Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on December 06, 2009, 02:10:05 pm
-
I'm thinking of going from an HP laptop to an iMac all in one computer
The logic is I will probably be living in an apartment in the near future and an all in one will double as a TV
The iMac appears to be the highest performance all in one
Has any one gone through the process of migrating windows programs to a Mac? Is it expensive or no cost? CS4, DxO, C1 etc? I would like to run most of the programs on the Mac OS and the few CAD programs not available for a Mac on windows.
The other option is to purchase a high end laptop (probably HP) and use an external monitor when at home.
Thanks
Marc
-
It is never late, nor a bad idea, to switch to Mac
I know the above sounds like a fanboy gushing, but it comes from someone who spent twenty plus years on the Windoze before switching.
-
It is never late, nor a bad idea, to switch to Mac
I know the above sounds like a fanboy gushing, but it comes from someone who spent twenty plus years on the Windoze before switching.
Ditto... Same here. Switched 2 years ago and have not regretted the move.
-
Are you using programs under the Mac OS primarily?
Marc
-
Has any one gone through the process of migrating windows programs to a Mac? Is it expensive or no cost? CS4, DxO, C1 etc? I would like to run most of the programs on the Mac OS and the few CAD programs not available for a Mac on windows.
You will have to re-buy all your software.
-
You will have to re-buy all your software.
What about calling Adobe and deactivating/reactivating it when you migrate it? I've heard of that working for Photoshop, not too sure about the others.
-
You will have to re-buy all your software.
Hmm... I will speak from my personal experience and memory... If I remember correctly, I just needed to sign a statement that I will not use my PC version of Photoshop anymore in order to move/upgrade to Mac... I think it is known as a cross-platform upgrade or similar. The worst case is the price of the upgrade, not the price of the full-product. The terms might be different for different software though. On the other hand, with a virtual PC running on my Mac (VMware Fusion), I can run any Windoze-based program as if it is just another open window on my Mac.
-
You will have to re-buy all your software.
So far DxO will allow 2 computers on one license either OS. No answer from adobe yet. C1 DB is free either way if you have a P1 DB. But there are years of accumulated programs and a few windows only programs mostly loudspeaker design stuff like LEAP, Autocad etc. I'll just run them under windows 7 or xp? Might be a good time for some house cleaning anyways. I'm not looking forward to the amount of work this will take or the thought of learning another OS.
Marc
-
Hmm... I will speak from my personal experience and memory... If I remember correctly, I just needed to sign a statement that I will not use my PC version of Photoshop anymore in order to move/upgrade to Mac... I think it is known as a cross-platform upgrade or similar. The worst case is the price of the upgrade, not the price of the full-product. The terms might be different for different software though. On the other hand, with a virtual PC running on my Mac (VMware Fusion), I can run any Windoze-based program as if it is just another open window on my Mac.
So VMware Fusion would be easier than booting up windows with bootcamp?
Marc
-
I switched back to Macs 3 years ago when I saw WinXP running on VMWare Fusion. I was sold as I have to run a few WinXP only programs for my financial planning practice (the career that affords me the luxury of expensive photo gear).
I owned Adobe Photoshop and InDesign for WinXP that Adobe allowed me to destroy and get a Mac version licenses issued. Other programs were purchased as part of the normal upgrade cycle (MacOffice, Adobe Acrobat, etc.)
The result is that I can run WinXP-specific programs (ACT! CRM and IE for IE-only financial web site requiring ActiveX programming) when I need to alongside the Mac OS (now Snow Leopard) for everything else - iWork, iLife, Photoshop, Lightroom, MacOffice, scanning programs.
For my photography, I use Lightroom mostly, followed by Photoshop CS4 and a bunch of plug-ins. I could not be happier now that I'm back to the Mac after a 14 year hiatus.
My tech support issues have all but disappeared and, of course, we all know that Macs are so much more fun and intuitive to use. Unfortunately, when you have to run Mac OS and WinXP side-by-side each day like I do, it becomes very apparent how stupid Windows is when compared to Snow Leopard.
I say go for it. You won't regret it!
Cheers.
Bud
-
So VMware Fusion would be easier than booting up windows with bootcamp?
Marc
Well, I have no personal experience with the bootcamp, but my understanding of it is that it is a stand-alone system, i.e., you need to get out of Mac and boot the machine again into Windoze. Obviously, if you plan of spending the whole day exclusively in Windoze environment, that would be ok... however, with a virtual machine, you can go back and forth Windoze and Mac quickly and as often as you wish just by clicking into their respective windows. I can also effortlessly copy/move files between systems as simply as drag-and-dropping them... a Windows program's icon can reside in Mac's Doc for easy access... I can monitor or use my Mac email program in one window and copy content from an email and paste it into a Windoze program residing in another window on the same screen... virtual machine uses the same Internet connection and the same printer as Mac and usually there is no need for a separate configuration of either one. Say I receive an email with a pdf or Word attachment; if I right-click the attachment, I can then chose to open it in Mac or in Windoze... how cool is that?
-
Well, I have no personal experience with the bootcamp, but my understanding of it is that it is a stand-alone system, i.e., you need to get out of Mac and boot the machine again into Windoze. Obviously, if you plan of spending the whole day exclusively in Windoze environment, that would be ok... however, with a virtual machine, you can go back and forth Windoze and Mac quickly and as often as you wish just by clicking into their respective windows. I can also effortlessly copy/move files between systems as simply as drag-and-dropping them... a Windows program's icon can reside in Mac's Doc for easy access... I can monitor or use my Mac email program in one window and copy content from an email and paste it into a Windoze program residing in another window on the same screen... virtual machine uses the same Internet connection and the same printer as Mac and usually there is no need for a separate configuration of either one. Say I receive an email with a pdf or Word attachment; if I right-click the attachment, I can then chose to open it in Mac or in Windoze... how cool is that?
You're right about BootCamp: your Mac becomes a PC until you reboot it back into a Mac. I gather that there are some few things that run better (video-intensive stuff) than under virtualisation, but I've not had call to use any of them.
Generally, I agree with Slobodan: the level of integration between the Mac and the Windoze side that Fusion accomplishes is very impressive (and I imagine that Parallels is pretty much the same). Running Virtual PC was always a pain, slow and unreliable. Now Macs run on Intel chips, the major problem (emulation) has disappeared. The mode in which the Windoze windows break free of the constraints of the virtualisation application's window (both Fusion and Parallels have it) and roam free on your desktop is almost surreal: this one's a Mac window, in which I run a Mac: that one, a single click away, is a Windoze window, in which I run Windoze.
Jeremy
-
Like the Nike ad I'll just do it!
Marc
-
Personally, I wouldn't bother. I have a Macbook laptop and a collection of Windows boxes and laptops. Mac is "different", but not necessarily "better". The OS is different, the apps are different, and so are the bugs, glitches and stupidities. Yes, Macs have stupid software usability problems, too, just look at the long thread in the color management forum about getting an untagged target image to print properly so you can profile your printer. Apple has totally screwed up there, and made it very difficult to perform a simple, necessary color management task. And Apple still doesn't have an actual maximize button so that you can resize a window to fill the entire screen. With most apps, you have to drag the window and resize it manually. WTF??? Is that supposed to be part of the "superior user experience"???
The only thing Apple has that Windows doesn't is the cadre of zealots who think it's totally awesome to pay a ~30% price premium over equivalent non-Apple hardware just because the case is pretty. If you switch, you'll have to deal with the hassle of switching app versions, learn a different way of interacting with your computer, and deal with a different (but not necessarily smaller) set of bugs and glitches and hassles.
-
... The only thing Apple has that Windows doesn't is the cadre of zealots who think it's totally awesome to pay a ~30% price premium over equivalent non-Apple hardware just because the case is pretty...
And I thought we left this type of argument in... what?... fifth grade?
-
And I thought we left this type of argument in... what?... fifth grade?
I've met plenty of people for whom Apple is more of a religion or cult than a choice of technology, complete with the compulsive need to either convert, insult, or subdue the heretics who use Windows, and a strong superiority complex. I have yet to meet anyone similarly afflicted over Windows. It's not an argument, it's personal experience.
I have a Macbook that I use fairly regularly, which makes me an Apple user the last time I checked, and I've used various other Apple computer products during the course of being employed in the photo lab at the US Capitol and elsewhere. Apple makes a solid line of computers and a pretty decent OS that can get the job done for most tasks. I just don't see the differences in exterior aesthetics, usability, and computing power as being significant enough to justify the price premium and the hassles associated with switching.
-
Personally, I wouldn't bother. I have a Macbook laptop and a collection of Windows boxes and laptops. Mac is "different", but not necessarily "better". The OS is different, the apps are different, and so are the bugs, glitches and stupidities. Yes, Macs have stupid software usability problems, too, just look at the long thread in the color management forum about getting an untagged target image to print properly so you can profile your printer. Apple has totally screwed up there, and made it very difficult to perform a simple, necessary color management task. And Apple still doesn't have an actual maximize button so that you can resize a window to fill the entire screen. With most apps, you have to drag the window and resize it manually. WTF??? Is that supposed to be part of the "superior user experience"???
The only thing Apple has that Windows doesn't is the cadre of zealots who think it's totally awesome to pay a ~30% price premium over equivalent non-Apple hardware just because the case is pretty. If you switch, you'll have to deal with the hassle of switching app versions, learn a different way of interacting with your computer, and deal with a different (but not necessarily smaller) set of bugs and glitches and hassles.
