I'm thinking of buying a new computer soon and have been toying with the idea of buying an AppleMac.
Does anyone use one on here? are they worth getting into, or is it only if the user is into graphic/design type stuff??
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Apple Mac
Sex God
My mum swears by it.
Having been a PC user all my life when I use hers for something it drives me mental. I suspect its a case of getting used to it but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks!
Having been a PC user all my life when I use hers for something it drives me mental. I suspect its a case of getting used to it but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks!
Much as I like Macs, unless someone is a design or video professional, doesn't understand computers or generally prefers style over function then I wouldn't recommend one.
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
On the plus side, they have good resaleability keeping their prices well. They are easy to use and have a much lower learning curve than a PC. Have less tendencies to crash. Are less likely to get virii. The OS/X operating system is probably the best OS out there. They look cool as hell.
So basically if you have cash to spare and want to look trendy then go for it. Otherwise save a few bob and get a PC.
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
On the plus side, they have good resaleability keeping their prices well. They are easy to use and have a much lower learning curve than a PC. Have less tendencies to crash. Are less likely to get virii. The OS/X operating system is probably the best OS out there. They look cool as hell.
So basically if you have cash to spare and want to look trendy then go for it. Otherwise save a few bob and get a PC.
Quote by Dirtygirlie
My mum swears by it.
Having been a PC user all my life when I use hers for something it drives me mental. I suspect its a case of getting used to it but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks!
At risk of being pedantic can I just point out that the "PC" wasn't invented until 1981 (first released on August 12th actually) which would mean that you were 8 when it was invented. This would mean that it's only been around for approximately 75% of your life.
I'm guessing that you wouldn't have actually got your hands on one on a regular basis much before about 1995?
That would mean that you'd only been using one for approximately 33% of your life.
:twisted:
Sex God
Quote by Peanut
My mum swears by it.
Having been a PC user all my life when I use hers for something it drives me mental. I suspect its a case of getting used to it but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks!
At risk of being pedantic can I just point out that the "PC" wasn't invented until 1981 (August 12th actually) which would mean that you were 8 when it was invented. This would mean that it's only been around for approximately 75% of your life.
I'm guessing that you wouldn't have actually got your hands on one on a regular basis much before about 1995?
That would mean that you'd only been using one for approximately 33% of your life.
:twisted:
Okay Pedantnut... in my computer using life which is about the last 20 years... I wasn't counting!
Sex God
Quote by Peanut
My mum swears by it.
Having been a PC user all my life when I use hers for something it drives me mental. I suspect its a case of getting used to it but I'm not sure you can teach an old dog new tricks!
At risk of being pedantic can I just point out that the "PC" wasn't invented until 1981 (first released on August 12th actually) which would mean that you were 8 when it was invented. This would mean that it's only been around for approximately 75% of your life.
I'm guessing that you wouldn't have actually got your hands on one on a regular basis much before about 1995?
That would mean that you'd only been using one for approximately 33% of your life.
:twisted:
You really do have too much time on your hands :lol2:
The "graphic designer" myth is just that, sure in the 80's they we're pretty much all you'd find if you walkted into a newspaper, magazine or design house, but times have moved on and graphic design is not the sole domain of the Mac.
Price, sure they cost a little more, but they hold their value incredibly well. I could still get 300-400 quid for my 4 year old powerbook, a PC laptop of the same era, well I'd be lucky to get a bag of magic beans for it.
OS X is incredibly well written (It's NeXTSTEP, Apple bought the company when they realised they had to retire OS9), infact every revision has provided a speed bump upwards on older hardware, not something that can be said in the windows world, where you pretty much guarantee that a new version of windows will run rather crappily on your old hardware.
If you absolutely have to run a piece of windows software that isn't available for OS X (and you have an Intel mac), then use parallels or VMware Fusion, they let you run a virtual windows machine inside OS X, in fact they're much smarter than that because they both have the ability to integrate Windows applications into OS X, which is a neat trick.
You pays your money and you makes your choice, I know where my money would go every single time (and does).
Price, sure they cost a little more, but they hold their value incredibly well. I could still get 300-400 quid for my 4 year old powerbook, a PC laptop of the same era, well I'd be lucky to get a bag of magic beans for it.
