Thinking about getting a Mac.

[Hiryuu]

From the experience I've had with Macs, they're probably far better off now than they were years ago...especially since you can run Windows via Parallels if you so wanted to and considering it now works with Intel processors, it helps them out quite a bit.

The key thing I know for wanting a Mac is that if you're getting one then you're likely getting it for graphics and design / development work. It is VERY much a good media comp. For gaming-based uses, however, you're probably far better off with a PC based on versatility.

EDIT: Anyone notice this thread was bumped from a 2006 start?

[dieKatze88]

A few great myths about PCs vs Macs that have been dispelled:

More Secure:
Slashdot ran two articles about 2 months apart a few months back, I wished that I had saved them. The first one pointed out that Between the last 2 releases of OS X over one year, and the last 2 releases of Windows over that same period of time, Combined, Windows XP and Windows Vista, had fewer security errors found. But we all know that security is also patching existing errors, 2 months later Slashdot ran another article that stated that Microsoft was the fastest company in the industry today at patching security flaws.

So Apple has more security flaws and takes longer to patch them? <sarcasm>That sounds way more secure than Vista to me.</sarcasm>

You can run Windows!:
Ok sure, Leopard comes with boot camp. You can run the 32 bit version of Windows XP or Windows Vista... Wait a fucking second. the 32 bit version? But what if I want to run Windows Vista 64 bit like I do on my existing Core 2 duo machine. Too bad. Apple doesn't let Microsoft have the same bit depth on their machines as their own Operating system does. If it runs Windows, why can't I run the version of windows that will be relevant in a year?
Also, you would have to reboot your machine to run Windows in that case. That's whats free. Running programs inside a Virtual Machine? that costs money. The twisted Irony? The same programs are free, if you're running Microsoft Windows.

And on top of all that, you still have to buy a copy of Windows to run. and OEM copies, Windows Vista Starter, Home, and Home Premium all have EULA restrictions that prevent them from being installed on a Mac. So you have to buy a full retail copy too. You could just buy a PC and run your PC programs in the first place.

You can Make great things:
Ive never seen a website that was made on a mac (READ: Using Apple's little iWeb thing or whatever its called) that didn't bring Firefox within 2 inches of crashing. Not one.
and like every tool, quality output relies on the user. You could probably produce something pretty impressive in something like Windows Movie Maker if you tried.

PCs cant automatically back themselves up:
Tell that to Volume Shadow Copy service, which has been in Windows for a while. Available officially only in Windows Vista Ultimate, it serves the same purpose as Time Machine does on OS X. It automatically backs up your files, however, theres a few important differences:
Time Machine is timer driven. Volume Shadow Copy Service is event driven. VSCS backs up your files not when it feels like it, but when the files change.
Time Machine stores copies of files. VSCS stores changes. Got a 200 meg PSD you're working with? You'll be happy to know that Time Machine creates a brand new 200 Meg PSD every time it backs up changed files. VSCS saves the differences between the original file, and stores only 2 full copies of the file (the one that's current is a full version of the file, this is to make disk operations faster). Chews up a backup drive pretty quickly.
Time Machine isn't any easier to use than VSCS, its only prettier. Simply right click on the folder you want to look back in time at on Windows, and click "Previous versions" double click on the date you want. Opens in a new folder and you can open any of those files as read only.
Time Machine requires an external hard disk. VSCS? Stores differences on your local hard disk. Why is this important? ever try to use an external hard disk on a laptop in an airport? Try it, and when you get out of jail for "Terrorist like activities" tell me how much fun you had.

Windows Vista is slow:
Windows Vista smokes Windows XP in every speed test imaginable on my R51. and that laptop is a chunk of shit compared to today's standards. I didn't even bother installing XP on my R60.

OS X Just works:
So does Windows Vista on both my Thinkpad R51 and Thinkpad R60. Try again.

OS X is fast:
Not a myth, it is fast. It also cuts out all legacy hardware support. Do the same thing on a PC and see what happens. Oh yeah, the exact same thing.

