| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
 |
|
| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
Advertisement
|
29th October 2009, 04:43 AM
|
#81 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The ice planet
Posts: 2,053
|
Since the late 1980's I have been using PCs at work (except for the occassional UNIX box) and Macs at home. Both have had their share of crashes but the PC's crashes have always been more inexplicable and insoluble to me. I used to be much more of a gamer so did feel cheated by the shortage of hard core Mac games.
I understood Mac OS so much better that I didn't need IT support to help me through the challenging times. The Windows file structure with all its arcane files and directories and .dlls - I just have no idea what all that crap is. I still don't understand what the "run" directory does. Vestiges of programs that I uninstalled in 2006 still haunt me once in awhile, with no idea where the files reside. I must admit that Mac OSX introduced a similar level of arcane to the Mac as well - with all these permissions and user folders and this thing called a Library and all these other directories that reside in weird places - I feel like I don't know what's in my Mac any more either. But by now I'm just so much more comfortable and productive in Mac OS that I am with Windows or Linux that I don't have a good reason to switch. As someone posted above, it just seems so much simpler to use peripherals and networks and install programs that I can spend more time doing what I want to do and less time tinkering with the computer, which is what I hate about computers. |
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 04:52 AM
|
#82 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,266
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
As far as I can tell, this is what's in the MP (see: W3520): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#35...2Bloomfield.22 |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 05:06 AM
|
#83 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by jimtron
Hold on... |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 05:27 AM
|
#84 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
OK, these are from www.cyberpowerpc.com
This one is one that I specked as close as possible to a Mac Pro. It came out to $1339, almost $1000 cheaper than a Mac Pro from Amazon. Note that I added a high end sound card, a firewire card, a bluetooth adapter, and a wireless keyboard and mouse. Also, mine has a 750GB hard drive instead of 640GB. Shipping is free.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 05:27 AM
|
#85 |
|
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 420
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 11:41 AM
|
#86 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Folsom Prison
Posts: 5,955
|
Okay, everyone stop for just a moment. Take a breath.
There, doesn't that feel better? The reality is that on the desktop market, Apple really doesn't compete on either the business or the consumer level as far as providing cheap and versatile machines. Apple doesn't even seem to want to, and that's fine. What Apple sells is more of a "whole package" thing that, while there are indeed PC system builders who do similar or the same, just isn't the case with the more modular and varied PC market. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for Apple as a company, either, since the fact that they don't have to compete on an equal product they have a lot more tight control over the build specifications of their machines, lending to a "tighter ship" perception of the product from a consumer perspective. That Apple indeed does also spend to over-engineer some things on their systems also polishes their products as single appliance units instead of machines that need to be tweaked or have 3rd-party stuff added to operate like a user might want. Again, this isn't a bad thing, though it does have the result of raising the price to the consumer-- something that a "large enough" and fairly dedicated number of consumers see as a value add that has little or no equivalent elsewhere. These factors have come together to establish and maintain a very tight and strong brand loyalty to many customers who buy Apple products (but not all of them). PCs, on the other hand, are a more nebulous and vague creature, ranging from piecemeal systems from hobby or enthusiasts to the "full system" offerings of the big-box sellers (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.). That there's such a wide range of different tastes or models is due largely to the IBM clone market that spawned the modern desktop PC market, and that system where different vendors are making similar-yet-slightly-different hardware has pushed component makers, system builders, and software developers to have to try to keep up with the fastest and newest as well as the older and less speedy components, which means a whole of lot factoring in for lowest-common-denominators in their processes that a less varied system wouldn't have to face. There have been some system builders who have tried to go to a more "tighter ship" build model, and to varied degrees of success-- one could argue that Dell and HP have found a fairly reasonable balance of propriety and variety (ability to upgrade with 3rd-party components), while we could view Sony or IBM as having gone a bit too far on different occasions, resulting in premium systems that lock customers into their proprietary solutions. Suffice to say, the PC clone-bred market doesn't take well to too much proprietary hardware in their systems. Further, the varied competition from multiple manufacturers has promoted a great deal of the advancement in RAM, CPU, and video card technologies, with competing vendors attempting to tweak even a slight advantage over their counterparts. This has, in essence, been both one of the single greatest benefits in the distributed market and one of the greater hurdles for the operating system and software developers in a rapidly-changing and advancing market. Brand loyalty has still managed to surface in this market as well, though unlike Apple's "full system" brand loyalty the PC market version tends to focus more on manufacturers (AMD, nVidia) or development companies (Microsoft, various Linux, Blizzard Entertainment), with