OS X is incredibly well written (It's NeXTSTEP, Apple bought the company when they realised they had to retire OS9), infact every revision has provided a speed bump upwards on older hardware, not something that can be said in the windows world, where you pretty much guarantee that a new version of windows will run rather crappily on your old hardware.
If you absolutely have to run a piece of windows software that isn't available for OS X (and you have an Intel mac), then use parallels or VMware Fusion, they let you run a virtual windows machine inside OS X, in fact they're much smarter than that because they both have the ability to integrate Windows applications into OS X, which is a neat trick.
You pays your money and you makes your choice, I know where my money would go every single time (and does).
We bought our first Mac when the Intel models first came out. Why? Because it could run windows on the same machine. Here we are two years later and we have never run windows on it!
Macs are simply brilliant, runs incredible well and without the annoying traits of windows. No programme conflicts, blue screens and no need to force programmes to close because the machine won't respond.
Apple's after sales service is spot on, both in store (Genius Bar) and by phone.
The down side is having to learn a new system, but actually this really isn't that much of an issue as you may think.
Would we recommend a Mac as being worth the price? The simple answer is yes. We are now onto our second portable, having sold the first one for £400 (now how much would you get for a PC) and are in the process of buying an Imac fore home as well.
Macs are simply brilliant, runs incredible well and without the annoying traits of windows. No programme conflicts, blue screens and no need to force programmes to close because the machine won't respond.
Apple's after sales service is spot on, both in store (Genius Bar) and by phone.
The down side is having to learn a new system, but actually this really isn't that much of an issue as you may think.
Would we recommend a Mac as being worth the price? The simple answer is yes. We are now onto our second portable, having sold the first one for £400 (now how much would you get for a PC) and are in the process of buying an Imac fore home as well.
Warming the Bed
Cripes, I just typed six pages of response and timed out. :cry:
So here the short version:
If you are considering the purchase of a laptop, GO MAC. I used to have both, PC and Mac laptop parallel for many years and would never buy a PC laptop again, ever.
Otherwise, if you want to place the computer in your lounge or bedroom: GO MAC. They make significantly less noise, use a lot less energy because most components are laptop components, even in the iMac. Electro smog is a lot lower than with PCs for that reason also.
If you don't want any compatibility issues: GO MAC.
If you just want a really cheap crate that does the job: Go to the discounter and get a cheap PC.
Quality comes at a price but Macs are no longer over-priced. They are very good value for money.
So here the short version:
If you are considering the purchase of a laptop, GO MAC. I used to have both, PC and Mac laptop parallel for many years and would never buy a PC laptop again, ever.
Otherwise, if you want to place the computer in your lounge or bedroom: GO MAC. They make significantly less noise, use a lot less energy because most components are laptop components, even in the iMac. Electro smog is a lot lower than with PCs for that reason also.
If you don't want any compatibility issues: GO MAC.
If you just want a really cheap crate that does the job: Go to the discounter and get a cheap PC.
Quality comes at a price but Macs are no longer over-priced. They are very good value for money.
Thanks guys. It willl be a pc tthat i'm replacing and is in a study area off my loung.
i'm quite into nicely designed things, so will have a closer look at the Mac.
Wheneve I have looked at them in the past, they nevr seem to have the memory size or processor power of PCs, is this correct? is there a reason for it?
i'm quite into nicely designed things, so will have a closer look at the Mac.
Wheneve I have looked at them in the past, they nevr seem to have the memory size or processor power of PCs, is this correct? is there a reason for it?
Warming the Bed
That has changed. Old Macs did have IBM PowerPC processors in them that were faster in floating point calculations but slower when it came to integers. However, the majority of home use involves more integer calculations. So as a result Macs appeared slower. This has changed. Macs now ship the same CPUs as the PCs you can buy, assuming they have an Intel CPU. So they are no longer slower. Memory has also been addressed. Having said that, Macs do need a tad less memory and always did. They don't have to fight a bloated operating system. It is all done a bit tidier and less CPU- and memory-hungry.
