Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac? - Page 8

post #106 of 151
Quote:
I should take a picture of my living room Mac mini on top of one of my front three speakers, 3-way powered midfield studio monitors by Genelec. I bet you'd get a good laugh out of a 6.5x6.5x2 computer on top of a speaker with a 12" woofer.
Yeesh, lets hope your speaker is shielded!
Quote:
Why is it supposed to?
I'm glad someone is asking the important questions. Its a built in desk, so I can't really get rid of it without tearing out kitchen cabinets and stuff, BUT its pretty ugly. I had to cover it with my gorgeous computer so I wouldn't have to stare at puce formica all day.
post #107 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Windows isn't THAT much slower. Certainly not slow enough that I would have any desire to switch to OSX.

That is not my experience. Or those of people around me. In fact, just today someone who recently bought a new mega-PC (dual cores and tons of RAM) was shocked, shocked to learn that my tiny little MBP boots up faster than his, loads common programs (even Rosetta-requiring programs such as MS Excel and Word) faster than his new Superdell, and basically runs rings around his thing. I'll be interested to see how many hairs 'Dose makes me pull out when I get around to loading it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
BUT [the Mac mini is] not a serious computer that will run apps or play games.

That's just plain not true. I have experience with the rev.A G4 mini as well as my current HT computer, a rev.A Core Solo model with a 300GB drive in matching Firewire case under it. Even the old G4 mini is more than capable of running most aps. iPhoto is snappy, almost as snappy as on the MBP. (And that's with a 3000-photo library.) FrontRow works like a charm. It is more than enough machine for any spreadsheet or Word document. (Gaming? I don't know because I don't do it.) For the vast majority of computer users, the Mac mini has more power than they need now and will ever need in the future.
post #108 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
That's just plain not true. I have experience with the rev.A G4 mini as well as my current HT computer, a rev.A Core Solo model with a 300GB drive in matching Firewire case under it. Even the old G4 mini is more than capable of running most aps. iPhoto is snappy, almost as snappy as on the MBP. (And that's with a 3000-photo library.) FrontRow works like a charm. It is more than enough machine for any spreadsheet or Word document. (Gaming? I don't know because I don't do it.) For the vast majority of computer users, the Mac mini has more power than they need now and will ever need in the future.

My fault, perhaps I should be more specific, when I say apps, I am usually talking about apps like Photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Poser, Maya, Premiere or Final Cut Pro. Things I would be using in school, or for fun. Can the mac mini run FCP? Is there a firewire VIVO deck for it? It couldn't and there wasn't last time I checked.

