or Connect
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 2

post #16 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
Some people seem to want to whine that Apple actually expects you to settle on a package. Well, I wouldn't want to assemble a suit by taking a Huntsman sleeve, an Attolini shoulder, Kiton lapel canvassing, and Oxxford chest canvassing, the shoulder off of an Attolini, so why the hell would I want to build my own computer?

You people are hopeless. Go ahead and conform.

Personally I like choices.

Some people like bespoke suits. You can choose whatever options you want, and have a suit that FITS.

Apple = Off the rack. One size fits all. One color for everyone. Choose from up to THREE different pre-made cookie cutter computers!

PC = Bespoke. Sometimes OTR fits just fine, but for people who like to customize, tailor things to their needs, and have options, PC is the only way to go. People keep asking why they would want to build their own computer... well why would you want a bespoke suit?

I don't know why this is so hard for apple people to grasp. I guess its just because they are happy in their shell of ignorance.

Also, can we please stop bringing up Dell? Yes, MOST pre-built computers suck. There are some nice custom shops, FalconNW, Overdrive, the recently purchased(by Dell...) Alienware and numerous local places that specialize in it.. but Compaq, HP, Dell, Sony, eMachines, Sony, APPLE, and etc. are 80% crap. Build your own or have one built custom. Why anyone would buy a box computer of any kind for home use is beond me. Pointing to Dell as the best example of a "pc" is like pointing to a Pinto as the best example of the automobile. Having a PC bult for you is usually cheaper than buying the same spec range mac. Sometimes by a lot. Macs are really expensive performance per dollar wise in case nobody has noticed.

As far as why you would want to upgrade instead of buying a new apple every five years when you notice how slow it is:

I built my living room computer in 1997, I've upgraded two hard drives, a processor, cables and misc fans, a CD burner, and RAM, in total, I have spent a little over $1100 building and upgrading i. And it still runs faster than most people on this planet will ever need... How is your nine year old Mac holding up?
post #17 of 151
I am disappointed at Apple's Boot Camp --- they are capable of more. It should have been virtualizing software, a la VMware, that allows you to run Windows (the whole OS, not just apps) inside a Mac window as just another Mac application. This dual-booting thing is for the birds.

--Andre
post #18 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
I don't know why this is so hard for apple people to grasp.
You answered your own question man. Apple targets a market that doesn't like to tinker, that wants simplicity in their technology. They really do offer enough choices for 90% of the population--low, mid, high end laptops and desktops. Why is *that* so hard to grasp?

As for official support of Windows. Yeah it's not ideal, but look at it this way: someone's going to hack the softwear to run on their powerbook. If Apple *doesn't* support it, there are going to be failures that are sure to become public. All the spin in the world (they voided their warranties!) won't change the public perception that it's a failure on Apple's fault. Call it an attempt to maintain quality control. For all the crap that tech companies take for not recognizing the talents and abilities of the amateur market, you'd think this would be welcomed.

Most likely Windows programs are going to run within OS X, not as a dual boot (just a hunch). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this will make Apples susceptible to all the Windows viruses that are out there.

My current computer is a 2001 TiBook. After my last trip to the desert the DVD drive got jammed full of sand, $70 replacement, and HDD died, $100 replacement with twice the storage. Battery finally went out in the last few months. All in all, not bad.

Tom
post #19 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babar
...and last for years (ime).
and mine too. I got around to setting up my 400mhz Lombard laptop again the other week. I cant believe how fast it is and how well it runs. It comfortably outruns my 2.2ghz Windows laptop, with less RAM. I run Firefox, an all-in-one IM, a PIM, Word and Excel and iTunes at all times. On the PC with these going (FF, Outlook, Trillian + the office apps), iTunes skips like crazy as the processor tries to keep up, on the Lombard (running FF, Entourage, Proteus + the office apps), iTunes doesnt skip a beat. Pretty damn good for a 7 year old laptop I think.
post #20 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
You answered your own question man. Apple targets a market that doesn't like to tinker, that wants simplicity in their technology. They really do offer enough choices for 90% of the population--low, mid, high end laptops and desktops. Why is *that* so hard to grasp?