Quote by Sixfootsix
The "graphic designer" myth is just that, sure in the 80's they we're pretty much all you'd find if you walkted into a newspaper, magazine or design house, but times have moved on and graphic design is not the sole domain of the Mac.
Not really.
The only people who really use Macs in a professional environment are people who are designers, video editors and musicians. The rest of the professional world runs on PC.
I should point out that I use both on a day to day basis.
I also note that the people pushing the Mac are users of Macs and they don't give a balanced view. There are far more downsides to Macs than have been listed by them. At least I tried to give a balanced viewpoint.
For example, buy a Mac Book Pro and then try to upgrade your 2Gb memory to 4Gb. It will cost you in the region of £400 if you buy from Apple. If I have a PC laptop doing the exact same upgrade, with the exact same memory specification SO-DIMM from, say, a well known brand name such as Corsair it will cost me approx £100.
Say I wanted to upgrade the graphics card on a Mac Pro because the default one supplied is naff with some of the latest games I would have to buy that card from Apple. I couldn't buy it anywhere else. It would cost me 3-4 times as much and I'd have 10 times less models to choose from had I bought a standard PC.
I still stand by what I said earlier about who should buy a Mac. For most PC users there is no real benefits other than style and ease of use. And forget it if you're a gamer, it's PC all the way.
As I said, I like Macs, I really do. I use one for video and graphics editing and nothing else. For everything else I use my PC.
Quote by Peanut
The "graphic designer" myth is just that, sure in the 80's they we're pretty much all you'd find if you walkted into a newspaper, magazine or design house, but times have moved on and graphic design is not the sole domain of the Mac.
Not really.
The only people who really use Macs in a professional environment are people who are designers, video editors and musicians. The rest of the professional world runs on PC.
I was referring more to the fact that it's a myth that macs are only good for "graphic design", which is of course utter rubbish. Sure, most of the professional world runs Windows, that's just the way the cookie crumbled.
Even those once niche markets have eroded, all the big players in the design, audio and video markets have cross platform products, Apple are however slowly making inroads into the corporate environment, Google for example gives their employees a choice of Mac or "PC".
Apple does however own one of the better pieces of Audio software out there (Logic) which it aquired when it bought the company that wrote it, swifly dumping the PC version.
Quote by Peanut
I should point out that I use both on a day to day basis.
I also note that the people pushing the Mac are users of Macs and they don't give a balanced view. There are far more downsides to Macs than have been listed by them. At least I tried to give a balanced viewpoint.
It's very hard to give a balanced view, not so much in this thread, but it's generally the case that Macs suffer from "chinese whisper" syndrome, half truths and mistruths perpetuated by "PC" owners, if a Mac owner defends their purchase they get labelled as fan boys, you can't win!
Quote by Peanut
For example, buy a Mac Book Pro and then try to upgrade your 2Gb memory to 4Gb. It will cost you in the region of £400 if you buy from Apple. If I have a PC laptop doing the exact same upgrade, with the exact same memory specification SO-DIMM from, say, a well known brand name such as Corsair it will cost me approx £100.
Simple answer, don't buy memory direct from Apple. Spec the laptop with the minimum amount of RAM and buy from kingston or crucial or whoever, it is a well known fact that Apple will sting you for memory when changing a configuration.
I bought 4GB of SO-DIMM memory for an intel mac for £48 other day, bargain.
Quote by Peanut
Say I wanted to upgrade the graphics card on a Mac Pro because the default one supplied is naff with some of the latest games I would have to buy that card from Apple. I couldn't buy it anywhere else. It would cost me 3-4 times as much and I'd have 10 times less models to choose from had I bought a standard PC.
And the reason behind that is because the "PC" world still continues on with the legacy BIOS system (circa 1978? :lol:), Apple decided not to go that route and use the modern EFI system that Intel touted. (incidentally, Vista 32 isn't and will never be EFI compatible, Vista 64 is however.)
Infact, it's only this month that there have been some announcements of some of the big motherboard manufacturers starting to get their act together and ship motherboards with EFI.
Once "PC" land catches up, graphics card price will not be an issue.
At the end of the day there's only one way you'll find out if a mac is for you, go down to your local Apple store and spend a few hours in there playing, book an appointment with somebody to walk you through it, show you what it's all about, because as Peanut has pointed out, it's hard to get an unbiased opinion from anybody, you'll like what you like.
