# Why Mac is so amazing.



## WWEFreak666 (Apr 18, 2007)

My brother recently bought a Apple MacBook. Now the MacBook isn't the most cheapest computer out there, but it is the most secure and safest computer to use.

I was shocked when my brother told me that the MacBook only has 500 viruses, while as Windows has millions and millions of viruses. The possibility of getting a virus on a MacBook is so low, compared to Windows. The overall performance of the MacBook is outstanding and rarely freezes. If it does freeze, you can use an built-in feature that Apple gives users, it's basicly a more easier to access feature than the way Windows has it. This feature is called "Shut Down". You simply right click on the icon of the program you are running, which is usually at the bottom, and then you click on Shut Down. It's like end tasking a program or even more powerful, the feature on Windows known as End Process. The only difference between Apple's verison and Window's Verison, is that the MacBook actually shuts the programs down immedatiely, yet securely. The main problem with Windows is that lack of security.

To this day, I'm still surprised at how underrated Mac is and how overrated PC is. You really have to try Mac to feel the experience and pleasure of viewing the web fast and securely. One of the main reason's you can access through the web very fast is due to the specs inside the computer and the program. Unlike Windows, Mac offers users a fast and secure browsing experience, with Safari. Although Safari lacks of features compared to FireFox, Opera, & Internet Explorer. It is the fastest internet browser, but only on Macs. It is not the fastest when downloaded on PC. I'd suggest Opera, as FireFox is very overrated and is actually very unsafe to use, and Internet Explorer is faster than FireFox, yet not very secure.

Anyways, Mac has it all. From built-in webcams to the world's fastest internet browsing. Mac simply has it all. It may be exspensive, but buy one and enjoy the life with a computer that you won't have to worry about crashing on you.

Buy Mac, Be Smart, Browse The Web Securely, Enjoy & Do Not Hate.

Performance: 9/10
Features: 9/10
Graphics: 10/10
- In total, Apple is simply underrated and needs to be seen upon as a threat to Microsoft, although they do work together. Why doesn't Apple & Microsoft officialy team up and create a MacWin or even a WinMac?


----------



## Tehgame (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm very confused as to how you came to the conclusion that IE > Firefox... I can understand the "difference in opinion" with Firefox and Opera, but Firefox is better then IE in every way possible.


----------



## WWEFreak666 (Apr 18, 2007)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

Now you can change your opinion. Firefox is nothing but a false statement.


----------



## Tehgame (Aug 23, 2007)

Hmm, Cool article. However it still doesn't make me think anything less of Firefox.

A) Firefox has yet to fail me.
B) It's one of the simplest most efficient user interfaces I've seen.
C) (I just tested) Firefox opens up faster then IE for me. This is on a work computer at Symantec running perfect. < meaning it's not full of virus's and spy ware which may alter the results. 
D) The gadgets/extensions are genius. although I hear Opera has them as well, not sure about which one has the best/ones I use. 
etc...

I will never ever use IE again. IE 7 is horrible in terms of their progression in "Tabbed" browsing. Their interface is also still ******. 

I will give Opera a try though, I'm guessing they've released a lot of new versions which may be better then my last experience with them years ago. (back when they had Ads)


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

WWEFreak666 said:


> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html
> 
> Now you can change your opinion. Firefox is nothing but a false statement.


And the person that owns that site has been banned from many tech sites.
Master Tech is his name and get aload of the sites he's been kicked out of:
Link

He made an appearance at Arstechnica that seemed a disaster for him.
He's also a member at TSG.

If you like IE......more power to you, but my experience browsing the Internet was better the day I changed to Firefox.

As far as a Mac goes, I really don't care


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

WWEFreak666 said:


> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html
> 
> Now you can change your opinion. Firefox is nothing but a false statement.


Not you again!! I thought you were banned once before for posting your nonsense here?

Peddle your wares elsewhere!


----------



## Stephen47 (Oct 4, 2002)

how can you right click when macs only have a one button mouse?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

WWEFreak666 said:


> My brother recently bought a Apple MacBook. Now the MacBook isn't the most cheapest computer out there, but it is the most secure and safest computer to use.
> 
> I was shocked when my brother told me that the MacBook only has 500 viruses, while as Windows has millions and millions of viruses. The possibility of getting a virus on a MacBook is so low, compared to Windows. The overall performance of the MacBook is outstanding and rarely freezes. If it does freeze, you can use an built-in feature that Apple gives users, it's basicly a more easier to access feature than the way Windows has it. This feature is called "Shut Down". You simply right click on the icon of the program you are running, which is usually at the bottom, and then you click on Shut Down. It's like end tasking a program or even more powerful, the feature on Windows known as End Process. The only difference between Apple's verison and Window's Verison, is that the MacBook actually shuts the programs down immedatiely, yet securely. The main problem with Windows is that lack of security.
> 
> ...


I completely agree, I just bought a MacBook Pro and it's great. I don't agree with what you said about Fx. 2.x is less stabe, though it's no less secure than Safari.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Stephen47 said:


> how can you right click when macs only have a one button mouse?


Command + Click and any "Windows" mouse will work on a Mac with both buttons.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

This was a great review. I really enjoyed reading it. It shows the reviews on techguy do not always have to be serious, we can have humorous/sarcastic ones as well. Thanks for the post.


----------



## jsims281 (Sep 22, 2007)

It might just be me but I don't like the contrived shortcut keys that macs seem to use. Function, control, alt, option, and command - how many do we really need? Also, no maximising? How can they leave that out? There is also a distinct lack of good context menus for my liking. Oh and while I'm here, the delete key doesn't actually delete things...

All this from my 5-10 hours experience using a friends Macbook over the past year! Minor gripes I know, and if I had used mac OS before Windows, I would probably feel differently. 

As it is, you can give me the bloated, corporate, unsafe, slow yet strangely brilliant - in a love to hate, hate to love sort of way - Windows XP SP2 any day!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

jsims281 said:


> It might just be me but I don't like the contrived shortcut keys that macs seem to use. Function, control, alt, option, and command - how many do we really need? Also, no maximising? How can they leave that out? There is also a distinct lack of good context menus for my liking. Oh and while I'm here, the delete key doesn't actually delete things...
> 
> All this from my 5-10 hours experience using a friends Macbook over the past year! Minor gripes I know, and if I had used mac OS before Windows, I would probably feel differently.
> 
> As it is, you can give me the bloated, corporate, unsafe, slow yet strangely brilliant - in a love to hate, hate to love sort of way - Windows XP SP2 any day!


There are the same number of modifier keys in both. Function is only on laptops, Alt, Ctrl, and the Windows key are on PCs and Ctrl, Option, and Command are on Macs.

You really have to use it for a few days until you get used to it.


----------



## ChristDude (Aug 15, 2007)

Wow, quite a few opinionated statements there, eh? Let's get a few things straight.

1. The reason that Macs have such a low amount of viruses is because not many people use them. If they start to get more popular, the virus count will increase (possibly very quickly).

2. The task ending feature on Windows does suck, I will admit it. I haven't tried that on a Mac, so I will take your word for it that it is nice.

3. FireFox in an amazing browser, with the add-ons such as FasterFox, DownloadHelper, FoxyTunes, and Save Session, I can't see why people would bash it.

Now, I like Macs. I can't afford one right now, yet I am looking into a Linux Distro that runs just like a Mac. It will hold my attention for a while. Nice review, with a few biased points.


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Absolutely totally personal opinion, WWEFreak666. ChristDude above me is 100% correct.

Performance: 9/10 - PC's can easily get this fast
Features: 9/10 - PC has different ways of doing things, there are things that a PC can do that a Mac can't and vice versa.
Graphics: 10/10 - Complete rubbish.  Graphics on a computer are far superior, this IS FACT. 

Let me explain:

Macs are great for video editing and photography. PCs are great for gaming and office work. You CANNOT compare the two because they are COMPLETELY different. I have a Mac and a PC and I do my school art projects on my Mac and my gaming on my PC.

You may be correct about Mac being faster when surfing, hence the reason why if you are a web surfer you BUY A MAC.

I hate articles like this, simple because you buy a system what you need to use it for.

As to Firefox, how can you say it is unstable and crappy? It is the best voted browser by PC users.

Simple stuff.


----------



## TheArmegeddon (Jul 9, 2007)

Macs aren't amazing, the only real upper hand to a mac is the virus protection, but I mean come on, the only reason there is no Mass of Viruses for the mac yet is because Apple has only been really popular ever since they made the Ipod, I bet a million bucks when Mac's start becoming more mainstream and half of the U.S. has Macs, the viruses will start being made.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

07clarkm said:


> Absolutely totally personal opinion, WWEFreak666. ChristDude above me is 100% correct.
> 
> Performance: 9/10 - PC's can easily get this fast
> Features: 9/10 - PC has different ways of doing things, there are things that a PC can do that a Mac can't and vice versa.
> ...


Are you saying 9/10 and 10/10 for PCs or Macs?

Web surfing isn't faster on Macs, and also, Firefox 2.x is less stable than earlier versions.


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Are you saying 9/10 and 10/10 for PCs or Macs?


On the first post that is what he wrote.

So I put my comment next to each of his calls...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

07clarkm said:


> On the first post that is what he wrote.
> 
> So I put my comment next to each of his calls...


Ok.



> PC's can easily get this fast


Not really, OS X is much lighter and supports better hardware.



> Complete rubbish. Graphics on a computer are far superior, this IS FACT.


Graphics on a computer are superior to what?


----------



## ChristDude (Aug 15, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Ok.
> 
> Not really, OS X is much lighter and supports better hardware.
> 
> Graphics on a computer are superior to what?


A PC has superior graphics to a mac, of course. You can see the graphics PCs can handle, take a look at Halo 2. You don't see the Macs supporting games.


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Exactly thanks ChristDude! We make a good team. 

Like I say I am fair in this as I own both and I know that they shouldn't really be compared because they are COMPLETELY different. Maybe this topic should be closed mods?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Hey Mikey 

I'll agree to that......these comparisons never seem to end well


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Stoner said:


> Hey Mikey
> 
> I'll agree to that......these comparisons never seem to end well


Woohoo! I even have an old arch enemy agreeing. 

I think all comparisons just turn out to be 'this is better than this because.'

As a once over:

Who cares if the PC DOES have better graphics and performs better under gaming, because the Mac DOES so many photo projects all at once within seconds. Whereas the PC would blow!

Think of it as languages; English and French, good in their own ways, but each country thinks theirs is better.  When neither is!

Mikey.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

ChristDude said:


> A PC has superior graphics to a mac, of course. You can see the graphics PCs can handle, take a look at Halo 2. You don't see the Macs supporting games.


That's like saying a TV looks bad because it has no channels. It's because Halo was not made for Macs and not many games are, so if you are a gamer, stay with Windows. If you ran it in Boot Camp, though, it would be the same.

Also, Final Cut Studio apps only run on Macs and they are very resource intensive. It depends more on what hardware you get than what OS you run.


----------



## ChristDude (Aug 15, 2007)

I'm going to agree with Mike, ferrija. He has a good point, go to his post for an argument...if you can find something to go against .


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

ChristDude said:


> I'm going to agree with Mike, ferrija. He has a good point, go to his post for an argument...if you can find something to go against .


I agree with mikey as well.Close this thread mods/admins.Macs and PCs both have their strengths and weaknesses and a lot of arguments in the world focus on strengths instead of weaknesses.I don't think we'll ever reach the end of it


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

AU $3,995.00 dual core for a mac
AU $2,250.00 quad core for a pc

firefox is better 
everything works on a pc for about half the cost

apples are good but the cost makes them pear shape
it makes me feel like writing a whole pile of viruses for macs
just because there aren't as many doesn't mean they're invulnerable
pc is just so much better 
in so many ways cost, software, hardware is all cheap and easily found


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

guitar said:


> AU $3,995.00 dual core for a mac
> AU $2,250.00 quad core for a pc
> 
> firefox is better
> ...


Dead right again too, another good point! But I own both and can clarify that they have BOTH have strengths and weaknesses! 

Nice to see ya'll agreeing with me.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

guitar said:


> AU $3,995.00 dual core for a mac
> AU $2,250.00 quad core for a pc
> 
> firefox is better
> ...


I don't want to fight, I just want to get the facts straight.

Where are you getting that a dual core mac costs $4000!?!? The least expensive dual-core machine is only $600. For $4000 you can get an 8-core processor. At least go to the Apple site before you make conclusions. Apple is NOT more expensive!. Apple stuff is even more easily found, apple.com.  