Again, I don't care about "most people and their needs"... I will generally leave the huddled masses out of my rants. Unless its to make a point. Is the Mac Mini the best computer in its price range for the average person? If so, why are Mac owners the minority? Its not like Apple doesn't advertize enough.
post #109 of 151
Quote:
If you really want to continue this discussion, you could try bringing up some valid points of your own instead of criticizing the validity of my OPINIONS every chance you get.
Because if you don't make valid arguments, you cant make valid statements. Your arguments wreak of personal taste instead of objective discussion. Everything is about how YOUR computer compares instead of looking at things in the wider spectrum of the computer market. I'm not trying to sell you a computer, but I could take your arguments to have a similar standpoint - that you're trying to sell me a computer. Ultimately, in a "this is better this is worse" argument, that's how it's always going to sound. I'm not trying to tell you to buy a Mac, I'm trying to tell you that you can't tell other people their computers suck when all your reasoning is "Its ugly and it doesnt fill up my desk and it looks like a toy, and I dont have options, even though in the end I'm going to buy products from the same manufacturer with a different badge." And by the way, your Dell monitor is *not* the same as the Apple monitor. They have different specs and different features. I don't know where you pulled that idea out from, but they are not one in the same - not in a long shot. They may both be manufactured by Samsung - I'm not really sure. But they are not the same monitored and are priced differently as such - and not just because of the aluminum casing. The contrast ratio argument, on the other hand, is a matter of taste. I prefer Apple's contrast ratio as it gives a great representation of photographic color. Higher contrast ratio does not make it closer to CRT. It's a completely different technology. I think too high of a contrast is what unfavorably skews how colors appear on screen. It is not a "selling point." Nowhere does Apple mention it as a feature. It's something I noticed and I appreciate.
Quote:
Is the Mac Mini the best computer in its price range for the average person? If so, why are Mac owners the minority? Its not like Apple doesn't advertize enough.
The answer here is that 99% of people get their computers at Best Buy, Fry's, Staples, CompUSA, etc. which all don't sell Apple computers (okay except Fry's).
post #110 of 151
Quote:
Again, I don't care about "most people and their needs"... I will generally leave the huddled masses out of my rants. Unless its to make a point.
Well this answers everything. Discussion over for me. Obviously this can never be a real argument if people are unwilling to look outside what fills up the space on their own desk
post #111 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
My fault, perhaps I should be more specific, when I say apps, I am usually talking about apps like Photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Poser, Maya, Premiere or Final Cut Pro.
Photoshop's the only one of those I've ever used, and only sparingly. I did have it on my G4 mini, and surprise surprise the G4 mini handled it better than the 4 year older G4 TiBook. The only other one you've listed that I've even heard of is FCP. So probably if they run acceptably speedily for you on an old G4 Power Mac the mini will be just fine. Also, I don't know what you mean by "VIVO", and Google was no help. However, I didn't know that Firewire accessories were model dependent. Even though my OWC hard drive is shaped like a mini, I can connect my old TiBook and new MBP to it, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Is the Mac Mini the best computer in its price range for the average person? If so, why are Mac owners the minority? Its not like Apple doesn't advertize enough.
I don't think the mini is the best computer for the average person in its price-range, which to me means "including a good new monitor". The iMac is the best computer for anyone who doesn't need a laptop. Including gamers, now that there's Boot Camp. It has the most modern chip, a beautiful screen, and takes up much less space than any alternative. The AIO format just makes more sense for a general use computer, though it's obviously a pain if your plan is to use it as part of your home theater. That's really where the mini shines. That and for people who maybe already have a modern PC setup and want to taste something a little better without spending too much money on it. On a purely anecdotal level, the mini seems to do much better virally than through traditional marketing. Used to hulking, ugly towers - and I include the G5 in that statement - people just don't believe that such a tiny, adorable box can do everything they need it to do until they try it. Literally within a few weeks of me setting up my old G4 mini up at my mom's house, two of her friends bought them. An uncle of mine saw it and bought ten, one for his home and nine to replace the problematic PC's that were costing his business money because of constant downtime!
post #112 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
And by the way, your Dell monitor is *not* the same as the Apple monitor. They have different specs and different features. I don't know where you pulled that idea out from, but they are not one in the same - not in a long shot. They may both be manufactured by Samsung - I'm not really sure. But they are not the same monitored and are priced differently as such - and not just because of the aluminum casing.
I'm sorry I'm mistaken. Mine is the only model WS Dell that uses a different LCD from the same size Apple Cinema Display. There are only two companies worldwide who mass produce WS LCD's in that size, Samsung and LG Phillips. The 2405FPW Dell uses a Samsung and the Apple uses an LG Phillips. I have better contrast, higher brightness, faster grey to grey response time, more hookups, a built in media card reader, better warranty, less expensive, uses less power, runs a little hotter due to its internal power supply, and yes, it is a few inches taller and is heavier. I say its a fair trade off. The 20" and 30" WS dell/cinema displays are all the same LG Phillips TFT's by the by. Same model number and everything. I think Dell got away from the 24" LG Phillips because the Apple was having so many color problems with that particular model.
post #113 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
Photoshop's the only one of those I've ever used, and only sparingly. I did have it on my G4 mini, and surprise surprise the G4 mini handled it better than the 4 year older G4 TiBook. The only other one you've listed that I've even heard of is FCP. So probably if they run acceptably speedily for you on an old G4 Power Mac the mini will be just fine. Also, I don't know what you mean by "VIVO", and Google was no help. However, I didn't know that Firewire accessories were model dependent. Even though my OWC hard drive is shaped like a mini, I can connect my old TiBook and new MBP to it, too.
Its because I forgot the slash. VI/VO is probably more correct, though I don't know anyone who does it that way. It is Video In/Video out. The most important thing on a mac would probably be the analog RCA or component (preferred) video out plug for recording to a master. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_In_Video_Out I dont know about a G4 power mac, the programs are running on either a G5 tower at school or my home computer (except FCP of course)
post #114 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
Well this answers everything. Discussion over for me. Obviously this can never be a real argument if people are unwilling to look outside what fills up the space on their own desk
Look to your own comment. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Some people may NEVER agree with you. You are just going to have to learn to live with it. Again, I think you are taking this way too personally. None of my comments were directed twords you, the points I were discussing were points brought up by someone other than you, the replies to which you either misinturpret, take out of context, or just plain imagine that I said something worse than I did... Simply because you feel like disagreeing with me. The responses I gave YOU were as to the point, cordial and tempered as I could manage, considering most of your posts seem condescending and rude twords me specifically. Maybe I'm a little defensive because I'm about the only person here who isn't head over heels in love with the Mac, and when I try to explain why I don't like it, or how PC's can be better for some people, all I get from you is how I'm ad-hominem attacking people, and that my opinion, (or "argument" as you put it) since you disagree with it, isn't valid. Since you indicated in the reply to my PM that your request to STFU was unofficial, I have continued, since I felt like there was no point in letting you walk all over me I have countered as many of your attacks as rationally as I can and yet you persist. If you haven't noticed, the only time you and I have talked about anything in this thread is me DEFENDING MY OPINIONS from your scrutiny and abuse. I dunno, maybe thats your clue to back off a little. I really have no interest in taking the argument with you any further and I would rather not be at loggerheads with you. I would actually like to continue discussing this topic reasonably with people who have something to say. Everyone else seems to be having a nice discussion except you and I, and I would like it to stop.
post #115 of 151
Stats from Intel:

35-40% of its processors sold do NOT go to major PC vendors. (Dell, HP, Sony, Apple) But to custom builders, and local parts shops.

Seems like I represent a larger peice of the pie than you would like to believe...
post #116 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The 20" and 30" WS dell/cinema displays are all the same LG Phillips TFT's by the by. Same model number and everything. I think Dell got away from the 24" LG Phillips because the Apple was having so many color problems with that particular model.
The 2005FPW 20" Dell, which uses the same panel, but not the same backlight as the 20" Apple Cinema Display, is ranked much better than the 2405FPW. Apple doesn't do a 24" screen, and none of their displays have, or have ever had, color problems (except perhaps for one-off manufacturing errors).
Quote:
Funny you should mention the Apple Cinema Display. Up until last year when they were updated, they weren't the "best" at anything. Substandard resolution and refresh etc. You were overpaying for the shiny aluminum case. If you haven't noticed, Apple has been quietly upping their display resolutions and refresh times to match ... DELL.
This is total BS.
Quote:
I HAVe a nice widescreen LCD, and I'll tell you right now that there is a difference. "Professionals" can do whatever they want, but there isn't a 19"+ LCD out there under $1500 that can come more than "close" when it comes to color representation and contrast.
That's because Windows doesn't have such niceties as ColorSync and the like. I can agree with you that current Windows OSes don't look too good on LCDs (the font smoothing sucks as well), but if you try your display on OS X, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised.
post #117 of 151
Slim, you are the first person I ever encountered that's so passionate about the Wintel PC.

Here's an interest op-ed article. The author speculate that the next logical step is for Apple to let OS X run on PC's:

Quote:
April 8, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Microsoft's Mac Attack
By ROBERT X. CRINGELY
Charleston, S.C.

HELL froze over this week as Apple Computer unveiled Boot Camp, a free program that will allow its new Macintosh computers with Intel microprocessors to run Microsoft's Windows XP operating system as an alternative to Apple's OS X. The news media were agog and Apple's stock price zoomed at the announcement. In my view, it was mildly interesting, but hardly the revolution Apple users want to see.

Many Mac enthusiasts view Boot Camp as a huge coup for Apple that will eventually take the computer hardware leadership away from Dell and the software leadership away from Microsoft. The more skeptical warn that Boot Camp shows the final mastery of the Apple platform by Microsoft. Both positions are absurd.

Boot Camp, itself, is unexciting. So now you can start your computer running Windows or OS X "” big deal. You can't run Windows and OS X simultaneously, so you can't cut and paste data between the two operating systems or even get access to the same data. For that you'd need a version of the program Virtual PC "” a Microsoft product "” redesigned to run on the Intel Mac platform. (Or, I guess, you could use a program called Parallel Workstation that allows users to run OS X, Windows the Linux operating system on the same Intel Mac at the same time, madly cutting and pasting between all three. Now that's exciting.)

The real reason people are in a tizzy about this news is that Mac users love their computers and Windows users, for the most part, tolerate theirs. So the Mac people think that this Apple software will demonstrate the inherent superiority of the product they love and will result in lots of Mac hardware sales to people who want to continue to use Windows. I don't think so.

It's just too darned hard, for one thing. A Windows PC user would have to buy a Mac, buy Windows XP, download Boot Camp, then load everything "” with the result that he had a Mac that costs a lot and doesn't run as well as it would using the traditional Apple software. The PC market is such that few people are likely to buy Macs just to run Windows, especially since it will cost $140 for a copy of Windows XP and Apple's machines are far more expensive than, say, Dell's.