Warming the Bed
I am in agreement with sixfoot. I am using both, work with both and can't really agree all that much with Peanut, sorry. Can't compare apples with pears.
Quote by ayoke71
I am in agreement with sixfoot. I am using both, work with both and can't really agree all that much with Peanut, sorry. Can't compare apples with pears.
Not sure how you think of it as apples and pears. They're both computers doing the same thing in the same basic way.
Incidentally I should point out that I'm neither a PC nor a Mac 'fanboi'.
I'm a correct tool for the job person. If it's a Mac then I'll use that similarly if I figure the PC is the better tool then I'll use that.
The other myth that needs debunking is the fact that OS/X does crash... regularly. Admittedly it doesn't crash as much as Vista, but it's not far off the same as XP. It may not get BSOD but it does crash in its own inimitable way.
Personally I prefer OS/X to any MS OS, but ultimately if you take away the OS you are left with a very expensive PC that is monopolised by Apple.
OS/X's superior stability hasn't got all that much to do with Apple. It's the FreeBSD superstructure that holds it up. Similarly if you install Linux/KDE on a PC you have an OS that is as reliable as OS/X and has all the strengths and on a hardware platform that is more than half the price.
So what Mac users usually wax lyrical about is OS/X, not the Mac itself. Once you take that out of the equation there are no real life benefits of spending out on a Mac.
Once Apple finally give in to public demand and release a PC version of OS/X (rather than the hacked versions) I'll be first in the queue! Until then I'll continue to use the best tool for the job... which currently, for everyday use (the use I put a computer to anyway), is the PC.
Warming the Bed
Quote by Peanut
Not sure how you think of it as apples and pears. They're both computers doing the same thing in the same basic way.
I was referring to the price comparisons you were drawing. You implied an excessive extra cost for everything related to Mac, which is wrong. You can't compare Macs to low level PCs and cheap gear.
Incidentally I should point out that I'm neither a PC nor a Mac 'fanboi'.
I didn't take you for one either. Merely pointing out that your view were a bit extreme. I presume they were extreme by choice, trying to emphasise that the CHEAPER option is to buy a PC. You are right there. However, you forgot to make clear that it is only cheaper if you don't want the same sort of quality. This may not be important for all, but I'd prefer to know at which point I'll be cheaper and at which point more expensive. Macs can be cheaper than PC products, too. Yet they aren't actually worse than those more expensive products. This is the difference of the meaning of a balanced review that appears to separate our opinions.
The other myth that needs debunking is the fact that OS/X does crash... regularly. Admittedly it doesn't crash as much as Vista, but it's not far off the same as XP. It may not get BSOD but it does crash in its own inimitable way.
I agree that in certain circumstances the Mac can also crash. However, I'd not put the frequency anywhere near that of XP. The crashes on a Mac usually have to do with the mount demon. In Windows nearly any more complex application can cause a system crash.
Personally I prefer OS/X to any MS OS, but ultimately if you take away the OS you are left with a very expensive PC that is monopolised by Apple.
OS/X's superior stability hasn't got all that much to do with Apple. It's the FreeBSD superstructure that holds it up. Similarly if you install Linux/KDE on a PC you have an OS that is as reliable as OS/X and has all the strengths and on a hardware platform that is more than half the price.
Hmm, I don't want to be offensive but I do not think you see what you pay for when buying a Mac. At least I buy more than just hardware with a pretty OS on top of it. I buy compatibility to ensure that I don't have to constantly worry about clashing components and their respective drivers.
You are right, the core stability comes from BSD but it takes more than that. DOS was pretty stable in the late stages but Windows still crashed more often than not. Aqua also crashes but rarely. The last time I worked on Linux was earlier this year using a version of SuSE 10. KDE still isn't as stable as Aqua and I didn't expect it either. If I wanted a maximum of stability I'd get Slackware again. But the trade-off is new functionality, which Slackware doesn't offer due to focus on stability. I wrote half my thesis on a Slackware box. Linux has great features in its window managers but unless they have improved vastly over the past ten months, they aren't as stable as Aqua, or some features don't work on some graphics cards etc. I used to be Linux 'fanboy' if you want to call it that but today I only use it to tinker around. For nothing would I trade back from my Mac for regular work.
