xxcloud417xx:

TheGhostOfSin:

xxcloud417xx:

TheGhostOfSin:

xxcloud417xx:
Well, we can't deny that Apple makes great computers.

Yes we can, quite easily.

Then do it. don't say you can.

Ok then I will.

I deny that Apple makes great computers.
Well that was even easier than I thought it would be.

Did i mention that most people who deny that Apple makes great computers are either ignorant, stupid or both? I think we have a good example of one of those people now. Thanks TheGhostOfSin.

Get some information, and make a counter-argument that makes sense. This thread was made for just that Discussion on Macs. You can defend them or say that they suck. but we want reasons.

I don't think we're denying that Mac makes good computers, just that PCs are better.

Personally, I like that lots of games run on PCs, and my school's network, which is made of EMacs, generally crashes every week, and you can rarely run Firefox or Appleworks on them.

Gitsnik:
Snipped

I realize that much mate. I only run one AV software at the moment and that's AVAST!. It's all I ever need. I think in the last year I've only been infected with 2 viruses. One of them was a keylogger and the other I believe was a trojan, so really they probably weren't viruses just another type of malware.

The only reason Windows is a bit of an easier target is because it's so adaptable and open ended when compared to OS X. Of course the advantage is obvious but it has its downsides which the general public needs to accept. I mean you see vulnerabilities get fixed all the time. Normally they aren't as a result of bugs, just small loopholes in the code that can be exploited. It's kinda like making a new law. This law can be with the best intentions but if there's a loophole allowing others to exploit it then it's no good. I'm looking at you ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT!

That still doesn't make Macs immune to viruses.

Also, random insight: A lot of Microsoft developers (the guy who works on WMP for example) claim that 3rd party plugins are at fault, and whilst this is true, decent coding of the internal API can (SHOULD) prevent these problems.

Oh and also you were saying your Macs were crashing because of Microsoft Office? So by your logic Apple could have prevented these problems too. :)

I've had a countless number of games crash or freeze on me in the past year. It happens a lot. Most of the time I'm able to shut down the program. Best way to do it is to hit ctrl+alt+delete, then put the system on standby. Start it up again and the task manager should appear above the crashed game. I use this because sometimes you just can't see what your doing because the crashed game window is frozen and not letting any windows pop up above it. That's of course an intentional thing because the game devs realize that having windows pop up above the game could cause stability issues.

That's just one way to avoid rebooting. Of course for people with faster systems it's simply faster to reboot.

SuperFriendBFG:
The only reason Windows is a bit of an easier target is because it's so adaptable and open ended when compared to OS X.

It is widely accepted in the security community that it is because of poor code, and larger user base btw.

SuperFriendBFG:

That still doesn't make Macs immune to viruses.

Correct. One was released very recently. I myself have developed one or two test applications just to play.

SuperFriendBFG:

Oh and also you were saying your Macs were crashing because of Microsoft Office? So by your logic Apple could have prevented these problems too. :)

Yes and bingo. If you want proof of how a good code base can be with an OS, look at OpenBSD. It just deals with things. You might get one piece of software crashing, but the whole OS just hangs on (as a rule - they do have their share of security vulnerabilities though the number is significantly smaller).

@Sgt.Pepper: eMac's are awful! Just remember that a lot of the interface features you see in Vista and earlier in XP were done by Apple years in advance.

And anyone who rags on an apple product isn't a designer, just like anyone who severely rags on windows products isn't a full time gamer. The whole discussion is moot because it is a case of using the right tool for the right job.

And don't go defending your photoshop/gimp on windows, I work for some of the biggest design companies in Aus and don't need to hear it.

Can't we all just get along? We could like.. try and balance shit out... like .. we can kill a mac for each virus that strikes down a pc... and a pc for each game that will never be released for a mac? (We'd proly end technology as we know it if we performed this action but we'd all feel better for it wouldn't we?)