You are right of course which is why my last Mac was a Mac 128k bought in 1984! I decided on an all in one because of the simple clean design and a screen suitable for watching movies/TV in a small apartment. As I looked at the available quad core all in ones, figuring in the upgrade cost of ram (they allow you to purchase 2, 4 gig dimms vs 4, 2 gig dimms), the Mac platform actually was not more expensive, a surprise to me. So I first thought I would just run it as a Windows machine then I figured I can migrate the photo apps to the Mac OS. It looks like the most elegant solution is to run it as a Mac and run windows programs with VMware
Marc
-
And I thought we left this type of argument in... what?... fifth grade?
But it is true, usually an equivalent $2500 Mac laptop will cost $1500 as a windows machine which is why I was surprised that with the imac vs an all in one PC the playing field has been leveled, at least in a higher end quadcore machine with 8 to 16 gigs of ram. And you have to admit Mac fanatics are a higher % of the mac population than Windows fanatics are of the PC population! Bottom line is a computer is a tool, nothing wrong with loving your tools. I also like Jonathan's frankness, probably the Marine in me, right or wrong you know where he stands I like that in a person.
Marc
-
... As I looked at the available quad core all in ones, figuring in the upgrade cost of ram (they allow you to purchase 2, 4 gig dimms vs 4, 2 gig dimms), the Mac platform actually was not more expensive, a surprise to me...
Indeed... When I switched in 2005 I did the same comparison between an iMac and a similarly spec'd Dell and, to my surprise also, the price was practically identical.
-
I always built my own PCs and then a few years ago I decided to buy a 24" IMAC and I used Bootcamp to use Windows, I liked the style of the machine a lot, and I must admit I never gave the MAC os much of a chance since all my CAD software is only ported to Windows, I ended up buying 3 IMACs and for the first time in my life I had a hard drive fail (I always use SCSI) and not just once but on two of the IMACs and Apple has the most ridiculous repair policy under warranty, they keep your hard drive and will "ALLOW" you to authorize them to send it to one of their authorized recovery companies for $2500-$4000 to retrieve your information that you were dumb enough not to backup. Then the 3rd IMAC, the video card died. Naturally IMACs are very difficult if not impossible to upgrade sans the ram. Plus, as with stereo components, if you have a receiver and it dies, so does your tuner, amp, etc. I like building my own computers and upgrading / repairing at will.
October 2009 came and I decided to buy a 15" MBP and I didn't dual boot it because I was going on vacation and didn't want to have Windows 7 as a crutch. I couldn't load my CAD software, but it was a vacation. I have to laugh at those who say Apples are better, they have as many if not more stupid issues as any Windows machine, previewing photos on a MAC? What a joke! Expanding a window on a MAC? What a joke! Launching an application twice with a MAC? What a joke! Software selection for a MAC? What a joke! I love the trackpad and typing experience and I must admit I love how quickly it boots up, shuts down, close the lid, it goes to sleep, open it and 3 seconds later you are working. I like the fact I get 4+ hours battery life watching DVD movies and I've hit close to 6 hours doing the basics, but HP has some units that will triple those times. I have an HP Laptop, but it's an HDX18 and it's heavy. I did take the MBP apart as soon as I bought it and it is easy to upgrade the HD and Memory, except all those little screws are a pain. A non-replaceable battery? Come on, what a joke!
I'm more familiar with Windows and printing a large image with multiple sheets was easy, it's in the Epson 3880 dialog box, I thought it was in Apple's as well, but it didn't work yet.
Once you learn the MAC os, it's a fine machine, but I wont buy another IMAC.
As far as price, come on, get real people, Apples are always more expensive, look at the Sony all in one,
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores...552921666002175 (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666002175)
a little tough comparison because the Sony is a 24" touchscreen (Apples are 21" or 27"), but it's a quadcore, 6GB ram, 1GB video ram, blu-ray, tv tuner, Card reader, remote control, HDMI, put those specs on the Apple (I guess you can't get Blu-Ray) and see how much more, $500.00?
I know my MBP was more than a comparable HP, Lenovo, because I priced them out.
If you are having luck with your Windows machine, why bother? You can always get more bang for the buck, more power and more software with a Windows machine. And if you want, you can build your own!
And one last item, you'd think that Quicken, Turbo Tax, Word, Excel are identical with the MAC versions, they aren't.
OK one final item, for some reason Apple doesn't believe that a numeric keypad is a necessity on a laptop, I would like one!
-
But it is true...
Hey, I never meant this to evolve into another Mac vs PC war.... especially when I apparently have two marines against me But what exactly is true in Jonathan's statement I reacted to? That Mac user are fanatics, or the price premium exists, and I quote: "... just because the case is pretty"!? A comment like that is more like an insult (to intelligence) of people using or switching to Mac, especially on this forum.
-
I've met plenty of people for whom Apple is more of a religion or cult than a choice of technology, complete with the compulsive need to either convert, insult, or subdue the heretics who use Windows, and a strong superiority complex....
Ok... so let's start with "heretics who use Windows"... last time I checked, heretic means "a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." Given that the ratio of PC vs. Mac users is probably 90/10 or 80/20 in PC favor, one can actually consider Mac users heretics (as PC is "generally accepted")
As for "compulsive need to either convert, insult or subdue"... in which category would you classify calling Mac users "religious cadre of zealots" falling for a 'dumb blonde' (i.e., buying Mac for its looks alone)?
...I have yet to meet anyone similarly afflicted over Windows...
Perhaps there is a reason for that (i.e., that nobody loves it)?
-
Ok... so let's start with "heretics who use Windows"... last time I checked, heretic means "a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." Given that the ratio of PC vs. Mac users is probably 90/10 or 80/20 in PC favor, one can actually consider Mac users heretics (as PC is "generally accepted")
As for "compulsive need to either convert, insult or subdue"... in which category would you classify calling Mac users "religious cadre of zealots" falling for a 'dumb blonde' (i.e., buying Mac for its looks alone)?
Perhaps there is a reason for that (i.e., that nobody loves it)?
I think you misconstrued his statement, look at it another way, MAC users are religious zealots and therefore the Windows users in the eyes of the MAC user are heretics; IOW, you are a heretic if you don't believe in the doctrine of your own church and the MAC user believes that they are the only church and everybody else are heretics. Through the eyes of the MAC user (Parishioner); that's how I interpreted what he said, maybe I'm wrong
-
Bottom line is through this thread I have heard various opinions and that is the strength of this forum. The positive speaks for itself the negative needs to be discussed!
Marc
-
"a little tough comparison because the Sony is a 24" touchscreen (Apples are 21" or 27"), but it's a quadcore, 6GB ram, 1GB video ram, blu-ray, tv tuner, Card reader, remote control, HDMI, put those specs on the Apple (I guess you can't get Blu-Ray) and see how much more, $500.00?"
True but when you consider that throwing away say 4, 2 gig simms and purchasing 4, 4 gig simms the price evens out. Apple to their credit allows you to purchase 2, 4gig simms and then in the future upgrade by purchasing 2 more 4 gig simms
Marc
-
But what exactly is true in Jonathan's statement I reacted to? That Mac user are fanatics, or the price premium exists, and I quote: "... just because the case is pretty"!? A comment like that is more like an insult (to intelligence) of people using or switching to Mac, especially on this forum.
It's pretty well established that Apple has a fairly large user segment that is similar to a religious cult in the following ways:
- They view non-Apple computer users as ignorant, misguided, stupid, or evil.
- They utilize every opportunity available to promote the perceived advantages of Apple products, and to insult and disparage non-Apple technology, especially Microsoft and Windows. Terms like "Micro$oft" and "Windoze" are de rigeur.
- They minimize, ignore, or deny the existence of any flaws or problems in Apple products, and exaggerate problems with non-Apple products.
- They believe that using Apple computer products makes them superior to non-Apple users.
I've personally met a bunch of these Mac zealots, but have never encountered a similarly rabid PC enthusiast in the wild. If you are "insulted" that I've stated the obvious, that's your problem. Regarding the price premium for Apple hardware, it's generally been the case for the last decade or so. Prices fluctuate in the technology world, and while Apple desktops may not cost much more than an equivalent PC at the moment, it's not something you should expect to be the case all the time. It's certainly not the case in the laptop department.
Marc asked a question, and I offered an honest opinion based on my comparative experience between Apple and Other. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free. But if you're "insulted" by my stating the obvious regarding Mac enthusiasts, perhaps it's because you're one of the "gushing fanboys" (YOUR term, not mine!) I described, and you're more interested in promoting your particular point of view than helping Marc figure out if buying a Mac is really his best option.
If Marc has compared all of the products (both Apple and Other) that might meet his needs, and after figuring in the learning curve of a different OS and associated bugs and quirks, the monetary cost of each option, and the suitability of the tool to the need he decides the Mac is the best choice, fine. But assuming that the Apple product is always the best choice in all circumstances for all purposes for all users (which you pretty much stated in your first post in this thread) is simple-minded fanboyism, and often wrong.
One final note: I've served in the Air Force and the Army, but not the Marines.
-
You will have to re-buy all your software.
Not true, my key software components were all OK when I switched 2.5 years ago:
- Adobe was fine after a bit of discussions here in Japan
- Helicon focus was OK
- PTgui and Autopano were OK
Regards,
Bernard
-
Ok... so let's start with "heretics who use Windows"... last time I checked, heretic means "a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." Given that the ratio of PC vs. Mac users is probably 90/10 or 80/20 in PC favor, one can actually consider Mac users heretics (as PC is "generally accepted")
I'm using the term from the Apple zealot's perspective, obviously. Heretics being the misguided fools deserving ostracism or worse...