So what Mac users usually wax lyrical about is OS/X, not the Mac itself. Once you take that out of the equation there are no real life benefits of spending out on a Mac.
Err, I can't quite see your point here. Are you saying what Mercedes drivers really rave on about is the engine? If you remove that and put a Ford engine in it becomes a Ford? It is the whole thing. Just look at MacOnPC. They cracked it but it never made it to full compatibility. Yes, it is MacOS that we discuss here versus Windows but it'd be odd to remove the actual computer from the equation. Your argument is still "expensive PC" because you compare discounter ware with Macs. That's like comparing a Fiat 500 with a Ferrari - Fiat makes both.
Once Apple finally give in to public demand and release a PC version of OS/X (rather than the hacked versions) I'll be first in the queue! Until then I'll continue to use the best tool for the job... which currently, for everyday use (the use I put a computer to anyway), is the PC.
I would take a wide berth if I had the room. To me it is the flawless compatibility that makes all the difference. That is what I pay for - happily. ;)
I hope you don't take offense on my comments. There is no intention to be offensive. My opinion is very different to yours and depending on point of view, both of us are just as right as we are wrong. My emphasis when buying a computer is simply a different one than yours. I have a Mac to work and a PC to play games (on XP) and tinker with Linux and Vista (both in virtual machines). There is currently no work that I can think of for myself that'd require me to move back to a PC. That said, it obviously depends on what software your company uses.
Well if you would purchase a 7 series BMW for only doing the weekly shopping trip get yourself a Mac
But if your happy with a VW golf get yourself a PC
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
At the end of the day its your choice and your money really..
Ps. Just to add, never had a blue screen running xp here and hope it continues.. touch wood, no intensions using vista just yet and will wait for windows 7, so compatibility and reliability still doesn’t justify the price tag.
But if your happy with a VW golf get yourself a PC
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
At the end of the day its your choice and your money really..
Ps. Just to add, never had a blue screen running xp here and hope it continues.. touch wood, no intensions using vista just yet and will wait for windows 7, so compatibility and reliability still doesn’t justify the price tag.
Quote by Deviants
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
Quote by Peanut
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sex God
I've just spent £8k on Macs (well, it was someone elses money)
I refuse to spend more than £300 on a new laptop for me (well, it is my money)
Macs are really well thought out, integrated and, unless things have changed in the last few years the hardware and software are tightly checked and controlled by Apple so things just seem to work. If you do like design work then go for a Mac. Remember though, there is less software available (but what is is very good) and you usually have to buy it (it would be bad to mention a site called pirate bay)
It might be worth either trying on out if you borrow one or pick up an early Intel unit, you'll get the money back if/when you decide to buy a new one and sell it on.
I refuse to spend more than £300 on a new laptop for me (well, it is my money)
Macs are really well thought out, integrated and, unless things have changed in the last few years the hardware and software are tightly checked and controlled by Apple so things just seem to work. If you do like design work then go for a Mac. Remember though, there is less software available (but what is is very good) and you usually have to buy it (it would be bad to mention a site called pirate bay)
It might be worth either trying on out if you borrow one or pick up an early Intel unit, you'll get the money back if/when you decide to buy a new one and sell it on.
Quote by Sixfootsix
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so, going to the apple site and adding a display, ugrading to 4gb ram and upgrading the gpx to an 8800gt sets you back over £2100, seems very steep when you can pick up a dell quad core PC with 4gb ram an 8800gt and a 22" display for £469 which if we're being honest would meet meet most average PC users needs.
Quote by Deviants
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
Does your equivalant spec £400 jobbie include a monitor too?
(No is the answer
) Quote by Deviants
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
No it doesn't. Not even a keyboard and mouse.
To get the equivalent of my PC setup, which isn't a cheap discount model. I hand picked all the components and built it myself as such they are top of the line. To get the same thing in a Mac it would cost about 5 grand. It cost me £1600 and although it's only a quad core (a Q9450 for the geeks) but it has a better video card than comes with a mac pro (it's a nVidia 8800GT) it has in a raid and two display screens not to mention scanners breakout audio hardware and all sorts of other goodies far in excess of the Mac.
