Why do people buy "Apple" computers?

[chizow]

I always thought Apples were for the artsy fartsy crowd.

Chiz

 

[Coherence]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
Everyone claims that Mac's OS is so easy, but those people were obviously taught how to use them. If they're so easy, then why don't I know a single person over 60 that owns one. These people didn't grow up with anything, they were brought into the computer revolution later in life. They gravitated towards what they could understand. I almost hesitate to say this because it seems bad, but I cannot honestly understand how Macs work at all. They confuse the hell out of me.

Visit your local MUG (Mac Users Group) meetings, I think you'll be amazed at how many people over 60 have Macs. When I went to a meeting here in Las Vegas, I'd say over half the attendees were seniors.

Anyway, PC people say Macs are slow, Mac people say PCs are slow, it's all in how you use your system. Macs do some things better, PCs do other things better. It's all a big "my dad can beat up your dad" immature pissing match. Get over it, people. Both platforms are good.

RISC-based systems don't need to run at 2.5Ghz to get a job done. Stop comparing Ghz until you understand the difference between RISC and CISC. It's similar to the AMD vs. Intel argument, how a 2400+ runs as good or better than a P4 2.4Ghz, even though it's actual Ghz is lower. It's all about different architectures.

Apple computers cost more than PCs because most options are built-in. Ethernet, Firewire, USB 2.0, DVD burning, monitors (on the iMac/eMac). On a Wintel platform, you'll generally pay as much or more for a similarly-equipped system, and still won't have the stability of a Mac.

Don't like one-button mice? Get a 2-button mouse, then. 'Nuff said. (Macs have built-in support for them.) From what I know, holding down the one button for a couple seconds brings up any right-click menu you'd see with a two-button mouse. Or press the command key when you click, I think that does the same thing. See, there are solutions to everything.

What do I use? I have a P3 733Mhz, which I will be replacing with a P4 or AthlonXP in the next couple months. Would I ever get a Mac? Sure, I may switch back one day (my first computer was a Mac Plus). But, since I'm a gamer at heart, I'll stick with Winblows. If I decide to start doing some multimedia work, I'll go back to Mac.

 

[Novgrod]

i'm typing this from a computer i built that's right next to an imac, so you know my preference ahead of time.

that said, both my sisters have/like their imacs because they're convenient, and both of them were using pcs before they were using macs.

my grandparents need a new computer and the most advanced thing they'd do with it is photo crap, so i wouldn't hesitate to recommend an imac to them.

anyway, that's who uses macs. and then there are just weird people who've drunk the kool-aid, and i don't get them but oh well

 

[Pauli]

Apple computers cost more than PCs because most options are built-in. Ethernet, Firewire, USB 2.0, DVD burning, monitors (on the iMac/eMac). On a Wintel platform, you'll generally pay as much or more for a similarly-equipped system, and still won't have the stability of a Mac.

"..as much or more..."? This statement is absurd.

Another thing about the "easy to use" Mac. Back in the late-eighties, a friend had a Mac and I placed a floppy disk in it's drive. I did what I needed to do, and tried to figure out how to get my floppy out. I tried everything "intuitive" to try and get it to eject the floppy to no avail. Then I was told that I need to drag it to the TrashCan icon to eject it. What!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Yeah, right, that'll erase the disk, I loudly proclaimed. But, I tried it and it ejected the disk. Simply stupid. There is just something inherently wrong with a filesystem user interface if that is what you have to do to eject a floppy. I haven't bothered to ask anyone in the modern computing era if Macs still have this idiotic functionality. Does anyone know if this is still the case?

 

[naddicott]

In OS X the trash icon turns into an eject icon as soon as you start dragging any removable media. Of course you can always right click on the removable media (control-click if you insist on using the 1 button) and choose eject from the contextual menu. Or just hit Cmd-E. Or select 'eject' from the menu up top while the disk is selected.

 

[Viper96720]

I wonder how much people that like the apple comps for video editing and such. Think the pc isn't as good because they never used one. A comparably priced pc may do it faster. But the user putting in the info knows the mac so well it negates the faster pc.