Macs are just so much better. 

If you haven't used a Mac for at least 24 hours you shouldn't be here, no offense. It's just such a different OS that it takes a while to find it all and get used to it.


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

To wrap things up (again) here I'll say that no one likes a fan boy, Mac and PC are both as good as each other and of course it depends which Mac/PC specifications you get.

No point saying that a Dual-Core Mac is more expensive than a Quad-Core PC, because the PC might only have 256mb of RAM and the Mac may have more. 



ferrija1 said:


> Macs are just so much better.


And that silly comment will only add oil to the fire.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

07clarkm said:


> And that silly comment will only add oil to the fire.


If you read read guitars post before saying you agree with him you would know I'm just kidding. 

It all comes down to personal opinion and what you're going to use it for.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

australian dollars price i used from ebay 
and yes they're both good 
but i still think pc is cheaper 
and pc users aren't so up themselves as mac users
is that enough to close this never ending debate


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

ferrija1 said:


> Ok.
> 
> Not really, OS X is much lighter and supports better hardware.


Better hardware?

Core 2 Duo CPUs, a generation or three behind what is on the PC, and ECC RAM.

Loads better!

The rest of the price is the designer cases, which I think were really developed by Willy Wonka, not Steve Jobs!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I though it was overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I'm un-subscribing....


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

Well my linux box blows away both your windows and mac!

Debate blown away by open source awesomeness.


----------



## ChristDude (Aug 15, 2007)

Fyzbo said:


> Well my linux box blows away both your windows and mac!
> 
> Debate blown away by open source awesomeness.


Really you speak the truth. You can do almost anything with certain Linux distros, they give you much more freedom than Windows and Macs .


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

which linux distro is the best


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Noooooooooo shut up everyone. 

This topic is about why Mac is so (apparently) amazing, so we SHOULD NOT be talking about anything other than Mac's capabilities, not comparing it with other systems.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

a mac keeps you dry on a rainy day a car keeps you dryer


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> I though it was overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
> 
> I'm un-subscribing....


LOL.You wish man


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Does anyone want any coffee?


----------



## Pathfinder55 (Sep 28, 2007)

Finaly someone who knows what they are talking about!!! WWEFreak666, nice post, I agree 110% PCs are terrible when it comes to macs. And no macs would not get more viruses on them if more people used them. Macs will continue to get better while pcs will be left in the dust. Leapord is also coming out this October, which will KILL vista.


----------



## 07clarkm (Jul 24, 2007)

Pathfinder55 said:


> Finaly someone who knows what they are talking about!!! WWEFreak666, nice post, I agree 110% PCs are terrible when it comes to macs. And no macs would not get more viruses on them if more people used them. Macs will continue to get better while pcs will be left in the dust.


OK considering this is your first post I will let you off without a moan, but we have already established that Mac is not better than a PC or vice versa.

Please read all of the thread.


----------



## Pathfinder55 (Sep 28, 2007)

Just stateing my opion.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Pathfinder55 said:


> Just stateing my opion.


But you post your opinion as fact, no matter how wrong it is.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Worst Mac misconception:
"Macs are safer than PCs"

when in fact, macs are less secure!

Sure there are less viruses written for macs, because there are so few users, its not as much fun to see a hand full of Macs go down instead of millions of PCs. 

Aside from that, a smaller percentage of Mac users have firewalls, spyware scanners etc. And even fewer people know how to secure a Mac!

To top it off two groups of people predominantly use macs, the Semi- savvy photoshop group, and their grandma's who use it for internet only.

That first group is in trouble because as their hard drive fills up, and their .mac mail starts spamming their entire address book they will be at Tech forums denying the possibility of a problem. The second group will be in trouble because they have just barely figured out the power-button and mouse contraptions, it'll be months before they figure out their Mac isn't functioning right, and another month before they even consider a virus!


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

loserOlimbs said:


> Worst Mac misconception:
> "Macs are safer than PCs"
> 
> when in fact, macs are less secure!
> ...


Would you mind giving some evidence?While i agree that one of the reasons macs have less viruses because there are just so much less macs users in the world,there are TONS of editors and user all over the net and magazines that says macs are MORE secure,not less


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

They seem more secure, the same way the older SUVs did. They are big and strong, giving a sense of security, until they topple over...

Again they seem more secure, because no-one uses them en masse, and there is also a sense of security because it is linux/ Unix based. Fact is, I have heard a few examples of 'test' attacks on Macs that were exploited, and if memory serves seems they had a pretty bad turn around time to fix the bug... let me do some diggin!


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

http://www.securemac.com/ There are more secutity problems there than most Mac-atics would believe!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4739432.stm

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/securi...s-on-Apple-users/0,130061744,139164062,00.htm

no one is safe


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

Firstly in this quote


loserOlimbs said:


> Worst Mac misconception:
> "Macs are safer than PCs"
> 
> when in fact, macs are less secure!


am i correct to assume that u meant macs are less secure than pcs?

If so i don't agree.
Firstly there are security problems with macs but,as the links inside your post shows,the number of(known)problems are quite a bit fewer than PCs.
Also think bout it.While it's true that no one is safe,with macs u are definitely safer because...,well,there are just so much less macs user than windows and IMHO the situation will be the same in the future(at least in the next few years.macs users,please don't thrash me because i said that .BTW I'm not really supporting macs in this post.I just voicing out my opinion)


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Just pointing out that since Apple went to Intel hardware common to a Windows machine, they're really PCs now.
The distinction seems more to the operating systems.
I've never used/owned a Mac, so I can't complain.......but I have read enough complaints about Vista to realize now is not the time to buy in.

So far, I haven't read anything 'amazing' about a Mac that makes a difference to me.

amazing:


> 1	to fill with great surprise or sudden wonder; astonish
> 2	[Obs.] to bewilder


Hell...I got that learning 98se on my first computer......


----------



## sup_dawg444 (Sep 30, 2007)

"if it does freeze, you can use an built-in feature that Apple gives users This feature is called Shut Down" it's called: ending the process *gasp* apple brags yet again about something windows has been doing for years! 
"the MacBook only has 500 viruses, while as Windows has millions and millions of viruses" not true, windows has about 500,000 viruses, and about 2 million different virus protection programs, while macs have like 2. If you get a virus, your screwed, if I get a virus, I push the delete key and la de da its gone. that was tramatic. 
"Unlike Windows, Mac offers users a fast and secure browsing experience, with Safari" INTERNET EXPLORER 
"It is the fastest internet browser" this made me laugh. I have used a LOT of macs (far too many) and safari sucks on all of them. 
"Anyways, Mac has it all. From built-in webcams..." what the hell? webcams have been a standard in many pc laptops before macbooks were even around.


mac sucks.



deal with it.


----------



## Blinding (Feb 2, 2007)

Two words.

"Stumble Button"


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Blinding said:


> Two words.
> 
> "Stumble Button"


What in the world does Stumble Upon have to do with this conversation? 



> "if it does freeze, you can use an built-in feature that Apple gives users This feature is called Shut Down" it's called: ending the process *gasp* apple brags yet again about something windows has been doing for years!


Windows has tried to do it, but I know so many times when I go to the task manager and try to end something and it all freezes up and I have tons of end task windows open. On OS X, you just hit Command+Option+Escape select an app. and click Force Quit.



> "the MacBook only has 500 viruses, while as Windows has millions and millions of viruses" not true, windows has about 500,000 viruses, and about 2 million different virus protection programs, while macs have like 2. If you get a virus, your screwed, if I get a virus, I push the delete key and la de da its gone. that was tramatic.


First, Windows doesn't have 500,000 viruses, it's much lower. Under 200,000. I agree that there are only a handful of anti-virus apps for Macs, but since there are very few vulnerabilities, those programs those program can remove all viruses. So really, you press the delete key and the virus is gone, yeah right. Try taking a look in the HJT forim and you'll see what it's like to remove viruses from Windows.



> "Unlike Windows, Mac offers users a fast and secure browsing experience, with Safari" INTERNET EXPLORER
> "It is the fastest internet browser" this made me laugh. I have used a LOT of macs (far too many) and safari sucks on all of them.


I completely agree. Browsing the web is no faster on Macs and Safari is almost as bad as IE. But they have Firefox on Macs so it's ok. 



> "Anyways, Mac has it all. From built-in webcams..." what the hell? webcams have been a standard in many pc laptops before macbooks were even around.


There were some laptops with web cams, but they are now just catching on, right along with other laptops. There are plenty of other things he didn't say that Macs come with, such as the whole iLife suite, Photo Booth (that's a fun app ), Stickies, the daskboard, and plenty more.

Overall Macs have a simpler and more elegant way of doing things (I'm not saying this is good or bad). Macs have mainly one way of doing things, whereas on PCs, there could be five ways of doing the same thing. There is one version of OS X, one place to call when you need help, and lots of other little things that are convenient.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

macs are jus like consoles!! ( for CCjon) in that they are for people who dont know about computers...they dont know what they want specifically and just go for the shiniest looking toy...

they are not as customisable, upgradeable or managable as PCs..the only way to get them the way you want them is to buy stuff through apple at an extortionate price...the only people who want to use macs are arty farty types who want to use photoshop...and even then that runs well slow compared to similar spec pcs...


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> macs are jus like consoles!! ( for CCjon) in that they are for people who dont know about computers...they dont know what they want specifically and just go for the shiniest looking toy...


Yo BlooChoo,is there something hidden in your post bout me?...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe well i was reading ur post on the whole console war thing and u redirected us here for a new mac/pc war hehe


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

BlooChoo said:


> hehe well i was reading ur post on the whole console war thing and u redirected us here for a new mac/pc war hehe


So you mean I ''dont know about computers...I don't know what I want specifically and just go for the shiniest looking toy...''don't you!?!How dare you?!? ....haha.whatever you say man


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hehe na im jus sayin...macs r toys apple dont want u to know about ur system and how to do things with it..so they hide it all away..its great for people who just want to use the computer for bog standard things where the user doesnt have much control...microsoft is guilty of that with vista...which i hate!! thats the worst toy of all!!! worse than a mac.. so dont panic...im not gettin at macs specifically, just the way everything is dumbing down...taking control away from us and being given things that we are told "this is how it works, dont try to change it to suit urself"


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

For Task Manager;
I never end the the program, I kill the task, and never have problems there.

It comes back to what you know. I know that if Internet Explorer or Firefox is not responding, ending the program now may or may not solve the problem, so I gop to processes and kill it there.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> macs are jus like consoles!! ( for CCjon) in that they are for people who dont know about computers...they dont know what they want specifically and just go for the shiniest looking toy...
> 
> they are not as customisable, upgradeable or managable as PCs..the only way to get them the way you want them is to buy stuff through apple at an extortionate price...the only people who want to use macs are arty farty types who want to use photoshop...and even then that runs well slow compared to similar spec pcs...


They're customizable, to a lesser degree than Windows, they're upgradeable, by the way you can get parts from people other than Apple, and they're more easily manageable than PCs. Have you ever even used one?


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

I've used them and they are less manageable in my opinion!

Worst GUI since.... well lets just say DOS was better without a GUI. !


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I think the interface is great. Everything is layed out logically and simply.


----------



## sup_dawg444 (Sep 30, 2007)

to ferrija1

HA! you obviously are the impressionable moron that apple is looking to exploit. I have been in many debates about Mac vs. PC, and every single time they make an argument about some amazing new mac feature, it's something windows has been doing for years. on the task manager window, which you are obviously far too stupid to use, you click on the process tab and end the process of whatever is frozen and end it. Instant program ending. my computer sucks and it works on mine. As for the virus deleting, the viruses that people can't delete are most likely from stupid idiots as moronic as you are. "I can't find the any key aaaahhh my computer won't turn on because I can't find the any key wahhh". 
Unlike you, it seems, I like to have more than one stupid option for one task, so if I don't like the way it works, I can use a different way. Enough about macs, Let's focus on you, ferrija1. In your response to Bloochoo's message saying that Mac's aren't as customizable as windows you said: "They're customizable, to a lesser degree than Windows" WOW! Great way to paraphrase, moron! Apparently somehow taking someone's argument and saying the exact same thing back to them is a great way to make a counter argument! In your signature you state: "They say hard work never hurts anybody, but why take the chance?" Wonderful! Original! OUTSTANDING! it's kind of hard to express through typing, but that was sarcasm. What T-shirt/bumper sticker did you take that off of? 
Please look at the following links:
www.mac-sucks.com

http://themacsucks.com/joomla/index.php

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

that last one is a personal favorite. There are about 25 websites devoted to saying how much Mac sucks, and I have yet to see a PC haters website.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

loserOlimbs said:


> I've used them and they are less manageable in my opinion!
> 
> Worst GUI since.... well lets just say DOS was better without a GUI. !


i agree...they are trying to keep things for home users..keep us in the dark...my uni used to swear by them...i had to put up with using them in class for 3 yrs...hated them...specially for design work...wots with the soap bar 1 button jobby???