Boot Camp, being free, makes no revenue for Apple and never will. And while it might help show prospective purchasers the superiority of Apple hardware, those purchasers would have to buy their Macs first and then convince themselves that they had done the right thing, which is totally backwards.

Most commentators seem to think that Boot Camp was a shock to Microsoft, too, which I guarantee you it is not. After all, Microsoft is the one that truly benefits, because it will get to sell a retail copy of Windows for every copy of Boot Camp downloaded. The retail version of Windows makes Microsoft about three times as much profit as the version that comes preloaded onto PC's made by third parties like Dell.

Now, here is some breaking news: word in Silicon Valley is that another reason Microsoft wasn't surprised by Boot Camp is that the company has been quietly working with Apple for months to make sure that Windows Vista (the next generation of Windows, which is supposed go on sale next January) will run on Macs with Intel chips.

If that is true, we can expect Apple to make it possible to run Windows Vista alongside its own operating system by putting an improved Boot Camp into the next version of OS X (which we can guess now will also ship next January). I don't know if the folks at Apple would then actually sell copies of Windows Vista preloaded on their hardware, but it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't, since it would be an easy source of revenue and be popular with business customers.

In any case, it seems clear that opening Macs to Windows is all about selling computers to big businesses and making money, and not about any religious computing experiences or proselytizing to the Microsoft-buying infidels.

Besides, Apple-Microsoft alliances never last long "” remember that Microsoft supplied the Basic-language interpreter for the Apple II, amusingly (in retrospect) named Applesoft "” and this one won't, either. Among other reasons, Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, bristles at the thought of serving under Microsoft's master, Bill Gates.

My bet is that once Apple has Windows Vista running smoothly on its operating system and helping its business sales, the company will try a more profitable avenue: marketing a version of OS X able to run on regular PC's that now use Windows.

This strategy would turn Boot Camp on its head, as the company selling all those $140 retail copies of its operating system would be Apple. And with hundreds of millions of Windows machines in the world, getting even 1 percent of PC users to switch to OS X would be a huge new business for Apple. It would also create another headache for Microsoft. And that, in the end, is what Apple does best.

Robert X. Cringely is the host of the online PBS program"NerdTV."
post #118 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babar
Apple doesn't do a 24" screen, and none of their displays have, or have ever had, color problems (except perhaps for one-off manufacturing errors).

I hear something like one in five of the first batch of 23" cinema displays had faulty of inconsistant coloring. Pink banding, yellow fringing, look it up. I know apple doesn't do a 24" screen.

Quote:
This is total BS.
No, its not.
post #119 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Look to your own comment. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Some people may NEVER agree with you. You are just going to have to learn to live with it.

Again, I think you are taking this way too personally. None of my comments were directed twords you, the points I were discussing were points brought up by someone other than you, the replies to which you either misinturpret, take out of context, or just plain imagine that I said something worse than I did... Simply because you feel like disagreeing with me. The responses I gave YOU were as to the point, cordial and tempered as I could manage, considering most of your posts seem condescending and rude twords me specifically. Maybe I'm a little defensive because I'm about the only person here who isn't head over heels in love with the Mac, and when I try to explain why I don't like it, or how PC's can be better for some people, all I get from you is how I'm ad-hominem attacking people, and that my opinion, (or "argument" as you put it) since you disagree with it, isn't valid. Since you indicated in the reply to my PM that your request to STFU was unofficial, I have continued, since I felt like there was no point in letting you walk all over me I have countered as many of your attacks as rationally as I can and yet you persist.

If you haven't noticed, the only time you and I have talked about anything in this thread is me DEFENDING MY OPINIONS from your scrutiny and abuse. I dunno, maybe thats your clue to back off a little. I really have no interest in taking the argument with you any further and I would rather not be at loggerheads with you. I would actually like to continue discussing this topic reasonably with people who have something to say. Everyone else seems to be having a nice discussion except you and I, and I would like it to stop.

For some reason Mac people tend to take any criticism of Mac as a criticism of themselves, I guess Mac people are an extension of their computer, and not the other way around.

Jon.
post #120 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
I hear something like one in five of the first batch of 23" cinema displays had faulty of inconsistant coloring. Pink banding, yellow fringing, look it up.



People with such panels can just get a new one under warranty.

Quote:
No, its not.

Yes it is. The resolution on Apple's displays has stayed the same since their introduction. My pre-aluminum 20" Apple Cinema Display from early 2003 is 1680X1050 and has better response times than Dells at the time (They didn't even do a 20" back then..)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?