As for "compulsive need to either convert, insult or subdue"... in which category would you classify calling Mac users "religious cadre of zealots" falling for a 'dumb blonde' (i.e., buying Mac for its looks alone)?
Your words, not mine. I said Apple has a cadre of fervent enthusiasts, not that all Apple users are so fervently enthusiastic. There's a big difference--kind of like the difference between pointing out the fact that most suicide bombers are Muslims (true), and saying that all Muslims are wannabe suicide bombers (definitely false). Most people who display an irrational devotion to a computer brand are Apple fans, but not all Apple fans are irrational zealots.
There are some situations where a Mac is the best choice. I use my Macbook when shooting tethered because the Windows version of the software doesn't support my cameras. But if you need a small compact laptop for accessing email on the road or for image backup/viewing on a backpacking trip, Apple is not your best choice. You'd be much better off with a netbook from Acer, Asus, or HP. The key principle is to analyze all of the pros and cons of all the alternatives with an open mind, and not just offer a blanket "it's always right to switch to Mac" recommendation.
Perhaps there is a reason for that (i.e., that nobody loves it)?
Which is of course why Apple has <20% market share--everyone hates the alternatives...
-
It's pretty well established that Apple has a fairly large user segment that is similar to a religious cult in the following ways:
- They view non-Apple computer users as ignorant, misguided, stupid, or evil.
- They utilize every opportunity available to promote the perceived advantages of Apple products, and to insult and disparage non-Apple technology, especially Microsoft and Windows. Terms like "Micro$oft" and "Windoze" are de rigeur.
- They minimize, ignore, or deny the existence of any flaws or problems in Apple products, and exaggerate problems with non-Apple products.
- They believe that using Apple computer products makes them superior to non-Apple users.
Right... you will also find people arguing about electric shavers here: http://www.shavers.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 (http://www.shavers.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=1)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Right... you will also find people arguing about electric shavers here: http://www.shavers.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 (http://www.shavers.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=1)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm thinking of going from an HP laptop to an iMac all in one computer
The logic is I will probably be living in an apartment in the near future and an all in one will double as a TV
The iMac appears to be the highest performance all in one
Has any one gone through the process of migrating windows programs to a Mac? Is it expensive or no cost? CS4, DxO, C1 etc? I would like to run most of the programs on the Mac OS and the few CAD programs not available for a Mac on windows.
The other option is to purchase a high end laptop (probably HP) and use an external monitor when at home.
Thanks
Marc
I did so earlier this year. I had C1 but since I had already used an upgrade from 3.7 to 4, they would not let me do a free switch to Mac, so I dropped C1. I also had to get Apple word processing software/Office software etc (or I could have paid a premium for the Mac version of the Windows stuff) so that was another expense.
I have been reading on the Apple Support forum about some discoloration problems with the displays on the latest iMacs, so you may want to check the display carefully before you buy.
-
- They utilize every opportunity available to promote the perceived advantages of Apple products, and to insult and disparage non-Apple technology, especially Microsoft and Windows. Terms like "Micro$oft" and "Windoze" are de rigeur.
This is the crux of it. The constantly used word "Windoze", it's insulting and unnecessary. The OP asked a pretty basic question and I don't think there's a bulletproof answer, buying any computer is tricky; hardware can be unreliable, OS issues affect both systems - Windows perhaps more since the OS has to support millions of PC hardware combinations.
The real problem when buying PC's is the huge choice available, and much of it is pretty poor. With laptops I can only think of Thinkpads that are particularly reliable, I have an HP Elitebook 8730w which is top of the line but it has it's own problems. The OP implied that he wanted a visually neat system, this lowers the choice a lot, the iMac may be the answer although I wouldn't buy one for reasons given above. It's a bit of a jungle out there.
-
Not true, my key software components were all OK when I switched 2.5 years ago:
- Adobe was fine after a bit of discussions here in Japan
- Helicon focus was OK
- PTgui and Autopano were OK
Regards,
Bernard
Thats good news
Other than adobe did you just download a mac version and type in your existing serial number?
Marc
-
This is the crux of it. The constantly used word "Windoze", it's insulting and unnecessary.
It's far more common to see that sort of disparaging terminology used by Apple users toward the Windows side than it is to see terms like "CrApple" or "OSsuX" used by Windows users in reference to Apple. This thread is yet another example...
Back to the original question: Knowing how much RAM, storage, and other parameters are deemed necessary would make it easier to do an intelligent and pertinent apples-to-Apples comparison.
-
... Other than adobe did you just download a mac version and type in your existing serial number?...
Back in 2005, Neat Image responded: "... depends on edition of Neat Image for Windows. If it is the
Pro or Pro+ edition then the shift can be made for free."
-
I have to make IT purchase decisions for a 3,000+ employee education organization, so the PC vs Mac issue is always on my mind. And I own machines from both platforms, an use them both on a daily basis. Here's some observations:
1. The platforms are actually converging in terms of feel and features, pretty rapidly. It seems like Microsoft adopts what it likes about the Mac when it updates Windows, and Apple does the converse. (For example, as far as I'm concerned, the new taskbar in W7 is actually better than the OSX dock, but I suppose that's a personal choice. Let's see what we get in the next major rev of their OS.)
2. I get the feeling that Apple is steadily moving mainstream/consumer with their product line. While that does get them more market share, it also leads to problems for some of their previous target groups, like serious photographers. I'm thinking here of glossy laptop screens that don't dim well, and color management pipelines that get dumbed down for the masses. In the mean time, Microsoft steadily improves Windows color management. So in another five years, I'm not sure they'll be all that different for our purposes.
3. There's a tendency among the Mac faithful to go full Apple. They'll buy a Mac, an iPhone, and an iPod, and eschew Microsoft forever. That sure makes integrating all of their devices easier, but those kinds of owners will sometimes miss out on developments in the PC world. Even in this thread, we have people comparing Snow Leopard to XP, which is like comparing a new Windows 7 machine to an early Mac G4. Windows 7 really is very good, Apple's snarky "I'm a Mac" commercials notwithstanding. XP is still in use all over the place, but none of my personal machines are running it now. I have a copy of the XP Virtual Machine running in Windows 7 Ultimate on my fastest home computer for, you guessed it, making prints for custom profiles, since Snow Leopard is troublesome, and the Windows 7 printer drivers for my 5 year old printers don't include an option to turn off color management.
4. The Apple hardware is substantially more expensive. It tends to be of high quality, especially in terms of design and feel, but there's no getting around the fact that you can just about always buy a faster PC for less money. My mother has a beautiful HP touchscreen all-in-one (running Windows 7 now) that she got just a couple months ago for $600. I've never seen an iMac for anything close to that. Having said that, I just ordered a new MacBook Pro, because I needed a laptop that could run on battery power for many hours while I'm in meetings. Initial purchase price is one factor, but repairing Macs is usually much more expensive than PCs. Mostly because Apple doesn't want you taking them apart, and goes out of the way to make that difficult and expensive. It's sort of like the auto world: You can buy an inexpensive car that is cheap to maintain, yet somewhat unreliable, or you can buy an expensive car that rarely breaks. Good arguments can be made in either direction. There are inexpensive cars that are very reliable, but nothing quite like that in the computing world. Maybe an Ubuntu laptop I guess.
5. Apple spends a lot of resources really trying to figure out how their users work, then they design their h/w and s/w so that it works as smoothly as possible in that context only. That is great for the majority of users, but not so great for the minority with special needs, or an interest in tweaking. I'm told that they stuck with one-button mice for so long because research told them it was the best way to prevent a user from using the wrong button. Great. There are those of us who mastered multi-button pucks during the Reagan administration, and don't need uncle Steve looking after us in that way. But for many people, computing simplicity is a godsend.
6. The real question is where we'll be in ten years. Cloud computing and software as a service could result in the OS being pretty much irrelevant. We'll just have to see. In the mean time, if Adobe would publish Linux versions of Lightroom and Photoshop, I can tell you where I'd start spending my money...
7. Let's start arguing over the best pickup trucks - that's just as productive as the classic Mac-PC argument.
-
Hey, I never meant this to evolve into another Mac vs PC war.... especially when I apparently have two marines against me But what exactly is true in Jonathan's statement I reacted to? That Mac user are fanatics, or the price premium exists, and I quote: "... just because the case is pretty"!? A comment like that is more like an insult (to intelligence) of people using or switching to Mac, especially on this forum.
Then please explain why you refer to Microsoft Windows as "windoze". I completely agree with Jonsthan's assertions and conclusions. If you are not a fanatic, then why stoop to their terminology?
-
Not to rehash what has already been said, but the best feature of buying a Mac is the ability to run Windows if one has a need to do so. This allows you to use your current PC software without having to upgrade. Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro dual boot with Vista Ultimate 64 bit. You don't have the option of running Mac OS on a PC. This gives you the freedom to run platform specific software on your machine.
When I switched to Mac back in 2006 at the advise of my Graphic Design Professor, I was a Windows user for 12 years. I built my own machines often struggling with compatibility and driver issues. I am very happy with my choice to switch to Mac. I now have solid computer systems manufactured by the same company that writes the software and compiles the drivers. Mac also has the best support in the industry.