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

sup_dawg444 said:


> to ferrija1
> 
> HA! you obviously are the impressionable moron that apple is looking to exploit. I have been in many debates about Mac vs. PC, and every single time they make an argument about some amazing new mac feature, it's something windows has been doing for years. QUOTE]
> 
> ha yeh i agree with that too ther was a british advert about mac an pc, and a selling point of the mac was that they could create photo albums and things like that easily...hahha hasnt pc been able to do that since the dark ages????!!!! ther is nothing a mac can do that the pc cant do 10 times bette...and faster...with a much more customizable GUI...with a better mouse


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

sup_dawg444 said:


> to ferrija1
> 
> HA! you obviously are the impressionable moron that apple is looking to exploit. I have been in many debates about Mac vs. PC, and every single time they make an argument about some amazing new mac feature, it's something windows has been doing for years. on the task manager window, which you are obviously far too stupid to use, you click on the process tab and end the process of whatever is frozen and end it. Instant program ending. my computer sucks and it works on mine. As for the virus deleting, the viruses that people can't delete are most likely from stupid idiots as moronic as you are. "I can't find the any key aaaahhh my computer won't turn on because I can't find the any key wahhh".
> Unlike you, it seems, I like to have more than one stupid option for one task, so if I don't like the way it works, I can use a different way. Enough about macs, Let's focus on you, ferrija1. In your response to Bloochoo's message saying that Mac's aren't as customizable as windows you said: "They're customizable, to a lesser degree than Windows" WOW! Great way to paraphrase, moron! Apparently somehow taking someone's argument and saying the exact same thing back to them is a great way to make a counter argument! In your signature you state: "They say hard work never hurts anybody, but why take the chance?" Wonderful! Original! OUTSTANDING! it's kind of hard to express through typing, but that was sarcasm. What T-shirt/bumper sticker did you take that off of?
> ...


Wow, way to turn a nice argument into something much worse. There's no need to insult me, it's not me vs. you, it's Mac vs. PC.

1. Mac copying PC. Yeah right, search in the Start menu, gadgets, and programs that come with it, Windows copied Mac.
2. Why don't you use the Applications tab, does that not work?  No need to search for process names on a Mac, it justs lists all the apps running.
3. You have to admit that trying to get rid of viruses on Windows is hard. You have to scan through the whole machine to find it then you have to disinfect it or delete it and then you have to scan again but you might still haver it.
4. I agree, that was pretty stupid to say.  But they are easier to customize since if you want to, say change icons size, you don't need to start backing up your registry, you just show view options and move a slider to the right.

Those websites have a few things wrong. Macs are not much faster than Windows, though starting up they are, but once you get them running they're about the same. The Userfriendliness page says that you have to mess around with the terminal to get things working. I have had my MacBook Pro for months and haven't touched the terminal. And the terminal is actually a good thing, since you have all the power of Unix there. :up:

I stopped reading the second site after they titled a story that said CS3 had not been fully tested in Leopard as _Leopard will Break Adobe CS3? No Surprise_.

As for the last site, no one ever said Macs are perfect, they are far from it, as are Windows. iTunes is the new Realplayer. iTunes is running n Windows there, no wonder it doesn't work.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4588.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~webguy/writings/winsucks.html
http://www.wimp.com/windows/
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8288296398.html
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2240
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=d14603c1e23e6ce37920a8134a2e27b1405a4991


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

u read the sites?


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

sup_dawg444,

You need to read the site rules before posting again. There is no need for namecalling and rudness to others and neither will be tolerated.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ferrija1, im not really a fan of macs but i do agree with some of the things you are saying, namely point 3 above...things like that are harder for alot of people, but that is only for people who dont know what they are doing, pc is alot better and more usable for more advanced users...as i say, mac is for people who just want to use the comp, not get under the hood and fine tune it...like owining a car and not knowing how it works or how to fix the engine...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> ferrija1, im not really a fan of macs but i do agree with some of the things you are saying, namely point 3 above...things like that are harder for alot of people, but that is only for people who dont know what they are doing, pc is alot better and more usable for more advanced users...as i say, mac is for people who just want to use the comp, not get under the hood and fine tune it...like owining a car and not knowing how it works or how to fix the engine...


Yes, it's trades super-customizeability (if that's a word, Firefox says no ) for a little more reliability.


----------



## John Burns (Jul 29, 1999)

Cookiegal said:


> sup_dawg444,
> 
> You need to read the site rules before posting again. There is no need for namecalling and rudness to others and neither will be tolerated.


Thank you Cookiegal - I was turned off by the namecalling and attitude. Makes people not want to post. Appreciate your comment.


----------



## sup_dawg444 (Sep 30, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Wow, way to turn a nice argument into something much worse. There's no need to insult me, it's not me vs. you, it's Mac vs. PC.
> 
> 1. Mac copying PC. Yeah right, search in the Start menu, gadgets, and programs that come with it, Windows copied Mac.
> 2. Why don't you use the Applications tab, does that not work?  No need to search for process names on a Mac, it justs lists all the apps running.
> ...


I'll insult you if I bloody well feel like it. You deserve to be insulted.

1.I never said mac copied windows. I merely stated mac says they're better than windows because they can do some of the things windows can do. I know vista copied mac, and I'm sure as hell not proud of it.
2.OH GOD NO! I HAVE TO CLICK TWICE BEFORE I CAN STOP A PROGRAM!!!! TERRIBLE!!! just push the first letter of the program and you'll go straight to it.
3. no, no I don't. Because it's not. Viruses are detected instantly on my computer, whether or not I'm running a scan.
4. you can change the icon size on windows too, stupid

I've tested it actually, and the mac turned on 3.2 seconds faster than my PC. Oh my god, 3 seconds. I totally care. Mac constantly brags about working right out of the box. Well, PC's (unless you want to upgrade RAM or something) work right out of the box as well. I have yet to have to use the terminal. It doesn't surprise me that you can find some articles written on PC sucking, I posted whole websites DEVOTED to saying that mac sucks, with the exception of that last one. that was just the first couple results on a Google search.

By the way, I smiled when I saw the message telling me to be nicer and more respectful. I may very well be the most disrespectful person in the known universe. when someone acts like an idiot, I treat them like an idiot. When someone acts like Einstein, I treat them like an idiot. Do I have problems? Probably. Damn proud of it.


----------



## John Burns (Jul 29, 1999)

sup_dawg444 said:


> I'll insult you if I bloody well feel like it. You deserve to be insulted.
> 
> 1.I never said mac copied windows. I merely stated mac says they're better than windows because they can do some of the things windows can do. I know vista copied mac, and I'm sure as hell not proud of it.
> 2.OH GOD NO! I HAVE TO CLICK TWICE BEFORE I CAN STOP A PROGRAM!!!! TERRIBLE!!! just push the first letter of the program and you'll go straight to it.
> ...


I have used this forum for help and support - I didn't know it had turned into a personal attack venue. Really, can you turn down the attitude and insulting language????? We all can enjoy it more.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

sup_dawg444,

Wrong answer. You can take a 48 hour time out to read the rules and think about whether you want to remain a member here or not. If so, an attitude adjustment is in order.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

John Burns said:


> I have used this forum for help and support - I didn't know it had turned into a personal attack venue. Really, can you turn down the attitude and insulting language????? We all can enjoy it more.


I know, really. I thought we were having a clean nice argument them he comes along flaming up on me and insulting Cookiegal.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

Maybe now we can get this back on track, at least for a couple of days.


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

the hardware is ridiculously overpriced (you'll get a Windows or Linux PC performing way better for half the money!) and so is the modest amount of software available.

there's no real justification for apple computers.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The_Oracle said:


> the hardware is ridiculously overpriced (you'll get a Windows or Linux PC performing way better for half the money!) and so is the modest amount of software available.
> 
> there's no real justification for apple computers.


There's plenty of software for Macs...
http://www.freemacware.com/
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/iWeb/[email protected]/Software.html

As for price...
http://forums.techguy.org/apple-mac...nsive.html?highlight=apple+is+-more+expensive


----------



## John Burns (Jul 29, 1999)

The_Oracle said:


> the hardware is ridiculously overpriced (you'll get a Windows or Linux PC performing way better for half the money!) and so is the modest amount of software available.
> 
> there's no real justification for apple computers.


Glad to hear your comments - I had been thinking about buying a Mac possibly, but think I'll stick with my PC's. Appreciate the input by the folks in here.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Read The path of least resistance and read what Haroldo has to say about Mac.


----------



## ChristDude (Aug 15, 2007)

There's nothing wrong with a Mac, they are a nice change from a PC with its ups and downs, which sometimes are the opposite of Windows' ups and downs. Nothing wrong with a Mac, nothing wrong with a PC. They're both good, yet someone will come along and start saying they are better than the other. This is when a war starts.

I still vote Linux ftw. Awesomeness customizess .

Meh, I've never used Linux, I was kidding, it's probably good though .

Still, both Mac and PC are very good. Some just think one of better than the other. Not true, they are really near equal.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

John Burns said:


> Glad to hear your comments - I had been thinking about buying a Mac possibly, but think I'll stick with my PC's. Appreciate the input by the folks in here.


Make sure you at least try one at some place like an Apple store.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

hewee said:


> Read The path of least resistance and read what Haroldo has to say about Mac.


There wasn't anything at the site it said thread/post not found.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

ferrija1 said:


> There wasn't anything at the site it said thread/post not found.


Link works just find for me.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

hewee said:


> Link works just find for me.


It is in the Members' Corkboard forum so guess you have to be a member to see that part of the site that it is in.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Could you tell us what it says?


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

By Haroldo,
The path of least resistance



> I have approximately 10-15 people (friends, etc.) who think I am a "tech guru". They call me and I give them help. Of course, I don't tell them that I contact ColdinCbus who gives me the answer, in any event, they think I am smart. What is that expression? "...in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king".
> 
> Those that know me know that I have become a bit of a Mac fan (fanatic?). I decided to send my children to college with MacBooks, since I feared the middle of the night call "Dad, my computer (crashed, froze, or _________ fill in the blank) and I have a report that is due at 9 AM, help!". In the 3 plus years that we've been using Macs, our family hasn't had any problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

can you play the games i want to play on mac?? hmm...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> can you play the games i want to play on mac?? hmm...


Yep, through OS X, Boot Camp, Parallels for Mac, or Fusion.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

as a rule games for windows wont run...event the intel macs wont be entirely compatible...its almost like trying to game on vista


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> as a rule games for windows wont run...event the intel macs wont be entirely compatible...its almost like trying to game on vista


Through Boot Camp your Mac pretty much becomes a PC, completely compatible.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

thats what they sed about vistas compatability mode...im sure its not completely compatible with everything,...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

hows direct x 10 coming along for one thing...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

If you're running a MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo it's all the same as a Dell with 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo. There are drivers for everything and everything works fine (at least in most cases).


----------



## pcrepairguy (May 6, 2007)

I agree that the MAC is a great machine as far as hardware goes but they lack in software options and the simple reason is there are hardly any MACs out there, 95 of 100 computers on the planet today are PCs. This lack of market share is also why there are so few viruses for MACs.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

pcrepairguy said:


> I agree that the MAC is a great machine as far as hardware goes but they lack in software options and the simple reason is there are hardly any MACs out there, 95 of 100 computers on the planet today are PCs. This lack of market share is also why there are so few viruses for MACs.


There's plenty of programs for Macs, and since there are less developers for Macs, the software is generally better.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

A few statements come to mind:

1 Vista and I have had very few problems with compaibity, an old tvtuner card from Kworld works in Vista x86, but x64 not a loss, it was an old card that I hardly used.

Other than that, command and Conquer Generals didn't like multiplayer, but C&C3 in x64 is great!

The transition as far as programs to Vista x64 is actually better than it was to XP from ME, 98.

As for Macs with Boot Camp and fusion, parallels etc., how does that fit into "It just Works on a Mac"? Thats the reason I don't Linux much, I would rather not run an emulator on top of the OS that is not built from the ground into the OS.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

loserOlimbs said:


> As for Macs with Boot Camp and fusion, parallels etc., how does that fit into "It just Works on a Mac"?