loyalty to system builders (Dell, HP) being less prevalent at the consumer level (but present at the business level). It's that brand loyalty on both sides that's really propagated many myths, outright lies, distortions, and uneven comparisons between the Mac and PC crowds over the years, most notably the meme "Mac vs. PC" in the first place. After all, Macintosh computers are PCs, just PCs of a different make and model-- this has become even more evident in the past few years, as Apple has shifted their internal hardware platform to the same architecture as the rest of the PC market. Naturally, what the comparison really implies is a Macintosh computer running MacOS versus a non-Apple computer running Windows, effectively ignoring the steadily-growing base of Linux users out there, lumping all system builders into one monolithic category (along with the piecemeal vendors), and continuing the lack of any real 1::1 comparison of qualities. Even now, you're rarely going to be able to make a 1::1 comparison of hardware or software, and that's specifically because Apple still maintains a very tight control over its supply line while the rest of the computer markets have varying degrees of mixed parts versus proprietary systems. Configuring a mid-range Mac computer and a mid-range Dell or HP computer won't yield the same hardware, and debates comparing them delve deep into semantics to hide brand loyalty influence on the arguments (for both sides). Realistically, the hardware between any two comparisons are usually similar enough for a rough, "good enough" comparison outside of brand loyalty pedantry, but there's always enough semantic wiggle-room for brand loyals on both sides to still claim superiority due to the lack of an apples-to-apples comparison. However, even if there were a very precise 1::1 comparison, another factor that comes into play is one that Apple has been employing at least since the release of the OS X operating system, and one that other software application developers (most notably Adobe) have employed for far longer: optimization during development. To keep it simple (though I'm sure there are plenty here who could go very complex on the topic), when a software writer is building the code for a given software, they can optimize it to a reasonable level of specificity depending on the platform they're writing for, the variation in the abilities of the different hardware it must run on, and the sophistication of the code compiler that converts the code into an executable form. For software developers, this can often provide key advantages when compiling for specific configurations or hardware components-- game developers do this often enough, usually optimizing for video cards. Adobe has notably been optimizing its creative suite of software for years, more often on Apple's hardware than anything else, in particular their G3, G4, and G5 computers. Since Apple has moved to x86 architecture, I'm not sure how much Adobe has optimized for them, but it is known that Adobe optimizes for 64-bit processors on Windows now. Apple has been optimizing their operating system with each new release (so, on practically a yearly basis) with every 2-3 generational updates to the hardware, far more often than their "enemy" Microsoft is known to do so-- this is actually where the "clock speed isn't everything" meme took root, and that idea is a mixture of fact and subjective opinion. Since Apple's advent into x86 computing, however, the amount of optimization that could be done has been limited, since many of their binary (executable) files needed to be backward-compatible to some degree. Apple began facing a similar conundrum to its counterparts in the personal computing field: having to maintain reasonable support for vastly different hardware (in Apple's case, two different architectures). Considering the level of challenge and the fact that there isn't any real history of a slow-down in performance on Macs, it's safe to say that the company handled it pretty well. Microsoft, since the change to Vista, has been working on doing optimizations of its own, the first of which was seen in Vista's Service Pack 1 and the latest of which can be experienced in Windows 7. In fact, Windows 7 has reportedly seen more optimization than was typically done in Windows OS changes, most of which surrounded older code that has been out of use for a while or for more forward-facing technology (like 64-bit computing). Conversely, Apple's newest OS seems to have done much the same as far as sweeping under-the-hood alterations and optimizations, though with less worry about old code (though some subsystems are gone) and also (like Microsoft) tweaking their system to be more forward-centric for things like 64-bit computing. The results for both so far seem to have had positive results. That very basic run-down on optimization is just to underscore that slight hardware differences aren't always the only thing that can make a fairly big deal out of comparing two systems, as is often done in the Mac vs PC wars. And honestly speaking, Linux and BSD can go further that MacOS or Windows in terms of optimizing, and (Ducky, feel free to correct me here, but) Solaris machines far surpass even Apple when it comes to optimizing their systems for very specific hardware. So, when it comes down to comparing just hardware, the comparisons fall short because the software running on them isn't necessarily a variable factor that could be switched between the hardware with no changes in outcome (in other words, there's nothing to suggest Windows on Apple hardware runs faster than on a PC and vice versa). Comparisons are always inevitably going to be a "total package" (Mac) versus a "compiled package" (PC) and, as such, be limited in scope as far as determining value. Now, when it comes to dealing with close approximations, then the perceived values begin changing and the obvious brand loyalty factors come back into focus. Comparing a Mac system to a custom-built is going to be missing things like warranties on the system as a whole, but for some this is going to count as a value because they can replace parts separately while to others this is a negative because they don't have the time and/or inclination to try to take their computer apart any time something goes wrong. Comparing Apple Mac builds to big-box