The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".
post #21 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Its always been the argument against Mac's. They aren't very upgradeable. They have proprietary hardware, they tell you what hardware you want instead of you deciding.
Wha!? Pro desktop Macs are fully upgradeable. It's just the cheaper ones where only the RAM chips and HD are user-replaceable. http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html As you can see, no proprietary hardware. My PowerMac uses two IBM G5s, the GPU is an ATI 9800XT, the RAM is standard DDR SDRAM chips from Crucial, the HD is a S-ATA Maxtor drive, the optical drive is from Pioneer, and the list goes on. All fully replaceable. It's just to pop the lid open and do it oneself.
post #22 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".

dude, don't worry. you'll still get to play all your precious games late night.

http://www.cnet.com.au/games/0,39029232,40061763,00.htm

this argument is old. stick with your custom nissan if you like.
i prefer german cars.
post #23 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".

Perfect.
post #24 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
2: Ok Mr. Fantasy land, go buy a Mac CPU or motherboard at the computer store. See ya in a few years when you figure out that you can't. There are no third party CPU's or motherboards, RAM is fine, but you can't upgrade it, only put in MORE, and how many more is limited by your PROPRIETARY motherboard. If I wanted to upgrade to 4GB of PC2-7200 memory from my 1GB of PC-3200 I could do it. I could switch from my AMD processor to an Intel Processor and still run all the same programs and keep my RAM, HD's and optical drives static. Can't do it in a Mac.

What do you do with your computer? Why do you need 4GB of memory? On my iMac G4 (4 years old, no additional memory) I run itunes, photoshop, illustrator, store pics, edit pics, small movie editing, burn cds, watch movies, word processing, faxing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Why would you want to? I don't know. Why would you want to have a faster computer without buying a whole new $$$ box? No idea. Continue to fall for the hype. Ignore the voice of reason. Nothing to see here.

Its always been the argument against Mac's. They aren't very upgradeable. They have proprietary hardware, they tell you what hardware you want instead of you deciding. PC's are much more versatile machines. It's always been that way. You COULD easily build your own Xbox. All you would need is the OS. Xboxes are just PC's after all. It wouldn't be cost effective though, because video game consoles are generally sold at a pretty steep loss.

The "upgrade" they are talking about is for the two newest apples only (mini and iMac), and its just because apple was too cheap to solder the CPU to the boards like they usually do to keep you from upgrading. If you REALLY feel like spending $260 on an overpriced CPU that you will have to add a water-cooling system to, re-time your RAM, and probably end up breaking your power supply...go right ahead. It's not an official upgrade, and the computers in question were not designed to be put under that kind of load. It's not like a PC that you can just upgrade your CPU to the top of the line in your slot/socket configuration whenever you want and it probably won't cause any problems. The mini and iMac weren't designed to be upgraded at home. Thus my point. Also, if you need to add a cooling fan, or a new power supply to your PC, you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The Mens wearhouse offers enough choices for 90% of the population too, but it doesn't make their product superior or desirable.

I guess one person's lack of diversity and uselessness are another person's "simplicity".

I thought Macs were a lot more different than all of the IBM clones.

I bought a printer / fax / copier, plugged it in and it worked.
I bought a camera, plugged it in and it worked.
I plug the ipod in and it works.
Never had any problems with the computer and I can count the number of times (on two hands) a program or software crashes and I have had to restart the program (in 4 years). (not the os)

Why is it bad that I don't want to work on a computer to get it to do what I want?
I am not a mechanic, I just need to get in my car and drive it without any problems. I want it too look good, and work well and do what I need it to do.