 What should I say? Windows works on Macs.


loserOlimbs said:


> Thats the reason I don't Linux much, I would rather not run an emulator on top of the OS that is not built from the ground into the OS.


I don't like Linux much either, great idea and cause but not that much good software. With Boot Camp, it is a Windows machine as said before, it's not emulating anything. I have something to add about Windows on Mac, Boot Camp, etc., it is really just a selling point for Macs, so that beginners can have peace of mind knowing that if they don't like the OS they can still run Windows. I bought a copy of Vista and Fusion and put it on my MacBook Pro and I really don't use it much, it's just sitting there using 10GB of space. I'm probably going to take it off here and put it on my desktop.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

So is that how it's gonna end. The mac and pc bashing ends with both sides ganging up on Linux?

Insanity! You are all crazy!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Fyzbo said:


> So is that how it's gonna end. The mac and pc bashing ends with both sides ganging up on Linux?
> 
> Insanity! You are all crazy!


I guess so.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Not ganging up, I would run Linux more if it worked how I needed it to without emulators. Just like Macs, would use them more if they worked for me! I feel Macs are communist, they know what is best for you! 

I liked at first OSX, everything looked sleek, but once I really started using it... well again I hate that GUI now.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

And I would run Windows if it worked for me.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh linux is totally better than the rest...as it has more than a million developpers over the world..no one targets it wth viruses and its more customisable than a VW beetle...if only it had backing by companys with money


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> yeh linux is totally better than the rest...as it has more than a million developpers over the world..no one targets it wth viruses and its more customisable than a VW beetle...if only it had backing by companys with money


More customizable than a Beetle if you have the source code and know that language.  There're aren't more than one million developers for Linux stuff, more like thousands.  A lot of people don't use it, though, because of bad software support for Linux.


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

> since there are less developers for Macs, the software is generally better.


now that statement completely escapes my logic ... and then you say:



> There're aren't more than one million developers for Linux stuff, more like thousands.


following your logic, this would make Linux Software even better 



> If you're running a MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo it's all the same as a Dell with 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo.


and only 100% overpriced ... the Dell equivalent you'll buy for half the money.

sure, the lads in Cupertino had to make the move towards Intel (Adobe ceased support for 'real' Apple computers' with Photoshop CS3) and now that they're building on pretty much the same components, their pricing is even more ridiculous.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The_Oracle said:


> now that statement completely escapes my logic ... and then you say:
> 
> following your logic, this would make Linux Software even better


Yeah, except almost all the Linux people are individual developers, not designers, so sometimes the stuff isn't that easy to use. And I never said Linux is better or worse, I just said there's no software from the big names.



The_Oracle said:


> and only 100% overpriced ... the Dell equivalent you'll buy for half the money.
> 
> sure, the lads in Cupertino had to make the move towards Intel (Adobe ceased support for 'real' Apple computers' with Photoshop CS3) and now that they're building on pretty much the same components, their pricing is even more ridiculous.


I never said it was cheaper...if you're going to use Windows, for heavens sake, buy a PC! And Dells aren't half as cheap, more like 25% cheaper.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

When is someone going to post the 'amazing' about Macs?
So far, all I know is they will turn on.

And about malware, since I haven't gotten any on my win xp mce computer, what could be more amazing with a Mac?


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

> And Dells aren't half as cheap, more like 25% cheaper.


i was looking up the offers:

17" Display

* 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 1680 x 1050 pixels
* 2GB memory
* 160GB hard drive1
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 256MB SDRAM

Apple: $ 2.799

DELL: $ 1.614

price difference 75% !

15.4" Display

* 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 1440 x 900 resolution
* 2GB memory
* 120GB hard drive1
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 128MB SDRAM

Apple: $ 1.999

DELL: $ 1.214

price difference 65% !

edit: you'll have to upgrade the DELL's to the matching configuration regarding CPU, HDD, DVD RW, Memory, and Graphics adapter.

mind you, they're now using all the same hardware, intel CPUs, nVidia GPUs, etc ... and DELL isn't the cheapest place to buy either, as we know ... i'll bet you'll find a Notebook with the same specs for half the price of a MacBook.

and as for the Software: Safari, Quicktime and iTunes are some of the worst products i can think of. i wonder why they're trying so desperately to launch this stuff on windows platforms. if you think WMP is bad, think again! Apple's multimedia software is even more crippled by DRM.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The_Oracle said:


> i was looking up the offers:
> 
> 17" Display
> 
> ...


First off, you are missing some features, here is the Dell configured as close to the MacBook Pro as I can:

1. Base ---------------------------------------------------- $849
2. Intel Core 2 Duo (2.4GHz) ----------------------------$1199
3. Vista Ultimate ------------------------------------------$1348
4. 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT ----------------- $1548
5. 2GB DDR2 RAM ----------------------------------------$1673
6. 160GB SATA --------------------------------------------$1723
7. CD/DVD Writer ---------------------------------------- $1763
8. Wireless N Card ----------------------------------------$1863
9. Bluetooth ------------------------------------------------$1883
10. Webcam -----------------------------------------------$1908

Plus the MacBook Pro has a LED backlight screen, a backlight keyboard, IR reciver and remote, and beautiful design. It also has a better battery. The MacBook Pro is a bit more expensive is this case, though, but for a reason. 



The_Oracle said:


> 15.4" Display
> 
> * 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
> * 1440 x 900 resolution
> ...


Here we go again...

1. Core 2 Duo (2.4GHz) ------------------------------------$924
2. Ultimate --------------------------------------------------$1073
3. 1440 x 900 Glossy Display ------------------------------$1123
4. 128MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS --------------------$1223
5. 2GB DDR2 RAM ------------------------------------------$1348
6. 120GB SATA ---------------------------------------------$1373
7. CD / DVD writer (DVD+/-RW Drive) ------------------$1413
8. Wireless-N -----------------------------------------------$1513
9. Bluetooth -------------------------------------------------$1533
10. Webcam ------------------------------------------------$1558

And plus the MacBook Pro has all those things I said before...



The_Oracle said:


> and as for the Software: Safari, Quicktime and iTunes are some of the worst products i can think of. i wonder why they're trying so desperately to launch this stuff on windows platforms. if you think WMP is bad, think again! Apple's multimedia software is even more crippled by DRM.


Safari isn't great, but it's usable, just like IE. How are QuickTime and iTunes (and WMP) crippled by DRM?

Plus Macs come with iLife and Front Row, which I use and love. :up:


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Math (from the Peanut Gallery)

(2799-1614)/1614=73.4% Price Difference

(1999-1214)/1214=64.7% Price Difference


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

WhitPhil said:


> Math (from the Peanut Gallery)
> 
> (2799-1614)/1614=73.4% Price Difference
> 
> (1999-1214)/1214=64.7% Price Difference


Ok, I fixed my post.


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

tnx, for the heads up, phil, i was just doin' a quick calculation in me old brain, close call tho 

who wants ultimate? ... ne1 with a brain would dump it for an operating system superior to both Vista and OS X 

and the Apple batteries being better than Dell batteries is just not true. they both use Sony batteries (although Dell is branding the batteries, the cells are manufactured by Sony).


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The_Oracle said:


> tnx, for the heads up, phil, i was just doin' a quick calculation in me old brain, close call tho


No, you were right on. I was claiming that your math was wrong but WhitPhil corrected me. 



The_Oracle said:


> tnx, for the heads up, phil, i was just doin' a quick calculation in me old who wants ultimate? ... ne1 with a brain would dump it for an operating system superior to both Vista and OS X
> 
> and the Apple batteries being better than Dell batteries is just not true. they both use Sony batteries (although Dell is branding the batteries, the cells are manufactured by Sony).


I don't know who wants Ultimate either but it's the full version of Vista. As for the batteries the Dell is something like 54 or 56 watts and the MacBook Pro is 68 watts.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

The_Oracle said:


> who wants ultimate? ... ne1 with a brain would dump it for an operating system superior to both Vista and OS X
> 
> .


I hear Amiga is going to make a come back.!


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

> I hear Amiga is going to make a come back.!


amazing what a superb OS you can fit onto a single sided 3.5" floppy if properly coded


----------



## John Burns (Jul 29, 1999)

Not trying to start anything here - just thought some might be interested in this:

http://www.theregister.com/2007/10/27/leopard_install_problems/


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

John Burns said:


> Not trying to start anything here - just thought some might be interested in this:
> 
> http://www.theregister.com/2007/10/27/leopard_install_problems/


That's from almost a month ago with the beta version of Leopard for developers.


----------



## CCjon (Aug 24, 2007)

But it says it was updated today.....


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Oh I read that wrong, sorry. That sucks, hope Apple gets it fixed soon.


----------



## John Burns (Jul 29, 1999)

ferrija1 said:


> That's from almost a month ago with the beta version of Leopard for developers.


What about this one???

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=16144


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

John Burns said:


> What about this one???
> 
> http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=16144


Java 6 does not run on OS X but Java 5 does and it is much faster, and anyways, when is the last time you played Java content?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mac OS X Trojan:

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/31/new.trojan.targets.macs/
excerpt......


> A new trojan horse designed specifically for Mac OS X systems has been discovered.................


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Stoner said:


> Mac OS X Trojan:
> 
> http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/31/new.trojan.targets.macs/
> excerpt......


That sucks, but I don't surf porn... :up:


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

well that makes as amazing as a pc 
a truly amazing thing the human mind
think about it
comes with all built in software its ever gonna need


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

guitar said:


> well that makes as amazing as a pc
> a truly amazing thing the human mind
> think about it
> comes with all built in software its ever gonna need


I could use some more memory.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

thats what computers are for


----------



## PsychoPanda (Nov 2, 2007)

WWEFreak666 said:


> *1* I was shocked when my brother told me that the MacBook only has 500 viruses, while as Windows has millions and millions of viruses. The possibility of getting a virus on a MacBook is so low, compared to Windows. The overall performance of the MacBook is outstanding and rarely freezes. If it does freeze, you can use an built-in feature that Apple gives users, it's basicly a more easier to access feature than the way Windows has it.
> 
> *2* To this day, I'm still surprised at how underrated Mac is and how overrated PC is.
> 
> *3* Anyways, Mac has it all. From built-in webcams to the world's fastest internet browsing. Mac simply has it all. It may be exspensive, but buy one and enjoy the life with a computer that you won't have to worry about crashing on you.


I'll reply to this in the way I numbered it.
1) Windows may have millions of viruses, but you'll probably only get those by going to weird sites like porn, serial keys, hacks, etc. People are more likely to get viruses on a pc by being irresponsible. However, Mac has way less so that is true.

2) Mac is "underrated" because while it "Just works" it _only_ works, and while it works it still only works with about 10% of what it could work with because Windows is much more compatible. You can brag about how fast Macs are and all, but at the end of the day you can never really tell since there's nothing to test it on. I could say "My graphics card is running really well because I tested it in Oblivion" or something, but because Macs don't work with games or anything very CPU/GPU intensive you couldn't know.

Macs are incompatible, they become compatible when you dual-boot Windows onto one.

3) It doesn't have it all, I'm sorry. It's got about 25% or what Windows have in all fairness. Built in web-cams, great. Now on my Windows I'll enjoy the upcoming DirectX10 Crisis game, over clocking abilities, etc.

Macs might not crash, but games are probably your source of that since it takes up a lot of RAM and all, so show me a Mac that can run something like Oblivion or even FEAR and I'll place my money on it crashing just as often as a pc.

Don't get me wrong, Macs are cool. They're just...overrated and are only REALLY good if you're into the whole graphics design area...or something like that.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

PsychoPanda said:


> I'll reply to this in the way I numbered it.
> 1) Windows may have millions of viruses, but you'll probably only get those by going to weird sites like porn, serial keys, hacks, etc. People are more likely to get viruses on a pc by being irresponsible. However, Mac has way less so that is true.
> 
> 2) Mac is "underrated" because while it "Just works" it _only_ works, and while it works it still only works with about 10% of what it could work with because Windows is much more compatible. You can brag about how fast Macs are and all, but at the end of the day you can never really tell since there's nothing to test it on. I could say "My graphics card is running really well because I tested it in Oblivion" or something, but because Macs don't work with games or anything very CPU/GPU intensive you couldn't know.
> ...


Two things I want to clarify...