 

[Superman9534]

Their OS is a UNIX, like Solaris on Sun, and like Linux on the PC. Unix is a CPU independent OS written in a higher level language (C), Therefore you should be able to run Unix programs on the MAC, unless they have rigged their OS not to. Their GUI should be an application that runs on Unix, just like KDE runs on Linux. If you are following this, then the MAC OS can be made to run on PCs, just like Linux will run on PCs, and programs for the MAC OS would run on a PC. Unfortunately Apple would run into the same problem Linux has. You need driver support from the individual hardware manufacturers.

this is true and not true. I have a PowerMac tower, and love it. But the point still holds that its too expensive, and its too slow (733mhz). But OS X owns. All linux programs can be compiled to run on OS X, but you first have to install Xfree86 and a window manager (you can even get KDE and Gnome). Its not very hard, I"ve done it. But like you said that Mac OS X could be compiled to run on PCs, is a lot more complicated. The "unix" part of Mac OS X called darwin is already available free for x86 on apple's website. But its the other parts (quartz, the 2D graphics layer) and carbon and the hardest. Carbon is a set of APIs to allow programmers to port their OS 9 apps to OS X faster. Because of this, its PPC based and can't be moved (although emulated maybe, who knows how well). And Quartz is also PPC dependent.



Now hopefully next year Apple may be using IBMs new 64bit PPC processor which uses a 900mhz DDR bus (450mhz true) and runs at over 2ghz....lets hope.

 

[Eug]

I find the Mac displays and the Mac towers overpriced. I won't buy their towers, and just bought a Samsung 172T LCD screen, which I think is better than the Apple one, for less money.

However, I find the Mac laptops are the best of the field hands down. I currently own both an iBook and a G4 Titanium.

I have a 5.4 lb laptop with 15" widescreen, slot load DVD burner, Radeon 9000, DVI video output, Gigabit Ethernet, POWERED Firewire, built-in wireless, less than 1" thick, 60 GB drive, etc, for less than US$3000. I can't seem to find any Windows laptop similarly configured with the same low weight for that price.

My boss went looking and it seems the best comparable machine was probably in the $3700 range, IBM T30. Smaller screen and no DVD burner, but it has BlueTooth and a faster CPU. But I still think the G4 Titanium is way better.

As for ease of use: I find a Mac is easier to configure. Once configured, both a Mac and a PC can be relatively easy to use, depending on the software. Mac OS X is my favourite desktop OS and I love the iTunes MP3 software. OTOH, I personally hate oversimplified software like Apple's iMovie and iPhoto. Overall, I still think OS X has the edge over XP though. I build my own PCs, and my homebrew overclocked Windows XP box works well. However, I find it takes more work to get it working to the way I want it to. With homebrew PCs I fight more with hardware incompatibilities and driver issues, which isn't surprising. It's hard to make everything from a zillion different companies work well together whereas Apple has the advantage of being able to limit the hardware choices, but they generally cost more when speaking about the towers. However, with the laptops, if you pay attention to the details and the software packages, and the overall fit and finish, I think the Apple laptops are actually very competitive, and best their competition easily even considering the price.

By the way, can somebody help out here? I'm looking for a Windows laptop with a built-in optical drive, built-in wireless antennae, and 5.5 lbs or less (preferably less than 5). CPU speed secondary. My boss is leaning towards a Windows machine so I said I would look for one for her, but interestingly without any coaxing from me, she came back from the store thinking she might want a G4 Titanium. (She has NEVER seen my TiBook, and in fact I've never even talked to her about it. What's even stranger is the fact that she has never even used a Mac with OS X.) Here is my thread.

 

[Pauli]

Originally posted by: naddicott
In OS X the trash icon turns into an eject icon as soon as you start dragging any removable media. Of course you can always right click on the removable media (control-click if you insist on using the 1 button) and choose eject from the contextual menu. Or just hit Cmd-E. Or select 'eject' from the menu up top while the disk is selected.

I'm glad they wised up and put Eject in the context menu. It wasn't available in those days. Still, you have to wonder about a desktop computing paradigm that associates putting removable media in a trashcan to eject it (even it does "turn into an eject icon" when you drag over it -- still not intuitive). Really, is the concept of a hierarchical filesystem (subdirectories and files) so complicated and unintuitive that you need a whole new paradigm to make them understandable? I guess the quasi-installable file system that MacOS implements is elegant, but you still need to have the concept of folders and documents, so the novice user really isn't gaining much intuitively compared to the Windows environment. In my mind, it's almost a wash. Now that I think of it, MacOS had a huge usability advantage when it was competing with DOS and Windows 3.1, but that hasn't been a concern in almost 10 years. The only real advantage that the Mac has over PC these days is the fact that there is less of a driver and hardware conflict issue. I don't know if that is really such an advantage anymore with Win2000 and WinXP. I rarely have any problems with these systems anymore.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Im not typing this on my Mac, but I am using a MAC at the moment. ;roll:

Why I bought a Mac:
1. OS X is just cool.
2. I am a network guy.
3. I am a Unix guy.
4. I cannot find a major notebook manufacturer that sells a laptop with any version of SSH installed by default (a necessity for Unix).
5. I cannot find a majot notebook manufacturer that sells a laptop with any networking utilities that are used on a daily basis (ie tcpdump).
6. Software choice: I can run Unix applications, I can run Mac OS X applications, I can run Mac OS applications...
7. CPU: I think the PPC spec is much better designed than ia32/x86. It scales from uniprocessor machines up to major SMP machines.
8. Standards: PPC is a standard (an open one too I believe), OpenFirmware is a standard (and fairly open at that), hard drives are standard, ram is standard, etc.
9. While companies like Intel produce technologies that flop or are not as good as they should be (ignore the promises, thats just marketing) (ie. itanic), Apple, along with its partners (IBM specifically) keep producing awesome technologies. PPC970 looks very promising. We could see 64bit Apple machines before we see 64bit ia64/x86-64 machines, but not by a whole lot.
12. Battery life: I get around 3 hours with my iBook.
11. I am elite and I need a machine that reflects that.

Cons:
1. Software selection: People insist on using horrible/closed standards and are stuck with certain products.
2. Software APIs need work from what I hear.
3. Compiler optimization (AltiVec stuff) needs a lot of work.
4. Price: iBooks are decent now though.
5. Slow: OS X v10.1.5 was still slow, havent tried 10.2 but I hear its great!
6: Open Standards: Some people do not like them, go figure.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Pauli

Originally posted by: naddicott
In OS X the trash icon turns into an eject icon as soon as you start dragging any removable media. Of course you can always right click on the removable media (control-click if you insist on using the 1 button) and choose eject from the contextual menu. Or just hit Cmd-E. Or select 'eject' from the menu up top while the disk is selected.

I'm glad they wised up and put Eject in the context menu. It wasn't available in those days. Still, you have to wonder about a desktop computing paradigm that associates putting removable media in a trashcan to eject it (even it does "turn into an eject icon" when you drag over it -- still not intuitive). Really, is the concept of a hierarchical filesystem (subdirectories and files) so complicated and unintuitive that you need a whole new paradigm to make them understandable? I guess the quasi-installable file system that MacOS implements is elegant, but you still need to have the concept of folders and documents, so the novice user really isn't gaining much intuitively compared to the Windows environment. In my mind, it's almost a wash. Now that I think of it, MacOS had a huge usability advantage when it was competing with DOS and Windows 3.1, but that hasn't been a concern in almost 10 years. The only real advantage that the Mac has over PC these days is the fact that there is less of a driver and hardware conflict issue. I don't know if that is really such an advantage anymore with Win2000 and WinXP. I rarely have any problems with these systems anymore.

Quite frankly I agree that Mac OS 9 is suck. I would have never bought a Mac if it was still running OS 9 primarily. OS X.2 rules though. OS X.1 was slow, even with its G4 Altivec-optimization, but with OS X.2 and OpenGL acceleration of the OS (yes you read that right), it flies. (I may be biased though since I'm running a 1 GHz G4 with Radeon 9000 on my laptop - definitely makes for a good OS X.2 experience. )

One thing though, if you have a fast PII or a slow PIII, you can get away with running WinXP with all the eye candy turned off. I just built such a machine, using a lowly PII 350.

If you try using a G3 350 with OS X.2, it's like ripping your hair out. The OS is so graphics intensive that it will bring a slow CPU to its knees. It flies with OS 9, but like I said, I hate OS 9.

 

[Pauli]

I haven't yet tried OS X, but I haven't heard anyone badmouth it, so it probably is great. I'm happy with Win2K, though.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Eug
...but like I said, I hate OS 9.

I've generally heard - and from the limited experience I have with it the things I've heard seem correct - that OS 9 and previous have bad memory management, among other things. That seems to cause it to crash a lot, and not multitask well. At least that's my experience; maybe the Macs I used were just not set up right.

Now, OS X, OTOH, seems very stable and pretty good overall, although I don't have one at home, so I haven't been able to hammer it daily for three weeks or more to find out it's long-term stability.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Pauli
I haven't yet tried OS X, but I haven't heard anyone badmouth it, so it probably is great. I'm happy with Win2K, though.

I badmouthed it plenty, but I finally got wise and just shut up and was happy with WinXP. But then, while I agree that the memory management of OS 9 was weak, there are things I still like about it better than OS X or Windows. I still run it on one of my boxes instead of OS X.