For me, as an average person that isn't interested in IT, Macs are perfect - AND different from the herd of crashing, virus infected, ugly doorstops that are out there. (I've used Macs and PCs) Macs are infinitely easier to use.

Edit: So, I'm not diverse because I bought an iMac? That makes a lot of sense?!?!
post #25 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
What do you do with your computer? Why do you need 4GB of memory? On my iMac G4 (4 years old, no additional memory) I run itunes, photoshop, illustrator, store pics, edit pics, small movie editing, burn cds, watch movies, word processing, faxing... I thought Macs were a lot more different than all of the IBM clones. I bought a printer / fax / copier, plugged it in and it worked. I bought a camera, plugged it in and it worked. I plug the ipod in and it works. Never had any problems with the computer and I can count the number of times (on two hands) a program or software crashes and I have had to restart the program (in 4 years). (not the os) Why is it bad that I don't want to work on a computer to get it to do what I want? I am not a mechanic, I just need to get in my car and drive it without any problems. I want it too look good, and work well and do what I need it to do. For me, as an average person that isn't interested in IT, Macs are perfect - AND different from the herd of crashing, virus infected, ugly doorstops that are out there. (I've used Macs and PCs) Macs are infinitely easier to use. Edit: So, I'm not diverse because I bought an iMac? That makes a lot of sense?!?!
This depends greatly on what you do. Trust me. The whole plug it in and it works depends on many things, including native mac support. The iPod for exam,ple. Initially designed FOR A MAC. What about the HUGE amount of peripherals that have no native Mac support? What happens with those? Most printers are the same for the PC as long as they are plug and play USB. And cameras. And the whole ugly thing, well, that is why you shop around for a custom rather than a big-box PC. Those are not different from Apple's machines in lack of expandability. Look at say a modern aluminum Lian Li case. OR a Shuttle for something different. Granted there are things that are easier to do on a mac but I can tell you that as a trained CHI guy, there is A LOT that is just plain stupid design that Apple keeps around because of their perceived value (sorry but a bouncing dock is not any sort of panacea). Apple, like Dell or Gateway, wants you locked in. Nothing new there. As I said previously, any advantage on hardware is pure fiction. The looks are entirely subjective. Sorry but a computer with all the imaginative design of a white Ford Mondeo (eMac anyone?) will not compare with something like a well designed case from a dedicated company like Lian Li. You do not compare Bertone & Pininfarina to some proprietary case made to look like a giant iPod. Apple's ONLY strengths are end-to end integration and the BSD roots of the OS. NOTHING ELSE. Remember what you may think is user friendliness is in most cases the fact that you have a process with controlled variables. Only One CPU with One OS with One driver with One way to connect. The iPod is the perfect example. It is "easy" to use because of the fact that it was designed to work ONLY ONE WAY. In a nutshell that is why I think this move of Apple's is either a) suicide or b) proof that they are putting a more and more importance to their multimedia company way and they are ghetting qaway from the cutthroat personal computer market. IBM had a lot of sense to sell their PC business and they are a bigger and smarter company than Apple. P.s. Please do not say anything about Apple being historically the PC for artists. That is pure fiction. Read up on the Atari ST and the Amiga and how those two had cornered the music and video market from the beginning and you still find them in the back nowadays 10-15 years past their prime with system critical functions. P.s. 2 The only reason I would ever get near a Mac is for OS X's BSD roots (a real UNIX based OS). I do not like the constrictive nature of the UI though and hate the cheap, unimaginative hardware design. Anyway, the OS and the H/W is shrinking in importance with time - give it another decade and all this will be a moot point.
post #26 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
This depends greatly on what you do. Trust me. The whole plug it in and it works depends on many things, including native mac support. The iPod for exam,ple. Initially designed FOR A MAC. What about the HUGE amount of peripherals that have no native Mac support? What happens with those?
Most printers are the same for the PC as long as they are plug and play USB. And cameras.