I did switch my Adobe software to Mac Platform. This involved a phone call to Adobe verifying serial numbers, downloading and faxing a certificate of software destruction(agreeing to destroy the Windows based copy) and paying shipping charges for the Mac version of the Adobe software.
-
You don't have the option of running Mac OS on a PC.
Not true. You just don't have the option of running Mac OS on a PC without violating Apple's EULA. I have OSX running on three PCs, including one $218 netbook, where's it's really fun. All of them triple boot with Windows 7 and Ubuntu.
But it's not easy to do unless you're pretty skilled in both Windows and OSX, and you're willing to do some research. I don't do anything particularly productive with OSX on them, other than using the netbook for photo file transfer and backup with Lightroom in the field. I did it more as a learning and OS comparison experiment than anything else.
-
Again, something from my personal experience... when I bought iMac in 2005 (based on a PowerPC chip), I knew rather well the downside of the all-in-one packages: difficult (or impossible) to upgrade and/or self-repair. So, when the unit broke down (hardware-wise), I took it to the Apple store and they told me this: "Ok, we would need to replace a part, but it might take a week and we do not want to leave you without a computer for so long... how about we give you a brand new unit instead, based on an Intel chip this time?". So I walked in with a broken unit and walked out with a brand new, next-generation one. Now, how cool is that? I realize it does not happen all the time and to all people, but it did happen to me.
-
So VMware Fusion would be easier than booting up windows with bootcamp?
Marc
Works awesome for me -- opens as a window in OSX and XP runs faster in the OSX window with other processes running than it did on my Dell workstation all by itself. When you're doen, close the window down like any other program, no need to reboot the whole system. Granted that Dell was only a dual XEON 3.6 with 4G ram, but still...
-
You don't have the option of running Mac OS on a PC.
Google "hackintosh" -- there are some pretty impressive builds out there .
However, one thing about the MacPro towers that rarely gets mentioned is noise -- I have mine sitting on a table right next to my desk, and it is virtually silent. (The DVD drive spinning is not silent and by far the most annoying noise my tower makes.)
-
Google "hackintosh" -- there are some pretty impressive builds out there .
All illegal violating Copyright Law by creating "derivative works" modifying Apple OS so it will work on non-Apple systems:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/914...systar_s_coffin (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140878/Judge_s_ruling_puts_legal_nail_in_Psystar_s_coffin)?
-
Then please explain why you refer to Microsoft Windows as "windoze". I completely agree with Jonsthan's assertions and conclusions. If you are not a fanatic, then why stoop to their terminology?
With pleasure... I use the term Windoze as I find it a cute and lighthearted pun... pretty much the same as I find Apple "I am a Mac" commercials: lighthearted, fun and cute, regardless of how accurate they are. I believe we all need more fun and humor in our lives, and poking harmless and lighthearted fun at certain things that are part of our lives and that we too often take too personally and too seriously (like the choice of a computer system) is one way of achieving it, at least for me. You might also note that I used a self-depreciating term for my own comment, poking fun at myself (i.e., "fanboy gushing").
If some people find it personally insulting, please note that I am referring to (or insulting, if you insists) an operating system, i.e., an inanimate, impersonal object. If you personally find it insulting when an inanimate object is insulted, it appears that you might have developed a relationship with that object far from a healthy one Besides, I've been a PC user for twenty years before switching, and to this day continue to use it on a daily basis (inside a virtual machine), so if I would take "Windoze" pun personally and seriously, I would be insulting myself too.
In contrast to making fun (or insulting, if you again insist) of an inanimate object, what Jonathan did is engage in ad hominem attacks on people using the other operating system, and embarking on a psycho-analisis of their "sinister" intentions. Please note that before Jonathan's attack in this thread, there was just one instance of something some people might find objectionable: my use of the term "Windoze". In response to that, we heard that we, the users, (and not Mac operating system), are:
"cadre of zealots; religion or cult; with the compulsive need to either convert, insult, or subdue; strong superiority complex; rabid [sic]; fervent; etc."
Jonathan later qualified that he meant "some" users, not all users... later on he would rephrase it as "a fairly large user segment". Given that such a statement was made on this thread, I would assume that it refers to at least some posters as well. If it was not meant so (i.e., against some posters on this thread), than why bother bringing it up? What relevance the existence (real or perceived) of such a "cadre of zealots" would have on the OP decision to switch or not? Would that "cadre" chase and harass the OP after he switches (or if he does not switch)? I never heard of Mac "religious fanatics" torching non-Apple stores, or bombing PC Clinics.
Please note that Mac-user contributors to the thread mostly stayed on topic, providing factual information about their experience (debunking along the way Jonathan's misinformation that the OP "will have to re-buy all his software"), or their feelings (e.g. "I switched, I am happy and I never looked back"). Nothing they said (apart from using the term "Windoze") was even remotely as disparaging or insulting as some of Jonathan's own statements.
-
Not to rehash what has already been said, but the best feature of buying a Mac is the ability to run Windows if one has a need to do so. This allows you to use your current PC software without having to upgrade. Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro dual boot with Vista Ultimate 64 bit. You don't have the option of running Mac OS on a PC. This gives you the freedom to run platform specific software on your machine.
When I switched to Mac back in 2006 at the advise of my Graphic Design Professor, I was a Windows user for 12 years. I built my own machines often struggling with compatibility and driver issues. I am very happy with my choice to switch to Mac. I now have solid computer systems manufactured by the same company that writes the software and compiles the drivers. Mac also has the best support in the industry.
I did switch my Adobe software to Mac Platform. This involved a phone call to Adobe verifying serial numbers, downloading and faxing a certificate of software destruction(agreeing to destroy the Windows based copy) and paying shipping charges for the Mac version of the Adobe software.
When you build your own machines, it is true you need to do more research before building to avoid compatibility issues. It's been a loooooooooooooooong time since I've had any issues building my own systems. I didn't switch to MACs but rather started using them in 2006 and had 3 IMACs die, I am typing this on a MBP 15". There is some really great programs out there ported only to Windows and most if not all CAD software is Windows based only, anything with an AutoCad engine is Windows only. You can dualboot which is what I do, but you still have to buy the Windows disc. I haven't found any MAC specific software that is a "Holy Grail" product, there are many for Windows machines.
-
All illegal violating Copyright Law by creating "derivative works" modifying Apple OS so it will work on non-Apple systems:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/914...systar_s_coffin (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140878/Judge_s_ruling_puts_legal_nail_in_Psystar_s_coffin)?
It may be illegal to sell such a thing, but it's not illegal to build one for your own purposes. It does most certainly violate the Apple EULA.
-
And I thought we left this type of argument in... what?... fifth grade?
When I was in 5th grade, Steve Jobs was in 6th grade. Even if they had Macs and PCs then, I would not have been able to afford either. LOL:)
Cheers.
Bud
-
Boy did I open a can of worms! But it has been both informative and entertaining!
Marc
-
Hi,
I am a computer scientist, working with Windows machines since Windows 3.1, with Linux machines since Linux 2.2 and with Macs since a PowerMac 1,8 GHz. For my home computers, I entirely rely on Macs now, which are 2 MacBook Pros and an iMac 24". At work I am using Windows XP, Ubuntu and RHEL. I find Linux still the best platform for programming. I am in the embedded systems world, e.g. embedded Linux and VxWorks for those who know this O.S. But I feel very comfortable under a Mac as well, because OS X has basically a Unix foundation and I use the Shell program a lot.
What I really like about the Macs is the integration of Hard- and Software components. I like the nice ideas, e.g. Spotlight, TimeMachine, one Menubar for all programs. It changed the way I deal with the computer. I don't organize my documents any more in hierarchies, because there is spotlight. I don't care about backups any more, because there is Time Machine and Superduper. I don't care about Virusscanners, because for the time beeing, there are no viruses. I know this will change, but I am having a good time now. Recently I was booting my MacBook Pro from the external mirror drive of my iMac, because I wanted to copy some data. This worked without any hassles. Please: try this with Windows ! I mean just try it: two totally different computers with the same Windows Installation, booted via FireWire.
I used to assemble and maintain PC in my student times and have seen a lot of boxes inside and outside. But never have I seen before such a beautifully made piece of computer like my 1,8 GHz PowerMac. Opening the box was simply an experience for itself. The internal layout, the cleanliness, haptics, solid and exceptionally made. In comparison everything else I have seen before looked cheap. Ok now it's not the fastest machine on earth and thus I seldom use it, but it's still a great designed product.
Computers are not made for their appearance alone, but it shows the kind of effort that Apple puts into details which I think tells about itself. They design the computer after usability. Their focus is the user. It shows in many ways: OS, Application Software, Hardware, Design, Innovation, programming language and the API
I am using computers all day long and guess I don't feel like having to fix quirks of the OS or the computer hardware at home. Graphics card drivers, sound card drivers, new card installed, new software installed, blue screen, etc. I have to do it all the time at work. And then home is home, isn't it ? Do we really want to have ugly PC's optically polluting our nicely furnished rooms ? I prefer having a nice and quiet iMac on my Desk which shuts on and off in 1,2,3. And please connect a good headphone to a Mac, because here again: this is quality sound. My Sennheiser HD280 pro sounds terrific over my iMac or MacBook Pro.
Windows XP is so quirky, I only use it for programs I have to use and because the directive of our IT Department is that it officially only supports Windows XP. I have no idea about Windows 7. I guess it's a good product, but I also see they copying the ideas of OS X, so why should I bother ? I already have the original.
