What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
130 Comments
- kevinmotel, on 12/01/2008, -4/+39http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/apple_repo ...
one page my friends - Pstmann, on 12/01/2008, -3/+28There is no real debate.
Mac = ease of use, enhanced stability = higher cost.
PC = flexible upgrades, corporate support = lower cost.
Which is better is determined by personal need and style of use. - soomprimal, on 12/01/2008, -5/+24Dugg for highlighting the issue of inflation. In a little over 20 years our money has apparently become twice as worthless.
- brstilson, on 12/01/2008, -5/+21I tried the Mac for a while, but I honestly got tired of it. Plus, I wanted to play games and face it, the Mac is not the machine for that. I ended up building a PC and threw Windows XP on it, and I couldn't be happier. On a modern machine, XP is extremely lightweight, stable and fast. I have Office 2007 (which is vastly superior to Office:Mac 2008, the interface on the that version is clunky and barely usable), as well as Visual Studio for my programming needs. I have to say that Microsoft is unparalleled in offering excellent development environments. If they do one thing right, it's .NET, which is fitting, since programming languages are what they've been doing the longest and the only thing they actually developed themselves. Apple just doesn't offer anything in the development field that can even come close.
- minoss, on 12/01/2008, -1/+15Or, since macs are more expensive you chose to upgrade them less. Over the last 8 years, I've spent less than the cost of a single Mac Pro on all my machines.
- sgtcaboose, on 12/01/2008, -4/+15The grading system they use is *****, how can everything be an A/B? Isnt it supposed to be spread, the entire point of a grading system?
- BruceAnderson, on 12/01/2008, -2/+12I'll just say it this way. In the span of time in which my wife has owned seven windows-based PCs, I've owned four Macs. My Macs have a longer effective life-span, but are somewhat more expensive than her PCs. It balances out. If I were a Windows user I'd have spent about the same amount of money buying new PCs every couple years that I spend buying a new Mac every three or four years.
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -1/+10I've been buying computers since 1984. First I only bought Commodore equipment. Then I only bought Apple equipment. Then I started buying classic "PC" machines---which was in about 1996. I did that until about 2005, when I started buying Apple equipment again.
I've owned NeXT machines, Sun machines, and IBM server class machines as well. I've used DOS, AmigaDOS (and workbench), every version of windows, including 3.11 and ME, every major flavor of Linux since its inception, most licensed Unices and nearly everything in the BSD family since 4.2. I've used VMS, MVS, QNX, BeOS and variant embedded systems.
So why do I now almost exclusively use OS X on Apple hardware?
Because it's the best you're going to get for the money, on both counts. There's an old saying in the engineering world: "fast, cheap, stable -- pick any two". I picked mine. - Scrappy1850, on 12/01/2008, -2/+11im pretty sure that was sarcasm. get your detector tweaked.
- barfooz, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8If you're computer literate, then PCs and Macs are both easy to use. I'm very computer literate and I prefer Macs. For me, it's things like software installation/uninstallation (drag and drop), easier to enter accented characters (ñ is option-n n rather than alt-164), better "control panel" options (esp. network setup), a better shell (there's no comparison between the BSD backend and the DOS emulator of Windows). Then it's the things that are just nice that keep you happy, the fact that you can use Emacs key bindings in text fields, built in PDF creation, and all the attention to detail and UI touches that Apple is known for.
- dynamojoe, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8Macs offer a higher level of consistency across apps. Things like keyboard shortcuts are the same in a majority of the applications available (Apple-S is always save, Apple-O is always Open, etc). Menus are the same - you'll always find the Preferences under the application's menu, etc. If you know one app, you know 90%+ of the rest of them. This is happening on XP and Vista, but it'll never reach the level of seamlessness as on the mac (not while the ever-so-intuitive alt-F4 closes a window in one app, the app itself in another, and ctrl-w does the same thing in a third).
Built-in apps like iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc. are really tightly integrated. A novice user can import video from the camcorder, edit it, and master a DVD without having to learn any jargon.
Chances are this isn't enough to convince you to switch, mainly because you've already figured out your Vaio. Why fix a problem you don't have? - bakagaigin, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8*woosh*
- BillyB, on 12/01/2008, -1/+9I've sold my mac laptops for roughly 2/3 the price I paid for them, over two years later.