I have a Hewlett Packard printer / fax / scanner and Canon 430 Digital Camera. I think the real myth is that there are no peripherals designed for Mac. There are plenty. Of course there are more peripherals for IBM clones as there are millions more of those computers.

Quote:
And the whole ugly thing, well, that is why you shop around for a custom rather than a big-box PC. Those are not different from Apple's machines in lack of expandability. Look at say a modern aluminum Lian Li case. OR a Shuttle for something different.
Granted there are things that are easier to do on a mac but I can tell you that as a trained CHI guy, there is A LOT that is just plain stupid design that Apple keeps around because of their perceived value (sorry but a bouncing dock is not any sort of panacea). Apple, like Dell or Gateway, wants you locked in. Nothing new there.

This is my point. Why should I go through all of that work to shop around for a new case, build a computer to fit the way I want it to look when I could just buy a good looking machine out of the box. Why should I pay more for a custom computer if everything I need is in my iMac? If you don’t like the way it looks, why does that make Apple a worse computer than any other? They don’t all look like eMacs and if the bouncing dock is the biggest complaint than switch it off or don’t use it

Quote:
As I said previously, any advantage on hardware is pure fiction. The looks are entirely subjective. Sorry but a computer with all the imaginative design of a white Ford Mondeo (eMac anyone?) will not compare with something like a well designed case from a dedicated company like Lian Li. You do not compare Bertone & Pininfarina to some proprietary case made to look like a giant iPod.


Your logic is off on this one. I would hardly equate an IBM clone (even with a Lian Li case) or some computer that you built with similar specs as an Apple to Bertone and Pinifarina. Looks are subjective and Apples looks are different that IBM clones, like them or not. That is just a matter of personal opinion. That is still no reason (and I’m not saying you said this) to think Macs are junk or bad computers.


Quote:
Apple's ONLY strengths are end-to end integration and the BSD roots of the OS. NOTHING ELSE. Remember what you may think is user friendliness is in most cases the fact that you have a process with controlled variables. Only One CPU with One OS with One driver with One way to connect. The iPod is the perfect example. It is "easy" to use because of the fact that it was designed to work ONLY ONE WAY.

See above…

Quote:
In a nutshell that is why I think this move of Apple's is either a) suicide or b) proof that they are putting a more and more importance to their multimedia company way and they are ghetting qaway from the cutthroat personal computer market. IBM had a lot of sense to sell their PC business and they are a bigger and smarter company than Apple.

P.s.
Please do not say anything about Apple being historically the PC for artists. That is pure fiction. Read up on the Atari ST and the Amiga and how those two had cornered the music and video market from the beginning and you still find them in the back nowadays 10-15 years past their prime with system critical functions.

Fiction? Apple was always ahead in the music and design department. However, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. My guess is that Mac's are still more used by graphic designers and recording studios. Of course, that's speculation, and I have no way of backing that up.

