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

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

There are two reasons I prefer MacOS to Windows - Windows is too intrusive, and Mac just works.
 
The main reason Macs are considered better is simply the fact that Apple:

1) Builds the Hardware
2) Builds the Operating System

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

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

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

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

Why?

I think of the computer, like I think of my car: I just want to aim the damned thing in the direction I want it to go, and for the damned thing to get me there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top