I'm one of those Music Types, and I've used Macs before to work with digital music projects and the like. However, my weapon of choice for composing is the PC, for three main reasons:

1) I can afford it.
2) Sibelius (composing software), Word, and most games run on it
3) I really like to right-click.

My next laptop may well be a mac if they get affordable, but my desktop will always be a PC, until macs start being able to run games.

Personally my ultimate system would be a PC (for performance)... with an Apple Monitor (for aesthetics)... running Linux (for a decent operating system.)

How you like me now?

I don't really like apple, mostly because once you get an iMac you can only use things that are approved by Apple on it.

OS : OS X +/- VISTA 64bit. its a simple matter of taste

Hardware : Apple charges more for the same hardware then most PC manufactures

Design : Apple has its own design style.

Computers are INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY devices, so if you want to know the score look at the world of I T and see what the prevaling usage is.

Its no point asking a bunch of graphics designers what the better platform is, their identity is wrapped in the mac identity. Just remember, macs are well designed, they are not art, and graphics designers are DESIGNERS they are not ARTISTS

That mac one button mouse where you have to hold the apple button to right click is why I hate macs. I know it's a petty argument but Apple invented it and they can't un-invent it.

i have been a pc man for ever,
its mainly because we have a computer that is working (at the time) and have gotten comfortable with it, however my brother has got a apple retail job and bought the new aluminum macbook... played on it, loved it, bought a imac that week!
if you havent played on a mac you might never know it could be a change for the better!!!
thanks for the kick start of forum xxcloud417xx

Eggo:
Apple monitors are overpriced and use the same panels as Dell monitors which are honestly far better looking (for a lot of people anyway) and have far less features compared to the Dells.

So... Dell monitors have far less features compared to... Dells?

I don't mind Macs as computers but would never in my right mind consider purchasing one until they are viable gaming alternatives to the PC.

The panels, for Macs are definitely overpriced, though, and many of them were falsely advertised as being 24-bit when in reality they were just 16-bit.

That's probably the largest issue I have with Apple: it misleads people in their advertising, and create brand zealotry form its followers.

Sometimes I think I'm not so much against Macs as much as I am against Mac fanboy users.

RAKtheUndead:

Hawgh:
I use a PC, and so far I've been using a PC with Windows, because, well, I sorta want to play games on it. I haven't had a virus on my last two computers, and I've been using nothing but freeware firewalls or trials downloaded in a jiffy.
That's not to say that there a Apple products I wouldn't mind owning, an Iphone for example. Lotsa cool freeware gadgetry for that one. Only problem would be that I'm not sure I can muster the arrogance to mingle with the general subculture.

Not as much freeware as there is for Palm OS, and that's a very outdated operating system by this stage. That's not even getting to Symbian OS or WinMobile, and by the time that Android and Linux gain more popular acceptance in mobile phones, they'll really show how unimpressive iPhone OS really is.

Well, guess that mean there's not a single Apple product out there, that I'd be interested in getting.

"PC" stands for "personal computer". That's a term for a general-purpose computer that can fit on a desk or a carryon bag, is mainly used by one person, and is priced at a level that the average "first-worlder" can reasonably afford.

When you use "PC" to mean "a computer running Microsoft Windows" or "any non-Mac-branded computer", the entire world dies a little bit. THE WHOLE WORLD, YOU MONSTER!

-- Alex

If Mac's had more 3rd party support I'd buy them.

DrHobo:
Computers are INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY devices, so if you want to know the score look at the world of I T and see what the prevaling usage is.

You should ask a technically-knowledgeable user whose usage actually matches your intended usage.

Ask a big-company IT guy what his business does and he might tell you that Windows is this particular company's preferred platform because it runs a bunch of applications that you'll never need but their accountants do and because he likes domain administration features that you as a home user will never utilize. Then he might tell you that Microsoft Exchange is their favorite e-mail system because of some features that you will likewise never use. Not useful.