OS X is Advanced!:
... In 1979. The UI Of the OS, which is what makes an OS an OS nowadays, was created for the Apple Lisa and has simply had new features (read: Dock) bolted on for the past uhh... 28 years. At least Microsoft saw the fatal flaws of the old Program Manager interface and looked to change it to something that worked better. The OS X interface is still as functional as it was in 1979, designed for a single task running on a slow computer that had a GUI. It only has a multitasking option, and it shows. Multitasking on a Mac for people who multitask on PCs all their lives is like stabbing yourself with a knife. As a former mac user I can say that the worst moments of my life were trying to run more than one program at once on a Macintosh and get the windows on screen to not be overlapping.

If anyone else has a Macism they would like me to explain to them, go ahead and tell me.

[WiLLiSTER]

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

OS X is fast:
Not a myth, it is fast. It also cuts out all legacy hardware support. Do the same thing on a PC and see what happens. Oh yeah, the exact same thing.

I just wanted to clear this one up. What exactly do you mean all legacy hardware support. Both 10.4 tiger and 10.5 leopard run perfectly on a G3 iMac and my G4 Powermac, not to mention faster than every other iteration of a mac os. Now lets look at windows. Oh shit, our vista is rendered unusable on a P3 D:

I also disagree with your vista is faster than xp claim. I've never seen vista running faster than xp, except maybe a clean install. maybe...

[WEABOO]

These arguments lead no where

If you are a gamer, get a PC

If you are are an artist, get a Mac

Either way you go, both systems have their benefits and their flaws.

To add one more thing diekatz, music programs run flawlessly on macs. I produced music for more than five years on PC's, and since I've bought my mac in August my work flow has at least doubled from not having to deal with error messages and crashes. My friend who is an incredible artist also recently switched to macs, and she has said her workflow has also greatly increased thanks to not having to deal with pc problems.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

If you are a gamer, get a PC

If you are are an artist, get a Mac

I've been a graphic designer for 6 or so years now and I actually prefer a PC to work on. Haha, I don't like OSX while working with graphics, I don't know why, maybe I'll eventually get over it.

[WEABOO]

Sorry, I didnt mean to sound like those were your only choices. What I was trying to say with the one sentence was that either way you go, each system has their flaws, but will do the job in the end.

[babbagamp shramp camp]

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

A few great myths about PCs vs Macs that have been dispelled:

this statement is ironic because you're actually just spreading more of the same sorts of myths, some of which I'm not entirely convinced you got from other people.
also, elitism is bad.

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

So Apple has more security flaws and takes longer to patch them? <sarcasm>That sounds way more secure than Vista to me.</sarcasm>

nimda, blaster, windows metafile zeroday exploit, activeX.
microsoft has a history of insecure technologies and lax security practices. while they have made steps in the right direction, there is still hesitation in the industry in regards to whether they can be trusted just yet.
the lack of windows firewalls and prevalence of linux and openbsd firewalls speaks pretty well for itself here.

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

OS X Just works:
So does Windows Vista on both my Thinkpad R51 and Thinkpad R60. Try again.

Until you've tried installing Vista on a broader range of computers, don't go making such sweeping statements. It's the nature of a "one size fits all" solution that occasionally things just won't work.

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

OS X is fast:
Not a myth, it is fast. It also cuts out all legacy hardware support. Do the same thing on a PC and see what happens. Oh yeah, the exact same thing.

Just last week a coworker of mine put Leopard (10.5) on an original Powerbook G4, which is circa 2002. 800Mhz CPU, and it ran fine. Even with Aero turned off, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get Vista to do anything useful on a system from then. Remember, that's under a year after Windows XP came out. Think back to systems that were just able to support XP. You're telling me they'll run Vista fine?

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

OS X is Advanced!:
... In 1979. The UI Of the OS, which is what makes an OS an OS nowadays, was created for the Apple Lisa and has simply had new features (read: Dock) bolted on for the past uhh... 28 years. At least Microsoft saw the fatal flaws of the old Program Manager interface and looked to change it to something that worked better. The OS X interface is still as functional as it was in 1979, designed for a single task running on a slow computer that had a GUI. It only has a multitasking option, and it shows. Multitasking on a Mac for people who multitask on PCs all their lives is like stabbing yourself with a knife. As a former mac user I can say that the worst moments of my life were trying to run more than one program at once on a Macintosh and get the windows on screen to not be overlapping.