The other thing to consider is that Apple's prices have been going up for quite a while whereas the quality of the components has been going down unfortunately.
Quote by Sixfootsix
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
Does your equivalant spec £400 jobbie include a monitor too?
(No is the answer
)Hmmm, let me see.... 24" widescreen Iiyama/BenQ/Viewsonic/etc approx £200 compared to a 23" Apple display at £400.
Quote by blonde
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So do Dells at half the price.
Quote by Sixfootsix
Both are capable of doing a job but the fact that a top spec quad core Mac will set you back £2000 or more and the equivalent spec PC can be picked up for nearer £400 and can do anything the Mac can do, and in some instances more, pretty much sums it all up really, and that’s how can apple justify the price.
Just to point out that a mac pro in default config, but with only 1 processor is £1339, and these are Xeon quad cores and the motherboard supports dual processors regardless of how many are fitted at the factory.
does that include a monitor/display though? i wouldnt think so
Does your equivalant spec £400 jobbie include a monitor too?
(No is the answer
)yes a 20" monitor actualy
Even going super spec and getting the intel i7 cpu and 23" panel would give you change from £800
whether you own a Mac or not its easy to see there well overpriced.
Quote by ayoke71
Not sure how you think of it as apples and pears. They're both computers doing the same thing in the same basic way.
I was referring to the price comparisons you were drawing. You implied an excessive extra cost for everything related to Mac, which is wrong. You can't compare Macs to low level PCs and cheap gear.
I wasn't referring to cheap components. I was referring to the sort of components an equivalent PC would have. Incidentally the components in any sort of mac aren't as high specced as one would think given the prices being charged for them.
Incidentally I should point out that I'm neither a PC nor a Mac 'fanboi'.
I didn't take you for one either. Merely pointing out that your view were a bit extreme. I presume they were extreme by choice, trying to emphasise that the CHEAPER option is to buy a PC. You are right there. However, you forgot to make clear that it is only cheaper if you don't want the same sort of quality. This may not be important for all, but I'd prefer to know at which point I'll be cheaper and at which point more expensive. Macs can be cheaper than PC products, too. Yet they aren't actually worse than those more expensive products. This is the difference of the meaning of a balanced review that appears to separate our opinions.
A lot of the time the components going into the expensive Macs are exactly the same as go into a PC, especially with regard to hard drives, memory, optical drives and video cards. The only difference is that Apple make sure they all have the same spec so that they are as compatible as possible. Look at the recent hoohaa about the ATI2600 video card that went into the Mac Pros. Apple called it one thing but any diagnostic gear run on it showed it to be the most basic 2600 but Apple still charged a good deal more for it than the top specced 2600 would have cost a PC user.
The other myth that needs debunking is the fact that OS/X does crash... regularly. Admittedly it doesn't crash as much as Vista, but it's not far off the same as XP. It may not get BSOD but it does crash in its own inimitable way.
I agree that in certain circumstances the Mac can also crash. However, I'd not put the frequency anywhere near that of XP. The crashes on a Mac usually have to do with the mount demon. In Windows nearly any more complex application can cause a system crash.
Genuinely I get very few crashes on my PC, maybe one a month. Invariably it's brought down by the same application time and time again. Guess what it is... can you guess? No? Would you believe that the only program that has crashed this PC since I built it is iTunes!
Personally I prefer OS/X to any MS OS, but ultimately if you take away the OS you are left with a very expensive PC that is monopolised by Apple.
OS/X's superior stability hasn't got all that much to do with Apple. It's the FreeBSD superstructure that holds it up. Similarly if you install Linux/KDE on a PC you have an OS that is as reliable as OS/X and has all the strengths and on a hardware platform that is more than half the price.
Hmm, I don't want to be offensive but I do not think you see what you pay for when buying a Mac. At least I buy more than just hardware with a pretty OS on top of it. I buy compatibility to ensure that I don't have to constantly worry about clashing components and their respective drivers.