1. Macs suck for gaming. Don't buy a Mac if you're going to play games on it!
2. There's plenty of resource-intensive stuff on Macs, Avid editing suites, Final Cut Pro, Motion, and many other programs. Macs really are compatible, they live in a Windows world and Apple knows that so they make it very compatible. You can easily network Windows and OS X machines, all of the iWork programs can open files from their corresponding program in Microsoft Office, and there are many programs that are Mac-specific, such as the entire Final Cut Studio. I bought a copy of Vista to put on my MacBook Pro and I did but I found I never used it. Everything I needed to do could be done in OS X.

Mac for home, Windows for business, and an Xbox 360 for gaming. :up:


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

Researchers pooh-pooh Mac OS X Leopard security

umm ... if windows is for business then why are there are 100 times more games for windows than for any other platform or console?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The_Oracle said:


> umm ... if windows is for business then why are there are 100 times more games for windows than for any other platform or console?


Because it is the dominant platform...


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

Windows can be also good for gaming. :up: :up:


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Yes, but I think the Xbox 360 is better.


----------



## gamerbyron (Apr 9, 2007)

But does 360 support 64 players online?

It'll better be more fun like Crysis


----------



## The_Oracle (May 20, 2007)

> Yes, but I think the Xbox 360 is better.


no way! check out CoD4 or Crysis for example on DX10 at highest details ... this makes the xbox look like what it is: a cheap home entertainment gadget (mind you, the xbox is cheaper than the required 8800gtx you need in order to enjoy Crysis in all its beauty)


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

haha xbox 360 is just a toy...like all consoles...pcs are customisable to what u need them to be...plus the mouse/keyboard combo is the best interface for gaming...console remotes just feel clumbsy after fragging away on ut3


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, I prefer console gaming because it exactly is a dedicated system and it has a controller.


----------



## Satsumomo (May 29, 2007)

PC's: Serious gaming
Consoles: A hobby.

Mac is the new "cool" thing to do.


----------



## Michael Bennett (Nov 23, 2007)

Satsumomo said:


> Mac is the new "cool" thing to do.


I hate flame wars, people need to stop saying opinions and focus on FACTS.

FACT - PC is better than MAC OVERALL.

The thread should be ended!

loserOlimbs, ChristDude and 07clarkm have got it spot on, they are both good for different reasons, but PC is better than Mac on paper.

Oh and put it this way:

If Mac is so good, why do only about 3 people use it worldwide.  And don't say "because it's the dominant platform" all the time!

Michael.


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

Mac? Oh, you mean watered-down BSD Unix with a watered-down GNOME interface?

Yeah, it's pretty nice, kind of like the taste of watered-down coke.

Oh wait, that tastes like crap.


----------



## Michael Bennett (Nov 23, 2007)

Lol


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Michael Bennett said:


> I hate flame wars, people need to stop saying opinions and focus on FACTS.
> 
> FACT - PC is better than MAC OVERALL.
> 
> ...


Way to say nothing. :up: :up:


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

Satsumomo said:


> PC's: Serious gaming
> Consoles: A hobby.
> 
> Mac is the new "cool" thing to do.


nearly right...

pcs: serv=ious gaming (and everything else u can imagine a computer doing)
consoles: hobby and playing with a room full of mates
Mac: pretentious and shiny...not much else


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

Michael Bennett said:


> I hate flame wars, people need to stop saying opinions and focus on FACTS.
> 
> FACT - PC is better than MAC OVERALL.
> 
> ...


that is the reason pc is ruling it over mac...if mac had been the market leader way back when...and every office used the mac os then windows would be as obsolete as macs are..the only reason pcs are the best is because they are more widely used and everything is developped for them...rendering mac more incompatable than vista was when it was first brought out


----------



## Gibbs (Feb 28, 2005)

RedHelix said:


> Mac? Oh, you mean watered-down BSD Unix with a watered-down GNOME interface?
> 
> Yeah, it's pretty nice, kind of like the taste of watered-down coke.
> 
> Oh wait, that tastes like crap.


Haha :up:


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

i must have missed that one...yeh that about sums it up


----------



## Gibbs (Feb 28, 2005)

BlooChoo said:


> i must have missed that one...yeh that about sums it up


Ohhh a fellow Devonian!


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ooh..u in devon too huh?? u north south east or west? im near exeter...well kinda


----------



## Gibbs (Feb 28, 2005)

BlooChoo said:


> ooh..u in devon too huh?? u north south east or west? im near exeter...well kinda


North, Barnstaple


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ah awesome..i have a couple of friends ther isnt the world oh so small


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Well, this was a fun thread to read. 

I'm primarily a Linux user but I've spent lots of time with Windows and a little time with Mac OS X. Personally, I consider OS X Aqua to be better UI than Windows (XP or Vista) evne though I don't think Aqua is perfect. I've played with many window managers (Enlightenment, AfterStep, ICEWm, etc) and with KDE and GNOME on Linux and while these desktop environments are improvements over previous window manager only environments, they sill could use a bit more work. I'm really curious to see how Enlightenment evolves over time.

I wouldn't necessarily agree OS X is less "tinkerable" than Windows but the need to put ones hands into the "beast" is possibly reduced with OS X. Manual mucking with the Windows registry is almost to the point of being commonplace in the Windows world and I feel that's exactly NOT the direction to go in. Computers should be easier to use and not require more and more knowledge to operate effectively.

As for the virus aspect of the OS X vs Windows debate, I think most tend to focus more on the numbers and less on the nature of the issues being used to support points. For example, a MS Word macro virus is a *MS Word* problem and not a Windows problem or a OS X problem yet people don't consider that kind of thing when looking at which platform is more/less secure, etc.

I've provided enough tech support to Windows users that I've started recommending people look at Macs instead. Windows didn't gain popularity based on technical merit, it gained popularity because it came pre-installed on very affordable PC hardware. The "problem" is so many people have become entrenched in the "Windows way" of doing things, they can't wrap their brains around doing things differently (at least not easily or readily).

What boggles my mind, in this thread, is the comments against Safari. I've used Safari some and find it works well and its support of web standards far exceeds anything IE has done to date. What kinds of problems, issues, or beefs are people having with Safari?

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Safari used to lock up my dual core G4 every time I launched it doing web design, on multiple systems. These were 5,000 dollar machines that could handle Safari. We actually had to use IE to get a stable platform to test on half the time.

BTW, I hate IE, Firefox all the way. IE7 finally got tabs, but it doesn't work right!

Vista is great, go figure...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

loserOlimbs said:


> Safari used to lock up my dual core G4 every time I launched it doing web design, on multiple systems. These were 5,000 dollar machines that could handle Safari.


Well, that's certainly a good reason to dislike Safari.  Do you run Firefox on OS X now or Camino?

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I actually think Safari is faster than Fx, and it's not a bad browser, it's just that Firefox is better.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Why "better"? Firefox's extensions? Firefox's popularity?

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Extensions, themes...


----------



## Michael Bennett (Nov 23, 2007)

Simplicity, customization...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, I can see the customization aspect (for the record I don't know how customizable Safari is). Simplicity? Safari seems pretty simple to me. Not sure I get that one.

I've found Safari to render pages pretty close to the way Opera does and I'm quickly warming up to Opera. Now that Safari 3 is out for OS X (at least I believe it is), it will be interesting to see how the QA version of Safari 3 for Windows does, if it ever goes GA.

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Yes, Safari is the simpler browser, and it also supports the most standrks (specifically the Acid 2 tests).


----------



## dnbtom (Dec 4, 2007)

Totally agree with techdude! :up: 

macs :down: :down:


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

dnbtom said:


> Totally agree with techdude! :up:


Who's that?


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Firefox, I just can't complain. I am not happy with what I hear of Firefox 3.0 though. I'm scared.

What brings me to this thread today is my original point though. Makes are not for the tech Savvy!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/upgrade-hard-drive.htm

I look up to this guy, has had a good career in Hollywood, great with film, and knows nothing about computers!

Upgrading a hard drive, a how to on the Mac, and how a Windows machine would not this as easily.

Had he tried on a "Windows" machine he would have seen it is just as easy! Mac users...


----------



## breadcrab (Nov 21, 2007)

hmm I saw a guy smash his mac into pieces...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh...that was all pc gamers...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

breadcrab said:


> hmm I saw a guy smash his mac into pieces...


Well that justifies how Macs suck perfectly, doesn't it.


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

I hate the Macs vs. PCs debate. It's basically automatic transmission vs. stick-shift. It's also moot, because you've also got Linux, which is a gas-free flying car that drives itself and cures AIDS.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

RedHelix said:


> I hate the Macs vs. PCs debate. It's basically automatic transmission vs. stick-shift. It's also moot, because you've also got Linux, which is a gas-free flying car that drives itself and cures AIDS.


That was absolutely perfect! :up:


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

linux is just an OS...mac v pc is not just about software, its about the hardware, and the people that go behind the computer...


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

What does hardware have to do with the OS? Yes Apple makes you buy the hardware from them where windows, linux, and bsd lets you buy the hardware from anyone, but it can be the same hardware. It's possible to have a computer that can run all four.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Fyzbo said:


> What does hardware have to do with the OS? Yes Apple makes you buy the hardware from them where windows, linux, and bsd lets you buy the hardware from anyone, but it can be the same hardware. It's possible to have a computer that can run all four.


Who said we're talking about the OS? "Mac" refers to both the hardware and OS X (the operating system).


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Fyzbo said:


> Yes Apple makes you buy the hardware from them where windows, linux, and bsd lets you buy the hardware from anyone


"lets"? The developers of Windows, Linux, and *BSD aren't hardware vendors so you have to seek hardware elsewhere. 

Peace...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Who said we're talking about the OS? "Mac" refers to both the hardware and OS X (the operating system).


thank you 
yeh i was refering to the fact that linux was just the OS, so the stuff RedHelix was sayin about this all being moot is moot in it self as linux is nothing to do with this argument...(it would if the argument was mac OS V windows, but its not...)


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

My computer can sing and dance and I saved enough money by not buying Brand X that I went out and bought a new 'vette.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

for gods sake close this thread mark it solved or whatever as its a pointless discusion the only thing that is amazing is the human brain and that invented macs pc hardware and the wheel


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Stoner said:


> My computer can sing and dance and I saved enough money by not buying Brand X that I went out and bought a new 'vette.


Ah, but can it make coffee like mine? 

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

BlooChoo said:


> thank you
> yeh i was refering to the fact that linux was just the OS, so the stuff RedHelix was sayin about this all being moot is moot in it self as linux is nothing to do with this argument...(it would if the argument was mac OS V windows, but its not...)


Eeeeeexcept Apple's main marketing angle is the user experience offered through OSX. OSX is essentially what makes a computer a Mac, as there's nothing distinctive about Apple hardware other than the fact that Apple doesn't allow you to install OSX on hardware they haven't sanctioned or designed. A USB port doesn't gain magical Mac powers when you burn the Apple brand onto it.

If you want to spin that off into a discussion over whether Apple hardware is better, fine, but that's a perspective that'll crash and burn quickly.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

You're right, RedHelix, but Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake close this thread for gods sake


----------



## Gibbs (Feb 28, 2005)

Request Denied!


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

RedHelix said:


> Eeeeeexcept Apple's main marketing angle is the user experience offered through OSX. OSX is essentially what makes a computer a Mac, as there's nothing distinctive about Apple hardware other than the fact that Apple doesn't allow you to install OSX on hardware they haven't sanctioned or designed. A USB port doesn't gain magical Mac powers when you burn the Apple brand onto it.
> 
> If you want to spin that off into a discussion over whether Apple hardware is better, fine, but that's a perspective that'll crash and burn quickly.


actually if u read apples marketing proposals ther outlook is hard can beat software...and apparently ther resent camagin of mac v pc adverts demonstrates that Apple is the best youth marketer by focusing on the looks and "charisma" of the mac....they rely on being shinier than pcs...

and if Mac wer so OSX orientated, then why would they be making WINDOWS based Macs???? looks like mac is also falling to microsoft...already using intel processors, now going to windows...all mac will have on its side are its looks

the words jump and bandwagon seem to come to mind


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

Well if I can not compare mac to linux because mac is a hardware company, then the same logic says that mac advocates can not compare mac to windows. Oh wait...


Apple does that all the time.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> and if Mac wer so OSX orientated, then why would they be making WINDOWS based Macs????


Where are you getting this from?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Fyzbo said:


> Well if I can not compare mac to linux because mac is a hardware company, then the same logic says that mac advocates can not compare mac to windows. Oh wait...


Well, one of the "problems" is people compare what they call "PCs" to Macs when they are really talking about Windows. Some don't or can't distinguish between the hardware and the OS when it comes to PCs.