I'm sorry, you're as wrong as it gets.
OS X was a complete departure from the previous operating systems Apple released, which were descendants from the Lisa. OS X is a descendant of NeXTSTEP, which was the operating system from NeXT, the company Steve Jobs headed before re-joining Apple, then subsequently bought up. Really, OS X is NeXTSTEP, even down to the programming language it's written in and the APIs that are provided.
For the record, NeXTSTEP was most certainly not "designed for a single task running on a slow computer." It supported multiple users and multiple applications before they were even a twinkle in Bill Gates's eye.


tl;dr:
the mac platform is mature and stable and is well suited to many different sorts of work, including media production (from, say, the adobe creative suite or any number of music production packages) and even general office work (from both microsoft's office suite and apple's own suite called iWork). users who are not technically savvy may find the interface more agreeable than that of Windows or Linux. there is a still a price premium, though, and that should still be factored in when making a decision. in general, macs are easier to maintain than Windows systems. however, windows does have the gaming market covered much more thoroughly, and if you do a lot of gaming, that will almost certainly tip the balance in windows's favor.
ultimately, it is your choice which platform you use, and you should pick whichever you're most comfortable with. on one hand, you've got the die-hard mac enthusiasts (typically stereotyped as hippies or scene kids), and on the other you've got the people who swear by windows (typically stereotyped as gamers or office workers), but there are still people in the middle. take everything you read with a grain of salt, and don't rush your decision.

best of luck!

[dieKatze88]

Originally Posted by WiLLiSTER

I just wanted to clear this one up. What exactly do you mean all legacy hardware support. Both 10.4 tiger and 10.5 leopard run perfectly on a G3 iMac and my G4 Powermac, not to mention faster than every other iteration of a mac os. Now lets look at windows. Oh shit, our vista is rendered unusable on a P3 D:

I also disagree with your vista is faster than xp claim. I've never seen vista running faster than xp, except maybe a clean install. maybe...

Legacy hardware support on the Intel platform drastically slows things down, on a recent PC, try disabling your PS/2, Serial, Parallel and Joystick ports from the bios.

Originally Posted by visinin

this statement is ironic because you're actually just spreading more of the same sorts of myths, some of which I'm not entirely convinced you got from other people.
also, elitism is bad.


nimda, blaster, windows metafile zeroday exploit, activeX.
microsoft has a history of insecure technologies and lax security practices. while they have made steps in the right direction, there is still hesitation in the industry in regards to whether they can be trusted just yet.
the lack of windows firewalls and prevalence of linux and openbsd firewalls speaks pretty well for itself here.

But the one built in that does a fine job doesnt count, and Windows Defender is obviously a joke.

Originally Posted by visinin

Until you've tried installing Vista on a broader range of computers, don't go making such sweeping statements. It's the nature of a "one size fits all" solution that occasionally things just won't work.

Just last week a coworker of mine put Leopard (10.5) on an original Powerbook G4, which is circa 2002. 800Mhz CPU, and it ran fine. Even with Aero turned off, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get Vista to do anything useful on a system from then. Remember, that's under a year after Windows XP came out. Think back to systems that were just able to support XP. You're telling me they'll run Vista fine?

Works great on my computer I built in 2003 for Doom 3. I would venture to say that it would work great on my computer in the front room from the early P4 days. Vista may not support as much older hardware as XP Did (Down to the Pentium 1). But It still supports the vast majority of computers on desks now. And your argument is invalid anyway, Apple's support range and Vista's support range are about the same.