You are right, the core stability comes from BSD but it takes more than that. DOS was pretty stable in the late stages but Windows still crashed more often than not. Aqua also crashes but rarely. The last time I worked on Linux was earlier this year using a version of SuSE 10. KDE still isn't as stable as Aqua and I didn't expect it either. If I wanted a maximum of stability I'd get Slackware again. But the trade-off is new functionality, which Slackware doesn't offer due to focus on stability. I wrote half my thesis on a Slackware box. Linux has great features in its window managers but unless they have improved vastly over the past ten months, they aren't as stable as Aqua, or some features don't work on some graphics cards etc. I used to be Linux 'fanboy' if you want to call it that but today I only use it to tinker around. For nothing would I trade back from my Mac for regular work.
I only use Linux (coincidentally Suse 10.3
) for my servers. I use a top specced Mac Mini for one audio media server and for occasional Photoshop and Final Cut usage.Mind you have you ever tried to play FLAC files on a Mac?
My PC is far more versatile both in the hardware I have access to and to the software I would want to use (I use a lot of custom GPLed software for various audio and video conversions etc). A Mac cannot hope to match the PC for the range of available software. Give a Mac the appropriate software and most times it will excel over a PC, but if you can't get the software you want...
So what Mac users usually wax lyrical about is OS/X, not the Mac itself. Once you take that out of the equation there are no real life benefits of spending out on a Mac.
Err, I can't quite see your point here. Are you saying what Mercedes drivers really rave on about is the engine? If you remove that and put a Ford engine in it becomes a Ford? It is the whole thing. Just look at MacOnPC. They cracked it but it never made it to full compatibility. Yes, it is MacOS that we discuss here versus Windows but it'd be odd to remove the actual computer from the equation. Your argument is still "expensive PC" because you compare discounter ware with Macs. That's like comparing a Fiat 500 with a Ferrari - Fiat makes both.
Mac hardware is no longer the custom built stuff it used to be in the days when Motorola had the contract for the CPUs and chipset. These days there is very little difference in the hardware between a Mac and a PC with the exception that the Mac hardware is lower specced and much more expensive. Apple justifies the expense by saying that the items are homogeneous with the whole system. What that means in real life is that they limit the range of parts so that they can guarantee compatibility.
So yes Fiat and Ferarri are one and the same, but what they don't do is put the engine of a Fiat into a Ferrari but this is exactly what Apple do with their Macs.
Once Apple finally give in to public demand and release a PC version of OS/X (rather than the hacked versions) I'll be first in the queue! Until then I'll continue to use the best tool for the job... which currently, for everyday use (the use I put a computer to anyway), is the PC.
I would take a wide berth if I had the room. To me it is the flawless compatibility that makes all the difference. That is what I pay for - happily. ;)
The only reason you get compatibility is because of the limited range. Personally I'd prefer the extra choice then work round the compatibility issues. As it happens when I choose the parts (as do most system builders) I do it with knowledge and experience. The end result is I don't get compatibility issues and I've saved a fortune but got top of the line gear too.
I hope you don't take offense on my comments. There is no intention to be offensive. My opinion is very different to yours and depending on point of view, both of us are just as right as we are wrong. My emphasis when buying a computer is simply a different one than yours. I have a Mac to work and a PC to play games (on XP) and tinker with Linux and Vista (both in virtual machines). There is currently no work that I can think of for myself that'd require me to move back to a PC. That said, it obviously depends on what software your company uses.
Nope, no offence taken at all.
I do notice that you've glossed over the spec of the Mac needed to run Windows in VMWare ;)
It's bad enough running WINE in Linux :)
I've also been reading a lot just recently how people's Macs have been overheating trying to run Vista in the virtual environment because of the strain being put on the CPU. It doesn't sound ideal to me and if people really want to run Windows on a Mac then I suggest they only use Boot Camp to do it.
Quote by Peanut
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So do Dells at half the price.
I don't want Dell's .......... I want my own!!! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote by blonde
They cost roughly twice what an equivalent powered PC costs. They have limited software availability. They have limited hardware upgradeability. Did I mention they cost the fucking earth?
They also come in pink!!! :inlove:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So do Dells at half the price.
I don't want Dell's .......... I want my own!!! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dell is quite willing to share... at a price!
:P