My PC laptop, however, only got me 1/10 the price. - yehaww, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7Could someone please explain the Mac users claim that "Macs are just easier to use"? This is something I hear a lot of people saying but haven't gotten a good explanation. PC's seem perfectly simple to use and when I've used Macs, I can't say I notice much difference. I click on an icon and a program opens. Photoshop seems to work pretty much the same on both systems. I can easily save and find files on a PC. I imagine it's the same on a Mac. I guess using the Mac ilife(or whatever it's called) software may make some things easier since everything is bundled together, but I personally HATE Itunes, so I'm not sure I'd want to use other software by Apple.
I'm not hating on Apple. I love my Ipod Touch and think the Iphone is pretty sweet, I just haven't been convinced to switch from my Sony Vaio. - fyngyrz, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7It's a meaningless debate because of one thing only:
A machine running OSX is the not the same tool as a machine running Windows which in turn is not the same tool as a machine running Linux.
It's like trying to compare the prices of a table saw and a lathe and a drill press. You can do it, but you won't *learn* anything in the process. - MtheoryX, on 12/01/2008, -5/+10If I'm reading that correctly, you have an assumption that Mac users are "stupid."
If that really is your assumption, I regret to inform you that it is you who is ignorant.
In my field of work, you don't get hired by being "stupid." And, coincidently enough, quite a large number of my colleagues are Mac users.
This could just be the exception, of course; however, it must be a pretty large exception because I've found the same thing in IT departments all throughout U.S. Higher Education institutions. - MtheoryX, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5@nbluth:
I recently assisted with a lifecycle replacement of 4 labs at one of our schools. They switched from hp's and dell's to 24" iMacs.
They dual boot them with Windows XP and Vista. The result was doubling the functionality of the labs as they can not only teach using Windows-specific applications, but can also use the Mac side as well.
Additionally, based on their internal stats collected since the school's new building opened several years ago, the reliability for the Mac's far exceeds that of their hp's and dell's.
So, did it cost more? Sure, the upfront capital cost of the 4 labs was higher. However, when you look at the return, it's a much different story. More reliable, less downtime, labs with more functionality, AND the instructors and students at least have the option to work in the OS they prefer and are more comfortable with.
Seemed like a great idea to me, and it's working out nicely. - sipefree, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5The vast majority of Mac users are not the snobbish idiots that the Simpsons made them out to be for a cheap laugh.
I have yet to see any argument against purchasing a Mac that doesn't involve questioning the intelligence of the purchaser.
Get real.
>>If I were a Windows user I'd have spent about the same amount of money buying new PCs every couple years that I spend buying a new Mac every three or four years.
>Or, since macs are more expensive you chose to upgrade them less.
This attitude is completely retarded. It's just saying "No, you're lying about your own experience, here's my version of reality".
Just fscking be fair about this and let someone buy the computer they want to without questioning their intelligence or motives. I'm happy to use any operating system if it will work for my needs, and that can be any of them depending on what field I'm doing work in at the time, or if I'm just gaming. It's just a computer, idiots, not serious business. - brstilson, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4PC users aren't any less "stupid." Think about what's happened in the last 30-odd years of the Personal Computer. At first, the number one question about a new computer was "what programming languages does it offer?" Since there was so little commercial software in the early days, most computer operators had to be computer programmers. Over the years, as more and more software became available, the PC has been dumbed-down to unprecedented levels. Very few Windows users know what the ***** they're doing, that's why services like Geek Squad and myself exist. Apple's whole idea might have been computers for everyone, but Microsoft followed them into that rabbit hole as well.
- MacParrot, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4If you know your way around Windows and are satisfied, then why bother switching? If you are a heavy user, getting new versions of all your software can be very expensive and while Bootcamp will allow you to run all those programs at native speed, rebooting into another OS just for a task or two is a PITA.
While I prefer OS X, I don't pretend or kid myself that Windows is crap. It's fine for most people and works well. Use what you're used to. - saikyan, on 12/01/2008, -2/+6There are a few C's in there, and the "Mighty Mouse" is a D, rightfully so. Overall, they go pretty easy on them though. They even go so far as to give them a free pass on Apple's prices, and I think that's sycophantic. Apple SHOULD be criticized for being too expensive on some products.
I don't see how the new MacBook is an "A" when they point out that it has no Firewire... Downgrading a product is auto fail with me.
The Mac Pro is also given way too much credit. It's a formidable machine with an absurd price tag. They even mention the hard drive bottleneck, and it still gets a B. I went out and built a Hackintosh in protest over that one.
The keyboard though, I think is a solid product. The low-impact scissor keys and wide spacing let me type much faster on an Apple keyboard than on any other. They also last, whereas I see too many Logitech keyboards die at work to put my faith in them. - dynamojoe, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Sounds like you bought a MakBook from a dollar store or something.