Funny you should say that though, I think I am going to sell my iMac on ebay and get an Atari ST.
post #27 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
PC = Bespoke.
Bespoke, sure. As long as you like poly-blends and icky bubbly glue. Besides, nobody does custom laptops (the biggest segment of the computer industry, remember), unless you count those bizarre gigantic things that use desktop bits and require six people to carry. And nobody else does a light, thin full-power laptop. (To give Dull credit, they finally managed to copy the aesthetic of Apple's venerable Titanium PowerBook, albeit executed in crappy plastic instead of Ti/carbon fiber and about 2x as thick.) Even in the desktop realm, if you build your own you still will have to deal with some ugly-ass separate box and a shitty monitor of often inferior resolution clad in indifferent plastic when in the iMac you could have everything integrated nicely into a package that's barely bigger than the other computer's monitor. (IMO, the only people who need Mac towers these days are people in hard-core graphics/video industries. Everyone else's nonportable needs more than adequately served by the iMac or even the Mac mini.) Not only that, but in the event something goes wrong it's not like you can just call AppleCare and get it fixed no questions asked. (Presumably; I've never had actual occasion to use my AppleCare packages.) You have to deal with different vendors and different warranties, wherein one may well say someone else's widget caused their thingy to break and leave you in the cold. Besides, between easily accessible RAM slots, Firewire, USB, and Bluetooth any Mac from the mini up is upgradable in the areas that matter. Maybe if your life revolves around blowing fake shit up on a screen you'll be peeved that you can't change the graphics card, but then like the graphics/video editing pros you can spring for a massive aluminum tower. For those of us not in the graphics or video production industries with lives that's no big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
I have spent a little over $1100 building and upgrading i[t].
$1100! Ouch! To think that for a mere $75 more you could have instead bought a modern computer with a built-in high resolution 17" widescreen monitor that takes up far less space, uses far less power, and operates far more elegantly. That's a little bit like buying Gap jeans for $35 with a shop next door selling deadstock Helmut Langs for $38....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
How is your nine year old Mac holding up?
Sorry, in 1997 I was still in the dark, using ugly and expensive things that crashed on me every time I inhaled. Actually, I think it was in late 1997 that I paid about $5400 for a Dull Inspiron with a 13.3" screen (1024x768) and a massive 4GB hard drive, running Win95 OSR2. It replaced a 2 year old Dull Latitude that was clunky and all but unusuable due to its 12.1" 800x600 screen but that cost somewhere in the range of $4500. That was my last personal commitment to that side of things, though I've updated my abhorrence of them through too much contact anyway. However, I still have my Titanium PowerBook G4, received in Jan 2001. Since then, I have put a little money into it, upgrading the HDD a few times and upping the RAM to its max allowable (1GB). The screen is considerably dimmer than my MacBook Pro's incredible monitor, but truthfully there's nothing I do on the MBP (except for run that other thing) that the old 500mHz G4 TiBook can't do. It runs OSX 10.4.6 quite well. I've imported my whole CD and LP collections in Apple Lossless using iTunes, edited movies using iMovie, organized my photos using iPhoto, done all of the writing and spreadsheet use I need to, and so on using that old machine. Some things need additional parts (a USB Bluetooth stick or Firewire DVD burner, for example, whereas the MBP has both built in) and some things (transferring large files) take more time but it can do them. In general use, monitor aside there's truthfully little difference between the two machines. I daresay that no PC built in 2000 with its original processor and bus will be able to run Vista, but I fully expect to put OSX 10.5 Leopard on the TiBook. (Oh, and as an aside, I'm going to Boot Camp this week. Faculty here can buy MS junk for about what it's worth - $5 for XP Pro, for example - so I figure it's worth the cost of two chai lattes to have the extra flexibility of running SAS on my own machine.)
post #28 of 151
Lets see: Dell uses Intel chips and Mac uses Intel chips. Dell uses Windows and now Mac also uses Windows. Sounds to me like Mac is basically a PC maker that also happens to make software and has its own OS on the side, Mac is also a company that makes MP3 players, as long as Apple Corps. doesn’t win the lawsuit against Apple Computers. Sosumi indeed… Jon. Mapple is now Wapple
post #29 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Lets see:

Dell uses Intel chips and Mac uses Intel chips.
Dell uses Windows and now Mac also uses Windows.

Sounds to me like Mac is basically a PC maker that also happens to make software and has its own OS on the side, Mac is also a company that makes MP3 players, as long as Apple Corps. Doesn’t win the lawsuit against Apple Computers.

Sosumi indeed…

Jon.

Mapple is now Wapple

Yeah, can somebody explain that? Why is Apple suing Apple. I keep hearing about it but don't get it.

Also, after all of this, I still don't understand why Apple put the Intel thing in their computer?
post #30 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
Also, after all of this, I still don't understand why Apple put the Intel thing in their computer?

Because of the G5 PowerBook.

What G5 PowerBook?

Exactly.
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?