 

[everman]

mac = you get less for your money. Less apps, less games, less power and options.
For a pc (by pc I mean using an x86 cpu) you can choose which chipset you want to use, the cpu and those can be customized a lot more than a mac. I don't have anything against the mac just because it's a mac, it's just that a pc seems like a much better overall value to me for a personal use machine.

 

[mskalak]

Video editing. On a crappy old Mac at my highschool with a crappy program, the editing was a lot easier and faster than what I run right now, a much faster better computer. The editing on a Mac was done in real time, while what I've done on a PC has had to render for a long time before it's useful.

I like PC's, if the world was perfect, I'd have a PC and an IMac.

 

[everman]

You can do real-time video editing on a pc just fine, it always benefits from more power. Over a gig of ram, at least 2 HDs in a raid0 array and a very fast cpu and you're in business.

 

[Eug]

You can do real-time video editing on a pc just fine, it always benefits from more power. Over a gig of ram, at least 2 HDs in a raid0 array and a very fast cpu and you're in business.

? I thought real-time effects requires an add-in board? Just wondering, because on a G4 you that stuff is handled by the CPU with Final Cut Pro (which I don't use).

if the world was perfect, I'd have a PC and an IMac

Heh. I've got a dual monitor Win 2000 Athlon 1 GHz, Win XP Celeron 533@800, Win NT 4 P4 1.6 GHz, Win XP PII 350, dual monitor PowerBook G4 1 GHz, and an iBook 600 (about to be sold), in various places at home and at work. (And the funny thing is I'm not even a computer techie. )

Actually the Celeron was supposed to be dual monitor, but I had way too many problems first with an Asus Geforce 4 MX 440 and then with an ATI 7500 (even after a reformat) so finally I just gave up and went mono. The PowerBook is sweet, running dual screens, with the external off DVI.

OS 9 and previous have bad memory management, among other things. That seems to cause it to crash a lot, and not multitask well. At least that's my experience; maybe the Macs I used were just not set up right.

Yeah, the times I've used OS 9 it was less stable than my tweaked Win 98 box. OS X.2 OTOH is more stable than my tweaked Win XP box. And that's saying a lot since my Win XP box is quite stable. I go weeks without a reboot on XP. With OS X I don't even need to shut down on the laptops. I close the lid, and the machine automatically goes to sleep. When I open it again, it comes back alive right where I left it. I go for several weeks like this, using various software including DVD authoring and CD/DVD burning software, and Photoshop, etc. I don't know anything about how Unix works, but given how well it runs on my Mac machines, I think it rulez.

 

[hdeck]

hmm...why do people buy "apple" computers...

-grew up using them
-prefer a unix-based OS
-can do a good amount of video/audio editing without buying a bunch of other programs/hardware
-more stable
-more user friendly (in most cases)

and i'm too tired to think of anything else (besides restating what others said even more than i already have). i've used PCs all my life but if i had the extra cash to spend, i'd buy a powerbook in a heartbeat.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Eug

You can do real-time video editing on a pc just fine, it always benefits from more power. Over a gig of ram, at least 2 HDs in a raid0 array and a very fast cpu and you're in business.

? I thought real-time effects requires an add-in board? Just wondering, because on a G4 you that stuff is handled by the CPU with Final Cut Pro (which I don't use).

Heh. Tell that to the guy from SonicFoundry who showed me his copy of VegasVideo running on his Sony VAIO doing real-time transitions. Sure it still had to render the finished file out, but the transitions during editing were played back real-time without the add-on boards like for FCP.

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
A bunch of little things make the difference. For instance, how do you type a ® (Registerd trademark) character?

On the Mac: Option-R
On the PC: Alt-0174

Which is easier to remember? That's one little detail out of thousands.

Given that, I used to be a Mac user since their introduction but now with the introductions of both Windows XP and Mac OS X I've been happy to switch to Windows. Mac OS X is still significantly rough around the edges in useability features that were part of the old Mac OS that weren't included OS X. I don't have a personal need for a unix desktop. And overall cost of ownership, considering the price of system upgrades on top of the price of the computer, makes Macs overbearingly expensive. And I like to play games.

Just a little heads up, Alt-2222 gives you the ® as well.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: kgraeme

Originally posted by: Eug

You can do real-time video editing on a pc just fine, it always benefits from more power. Over a gig of ram, at least 2 HDs in a raid0 array and a very fast cpu and you're in business.

? I thought real-time effects requires an add-in board? Just wondering, because on a G4 you that stuff is handled by the CPU with Final Cut Pro (which I don't use).

Heh. Tell that to the guy from SonicFoundry who showed me his copy of VegasVideo running on his Sony VAIO doing real-time transitions. Sure it still had to render the finished file out, but the transitions during editing were played back real-time without the add-on boards like for FCP.