- turk24, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4i think both of you are correct. Also macs dont get hardware upgraded as quickly either, am i wrong there?
- borez, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Diplomatic indeed.
- pyroguy56011, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4MacBook Pros are indeed powerful machines, and can be optimized quite nicely, but you've clearly never experienced an actual gaming rig. Go over to Alienware's site and you'll see computers that will run circles around MacBook Pros. That, and the fact that once a Mac is dated, it's done. A good Alienware can outlast even the best MacBook Pro, simply by the fact that it's upgradable. And if you're talking PCs, as in desktops, the MacBook Pro doesn't even come close to being top of the line.
Simply because the casing is branded with an Apple doesn't mean the hardware inside is divine, or even different than the hardware in any other rig. - MtheoryX, on 12/01/2008, -5/+8My intention was not to highlight myself. Doing so would only serve to make a personal argument that I use a Mac, and I am not stupid, resulting in a "well you may be the exception" continuation. Since you insist on knowing, not that it matters, I am a developer at IU.
The point was to highlight that a large number of system admins, developers, and scientific researchers at universities all over the U.S. use Macs, and they are far from stupid.
Before you spout off at the mouth there, internet tough guy, you may want to do a bit of research first, or you could at least admit that you don't know everything in the first place.
As you said, "Secretaries and artists are the archetypal Mac users..."
That's a gross and ignorant generalization, and you damned well know it.
And no, Apple doesn't just give out free licenses or equipment to universities. - turk24, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3I used to upgrade my PCs annually but i have been using my MBP for just over 2 years now and its still got close to another year.
- BossKey, on 12/01/2008, -4/+7>Secretaries and artists are the archetypal Mac users. Dumb as *****, but not without their charm.
They are the archetypal Mac users of the uninformed...a club you are clearly a member of.
Your "artists" include many brilliant visual effects technicians in Hollywood who compose on Macs. Outside the art world you have rocket scientists (literally!) at Jet Propulsion Laboratories and NASA who use Mac laptops, as you can observe in photographs of their offices. There are scientists in many other fields who value the ability to run both Unix science applications and Microsoft office applications on a single operating system, and so they bought Macs.
There is also the widely documented rise of Mac laptops at Unix conferences. These tech-savvy people could have bought any old PC laptop and put Unix on it, but they are increasingly making the conscious choice to buy Apple.
We won't even go into your severe insult to secretaries and artists. - MacParrot, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4@minoss
You forget one important factor. MOST (stressing most) of the time you can use a Mac without significant changes over the course of three to four OS changes. I have a G4 933MHz (since upgraded for free to a dual 1.4GHz G4) tower that runs 10.5 great. Came out late 2001. I have a 933 MHz G4 iBook that my wife now uses just for email and the like (she runs a network for a large govt contractor and does know her way around either Windows or Unix) running 10.5. Came out in 2003. I'm guessing there aren't too many PCs (unmodified) that came out in 2001/03 that are capable of running Vista. - BruceAnderson, on 12/01/2008, -2/+5Hm. Let's see. My PowerMac 7500 was $500 (used). My iMac was $1,000. My iBook was $800 (refurb) and my MacBook was $1,200. So that's $3,500. A bit more than an entry-level Mac Pro. But buying a new PC (and not just upgrading one PC piecemeal) is what most PC users do. And my wife's PCs have cost her...let's see. Well, the first one was a POS she got ripped off on, at $1,500, so I'm not going to count that. But the other six have been around $700 each. That's $4,200.
- leetleo, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3'Ease of use' is subjective. If you're experienced with Linux or Windows and not with OSX, it will not be easier to use.
'Enhanced stability' compared to what? One of the main benefits ascribed to linux (besides freedom and security), is stability. There are a million anecdotes about how a Vista machine has never crashed, or a Leopard box runs 30 days straight, but those are all anecdotal, and it's hard to make a valid comparison with such a disproportionate market share. - freebird09, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3SARCASM ALERT SARCASM ALERT!!!!
(apparently someone needed to say it) - oMeSSiaHo, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4Well if a celebrity uses a Mac I should too!
- edwartica, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2enhanced stability huh? Is that why all the macs I use at work always insist on freezing up more than the PCs I use at home?
- MacParrot, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2I would agree. If you're a serious gamer then get a rig that fits. I run Vista HP on my 2.16 GHz 24-inch iMac and while it's fine for some games, it won't run Crysis
- PrometheusBorn, on 12/01/2008, -4/+6@alan:
"It allows them to hire poorly skilled workers? (the one mouse button cuts training costs in half) hell yes."