With regard to Apple being a "hardware company", that is because they make computers (desktops and laptops). Microsoft doesn't.

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

BlooChoo said:


> actually if u read apples marketing proposals ther outlook is hard can beat software...and apparently ther resent camagin of mac v pc adverts demonstrates that Apple is the best youth marketer by focusing on the looks and "charisma" of the mac....they rely on being shinier than pcs...
> 
> and if Mac wer so OSX orientated, then why would they be making WINDOWS based Macs???? looks like mac is also falling to microsoft...already using intel processors, now going to windows...all mac will have on its side are its looks
> 
> the words jump and bandwagon seem to come to mind


I'm seeing you guys yabber on about how Apple is a hardware company and yet every Apple Macintosh commercial currently on the air talks about the features of OSX.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> I'm seeing you guys yabber on about how Apple is a hardware company and yet every Apple Macintosh commercial currently on the air talks about the features of OSX.


Apple is a hardware company. They make their money off of hardware. Apple TV, Airport Extreme, Mac Pro, MacBook, iMac, iPod, iPhone. All hardware. OS X is the selling point of Macs but Apple is a hardware company, nonetheless.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

What part of the hardware are they making? Is it the intel processors? The NVidia graphics cards? Last time I checked you could build a system with the same components as a mac pro and install linux or windows if you wanted.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Fyzbo said:


> What part of the hardware are they making? Is it the intel processors? The NVidia graphics cards? Last time I checked you could build a system with the same components as a mac pro and install linux or windows if you wanted.


Yeah, and last time I checked Dell, HP, Sony among others didn't manufacture computers but they are hardware companies. Apple develops, sells, and supports Macs. They make very little money on software, they count on you buying a Mac to run their software. You want to run OS X, iLife, iWork, Logic Studio, Final Cut Studio, Shake, or Aperature you must buy a Mac.

Last I checked there was some element of Mac motherboards that the OS checked when installing so you cannot install OS X on a PC. It however has been accomplished with OSx86.


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> Where are you getting this from?
> 
> Peace...


what do u mean? its common knowledge that mac is looking into windows basing

"Apple's move to Intel processors, the gulf that has separated Mac and PC users for decades has finally closed, with the Mac now a compelling choice whether you want to run Mac OS X, or Windows  or both"

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22907425-8362,00


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

ferrija1 said:


> Apple is a hardware company. They make their money off of hardware. Apple TV, Airport Extreme, Mac Pro, MacBook, iMac, iPod, iPhone. All hardware. OS X is the selling point of Macs but Apple is a hardware company, nonetheless.


VERY true...from having read apples marketting proposal i know that for the last 5 yrs the IPOD has been keepin the company from going under...nothing to do with OSX


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> what do u mean? its common knowledge that mac is looking into windows basing
> 
> "Apple's move to Intel processors, the gulf that has separated Mac and PC users for decades has finally closed, with the Mac now a compelling choice whether you want to run Mac OS X, or Windows - or both"
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22907425-8362,00


That news article link didn't work for me but the capability of Macs to run Windows isn't the same thing as Apple *shipping* Macs with Windows pre-installed or without Mac OS X at all. People who run Windows on their Macs do it themselves and Apple doesn't support doing that. People have been running Linux on their Macs for years yet that doesn't mean Apple is "switching" to Linux or anything like that.

So, if your assertion is Apple is planning on shipping Macs with Windows pre-installed, please post a working link to a source that supports that. 

EDIT: And ferrija1 is right on the money. Apple is a hardware company.

Peace...


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

yeh apple is a hardware company...that was my original point!!!!!!!!!!!!

and no i neva sed mac was shipping with windows...they are tryin to lure windows customers into mac osx by using intel cpus...and the capability to make mac windows based...

"Apple's annoncement of Windows OS running on Apple hardware must result, very quickly, in an Apple marketing strategy to wean people from Windows and move them to the Mac OS. Otherwise, Apple users will find themselves wondering why they pay so much for Mac hardware that just runs Windows. Another inevitable problem is that software developers will stop porting their applications to the Apple operating system. After all, if they can run in a sub-window on the Mac, why bother with the expense?"

http://www.marketingshift.com/2006/4/apples-windows-to-mac-marketing.cfm

point made....


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

ferrija1 said:


> Apple is a hardware company. They make their money off of hardware. Apple TV, Airport Extreme, Mac Pro, MacBook, iMac, iPod, iPhone. All hardware. OS X is the selling point of Macs but Apple is a hardware company, nonetheless.


I just can't argue with that logic.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> People who run Windows on their Macs do it themselves and Apple doesn't support doing that.


While they will never ship a Mac with Windows preinstalled, they do support running Windows on Macs with Boot Camp.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

BlooChoo said:


> and no i neva sed mac was shipping with windows...they are tryin to lure windows customers into mac osx by using intel cpus...and the capability to make mac windows based...
> 
> "Apple's annoncement of Windows OS running on Apple hardware must result, very quickly, in an Apple marketing strategy to wean people from Windows and move them to the Mac OS. Otherwise, Apple users will find themselves wondering why they pay so much for Mac hardware that just runs Windows. Another inevitable problem is that software developers will stop porting their applications to the Apple operating system. After all, if they can run in a sub-window on the Mac, why bother with the expense?"
> 
> ...


Really?



ferrija1 said:


> While they will never ship a Mac with Windows preinstalled, they do support running Windows on Macs with Boot Camp.


Do they?

Well, I found this New York Times article:



> Turning a decades-long rivalry on its head, Apple Computer introduced software today that it says will easily allow users to install Microsoft's Windows XP operating system on Apple's newest computers.
> 
> The software, Boot Camp, is available as a free download on Apple's Web site and will be part of the next version of Apple's operating system, Leopard. It works on Apple's three lines of computer that run on Intel chips  the Mac mini, the iMac and the MacBook Pro.
> 
> ...


I didn't post the full article since it's rather long. Here is the "raw" link in case the link above won't work for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/technology/05cnd-apple.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This doesn't read at all like any kind of "support" of Windows on Macs albeit Apple isn't trying to prevent Windows from running on Macs. Additionally, it doesn't read like Apple is looking to switch from OS X to Windows, as BlooChoo indicated above with the "windows basing" comments.

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

Let me try to reiterate:

As far as PCs go hardware-wise, there is no difference between Windows-based machines built in OEM warehouses or workshops at home, versus Apple computers. (Besides perhaps a DMI#.) The only difference is one category can run OSX and the other cannot.

Therefore, when you buy a computer from Apple, they are selling you OSX. As far as computing goes, which is what this discussion is about, Apple is a software company that also assembles the hardware their software is capable of running on. To say that they're just a hardware company because they build machines puts them in the same industry category as Asus and HP, which I think is nonsense. To say that they're a hardware company implies that they do research and pursue technological advancement in computer hardware, and compete with other hardware companies. Realistically, Apple does neither of these things. (Meaning they don't put as much money into it as a hardware company would.)

Yes, they make hardware accessories like the iPod and Airport. So what? So does Microsoft. That has no relevance in regards to how much more heavily they weigh their participation in the software industry. When Microsoft starts building their own OEMs, will they just suddenly morph into a hardware company exclusively? 

Feh.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> Really?
> 
> Do they?
> 
> ...


I mean they technically support it. The don't support Windows problems/troubleshooting, of course!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> Let me try to reiterate:
> 
> As far as PCs go hardware-wise, there is no difference between Windows-based machines built in OEM warehouses or workshops at home, versus Apple computers. (Besides perhaps a DMI#.) The only difference is one category can run OSX and the other cannot.
> 
> ...


They make money on hardware!

I don't really care to argue about this anymore, since it has nothing to do with Mac vs. PC.


----------



## Doom_Machine (Jun 26, 2005)

the first post that started this thread sounds like SPAM.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Well guess what, it's NOT!


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> As far as PCs go hardware-wise, there is no difference between Windows-based machines built in OEM warehouses or workshops at home, versus Apple computers. (Besides perhaps a DMI#.) The only difference is one category can run OSX and the other cannot.


Some would argue Macs tend to come with higher quality components than a "typical" Windows box that's inexpensive enough to be attractive to people but I don't know enough about modern Mac hardware to comment on this in more detail.



> Therefore, when you buy a computer from Apple, they are selling you OSX.


I disagree. OS X is just part of one product. It's the ease of computing environment coupled with a "complete" computing package (hardware wise) they are selling you. Macs tend to come bundled with just about every peripheral one would want, except a printer, where a lot of that stuff needs to be added on to a given Windows machine purchase.

Oddly enough, I've been arguing Apple *should* sell OS X to non-Mac computer users so they could pick up customers who would normally NOT use a Mac since they think Macs are too expensive, yadda-yadda. I guess Apple figured they could do this by selling Intel-based Macs instead of just OS X to Windows users. 



> As far as computing goes, which is what this discussion is about, Apple is a software company that also assembles the hardware their software is capable of running on. To say that they're just a hardware company because they build machines puts them in the same industry category as Asus and HP, which I think is nonsense.


I would consider Apple to be far closer to HP than to Asus, since Asus doesn't make complete computers (other than "barebones" machines) in the same way Apple and HP do.



> To say that they're a hardware company implies that they do research and pursue technological advancement in computer hardware, and compete with other hardware companies.


Actually, Apple *did* do this when they partnered with Motorola to develop the PowerPC, which Macs were using for years.



> Realistically, Apple does neither of these things. (Meaning they don't put as much money into it as a hardware company would.)


I disagree here since Apple *does* invest in hardware but not necessarily traditional computing hardware (i.e. computers). Apple invested money in the iPod and the iPhone, both of which are hardware devices.



> Yes, they make hardware accessories like the iPod and Airport. So what? So does Microsoft. That has no relevance in regards to how much more heavily they weigh their participation in the software industry. When Microsoft starts building their own OEMs, will they just suddenly morph into a hardware company exclusively?


Microsoft makes the Zune and the XBox and I'm not sure what else. Microsoft has never considered itself to be anything more than a software company and the Zune exists purely to compete with the iPod and the XBox with Playstation and Nintendo. It's like Microsoft gets into hardware to "keep up" with the competition rather than getting into hardware to distance itself from the competition, which is exactly what Apple does.

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Mac uses good parts, but a Seagate drive at 750GB is not worth the $700 Apple sells them for.


----------



## Doom_Machine (Jun 26, 2005)

ferrija1 said:


> Well guess what, it's NOT!


yes it is, it looks exactly like an advertisement


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

You think a TSG member with 63 other good posts would suddenly start spamming? It's a review and WWEFreak likes the product so he tells us that...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> Some would argue Macs tend to come with higher quality components than a "typical" Windows box that's inexpensive enough to be attractive to people but I don't know enough about modern Mac hardware to comment on this in more detail.


Well just to head you off at the pass, there is nothing terribly distinctive about Apple hardware, save for the occasional proprietary laptop mainboard. You pop open a Macbook, you're going to find parts you'd find in any other garden-variety OEM notebook. Hitachi HDD, Infineon RAM, Foxconn USB ports... et cetera.



> I disagree. OS X is just part of one product. It's the ease of computing environment coupled with a "complete" computing package (hardware wise) they are selling you. Macs tend to come bundled with just about every peripheral one would want, except a printer, where a lot of that stuff needs to be added on to a given Windows machine purchase.


You misunderstand. When I say they're "Selling you OSX", I'm talking about the sales pitch itself. Because there is nothing really distinctive hardware-wise about Apple's Macs, the only difference between a Mac and a PC is the availability of OSX, which is what Apple bases _all_ of its marketing on in regards to the Mac. (Though in all fairness, they did once mention a built-in webcam on the Macbook, a feature which just about every notebook has these days.) That's what I mean when I say they're selling you OSX.

To simplify it down, here's my perspective: As far as I'm concerned, OSX is what makes a computer a Mac. OSX makes a Mac. Sell OSX and you sell a Mac. Get it?



> I would consider Apple to be far closer to HP than to Asus, since Asus doesn't make complete computers (other than "barebones" machines) in the same way Apple and HP do.


Uh... Asus has a pretty broad line of laptops.



> Actually, Apple *did* do this when they partnered with Motorola to develop the PowerPC, which Macs were using for years.


Touche, though the PowerPC and most architectures that follow RISC philosophy are either defunct or don't have any inroads to the current microprocessor market. (At least in regards to consumer-level computing.)



> I disagree here since Apple *does* invest in hardware but not necessarily traditional computing hardware (i.e. computers). Apple invested money in the iPod and the iPhone, both of which are hardware devices.