Another big-company IT guy from a software company might say they use a mix of Windows and UNIX for different tasks with a few fancy Macs for media work. (A company that only develops for one OS might just have only that OS everywhere.) Against, not that useful unless you're setting up a dedicated workstation for software development or something.

If you went back to the place I got my undergraduate degree you'd see the college's IT people managing an even mix of Mac and Windows boxes, with individual departments choosing one or the other for a particular application. If you were to wander into the Computer Science department you'd see all Debian boxes because their priorities are to teach students UNIX and to avoid attachment to an expensive and idiosyncratic IDE.

None of these are particularly relevant to a person who just wants to look at stuff in a browser (honestly that's like 80% of my computer time at home, despite the fact that I am awesome and knowledgeable and write software and all that), send some IMs, or play games.

-- Alex

I just want to point out that the entire Mac vs. PC argument has been pretty much answered; its about using the right tool for the right job,

PC : gaming, accounting, cheap personal use

Mac : media editing(video,audio,etc.), and being a snobbish rich person (yeah i'll admit it!)

now to return to the point of this thread, can we please discuss the Macs themselves (not the Mac is better than PC or PC is better than Mac crap).

I would also like to point out that the uses listed above for both the PC and the Mac are personal choices for me of what i would use each platform for. Which in turn means that:

A. You can have different opinions and i accept that.

B. I don't really give a crap what those opinions are. But I accept that you have them!

Please just stick to the point of the thread.

Does anyone here remember when Macs had the G series processors (last one was the G5)? What made them switch to Intel? and are Intel chips better or worse?

xxcloud417xx:
Does anyone here remember when Macs had the G series processors (last one was the G5)? What made them switch to Intel? and are Intel chips better or worse?

They went for Intel to better support Windows based applications. Essentially making it an easier task to port any software to the OS X platform.

001648:
i have been a pc man for ever,
its mainly because we have a computer that is working (at the time) and have gotten comfortable with it, however my brother has got a apple retail job and bought the new aluminum macbook... played on it, loved it, bought a imac that week!
if you havent played on a mac you might never know it could be a change for the better!!!
thanks for the kick start of forum xxcloud417xx

Actually this is an interesting phenomenon. Part of my job is Mac/Windows integration (which is, to be honest, the only reason I use a Mac) and it is downright scary the number of people who hate Mac, and then actually get to set up their own 10.5 machine only to fall in love.

Apple really nailed it when they flashed up and made the installation process so easy.

SuperFriendBFG:

xxcloud417xx:
Does anyone here remember when Macs had the G series processors (last one was the G5)? What made them switch to Intel? and are Intel chips better or worse?

They went for Intel to better support Windows based applications. Essentially making it an easier task to port any software to the OS X platform.

I can see that... but i still don't see it as the main reason. I mean, Mac has been different for all those years... why change now? know what i mean?

sv93:

xxcloud417xx:
ask a question if you feel like you want to know more. i use a Mac every day. for both work and entertainment...

Me too, my mom bought it for me a while back. Its the New iMac, whatever that means :P

yeah the iMac is more of a personal device, or a school lab device compared to the Mac Pro. But congrats on your iMac. glad you like it and if you ever get a question dont be afraid to post it here.

Gitsnik:

001648:
i have been a pc man for ever,
its mainly because we have a computer that is working (at the time) and have gotten comfortable with it, however my brother has got a apple retail job and bought the new aluminum macbook... played on it, loved it, bought a imac that week!
if you havent played on a mac you might never know it could be a change for the better!!!
thanks for the kick start of forum xxcloud417xx

Actually this is an interesting phenomenon. Part of my job is Mac/Windows integration (which is, to be honest, the only reason I use a Mac) and it is downright scary the number of people who hate Mac, and then actually get to set up their own 10.5 machine only to fall in love.

Apple really nailed it when they flashed up and made the installation process so easy.

I'm glad we got an "expert" on this thread. thanks for posting.

xxcloud417xx:

I can see that... but i still don't see it as the main reason. I mean, Mac has been different for all those years... why change now? know what i mean?

