Why buy an Apple?

[cellfish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andre

 

[Vash137]

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

 

[fryke]

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

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

 

[cellfish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ebolag4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Added edit)

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

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

 

[binaryDigit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cat]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[binaryDigit]

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

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

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

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

 

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by cellfish
Blah-blah

Andre

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

 

[hulkaros]

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

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

even if they know what they are talking about

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

they are automatically called trolls and berated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including crashing too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cellfish]

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

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

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

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

 

[cellfish]

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

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

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

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

 

[ebolag4]

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

Ummm.....

[RANT]

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

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

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

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

YOU CALLED ME A LIAR!!!!!

Forget about any further help from me, man!

[/RANT]

 

[cellfish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andre

 

[ebolag4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by ebolag4
Ummm.....

[RANT]

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

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

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

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

YOU CALLED ME A LIAR!!!!!

Forget about any further help from me, man!

[/RANT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hulkaros]

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

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

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

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

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

Andre

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

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

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

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

 

[hulkaros]

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

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

 

[Cat]

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

 

[pds]

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

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