Duly noted, but I've made it pretty clear that I'm only talking about computing hardware.



> Microsoft makes the Zune and the XBox and I'm not sure what else. Microsoft has never considered itself to be anything more than a software company and the Zune exists purely to compete with the iPod and the XBox with Playstation and Nintendo. It's like Microsoft gets into hardware to "keep up" with the competition rather than getting into hardware to distance itself from the competition, which is exactly what Apple does.
> 
> Peace...


No offense, but I read that as heavy semantics without a lot of factual basis.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

mac hardware   is too expensiveamazing


----------



## BlooChoo (Jun 8, 2007)

i agree....mac is pretentious


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Enjoy.............


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Stoner said:


> Enjoy.............


The truth revealed, by Apple non the less, amazed at Apple's sudden honesty!


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> Well just to head you off at the pass, there is nothing terribly distinctive about Apple hardware, save for the occasional proprietary laptop mainboard. You pop open a Macbook, you're going to find parts you'd find in any other garden-variety OEM notebook. Hitachi HDD, Infineon RAM, Foxconn USB ports... et cetera.


Fair enough.



> You misunderstand. When I say they're "Selling you OSX", I'm talking about the sales pitch itself. Because there is nothing really distinctive hardware-wise about Apple's Macs, the only difference between a Mac and a PC is the availability of OSX, which is what Apple bases _all_ of its marketing on in regards to the Mac. (Though in all fairness, they did once mention a built-in webcam on the Macbook, a feature which just about every notebook has these days.) That's what I mean when I say they're selling you OSX.


Ok, I see your point but I would replace "OS X" with "experience" since it's the ease of computing experience that OS X provides that Apple advocates. They stress how "easy" Macs are to use and operate and how "easy" and "convenient" it is to find and organize your data. It's true that OS X is what makes this possible but Apple focuses more on the overall computing experience and how OS X contributes to that vs focusing on OS X itself. It's this "computing experience" that I think would have made OS X a great software-only offering for Intel-based PC users. Those running Windows or Linux or whatever on their Intel-architecture based PCs today could switch to OS X without having to buy new hardware (provided their current hardware was supported by OS X) and without having to fork over tons of money. But, when I made that argument in the past, I was told that would be detrimental to Apple since they wouldn't be selling Macs (the hardware) if they only sold OS X. Oh well. 



> To simplify it down, here's my perspective: As far as I'm concerned, OSX is what makes a computer a Mac. OSX makes a Mac. Sell OSX and you sell a Mac. Get it?


I get your point, I simply disagree with it.  Apple has been making Macs with the goal of being easy to use an intuitive for a long time now and *before* OS X. I haven't spent much time with OS 8 or OS 9 so I don't know how they compare to Windows 9x or NT but the "Macs are easy to use" pitch has been around for a long time. That's why I think Apple is selling the "experience" vs the OS.



> Uh... Asus has a pretty broad line of laptops.


That's fine but HP makes desktops, servers, and laptops. Apple hasn't gotten into the server space hardware wise but software wise they have. Obviously Apple makes desktops and laptops and thus I still consider Apple to be closer to HP than to Asus.



> Touche, though the PowerPC and most architectures that follow RISC philosophy are either defunct or don't have any inroads to the current microprocessor market. (At least in regards to consumer-level computing.)


Agreed.



> Duly noted, but I've made it pretty clear that I'm only talking about computing hardware.


Ok. Focusing on traditional computing hardware, I'm sure Apple realized it would be more strategic (in the long run) to switch from PowerPC to an Intel processor and thus won't have to invest any resources on future CPU development as part of their work with Motorola on the PowerPC. I don't think this switch detracts from Apple being considered a hardware company in any way.



> No offense, but I read that as heavy semantics without a lot of factual basis.


Well, it's true that I'm not an insider at Microsoft and am not privileged to any of the internal strategy planning on the Zune or the XBox but if you look at _when_ Microsoft decided to get into those markets it's usually after others have been in that space for a while. Apple didn't introduce the first digital audio file playback device, but Microsoft could have jumped into that market LONG before Apple introduced the iPod but they didn't. It was only after the iPod had gained the momentum it did that Microsoft jumped into the game with the Zune. I would further speculate if the iPod had flopped, Microsoft probably wouldn't have developed the Zune. This is purely speculation on my part, of course. 

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> I get your point, I simply disagree with it.  Apple has been making Macs with the goal of being easy to use an intuitive for a long time now and *before* OS X. I haven't spent much time with OS 8 or OS 9 so I don't know how they compare to Windows 9x or NT but the "Macs are easy to use" pitch has been around for a long time. That's why I think Apple is selling the "experience" vs the OS.


The OS is what provides that experience. All of a user's normal interaction with their computer is executed through the OS. I suppose you could say that plugging in and disconnecting cables and peripherals is part of the experience, but I really don't think so.



> That's fine but HP makes desktops, servers, and laptops. Apple hasn't gotten into the server space hardware wise but software wise they have. Obviously Apple makes desktops and laptops and thus I still consider Apple to be closer to HP than to Asus.


Eh



> Ok. Focusing on traditional computing hardware, I'm sure Apple realized it would be more strategic (in the long run) to switch from PowerPC to an Intel processor and thus won't have to invest any resources on future CPU development as part of their work with Motorola on the PowerPC. I don't think this switch detracts from Apple being considered a hardware company in any way.


See, I do. Because now Apple does not manufacture or develop any of the component parts that go into their Macs, save perhaps the chassis. (And I wouldn't be surprised if they had some Chinese company building those.) Even the mainboards are proprietary Intel models built for Apple.



> Well, it's true that I'm not an insider at Microsoft and am not privileged to any of the internal strategy planning on the Zune or the XBox but if you look at _when_ Microsoft decided to get into those markets it's usually after others have been in that space for a while. Apple didn't introduce the first digital audio file playback device, but Microsoft could have jumped into that market LONG before Apple introduced the iPod but they didn't. It was only after the iPod had gained the momentum it did that Microsoft jumped into the game with the Zune. I would further speculate if the iPod had flopped, Microsoft probably wouldn't have developed the Zune. This is purely speculation on my part, of course.


Microsoft, like many major corporations, has a long track record of keeping their mitts out of industries until it's been shown that they are profitable.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> The OS is what provides that experience. All of a user's normal interaction with their computer is executed through the OS. I suppose you could say that plugging in and disconnecting cables and peripherals is part of the experience, but I really don't think so.


Or having a machine that basically comes with just about everything you could want that "just works" (for the most part) is also considered part of the "experience". I setup a Mac-mini for someone and it had 10/100 Ethernet networking support, 802.11g wireless networking support, and Bluetooth support all built-in and part of the base machine, not to mention DVI and VGA video support, built-in CD/DVD burner, etc. The Mac-mini is a *desktop* machine and was just about as "plug-and-play" as I've experienced in dealing with a desktop machine. That kind of operability contributes to the "Mac experience" in addition to the UI with is part of the OS. We also have to keep in mind Apple has chosen to "bind" Mac OS to its hardware (something I don't agree with) as part of making the "Mac experience" a complete one, including hardware and software (the base OS at least).



> See, I do. Because now Apple does not manufacture or develop any of the component parts that go into their Macs, save perhaps the chassis. (And I wouldn't be surprised if they had some Chinese company building those.) Even the mainboards are proprietary Intel models built for Apple.


Apple has produced Macs far *longer* than the current crop of Intel-based Macs. From your perspective Apple has "suddenly" changed from being a hardware company simply because they switched to Intel mobos/CPUs?



> Microsoft, like many major corporations, has a long track record of keeping their mitts out of industries until it's been shown that they are profitable.


Precisely why I say Microsoft continues to play "catch up" instead of taking the lead in some markets. I guess Apple had far MORE insight into the portable digital music playback market than Microsoft since the iPod has been so well received.

For me, Macs are amazing because of the following: 
Intuitive UI that is easy to use and learn
Great looking and well performing hardware
My main objection to Macs is the cost and a lesser objection is a long-time element of the Mac OS UI (the single window menubar at the top of the screen... thing ).

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> Or having a machine that basically comes with just about everything you could want that "just works" (for the most part) is also considered part of the "experience". I setup a Mac-mini for someone and it had 10/100 Ethernet networking support, 802.11g wireless networking support, and Bluetooth support all built-in and part of the base machine, not to mention DVI and VGA video support, built-in CD/DVD burner, etc. The Mac-mini is a *desktop* machine and was just about as "plug-and-play" as I've experienced in dealing with a desktop machine. That kind of operability contributes to the "Mac experience" in addition to the UI with is part of the OS. We also have to keep in mind Apple has chosen to "bind" Mac OS to its hardware (something I don't agree with) as part of making the "Mac experience" a complete one, including hardware and software (the base OS at least).


So basically what you're saying here is the "unique Mac experience" equates to... a product working as advertised?



> Apple has produced Macs far *longer* than the current crop of Intel-based Macs. From your perspective Apple has "suddenly" changed from being a hardware company simply because they switched to Intel mobos/CPUs?


You make it sound like a radical change in the function of a business is preposterous. Nintendo was a playing card company for over a century before they started making PCBs.

I'm saying the focus of Apples business plan in computing is no longer hardware. It's plain and simple, and the facts back me up.



> Precisely why I say Microsoft continues to play "catch up" instead of taking the lead in some markets. I guess Apple had far MORE insight into the portable digital music playback market than Microsoft since the iPod has been so well received.
> 
> Peace...


I'm sticking by what I said before. When Microsoft let the initial release iPod go unanswered, they were making a rational business decision at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> I'm saying the focus of Apples business plan in computing is no longer hardware. It's plain and simple, and the facts back me up.


Apple TV, MacBook, iMac, iPhone, iPods........sounds like hardware to me.


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

RedHelix said:


> I'm saying the focus of Apples business plan in *computing* is no longer hardware. It's plain and simple, and the facts back me up.


Apple TV, the iPhone and iPods do not fall within that purview.

And I've already talked about the Macbook and iMac (in regards to Apple's involvement -or lack thereof- in the hardware used to build them) and I won't go over it again.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

How has their focus changed? Apple has always been a hardware company.

Those deices are computers, by the way.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> So basically what you're saying here is the "unique Mac experience" equates to... a product working as advertised?


First, I'm not saying the Apple experience is necessarily "unique" but more than the UI on top of its OS. Second, the "product working as advertised" being the end result I guess is a great way of putting it since their products certainly do that and do that well. The iPhone has had problems as had the iPod Touch. It's not about perfection, it's certainly about delivering the goods AND in a manner that's in-line with their target audience. I think overall Apple has produced some great products that have worked _very_ well. The main obstacle for Apple, as I see it, is the sheer cost of their products.



> You make it sound like a radical change in the function of a business is preposterous. Nintendo was a playing card company for over a century before they started making PCBs.


Well, I certainly don't consider a radical change in the function of a business as being preposterous. It's that I don't consider the switch to Intel architecture as being a "radical change".



> I'm saying the focus of Apples business plan in computing is no longer hardware. It's plain and simple, and the facts back me up.


I have yet to see a fact that supports this. You need hardware from Apple to run Mac OS not to mention the other hardware products others have already mentioned. If you could post some actual facts supporting your position, that would be appreciated. 



> I'm sticking by what I said before. When Microsoft let the initial release iPod go unanswered, they were making a rational business decision at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.


Yep, you're right. Hindsight is always 20/20. I'm just saying Apple obviously exercised some *fore*sight and the success of the iPod is proof of that. Considering how Microsoft would love for us to live in an all-Microsoft world, I would imagine they would exercise some foresight of its own. 

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> Well, I certainly don't consider a radical change in the function of a business as being preposterous. It's that I don't consider the switch to Intel architecture as being a "radical change".


....Seriously?



> I have yet to see a fact that supports this. You need hardware from Apple to run Mac OS not to mention the other hardware products others have already mentioned. If you could post some actual facts supporting your position, that would be appreciated.


You're not getting me here. When you say "hardware from Apple" you need to understand that that's a farce. Apple no longer manufactures any of the hardware that goes into their computers. Not the mainboard, not the proc, not the RAM, nothing. They don't even assemble the things. They just etch a DMI# into the BIOS that OSX checks to ensure you're installing it on a 'Mac.' (And even THAT is probably done by Intel.) That's the only role in hardware they play in the desktop and laptop computing market - making sure people can't install OSX on computers they've branded.