Mac OS X works for me and I don't feel like switching back to Windows, but I will try out Windows 7 in a VM just to see it. By the way, try out Virtual Box from Sun. It's a nice Virtualization product. And it's free, available for OS X, Linux and Windows. A good alternative to VMWare. It can also mount VMware disks, if you already use VMWare.
Would I recommend Mac OS X to my mom ? Absolutely.
My 2 cents,
Daniel Schnell.
-
Hi,
I am using computers all day long and guess I don't feel like having to fix quirks of the OS or the computer hardware at home. Graphics card drivers, sound card drivers, new card installed, new software installed, blue screen, etc. I have to do it all the time at work. And then home is home, isn't it ? Do we really want to have ugly PC's optically polluting our nicely furnished rooms ? I prefer having a nice and quiet iMac on my Desk which shuts on and off in 1,2,3. And please connect a good headphone to a Mac, because here again: this is quality sound. My Sennheiser HD280 pro sounds terrific over my iMac or MacBook Pro.
My 2 cents,
Daniel Schnell.
Thanks for your 2 cents! BTW try driving your Sennheisers with a headroom total bithead (headphone amp) I use an iPOD as a source then the total bithead to drive the HD600's really nice!
Marc
-
Thanks for your 2 cents! BTW try driving your Sennheisers with a headroom total bithead (headphone amp) I use an iPOD as a source then the total bithead to drive the HD600's really nice!
Marc
Yes the IPod output seems to be not as good as from their computers. At least my IPhone doesn't sound as good on my Sennheiser. I will look into the total bithead, although I am very happy with what comes out of my Mac computers.
Daniel.
-
In contrast to making fun (or insulting, if you again insist) of an inanimate object, what Jonathan did is engage in ad hominem attacks on people using the other operating system, and embarking on a psycho-analisis of their "sinister" intentions. Please note that before Jonathan's attack in this thread, there was just one instance of something some people might find objectionable: my use of the term "Windoze". In response to that, we heard that we, the users, (and not Mac operating system), are:
"cadre of zealots; religion or cult; with the compulsive need to either convert, insult, or subdue; strong superiority complex; rabid [sic]; fervent; etc."
I find it kind of humorous that you're getting all butt-hurt that I mentioned the existence of the Apple zealots, even though I've not claimed that you personally are one. It's not an ad hominem attack to share personal experiences, especially since I took some pains to clarify that only some Apple users fall into the "zealot" category. I have personally met several Apple users who harassed and annoyed me and did their best to make me feel stupid and inferior on a regular basis because they used Macs and I didn't (at the time). They were more persistent and annoying in this regard than some Jehovah's Witnesses (who are bona fide religious cultists). If mentioning those experiences and pointing out that I've not observed similar behavior on the part of Windows users toward Apple users offends you, tough shiite. You were the first to use "fanboy gushing" about yourself...
If you don't want to be confused with the more fanatical flavor of Apple fanboy, then avoid engaging in the characteristic behavior patterns I mentioned: using disparaging terms toward non-Apple products, blindly recommending Apple products regardless of whether they best suit the person's needs or not, assuming that Apple products are always the best choice for everyone for every purpose, assuming that switching to Apple is always the best option, etc.
-
Yes the IPod output seems to be not as good as from their computers.
iPod output quality varies significantly from model to model. The output from my 8GB Nano is noticeably cleaner and has much better bass response than from my 16GB Touch or my 13" Macbook. But the output from my Sony VAIO laptop is better than any of them. This is true whether listening on headphones or plugged into my home theater receiver.
-
Apple stuff I've owned:
Powermac G4 450mHz bought March 2000. Expensive, beautiful and still doing productive work up until early 2007. Still works and I'd be quite happy to use it for email, surfing & word processing. Never had any problem with the hockey puck mouse either.
17" Studio Display ( CRT ) bought at same time as above. Relatively expensive, very beautiful and still doing productive work as a pallettes monitor for Photoshop work. Still works after rolling the length of a Ford Focus estate and smashing into the rear door after turning up a steep hill a couple of weeks ago. ( Stupid owner not paying attention - distracted by the trauma of moving home ).
Mac Pro Dual 2.66 ( quad core ) bought May 2007. A bargain at the time considering its' spec, beautiful ( in a big perforated aluminiumy kinda way ). Still feels like a very powerful machine. Very easy to add hard drives and memory to. Superdrive sounds horribly rattly and feels cheap but hasn't broken yet. Should last me for years yet. Came with the 'Mighty Mouse'. Great concept, crap execution.
20" Cinema Display 2007. OK VFM compared to other SIPS displays, beautiful. I'm happy enough with the colour matching ( with a DTP94 and Coloreyes Display Pro ) but have no experience of high end displays. It should have height adjustment.
iPod Nano 4GB Had to get the first one replaced as it kept freezing. Second model works better. Feels a bit cheap.
I sometimes work on a 24" iMac ( previous gen ) and I don't like the glossy screen. It also seems a bit unreliable. CDs that have been inside the drive for a short time come out feeling very warm - too many components in a cramped space.
If I had to buy a Photoshop workstation at this moment I'd build my own PC ( to take advantage of 64 bit and because the Mac Pros are too expensive ) but I'd use my old Mac for everything else.
I'm not an Apple fanboy - I find the iApps oddly irritating - but I appreciate the general solidity of the OS and not having to worry much about maintenance, viruses and security issues.
I definitely trust the Apple pro gear more than the consumer stuff though.
Regards
Graeme
-
Don't let all the Mac Fanboys snow you. A computer is a computer, and there are many problems with Macs/OS X, just different -- especially with the latest version. I work on a PC, my wife (a graphic designer) on a Mac. She swears as much at her Mac in a day as I do my PC -- we share on office so this is first hand. I often have to troubleshoot her computer and especially networking issues. She frequently suffers crashes with Photoshop. Some days she can't even launch the program, even after rebooting. Other days, not a hiccup. But, invariably, the bad days are the days she's on deadline, and for instance, InDesign refuse to print a file. You can say that's Adobe's fault, but regardless the software must run under either Windows or OS X.
That said, Apple does a nice job with industrial design and putting the pieces together. There is something to be said for full vertical integration in a product that barely allows for add-ons. Apple dreated a whole new definition of "proprietary". But, as I said in the beginning, a computer is a computer. You WILL have problems -- they'll just be different ones from the ones you have on Windows.
-
Something arcane for Windows users to smile at and for the Mac users to know.
(I offered this at the PODAS 'do' last month and was amazed that so few Mac users know of the this house-keeping technique.)
Mac users!! If you are getting cursed by the spinning beach ball (and odd crashes) there is a simple solution that should likely be performed weekly.
- Reboot your Mac with the Shift key held down. This boots the Mac into 'SAFE' mode. A progress bar will appear as the Mac writes out all the essential system pages to a new directory.
- Once the Mac is booted into your user account, find the Disk Utilities app in your Utilities folder, boot it and then highlight your hard drive (probably named Macintosh HD) from the list of disks at the left. Click the 'Repair Disk Permissions' button. Go have a coffee for 5 minutes or so.
- When complete, reboot your computer (this is important). The boot process will now take all those shiny polished system pages and place them back where they belong.
Live free of the spinning beach ball of death for a while.
Chris
-
Boy did I open a can of worms! But it has been both informative and entertaining!
Marc
When bringing up that subject, it's always going to be a can of worms! There's seeminbly no way to avoid it. It's nice to see that this thread has not got too out of control though. That's rare.
I've never really understood the Mac v PC argument when it get's really heated, it's a question for Social Anthropologists. The best view is to see them as different versions of the same thing. A bloody computer!
On the "Windoze" front, I think this IS important. Slobadan said he didn't mean, or even think, that using "Windoze" was insulting. I believe him, but using that word IS insulting nevertheless.
Windoze is a dozey OS, the implication is that Windoze users must also be dozey. That's just not true.
Its' more interesting to discuss apps rather than OS's, and if we should discuss OS's then it should be without the usual bagage of Mac v PC killing fields.
-
... Apple still doesn't have an actual maximize button so that you can resize a window to fill the entire screen. With most apps, you have to drag the window and resize it manually. WTF??? Is that supposed to be part of the "superior user experience"???...
At the risk of being accused of just trying to "...minimize, ignore, or deny the existence of any flaws or problems in Apple products...", here is how I consider that a useful feature:
I am using a 24" iMac... a lot of "real estate"... my typical desktop would contain several windows: browser, email, IM, plus whatever I might be working on at the moment (pdf, spreadsheet, etc.)... they either all fit on one screen, or overlap in such a way that I can see important parts in each of them... in other words, no window is maximized, but occupies just the needed amount of space, based on the content of the window. Obviously, the way I work, I do not want any window maximized. Say I then move to a web site that requires a different window size to display its content without (horizontal) scrolling. With Safari, for example, clicking the green radio button enlarges the window just enough to cover the new content... with Firefox, it actually maximizes the whole window, blocking everything else on the screen. Mostly for that reason alone, I prefer using Safari to Firefox. Now, everybody is entitled to argue whether that is a flaw or feature, good or bad... I am just explaining how I find it useful.
Now, in fairness to Jonathan's point of view, I can understand how some users, mostly those using smaller screens (say notebooks) might want to actually block everything else but the window they are in (in order to reduce the screen clutter, or they simply might prefer one way over another).