Wow. Did you really just say that? Are you serious? A single mouse click makes a computer that much easier to use?
Wow. No rebuttal needed. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2I have been using both Mac's and Windows boxes for (closing in on) 2 decades. I have both right now. I need the Windows box for my stock trading needs.
I had both at Adobe in the early 90's. Same argument was going on then as now. It is a waste of time to argue. I WILL say it was really sweet having edit in preview on the PC before it was available in the Mac version of Illustrator. There were some serious MAC ***** at Adobe back then. It was good to see them cry ;-) - edwartica, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2But can it run Crisis? :P
- clankster, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2...for a long time, it was After Effects. That program ROCKED in '95, right after Adobe bought it from CoSA (anyone remember the Company of Science and the Arts?)
Ah, memories - MScrip, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Ease of use is subjective anyway.
My mom uses a cheap Dell laptop... but she only uses Firefox, and one little game. So there's no point and buying a Macbook... she never goes to the OS for anything.
Her desktop is an old Gateway, and I've set up Photoshop Elements for her photos. Sure, if she had a Mac, iPhoto would be good for her. But, again, she just uses a handful of programs anyway.
If Macs are easy, and Windows is difficult... doesn't that say a lot about the people who CAN use Windows effectively? - dragon76, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2I would really like to see a study, any study, that shows PCs have a lower TCO. Intel themselves made a much ballyhooed announcement back in the "G" days of Macs that they were going to do their own TCO research and then refused to release the results.
As they say, if you can't beat em, join em. - Elranzer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3"fast, cheap, stable" (all three) = Windows XP and Linux
- Aeaus, on 12/01/2008, -4/+6In all your self-important ranting you also forgot to mention your field of work.
- clankster, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3There are plenty of intelligent people who have better things to do than build/admin/maintain their personal computer, and macs are aimed at them. Windows too, though some would argue it's less effective at hiding the details from these "casual" users (i.e. people who use computers as appliances, and expect to be able to treat them as such). If you're not one of these people, you can certainly build yourself your own box for much less and install some flavor of linux.
Different tools for different applications.
Can we all go back to worrying about something that matters now? Or would you kids like to move on to the equally riveting argument over which is better: the tomato or the hammer? - MattBD, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2You'd probably get a lot more life out of a PC if you installed a Linux distro on it in place of Windows. It's generally better at getting more performance out of it.
I'm convinced that only the OS makes much difference in terms of reliability. - nbluth, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2MtheoryX what I might not have explained is that these arn't lab computers for doing specific teaching. These are library computers where students just go in the hour they have between class to surf the internet or use a word processor - there is no need to buy these Macs for that. Also all the programs that McMaster buys for classes (like minitab etc) are all for the PC hence the windows operating system
To address your point about long term cost - the library could buy dells, have them all break and then buy a compete new lab of dells and still be LESS than the cost of one set of Macs.
In terms of downtime, well within the first month of these iMacs there were no less than three computers with little signs on them saying "Out of Order" in other dell labs there is usually only one or two - digitalpencil, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2i love my mbp to bits.. it is not a better gaming rig than any windows pc i've ever seen, not by a long way.
- MacParrot, on 12/01/2008, -2/+4Agree on the Mighty Mouse. I have three of those things lying around and I wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy.
As far as iPods go, they are what they are. Are there better players? Sure. Are they as easy to use? Not typically and that's what gives the iPod a leg up on most other players.
Haven't bought an iPhone yet. Not enough storage for what I want in a device like this.
AppleTV, meh. I give it a C for trying, but too many flaws for me to spend any serious cash for one.
I never buy Apple displays for the exact reasons you gave.
Apple keyboards have gotten pretty decent reviews over the years but I haven't seriously tried the new one yet.
MacBook Pro. Older ones A, newer ones I'd give a B. The new trackpad will require some getting used to, but change is what brings innovation (not that the trackpad is seriously innovative)
MacBook. A solid B. Lack of FireWire is the only thing that would keep me from getting one (though I'm still pretty happy and will be for the next few years with my 2.33GHz MBP)
Mac mini. Should be updated or taken around back and shot. I think Macworld will see some news on this front one way or another. - Elranzer, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3It is a meaningless debate. Macs ARE more expensive, feature-for-feature, to their PC brethren. And yes, Windows and Mac ARE comparable. It's Linux (and other Unixes) that really stand out vs those two.
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -2/+4Ive used Windows, Mac, and Linux and found that there is very little difference in terms of complexity for a newbie. It all comes down to preference and pre-installs. People will pretty much use what you give them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is