FCP doesn't need add-on boards for real-time effects on a G4. (See here.) Anyways, I was just asking a question, not making a comment, since I don't use these video editing apps. It turns out that a fast Pentium is all that's needed for real-time with stuff like Premiere, etc.

Vegas Video is interesting though. It seems to be an unknown entity, since Adobe Premiere is so dominant on the PC side, but it does seem to be gaining ground. However, it seems that the market is still FCP and Premiere.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I wonder how much people that like the apple comps for video editing and such. Think the pc isn't as good because they never used one. A comparably priced pc may do it faster. But the user putting in the info knows the mac so well it negates the faster pc.

I've used both, I've owned both. Give me a Mac any day. Both for software selection and overall system performance. I take that back. I wouldn't mind havig an Avid DS system... but then again I don't have $120,000+ to buy one. As long as my budget is less than $120,000 I'll stay w/my Mac for editing.

Heh. Tell that to the guy from SonicFoundry who showed me his copy of VegasVideo running on his Sony VAIO doing real-time transitions. Sure it still had to render the finished file out, but the transitions during editing were played back real-time without the add-on boards like for FCP

You don't need an aditional board to have RT in FCP 3.


I'm posting this from my PC which is right next to my make. Obviously you can see my preference. I play on my PC and work on my Mac.


Lethal

 

[Sxotty]

I am sorry anyone who thinks windowsXP is harder to use than a mac is retarded. (if they have never been exposer to either)

Windows did copy mac, but the lawsuit has been settled a long time.

Macs are simply absurd right now, if they use AMD chips then I will respect them again (or Intel, or anything that isn't pathetically slow).

Macs performance/price ratio is pathetic, there might be one in a hundred things that the top of the line mac does faster than the top of the line PC

Macs were pretty spiffy and produced a lot of innovations, that is why people are still using them, brand loyalty. The macs haven't done them wrong yet afterall.

Prettiness is not an innovation to me I am sorry, it is an application of a previously known fact.

Dell's are very reliable, I hate them because you cannot always upgrade like you want, but comparing that to non upgradeable macs means there is not problem.

If a person buys a PC with WinXp from a reputable place (not compaq lol) then it really will work fine and not screw up until they decide to install viruses or drop it out of their car or other things like that.

I have an old dell laptop (celeron 700mhz or so) with WinNT that goes months w/o shutting down, it is really no big deal.

 

[gf4200isdabest]

"I am sorry anyone who thinks windowsXP is harder to use than a mac is retarded."

"Macs are simply absurd right now, if they use AMD chips then I will respect them again (or Intel, or anything that isn't pathetically slow)."

"Macs performance/price ratio is pathetic, there might be one in a hundred things that the top of the line mac does faster than the top of the line PC"


These were just terrible points. I would never buy a Mac as my desktop PC, but even I refuse to listen to this crap. WindowsXP is about one billion times as complicated as a Mac. I constantly have to adjust registry files, change things in msconfig, use kill.exe to end crashed programs, restart explorer.exe, etc. WindowsXP is way too complicated for the average person in this country. That's why places like Dell are forced to spend so much on tech support.

Macs are just as fast as PC's. (Yes, i know that the top of the line Northwood would be a tad faster but its also more expensive) The average Mac, however, is just as fast, if not faster than the average PC. We have both Macs and PC's at school. If all i need to do is type up a paper or check the internet, I will use the Mac. They login and start the program quicker than our Dells with WinXP. Also, its ironic that you later whined about brand loyalty when you need to see "AMD" or "Intel" on your computer.

There is no price/performance factor to consider. People who buy Macs, are not gamers. Performance for the average user is how long it takes to log in and open a Word document. As I noted earlier, Macs do it just as fast if not faster. Out of the things that a Mac can do, it does them as fast if not faster than a PC.

Sxotty, you have a lot to learn about computers. Your opinions sound like that of a 12 year old computer geek who thinks its funny to say "Macs suck because they're Macs."

I consider myself to be an expert user. I've had experience with every OS since the old DOS disk days. I know Windows inside out. That said, its easy for me to get the most out of Windows. However, 99% of computer users simply want e-mail, chat, internet, word proccessing, cd burning. These are all things that a Mac can do as well as a PC. Macs are much easier to learn and that by itself is a reason to buy a Mac if you suck with computers and don't want to learn. The only valid complaint against Macs is this: "I'm a power user and it doesn't fit my needs." However, when you say that, consider just how much of an anomaly you are...