-
... Slobadan said he didn't mean, or even think, that using "Windoze" was insulting. I believe him, but using that word IS insulting nevertheless.
Windoze is a dozey OS, the implication is that Windoze users must also be dozey. That's just not true...
Of course it is not true. However, if you believe a book should be judged by its cover, or a man by the clothes he wears, then you would be right to equate users of a dozy OS with "dozy" users.
Millions of people, for a number of reasons, are driving _______ (insert here your favorite car brand or country of origin you love to hate), which might generally be perceived as lower quality. Does it make drivers of that brand lower-quality people too? Of course not... and because it does not, people do not hesitate to call that brand the way they see it. If the opposite were true, it would be political correctness running amok: no one would be able to say anything remotely critical of any thing (thing, not people), as there would be always some group of people who would feel insulted by that.
-
Of course it is not true. However, if you believe a book should be judged by its cover, or a man by the clothes he wears, then you would be right to equate users of a dozy OS with "dozy" users.
Millions of people, for a number of reasons, are driving _______ (insert here your favorite car brand or country of origin you love to hate), which might generally be perceived as lower quality. Does it make drivers of that brand lower-quality people too? Of course not... and because it does not, people do not hesitate to call that brand the way they see it. If the opposite were true, it would be political correctness running amok: no one would be able to say anything remotely critical of any thing (thing, not people), as there would be always some group of people who would feel insulted by that.
If it were just you saying it then it isn't really a problem, but the vast majority of Mac users use this term and under those conditions it becomes offensive, and boring.
As Jonathan pointed out, how many PC users use similar derogatory terms for Macs and OSX.- - a tiny, tiny proportion.
-
Something arcane for Windows users to smile at and for the Mac users to know.
(I offered this at the PODAS 'do' last month and was amazed that so few Mac users know of the this house-keeping technique.)
Mac users!! If you are getting cursed by the spinning beach ball (and odd crashes) there is a simple solution that should likely be performed weekly.
- Reboot your Mac with the Shift key held down. This boots the Mac into 'SAFE' mode. A progress bar will appear as the Mac writes out all the essential system pages to a new directory.
- Once the Mac is booted into your user account, find the Disk Utilities app in your Utilities folder, boot it and then highlight your hard drive (probably named Macintosh HD) from the list of disks at the left. Click the 'Repair Disk Permissions' button. Go have a coffee for 5 minutes or so.
- When complete, reboot your computer (this is important). The boot process will now take all those shiny polished system pages and place them back where they belong.
Live free of the spinning beach ball of death for a while.
Chris
Yes, DON'T FORGET TO REBOOT 5 TIMES before your MBP is working properly again! The first 4 shutdowns took 45-60 seconds, that was a "little" change from the 3-5 seconds it was taking to shut down.
-
Yes, DON'T FORGET TO REBOOT 5 TIMES before your MBP is working properly again! The first 4 shutdowns took 45-60 seconds, that was a "little" change from the 3-5 seconds it was taking to shut down.
I did this technique yesterday on my late 2008 MBP and 2007 MP 8-core. My MBP shut down in the usual 2-5 seconds on the first shut down after performing this technique.
Cheers.
Bud
-
And Apple still doesn't have an actual maximize button so that you can resize a window to fill the entire screen. With most apps, you have to drag the window and resize it manually. WTF??? Is that supposed to be part of the "superior user experience"???
First time I put my fingers on a Mac, it took me no more than 10 seconds to miss the maximize button; I thought the Mac's owner was joking when he said there was not such control. Second thing I missed (some 10 seconds later) was a proper wheel on the mouse; I couldn't believe Apple was suggesting that their clitoris-mouse could be used for serious work.
Regards
-
I am on windows since 1995, I have since 3 month a MAC PRO , and I wonder WHY I haven't switched before
-
I am on windows since 1995, I have since 3 month a MAC PRO , and I wonder WHY I haven't switched before
Well everyone is different I have been always working with windows and during university I mainly used macs for 2 years. I can't tell you how happy I was when I got back to my own PC ;-)
-
. Obviously, the way I work, I do not want any window maximized. Say I then move to a web site that requires a different window size to display its content without (horizontal) scrolling. With Safari, for example, clicking the green radio button enlarges the window just enough to cover the new content... with Firefox, it actually maximizes the whole window, blocking everything else on the screen. Mostly for that reason alone, I prefer using Safari to Firefox. Now, everybody is entitled to argue whether that is a flaw or feature, good or bad... I am just explaining how I find it useful.
Yeah, whatever. There is no consistency to what a user can expect to achieve when clicking the green button on a window in OSX. Even in Safari, there is no consistency to how tall the window will become vertically after clicking the button, and there is no guarantee that the window will display without needing horizontal scrolling for the current site. Even if there is enough screen real estate to expand the window horizontally to fit the site, Safari won't always do so. Finder windows are even worse; the results of clicking the green button is basically random. No attempt whatsoever is made to ensure that all columns are visible, regardless of available screen space, and no attempt is made to keep the active window from covering up other windows. So after clicking the green button, you're pretty much guaranteed to have to manually move and/or resize the window anyway, which pretty much defeats the purpose of having a button to click. Since you have to manually move & resize the window anyhow, why bother clicking the button? If you actually LIKE this inconsistency, you're welcome to it. Give me a blue button (in addition to the ones already present) that does an actual maximize, and you can keep the green one and its inconsistencies.
IMO this is just as stupid as Apple's decades of insisting on a single-button mouse, long after it became clear that 2-3 buttons were industry-standard. My Macbook has a single "mouse" button below the touchpad, even though the touchpad is multi-touch. So if I want to "right-click" I have to hold down a key on the keyboard while clicking the "mouse" button. That is not in any manner easier, more intuitive, or more efficient than simply dividing the existing huge button in half to make two buttons.
Now before you go getting all butt-hurt that I'm bashing Apple, let me be clear that Windows has its share of stupid design quirks as well. One that is particularly annoying to me right now is Vista's process for connecting or disconnecting a dial-up networking connection. You start by clicking the network status icon on the task bar, and a small window pops up showing you what connections are active (dial-up, wireless, or wired), with a link to "connect or disconnect..." a connection. Clicking the link brings op a larger window that shows all network connections, and whether they are active or not. So far, so good. The stupidity starts when you click on a connection to connect it. The list disappears and is replaced by a connection status dialog. Once the connection is made, the only option you have is to close the window entirely. You can't leave the list open to quickly disconnect the connection when you're done using it (or reconnect if your cellular connection drops and kicks you offline), you have to restart the process from the beginning. You don't have to deal with this if you have a wired or wireless connection to a router with an internet connection, but if you're stuck with dialup, you get to deal with this frequently.
My ultimate point with all this is that neither Apple nor non-Apple computers are free from stupid software and hardware design flaws; they simply have different sets of design stupidities and bugs. Neither is unconditionally better for all users and purposes; the best choice depends on the software being run (some software is only available for one system or the other, and some software has critical bugs or feature limitations present in one version, but not the other), hardware requirements, user familiarity with one system or the other, and cost sensitivity.
-
you can use http://www.usingmac.com/2009/3/23/full-maximize-on-mac (http://www.usingmac.com/2009/3/23/full-maximize-on-mac)
-
Cool. Most of the time when I'm using my Macbook, I only have one app open (Safari, iTunes, or a Finder window), and maximize makes a lot more sense than zoom, especially considering how poorly implemented and inconsistent zoom is implemented in OSX. Adding an actual maximize button (say blue, with a square in the middle) would be trivial, and give users the choice of which behavior they wanted.
BTW, when editing images on a dual-monitor system, the most logical layout is to have PS' main editing window fill the largest monitor, and have all the editing palettes on the smaller monitor. Maximizing Photoshop's main window makes far more sense than zooming in this context...
-
Cool. Most of the time when I'm using my Macbook, I only have one app open (Safari, iTunes, or a Finder window), and maximize makes a lot more sense than zoom, especially considering how poorly implemented and inconsistent zoom is implemented in OSX. Adding an actual maximize button (say blue, with a square in the middle) would be trivial, and give users the choice of which behavior they wanted.
BTW, when editing images on a dual-monitor system, the most logical layout is to have PS' main editing window fill the largest monitor, and have all the editing palettes on the smaller monitor. Maximizing Photoshop's main window makes far more sense than zooming in this context...
I agree totally, and a build-in 4th button will be great
-
Of course it is not true. However, if you believe a book should be judged by its cover, or a man by the clothes he wears, then you would be right to equate users of a dozy OS with "dozy" users.
You're still assuming that that there's validity to the notion that Windows is a "dozy" OS, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean...kinda hard to figure when you can generally buy a Windows machine that will outperform any similarly-priced Mac, both in benchmarks and real-world performance, by a significant margin. It's stupid made-up BS like this that makes Windows users want to reach for large, heavy, blunt objects when the Mac zealots start chanting their mantras.
If I wanted to act like a Mac zealot, at this juncture I would insinuate that Mac zealots are zombies infected with a cleverly-disguised virus hidden within OSX, except that instead of mumbling "BRAAAAAAAAAIIIIIINS" as they stumble around devouring their victims, they say things like "zoom is better than maximize" or "one button on a mouse should be enough for anybody" or "superior user interface" or "better hardware-software integration"...but of course that would be childish and immature and totally inappropriate and offensive, so I won't.