Originally Posted by visinin

I'm sorry, you're as wrong as it gets.
OS X was a complete departure from the previous operating systems Apple released, which were descendants from the Lisa. OS X is a descendant of NeXTSTEP, which was the operating system from NeXT, the company Steve Jobs headed before re-joining Apple, then subsequently bought up. Really, OS X is NeXTSTEP, even down to the programming language it's written in and the APIs that are provided.
For the record, NeXTSTEP was most certainly not "designed for a single task running on a slow computer." It supported multiple users and multiple applications before they were even a twinkle in Bill Gates's eye.

Read what I said again. I wasn't talking about the actual computer, I'm talking about the horrible UI of the Macintosh. The thing you don't understand is that there is a man, called Steve Jobs, who feels that he does no wrong. In actuality he is one of the worst people on the planet for Computer security right now because he lets his company do stupid things with their products and get the fuck away with it. If someone with half a brain was in charge of the Mac OS X development, that UI would've changed before OS 10.0 shipped.

I almost supported NextSTEP. Almost. Its horrible UI made it near useless without a monitor the size of Montana. Mac OS's horrible UI makes it near useless in all situations.

Originally Posted by visinin

tl;dr:
the mac platform is mature and stable and is well suited to many different sorts of work, including media production (from, say, the adobe creative suite or any number of music production packages) and even general office work (from both microsoft's office suite and apple's own suite called iWork). users who are not technically savvy may find the interface more agreeable than that of Windows or Linux. there is a still a price premium, though, and that should still be factored in when making a decision. in general, macs are easier to maintain than Windows systems. however, windows does have the gaming market covered much more thoroughly, and if you do a lot of gaming, that will almost certainly tip the balance in windows's favor.
ultimately, it is your choice which platform you use, and you should pick whichever you're most comfortable with. on one hand, you've got the die-hard mac enthusiasts (typically stereotyped as hippies or scene kids), and on the other you've got the people who swear by windows (typically stereotyped as gamers or office workers), but there are still people in the middle. take everything you read with a grain of salt, and don't rush your decision.

best of luck!

And I never said it wasn't, I was just pointing out how you shouldn't buy into Apples "We do no wrong" policy of advertisement where we only point out the fatal flaws of our competitors product, make that product's situation worse through the release of our own software for their platform, and never really point out any of our good points.

Out of all those "I'm a mac, I'm a PC" commercials, the ONLY ONE that I can remember that points out a feature that the Macintosh has that the PC doesn't, is the Time machine one.

And that's been in windows since XP Service Pack 1. You had to enable it there. Now, On Vista, its automatic, and doesn't require a second hard disk.

Actually, I stereotype most mac fanboys as people who have their heads up their ass. Nearly ever mac fanboy Ive ever known had their head affixed so far up their ass that even the plunger wouldn't help. Mainly because they don't understand what is so insecure about Apple installing 3 network services and 2 local services on a computer when you install iTunes. Why don't they understand? Because Apple's doing it. Apple does no wrong (remember?). But if Microsoft or Adobe or even somebody like Lenovo did that to a Windows install. It would suddenly be bad.

[WiLLiSTER]

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

Legacy hardware support on the Intel platform drastically slows things down, on a recent PC, try disabling your PS/2, Serial, Parallel and Joystick ports from the bios.

Hmm, I didn't really notice a difference, but then again I don't use any of those so maybe that's why.

"Until you've tried installing Vista on a broader range of computers, don't go making such sweeping statements. It's the nature of a "one size fits all" solution that occasionally things just won't work."

Generally, Vista works just fine now. I've had my hands on several versions since the release and it's only been getting better as time goes on. Sure macs "just work" but let's remember, it's an os made for hardware from the same company, so it should just work.

visisin made me laugh.

[Keith]

Mac is the best thing you will ever do in your life

[dieKatze88]

Originally Posted by Keith

Mac is the best thing you will ever do in your life

yeah uh huh. then why do I use Windows now.

[dat shit cray]

Originally Posted by Keith

Mac is the best thing you will ever do in your life

: winky:

[DELICIOUS HOT COCK]

agreed, he is such a hunk

[LAMBORGHINI FCUKER]

Originally Posted by dieKatze88

yeah uh huh. then why do I use Windows now.

You're a gay.

[BITCH I LOOK LIKE GOKU]

I think he just likes the gaymes.