Apple isn't trying to be 'different', they want to sell their computers. Using Intel based processors opens up more and easier porting and programming options, thus opening themselves up to a wider base of users.

sv93:

xxcloud417xx:

sv93:

xxcloud417xx:
ask a question if you feel like you want to know more. i use a Mac every day. for both work and entertainment...

Me too, my mom bought it for me a while back. Its the New iMac, whatever that means :P

yeah the iMac is more of a personal device, or a school lab device compared to the Mac Pro. But congrats on your iMac. glad you like it and if you ever get a question dont be afraid to post it here.

Is the iMac Pro the one that comes in a tour? I wish I had one of those! There amazing!

I'll assume you mean Tower by Tour. and yeah they are amazing... if you want to pay the price for em... I do love the way they set up the Mac Pro though, the interior is really well designed and clean looking. if you look here

http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html

you can see it all

I've used a PC for 95% of my life, and when i tried macs the first thing i noticed is that it seems well... sticky, although the computer was faster and things like USB's helpfully popped straight onto the desktop the control of the actual system just felt slow and clunky to me. I should probably get used to the Mac before i go bitching though, oops too late.

xxcloud417xx:
Does anyone here remember when Macs had the G series processors (last one was the G5)? What made them switch to Intel? and are Intel chips better or worse?

PowerPC.

PowerPC is a processor developed in the 90s by Apple, Motorola, and IBM.

Originally, PowerPC was notable as an example of a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) design. Intel's x86 chips at the time used a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) architecture. RISC uses simpler and more limited machine code, meaning that certain operations that a CISC chip can do in one instruction have to be written out into several RISC instructions; the benefit is that it's easier to pipeline these instructions, meaning that execution of multiple instructions overlaps -- imagine the CPU as several different units arranged in an assembly line, with each unit doing its little part of an instruction and then passing it on to the next unit to finish.

Intel started designing CISC-on-RISC chips, which basically take in instructions in the old complicated x86 format but then transform them into RISC instructions for execution. Keeping the old machine code format allowed them to maintain backwards-compatibility with a lot of old code.

Over time, both the PowerPC and x86 architectures were improved and extended. For a while, PowerPC chips were notably for faster floating-point calculations while x86 chips did integer math faster. Both architectures added features like single-instruction/multiple-data processing. Motorola also came up with a few low-powered PPC designs for cell phones and other devices -- which IBM then used in their a massively parallel supercomputer designs. Overall, x86 chips changed a lot more than PPC chips -- partly due to a more dated original design, partly due to tight competition between Intel and AMD.

A few years back IBM ran into heat and wattage issues with their designs. This came at a time when Apple was getting more ambitious with its laptop roadmap. The company decided to switch to Intel processors because Intel chips were generally cheaper (mostly due to volume) and faster (due to a number of architectural and manufacturing factors). Intel had also stepped up development of cooler, lower-power chips for mobile devices, such as Atom and Celeron M.

Apple said that heat and performance problems were the main reason behind their move to Intel chips.

-- Alex

If you're going to spend 3k on a Mac you might as well get an OverDrivePC.

www.overdrivepc.com

Man, I'm just going to make a computer that works like a PC and looks like a Mac and shut you all up. :P

SuperFriendBFG:
If you're going to spend 3k on a Mac you might as well get an OverDrivePC.

www.overdrivepc.com

$4.5k for a machine that isn't much better than one I built for $1.3k six months ago.

Now, I don't have a 1000-Watt power supply. Nor do I have RAM with heat spreaders. And I'm proud of that.

-- Alex

Alex_P:

SuperFriendBFG:
If you're going to spend 3k on a Mac you might as well get an OverDrivePC.

www.overdrivepc.com

$4.5k for a machine that isn't much better than one I built for $1.3k six months ago.

Now, I don't have a 1000-Watt power supply. Nor do I have RAM with heat spreaders. And I'm proud of that.

-- Alex

Yeah but yours didn't come with a free polo shirt.