-
If I wanted to act like a Mac zealot, at this juncture I would insinuate that Mac zealots are zombies infected with a cleverly-disguised virus hidden within OSX, except that instead of mumbling "BRAAAAAAAAAIIIIIINS" as they stumble around devouring their victims, they say things like "zoom is better than maximize" or "one button on a mouse should be enough for anybody" or "superior user interface" or "better hardware-software integration"...but of course that would be childish and immature and totally inappropriate and offensive, so I won't.
Or they might say something like "Nobody needs more than 64K of RAM!" (Oh, sorry, That was Bill.)
-
Or they might say something like "Nobody needs more than 64K of RAM!" (Oh, sorry, That was Bill.)
The alleged quote was actually 640K, not 64K. But there's good reason to question whether Bill Gates actually said that; while there's hundreds of examples of it being mentioned, I have yet to find a source that can document where or when. And Bill has denied saying anything of the sort on several occasions. If you can nail down some specific documentation of when or where Bill Gates actually said such a thing, you're a better Googler than I am...
-
...but of course that would be childish and immature and totally inappropriate and offensive...
I am glad we finally agree on something
Quite a tall order though (to agree with you), given the amount of straw-man arguments you tend to use. On the other hand, it is much better to (voluntarily) agree with you than to be battered into agreement by "large, heavy, blunt objects"
-
As a tangent, I might add that there has not been a corporation in American history to have given up as huge a competitive advantage as has Apple. Back in the very early days of computers, the best thing going was the Apple II series. Very few people had ever even seen a computer, and Apple put one in every school in America. For an entire generation of kids, Apple meant computer. For a variety of reasons, that generation ultimately went to PCs, which were cheaper, had more software available, and didn't work as well. Apple market share went into single digits, and the company almost collapsed. And of course, you all know what saved Apple...the iPod and other innovative products. Gads, I should have bought up a bunch of Apple stock when it was $5 a share!!! P.S. I have a quad core PC with 8 gigs of memory running Windows 7. No issues whatsoever. But I use an old Apple for video editing!
This has been an interesting discussion, one which sometimes is more emotional than factual. When this one runs it's course, maybe we can have someone ask whether they should dump their Canon for Nikon, or visa versa!
-
The alleged quote was actually 640K, not 64K. But there's good reason to question whether Bill Gates actually said that; while there's hundreds of examples of it being mentioned, I have yet to find a source that can document where or when. And Bill has denied saying anything of the sort on several occasions. If you can nail down some specific documentation of when or where Bill Gates actually said such a thing, you're a better Googler than I am...
You may be right. But it just makes such a lovely urban legend (I say, as a long-time PC user).
As for the brand wars, in my personal experience MS DOS 5.0 was the last Microsoft OS that was ready for market. Everything since has been either in Beta or Alpha shape (actually, I don't know about Win 7 as I haven't tried it yet). Nevertheless, a PC with Windows is certainly a more capable machine than any Mac at the same price point, for all the reasons you have pointed out already.
-
You may be right. But it just makes such a lovely urban legend (I say, as a long-time PC user).
As for the brand wars, in my personal experience MS DOS 5.0 was the last Microsoft OS that was ready for market. Everything since has been either in Beta or Alpha shape (actually, I don't know about Win 7 as I haven't tried it yet).
Too true. 95 and Millennium never really got to the point where they didn't suck. 98 wasn't very good until the Second Edition came out, XP was ugly until SP1. Vista worked well for me right out of the box, although it seemed like a lot of the changes were made for change' sake than to fix actual problems. Others had a lot of trouble with it though. I'd be somewhat inclined to quibble with you about Windows 2000; I've used both the Server and Professional versions heavily and had very few problems that traced back to the OS. I'm still running it on some of my machines; it just works. But in general, I consider Microsoft stuff as beta until SP1 is released.
-
the 640k quote is actually from discussions w/IBM engineers when the original PC was being designed; an 8bit CPU addressing a 16bit bus resulted in a 20bit "segment offset" adressing scheme resulting in 1mb memory limit. IBM reserved the top 338k for BIOS, display, etc resulting in 640k .
-
the 640k quote is actually from discussions w/IBM engineers when the original PC was being designed;
Do you have a citation to document this? My Google search results either cited the quote without any supporting evidence, or else claimed that there was no evidence to support that Bill actually said such a thing--that it was just an urban legend. I'd be interested in nailing down the controversy if possible.
-
This has been an interesting discussion, one which sometimes is more emotional than factual. When this one runs it's course, maybe we can have someone ask whether they should dump their Canon for Nikon, or visa versa!
Back when the original 1Ds and 1D-II were the latest and greatest from Canon, only a fool would have switched from Canon to Nikon; Nikon didn't have anything anywhere near as good. Since then, Nikon has done a pretty good job of playing catch-up; it's current offerings are by all accounts somewhat better than Canon's -IIIs, though not necessarily better enough to make it worthwhile for a Canon shooter to take the hit dumping a bunch of glass to switch. For a new shooter, there are good reasons to go with either system; the best option depends on the specifics of lens needs, etc. You could go with either Canon or Nikon at this point and have a successful career as a photographer limited more by one's creativity and vision than the equipment.
-
Do you have a citation to document this? My Google search results either cited the quote without any supporting evidence, or else claimed that there was no evidence to support that Bill actually said such a thing--that it was just an urban legend. I'd be interested in nailing down the controversy if possible.
The best source of information I've found is Microsoft's own MS-DOS Encyclopedia - Ray Duncan Gen Editor ©1988
I know of no instance where this statement was attributed to Gates, nor anyone else. Actually, MS was very excited about taking full advantage of the 16-bit architecture provide by the Intel 8086, actually developing a fully 16-bit stand alone version of basic. It was the limitations imposed by IBM's chosen architecture, a 12bit FAT based file system, and the basic architecture of Tim Paterson's then 86-DOS that led MS to develop and submit MS-DOS to IBM in May of 1981.... (p:12-16)
One interesting outgrowth of this effort was the need to provide a method of translating exisiting 8-bit 8080 CPM code to the new platform (this was Paterson's real contribution). Early users of DOS will no doubt be familar with .com programs - address space limited to one single 64k segment and .exe programs which could address all available memory. MS has done an amazing job of continuing backward compatibility since (some would argue to it's detriment)...... A mindset that Apple never took on or bothered with.
-
You are right of course which is why my last Mac was a Mac 128k bought in 1984! I decided on an all in one because of the simple clean design and a screen suitable for watching movies/TV in a small apartment. As I looked at the available quad core all in ones, figuring in the upgrade cost of ram (they allow you to purchase 2, 4 gig dimms vs 4, 2 gig dimms), the Mac platform actually was not more expensive, a surprise to me. So I first thought I would just run it as a Windows machine then I figured I can migrate the photo apps to the Mac OS. It looks like the most elegant solution is to run it as a Mac and run windows programs with VMware
Marc
High end laptops with OSX are competitive, I won't deny that. But I prefer to upgrade my machine, saving money, so laptops and all in ones are out. I built the Win 7 machine for less than half the cost of a Mac Pro. It has an i7 processor, four cores (eight threads), a Blu-Ray drive, 6 GB of memory, a high end ATI video card, and two and a half terabytes of hard disk space. The iMac had a maximum of 3GB memory, not even a double layer DVD, no way to expand HD space other than a Firewire or USB one, and a twenty inch screen (I have a 25" monitor on the PC), and was quite slow compared with my current computer. OSX is a better OS in my opinion but the hardware comes at a great premium. I'm sticking with windows until Apple has a competitive tower. I do not play games.
Whether one prefers the Mac or not is a matter of taste these days, not that it is somehow a better platform, unless one is just learning how to use a computer. At one time I ran a computer lab for a university (as a grad assistant) and was exposed to the original Mac there (not in the lab but in the dean of Social Sciences office) and it was clearly superior to the original IBM PCs I had to work with in the lab. But that was long ago and now PCs have caught up with a good user interface. I have friends that have trouble with their PCs and perhaps for them the Mac would be preferable if they could afford one, but they cannot.
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html)
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html)
Good to know where anti-Apple warriors are drinking their Kool-Aid from.
-
Good to know where anti-Apple warriors are drinking their Kool-Aid from.
Why do you think PC users are "anti-Apple warriors"? Although I've been a PC user since 1981 (PC-DOS 1.0), I've long admired Apple products, particularly the Mac Pro and iPhone.
In fact, I was surprised today when I read that the iPhone's problems are due to poor design and not due to AT&T's network (which turns out to be superior to that of Verizon). (I did know that Apple sometimes sacrifices function for form).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business...hone&st=cse (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iphone&st=cse)
Perhaps you think that the New York Times and Global Wireless Solutions are also "anti-Apple warriors"
-
Good to know where anti-Apple warriors are drinking their Kool-Aid from.
"Anti-Apple warriors?!?!" I knew some Mac users were messianic, but paranoid also? Criminy, people, IT'S JUST A COMPUTER!!
-
Why do you think PC users are "anti-Apple warriors"?...
Your question is a non sequitur (i.e., does not follow) from what I said in the previous post.
-
Your question is a non sequitur (i.e., does not follow) from what I said in the previous post.
I am really wondering why this topic is still open, I think it is just a waste of bandwidth.
-
I am really wondering why this topic is still open, I think it is just a waste of bandwidth.
Couldn't agree more.
-
If you don't think this topic should have more replies, erm, stop replying...
-
Your question is a non sequitur (i.e., does not follow) from what I said in the previous post.
The same can be said of your implication that I'm an "anti-Apple warrior"...