> Yep, you're right. Hindsight is always 20/20. I'm just saying Apple obviously exercised some *fore*sight and the success of the iPod is proof of that. Considering how Microsoft would love for us to live in an all-Microsoft world, I would imagine they would exercise some foresight of its own.
> 
> Peace...


It's not that simple when you're a multinational corporation with an army of rabid shareholders, but ok


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> ....Seriously?


Absolutely! Being a closed architecture for such a long time, it's clear to me Apple intended a Mac to be a "black box" of sorts. They provide "everything" you would need to have a computer that was easy to use and worked well. Switching the underlying architecture from Motorola 68k to PowerPC didn't change that "black box" concept except Apple opened the box a little, but incorporating a PCI bus to allow for use of more "off the shelf" parts instead of Apple-only parts. I consider the change from PowerPC to Intel to be similar. Apple still provides it's "complete" package for those wanting to buy it.



> You're not getting me here. When you say "hardware from Apple" you need to understand that that's a farce. Apple no longer manufactures any of the hardware that goes into their computers. Not the mainboard, not the proc, not the RAM, nothing. They don't even assemble the things. They just etch a DMI# into the BIOS that OSX checks to ensure you're installing it on a 'Mac.' (And even THAT is probably done by Intel.) That's the only role in hardware they play in the desktop and laptop computing market - making sure people can't install OSX on computers they've branded.


I get you, again I just don't agree with you.  Even though this discussion is focusing on traditional Apple computers, the statement of Apple being a "hardware company" applies to far more than their traditional computers. Now, with regard to what Apple *actually* manufactures or assembles when talking about traditional computers I think the actual specifics of what Apple does or does not make is really irrelevant. Why? Because of the "black box" idea I mentioned above. When someone wants to buy a Mac, they aren't considering what parts Apple made or what parts Apple didn't make. If someone wants to run OS X, they are *required* to run it on Mac hardware and that's a fact. I'm not sure what Apple sells, other than music through iTunes, that isn't related to or requiring their hardware in some form.

Lastly, my biggest disagreement with you revolves around my not considering the change to Intel as being a change that "suddenly" changes their status as being a hardware company. The change to Intel is certainly considerable but doesn't change the image of Macs since they still function as they did when based on PowerPC or Motorola 68k architectures.



> It's not that simple when you're a multinational corporation with an army of rabid shareholders, but ok


I certainly understand that and don't dispute that BUT two things:
This doesn't change my assertion Microsoft plays "catch up"
IBM is also a multinational corporation and they dropped the ball with OS/2 back when Windows NT was just coming over the horizon.
I don't think Microsoft would have folded if they had taken Apple's initiative with portable digital music devices without knowing how it would or would not have been accepted by the marketplace but that's part of the cost of being a leader in the marketplace.

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> How has their focus changed?


This is a question I would also like answered. How has the change to Intel architecture changed the *focus of Apple*, at least with regard to traditional computers (Macs)? How has switching to an Intel architecture changed the focus of what Apple sees as what a Mac is or what it does?

Peace...


----------



## RedHelix (Oct 31, 2005)

tomdkat said:


> Absolutely! Being a closed architecture for such a long time, it's clear to me Apple intended a Mac to be a "black box" of sorts. They provide "everything" you would need to have a computer that was easy to use and worked well. Switching the underlying architecture from Motorola 68k to PowerPC didn't change that "black box" concept except Apple opened the box a little, but incorporating a PCI bus to allow for use of more "off the shelf" parts instead of Apple-only parts. I consider the change from PowerPC to Intel to be similar. Apple still provides it's "complete" package for those wanting to buy it.


Switching from PowerPC to Intel is like switching from a proprietary engine that runs Apple's fuel to a standardized engine everyone can use with common gasoline. Intel commercials used to not Apply to Mac users; now they do. Mac users have become one step closer to the world of standardized computing with the switch to Intel procs. That's huge.



> I get you, again I just don't agree with you.  Even though this discussion is focusing on traditional Apple computers, the statement of Apple being a "hardware company" applies to far more than their traditional computers. Now, with regard to what Apple *actually* manufactures or assembles when talking about traditional computers I think the actual specifics of what Apple does or does not make is really irrelevant. Why? Because of the "black box" idea I mentioned above. When someone wants to buy a Mac, they aren't considering what parts Apple made or what parts Apple didn't make. If someone wants to run OS X, they are *required* to run it on Mac hardware and that's a fact. I'm not sure what Apple sells, other than music through iTunes, that isn't related to or requiring their hardware in some form.


Consumer perspective is what's irrelevant. When it comes to the desktop and laptop hardware market, I say Apple is not a player. If all you do is slap your brand on a product, you're not a participant of that industry. For example, Best Buy has their own Dynex brand of power supplies, but they're a rebrand of some Korean company. Does that add "Power supply manufacturer" to Best Buy's resume? Not from where I sit.

If you disagree with that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



> Lastly, my biggest disagreement with you revolves around my not considering the change to Intel as being a change that "suddenly" changes their status as being a hardware company. The change to Intel is certainly considerable but doesn't change the image of Macs since they still function as they did when based on PowerPC or Motorola 68k architectures.


Dude, switching to Intel architecture was a massive change... even from the consumer perspective. I can't begin to even argue with that.



> I certainly understand that and don't dispute that BUT two things:
> This doesn't change my assertion Microsoft plays "catch up"
> IBM is also a multinational corporation and they dropped the ball with OS/2 back when Windows NT was just coming over the horizon.
> I don't think Microsoft would have folded if they had taken Apple's initiative with portable digital music devices without knowing how it would or would not have been accepted by the marketplace but that's part of the cost of being a leader in the marketplace.
> ...


I don't see how that's something that could be held against them.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RedHelix said:


> Switching from PowerPC to Intel is like switching from a proprietary engine that runs Apple's fuel to a standardized engine everyone can use with common gasoline. Intel commercials used to not Apply to Mac users; now they do. Mac users have become one step closer to the world of standardized computing with the switch to Intel procs. That's huge.


The thing is, this switch still doesn't change the function of the Mac. It still looks, feels, tastes, smells, and behaves like a Mac regardless of the underpinnings. I guess it's all about the perspective being used. From a techie standpoint, this change is monumentous given the competitiveness between Microsoft and Apple. From the standpoint of someone buying their first Mac, as long as it does what they want it to do, they could care less about what's inside.



> Consumer perspective is what's irrelevant. When it comes to the desktop and laptop hardware market, I say Apple is not a player. If all you do is slap your brand on a product, you're not a participant of that industry. For example, Best Buy has their own Dynex brand of power supplies, but they're a rebrand of some Korean company. Does that add "Power supply manufacturer" to Best Buy's resume? Not from where I sit.
> 
> If you disagree with that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


The only reason Best Buy wouldn't be considered a "power supply manufacturer" in your example is thee fact that Best Buy has already established itself as a retailer of electronics and other goods. Apple has always been considered a computer company and one that produced the hardware on which its software runs. When it comes to the traditional computing hardware market, I say Apple most definitely is a player since the Macs they *have* produced are still around and until you can provide evidence Apple isn't simply "rebranding" some machines built by someone else, I will believe Apple is still involved with the production of the new Intel-based machines, regardless of that being assembly only or possibly more.

More importantly, we can't lose sight of the fact that the scope of the statement "Apple is a hardware company" applies to more than traditional computers.



> Dude, switching to Intel architecture was a massive change... even from the consumer perspective. I can't begin to even argue with that.


The switch to Intel is a "behind the scenes" change that doesn't impact the function of the machine, as a Mac. Sure, it might run faster but PowerPC-based Macs run faster with each new machine that came out. The Intel-based Mac-minis still look like the PowerPC-based ones, they still run Mac OS X, and Apple boasts about how fast the Intel CPUs are in the same manner that they boasted how fast their PowerPC CPUs were. Other than there being an Intel processor inside, there's not much else different in a PowerPC Mac and an Intel-based Mac. Again, people buying a Mac are buying the "package" and the "package" continues to function the same as it always has.



> I don't see how that's something that could be held against them.


Well, I would like to see a company like Microsoft take more of the initiative than to sit back and wait for someone else to come up with the idea and then try to assimilate it and pawn it off as their own. But, that's just me. 

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The Intel switch isn't just a small or behind-the-scenes change, It allows virtualization and natively running Windows on a Mac, which Apple wants people to know.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

The possibility of running Windows apps on Mac OS has _always_ been possible through SoftPC and other iterations of that kind of software in the past. The ability to run Windows "on top of" OS X will be nice for some but I don't see the typical Mac user doing this.

The ability to run Windows natively on a Mac has been argued as part of Apple's strategy to get people to migrate to the Mac platform, presumably with the idea that people will eventually switch over to Mac OS X vs staying with Windows "forever". However, my point remains the internal architecture of a Mac is just that, internal, not something people will be exposed to through the UI or typical/average/usual operation of the Mac. If you place two Mac-minis together, one PowerPC-based and the other Intel-based, Tiger would run the same on either of them (barring anamolies) thereby preserving that part of the Mac "experience" I keep referring to.

Peace...


----------



## Funkeh (Jan 5, 2008)

Just thought I'd join in on this debate over macs and pcs, I have both a mac and a pc, and in my family we're always arguing over which is better, and I'm always on the pc side, but actually I feel I should be defending macs a bit here.
I'd say that they are both better in there own ways really, but the truth is, macs are more reliable in general because we've not had one single problem with our mac in the whole time we've had it, but my pc is constantly crashing and breaking which is always to do with the numerous viruses that end up on it. The mac starts up faster than the pc, but to be honest I'd rather stick with my pc, because although the mac is faster and more reliable, I love my games and I can use a pc easily and be able to fix most problems with it, but the mac is just slightly to confusing. The mac isn't just something to look good, it is actually a really good computer, but pcs are amazing too because of all the things they can do, but the problem is all the constant errors and problems they seem to get...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Something happened today when I was burning CDs on my Windows machine, I just had to get a screenshot of it.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

And the ferrija1 I bet you had to also reboot your PC.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

hewee said:


> And the ferrija1 I bet you had to also reboot your PC.


No, it actually didn't. I took a screenshot and clicked "Close," the everything flashed and it was fine (although all of my windows closed).


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well guess that is not too bad. I know at times I can be at a site and after the flash plays things are buggy till I close firefox and even sometimes I have had to reboot to clear what every. Sun Java used to do the same thing. I think befor sun java 1.4 it would be really bad and you got no control over the sun java from loading at a site but it woyld do the same and worse and crash the computer with so many errors, tell me I have to format my computer, reinstall windows and you name it but a reboot always cleared things. Then after sun java 1.4 cam out I never had that trouble from sun java. I don't know either because I never installed it on this drive.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Java is such a mess, although it's required for so much.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

I know Java is needed for some things. Don't do the forum chats so not needed. I do miss being able to do speed test that use java. They even say the java speed test are better and the higher your speed the better they are over flash.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/toolquestion/Flash_Speed_Test



> What is the maximum speed this test will correctly report? (#14826)
> 
> The maximum speed the flash test will correctly report varies according to your PC performance. Flash is not as efficient as Java for very high speed connections, so if your connection speed is going to be above 20mbit, then you should also try the Java-based speed tester to verify that you are fully exercising your connection during the test. We have had reports from users on 100mbit connections and moderately powerful PCs that they cannot get more than 25 mbit reported by flash (any flash-based speed test, not just ours), but they can get 80 or 90 mbit reported by the Java test.


No where close to the 20mbit so not really worried about flash test. 
But there are some other great java speed test that also let you lots and lots of other info.

Like this here http://miranda.ctd.anl.gov:7123/ that is rgonne web100 based Network Diagnostic Tool and you find more site on the page you can test from.

If I could make it so no many what the Sun Java could be install but will not run at all unless I wanted it to then I would install it. But I have not found a way to keep it from running if I go to a site that something that wants to run the java. 
I can control flash from loading so if there is something like that for sun java then that would great. There is nothing worse then going to a site that uses sun java and that site has bad java code that screws things up from having to close down your Browser to rebooting to clear things.


----------



## guitar (Jan 15, 2006)

non java speed test

http://www.speedtest.net/


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

I have lots and lots of speed test sites bookmarks and have many at http://www.speedtest.net/
I like that site but also hate the way it loads and you got to wait before you can click on the site you want to test from and as they keep adding more it gets slower.

But I use Firefox with noscript and I think all site have worked where at some of these Flash and even non flash like from http://www.speedguide.net/speedtest/ you click to run a test and think your going to get it but you can't because the server they use wants java script rights.


----------