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10414356-71.html)
Yes I read that article, but I don't see how it pertains to the discussion. As they said the iphone is a brilliant design, I think the iMac is too as far as appearance and its use of OSX. I just found the plus of having a beautiful design didn't outweigh the cost. Windows 7 is quite polished, I never used Vista, I read too many bad things about it so I stuck with XP.
-
I'm thinking of going from an HP laptop to an iMac all in one computer
The logic is I will probably be living in an apartment in the near future and an all in one will double as a TV
The iMac appears to be the highest performance all in one
Has any one gone through the process of migrating windows programs to a Mac? Is it expensive or no cost? CS4, DxO, C1 etc? I would like to run most of the programs on the Mac OS and the few CAD programs not available for a Mac on windows.
The other option is to purchase a high end laptop (probably HP) and use an external monitor when at home.
Thanks
Marc
I don't want to get involved in the Mac/PC thing, but I had a good look at the Imac 27" in an Apple Store today and thought the screen just too reflective to use for photo-editing, for my taste. I use a Mac Cinema Display with my PC, which has a matt finish and is much better.
-
Why do you think PC users are "anti-Apple warriors"? Although I've been a PC user since 1981 (PC-DOS 1.0), I've long admired Apple products, particularly the Mac Pro and iPhone.
This is perhaps one of the great snowjobs and bits of trickery that has been foisted off on our generation. The battle has always been Microsoft versus everyone else. Not PC versus Apple. Not Intel vs Apple. Thankfully Microsoft is run by idiots who can't seem to do things effectively most of the time and so smaller firms are able to beat them to the punch and dodge their attacks.
-
This is perhaps one of the great snowjobs and bits of trickery that has been foisted off on our generation. The battle has always been Microsoft versus everyone else. Not PC versus Apple. Not Intel vs Apple. Thankfully Microsoft is run by idiots who can't seem to do things effectively most of the time and so smaller firms are able to beat them to the punch and dodge their attacks.
Yeah, the people who run Microsoft are so stupid - the founders would be billionaires if only they had a clue. Oh, wait...
You might not like them, for whatever reason, but to suggest that they're stupid is just ignorant.
-
Yeah, the people who run Microsoft are so stupid - the founders would be billionaires if only they had a clue. Oh, wait...
You might not like them, for whatever reason, but to suggest that they're stupid is just ignorant.
Don't confuse marketing prowess with skill. Gates was fantastic at prying open doors and beating the competition to the marketplace. Combined with an eventual monopoly status and using every quasi-legal tactic in the boo to maintain it, of course they made a ton of money. But they rarely made something first. It almost always was copying other people's work, though, and the results were third-best, if that. Often just good enough to work and not much else(why bother when you own the entire market, effectively?).
But now, with different options available that do work better, there's no reason not to seriously consider these alternatives. Especially since it all now runs on the same hardware anyways.(or can with a little tweaking)
-
Don't confuse marketing prowess with skill. Gates was fantastic at prying open doors and beating the competition to the marketplace. Combined with an eventual monopoly status and using every quasi-legal tactic in the boo to maintain it, of course they made a ton of money. But they rarely made something first. It almost always was copying other people's work, though, and the results were third-best, if that. Often just good enough to work and not much else(why bother when you own the entire market, effectively?).
But now, with different options available that do work better, there's no reason not to seriously consider them. Especially since it all now runs on the same hardware anyways.(or can with a little tweaking)
Don't confuse "prowess" with "skill"?
You do realise how silly that sounds, right?
If you have as specific problem with something (ie Windows) that's fine. You can discuss it or not as takes your fancy, but to simply waffle on with rhetoric about the evil empire is just nonesense.
By all means you should be seriously considering the alternatives, but you should be doing so based on the merits of the alternatives and not some perception that MS is bad, evil, wrong etc (none of which is objective and none of which will usefully reflect the utility of the software or operating system).
-
Don't confuse marketing skill with programming skill
The Apple vs PC argument was what I was concerned with. It's never really been that, but instead Apple vs Windows (Intel and other hardware makers were truly just caught in the middle)
But since your typical Apple box can run both Windows and OSX at the same time, why not consider it? As for ease of switching, OSX is so streamlined and the applications are almost identical on both platforms that it takes literally hours to adjust from Windows to OSX.
IME, OSX feels like an appliance or gaming console in that you turn it on and just simply use it. It's as direct and pragmatic as a console or cell phone or any other device that you use during the day that's built to do one task very well. Except it does everything like that. My PC is a lot klunkier and from an aesthetics perspective always feels like it's between me and my work. Like the difference between wearing glasses and contacts. One you notice and the other you just don't. There's a reason people who have the extra money almost always buy contacts.
And in this age, why NOT have the option for computing that intrudes and holds you back the least from getting your work done? Work isn't my hobby. It's crap I gotta get done so I can get back to my real life. And not much else. Saving five minutes or one headache during the day is more than worth it.
-
This is perhaps one of the great snowjobs and bits of trickery that has been foisted off on our generation. .... everyone ... Thankfully Microsoft is run by idiots who can't seem to do things effectively most of the time and so smaller firms are able to beat them to the punch and dodge their attacks.
It almost always was copying other people's work, though, and the results were third-best, if that. Often just good enough to work and not much else
My PC is a lot klunkier and from an aesthetics perspective always feels like it's between me and my work. Like the difference between wearing glasses and contacts. One you notice and the other you just don't.
hmmm - maybe the one confused by "marketing" might be you..... I hear your above statements constantly, yet all are completely indefensible. I'll readilly agree that Apple makes lovely hardware that happens to do a fine job of running both O/S (I have some), but given the simple fact that the vast majority of business application stacks run on the Windows platform, it's a very difficult decision for an application developer faced with a choice to choose against Windows. It also happens to be a very difficult decision based on price.
The internet is full of anecdotes; consider this:
A - 2% of us are really pissed off at our computer right now for whatever reason.
B - Let's assume Windows has a 10 to 1 market share over OS X.
C - 1000 of us happen to be expressing our displeasure in some forum being watched by you.
I'll let you do the math....
-
Don't confuse marketing skill with programming skill
The Apple vs PC argument was what I was concerned with. It's never really been that, but instead Apple vs Windows (Intel and other hardware makers were truly just caught in the middle)
But since your typical Apple box can run both Windows and OSX at the same time, why not consider it? As for ease of switching, OSX is so streamlined and the applications are almost identical on both platforms that it takes literally hours to adjust from Windows to OSX.
IME, OSX feels like an appliance or gaming console in that you turn it on and just simply use it. It's as direct and pragmatic as a console or cell phone or any other device that you use during the day that's built to do one task very well. Except it does everything like that. My PC is a lot klunkier and from an aesthetics perspective always feels like it's between me and my work. Like the difference between wearing glasses and contacts. One you notice and the other you just don't. There's a reason people who have the extra money almost always buy contacts.
And in this age, why NOT have the option for computing that intrudes and holds you back the least from getting your work done? Work isn't my hobby. It's crap I gotta get done so I can get back to my real life. And not much else. Saving five minutes or one headache during the day is more than worth it.
OS X or Win 7 both "just work" or "just don't work" pretty much the same based on the skill level and job intended of the user.
Different things suit different people - I don't doubt your OS X suits you better and that's cool, but to universally declare Windows as "klunkier" for example, is silly. It might be to you, but for me it's not (and I use both platforms quite happily at work) and my preference is Windows. Others like Linux, others OS X, etc etc.
As to running both - many PCs could run OS X if Apple didn't restrict it - I'm sure you're aware of Hackintosh, so because Apple is more restrictive in their licence it's a negative to Windows? I don't think so, Plekto :-)
It's not like OS X or Apple hardware never fails. SBBOD is an acronym for a reason, and people pay quite good money for Apple Care programs - because they know the hardware can and will fail (it's the same basic hardware as PCs, same failure rates). It's pure fantasy to suggest that OS X or Apple Hardware is magically immune to problems. If you use it because it suits you then it's right. If you use it because you drank too much kool aid, you're making a poor decision.
-
As to running both - many PCs could run OS X if Apple didn't restrict it - I'm sure you're aware of Hackintosh, so because Apple is more restrictive in their licence it's a negative to Windows? I don't think so, Plekto :-)
It's not like OS X or Apple hardware never fails. SBBOD is an acronym for a reason, and people pay quite good money for Apple Care programs
That used to be a major issue before they switched to Intel boards. My parents went through four machines in three years until they got an Intel tower as a replacement. No issues at all after that.
And, yes, it does suck about Apple being that way. But if you do buy an Apple, you can do both. My PC cost me about $1300 to build myself and takes about half an hour a week in tweaking and updating and so on to keep running well. My parents machine takes 5 minutes a week, tops, and is stable virtually all of the time. I like using it a lot more when I have access to it, though it is completely useless for gaming.
-
That used to be a major issue before they switched to Intel boards. My parents went through four machines in three years until they got an Intel tower as a replacement. No issues at all after that.
And, yes, it does suck about Apple being that way. But if you do buy an Apple, you can do both. My PC cost me about $1300 to build myself and takes about half an hour a week in tweaking and updating and so on to keep running well. My parents machine takes 5 minutes a week, tops, and is stable virtually all of the time. I like using it a lot more when I have access to it, though it is completely useless for gaming.
Honestly, if it's taking you regular time to update and tweak you have a problem.
-
Good to know where anti-Apple warriors are drinking their Kool-Aid from.
What is Kool-Aid? Is it made by Microsoft?