system builders (like, for instance, Dell) are going to require like model comparisons even if the semantic hardware specs aren't the same. Case in point: you could compare the lowest-priced iMac to the lowest-priced Dell AiO, though you're going to lose some screen size, and to bump the CPU up to 3.16, the RAM up to 4GB, the video card up to the same model, and including a wireless keyboard/mouse brings the cost to $1035 for the Dell Studio One compared to $1200 for the Apple iMac-- still an obvious lower cost for the Dell AiO PC over the Mac, but there are differences in configuration (like the screen size) that are ultimately going to be a subjective value judgment (are 2" of diagonal space worth nearly $200 US?). Moving to the professional models, the Mac Pro would compare to Dell's Optiplex line of computers, but good luck in getting a similar enough comparison to be meaningful-- Dell's systems are capable of RAID without an add-in card, Apple's systems come with 3D-centric video cards while Dell's with 2D-centric cards, and so on-- though in general the costs for a pro system of fairly reasonable specs are going to come within $100 or so of each other, and in all honestly with machines like that then purpose comes into play in terms of value above a measly few hundred dollars one direction or another. The main point is that arguments from both sides are laced heavily with hyperbole and exaggeration-- while Apple's shift to x86 architecture has made Apple computers competitive, this does not justify claims that Apple computers are cheaper than like systems from non-Apple sources, nor do the configuration differences justify claims that Apple hardware is exorbitantly higher than comparable non-Apple systems. This is brand loyalty at its most obvious. Now, there are segments of the computing market where Apple has some room for criticism-- in my own field (IT), Apple has very little in the way of support tools for their machines as workstations that are part of a larger inventory, while HP, Dell, IBM and others have significant advantages-- but in terms of retail consumer computing the only real factor between choosing a Mac or a PC is personal taste, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there were really something inherently superior with Macs or PCs, the entire debate would have practically ended at least a decade ago, if not two decades. That arguments still persist in using objective criteria to support subjective opinions in the Mac vs PC battles just supplies more fuel to the fire and more food for the brand loyalties people have. |
|
__________________
Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 12:18 PM
|
#87 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,266
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
Are there any highly regarded companies like Dell that make MP equivalents for significantly less? I think that would be a more fair comparison as Apple has good reviews for reliability, support, and customer satisfaction. Regarding "better machines," I found this article at Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...berpower****ed |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 12:21 PM
|
#88 |
|
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers
Posts: 4,343
|
Originally Posted by jimtron
I will say though that if you are a gamer or working with 3D Graphics, nine chances out of ten, your rigg will be a PC. The graphics cards used by gaming PCs and PC based graphic workstations (which are more expensive than Mac Pros, BTW) are more powerful than the cards typicaly used by Macs. Practically all highend graphics cards are developed first for PC based computers. And as far as I know, Mac does not have anything similar to SLI or Crossfire where you can can install three to four graphics cards in your case to increase graphics performance.( I could be wrong) Although now that Macs are using Intel processors, the graphic card gap is beginning to close I think it is also rather odd that Mac (which touts itself as the "computer of the people") does not support gaming anywhere near as well as the PC industry does. The selection of Mac games at the Apple store is pretty sparse compared to the game rack in the PC software isle. The same is true in the 3D graphics industry. I find this hard to believe since the Mac has been the mainstay of the graphics industry for many years. Autodesk owns nearly all of the major 3d software used today. They own 3d Max (which is arguably the most widely used 3d software) Maya and, recently aquired, Softimage XSI. All these programs are used by the big motion picture production and effects houses today such as Industrial light and magic, Pixar, Digital Domain and soforth and all of thier workstations and render farms are PC or PC/linux based. You will probably only see a Mac sitting in an office desk. With the execption of 3D Max there are Mac version of the 3D graphics software available but what is available is not the latest revisions. The software is developed first for PC then later ported to Linux and then Mac. |
|
__________________
Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything that is even remotely true. Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand. Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me!?! Lisa!...In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! Homer Simpson |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:05 PM
|
#89 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,508
|
The strange thing about these Mac v PC arguments is how rapidly they leave any recognizable reality behind. I've owned about seven or eight PCs in my life, and currently have three that I use actively. Futzing around installing drivers? Yeah, sure--I used to have to do that ten years ago. Those machines long since went to the recycler, though. All three PCs that I work on today are plug'n'play. The idea of spending four hours trying to install a printer is simply mind boggling to me. I can't remember the last time installing a printer took longer than a few seconds. For me, PCs "just work"--and that's just as true of the one I have that runs on Vista as the two I have that run on XP. I don't think any of the three has ever crashed (no, wait, one of the laptops did once--can't remember why) or in any way prevented me from getting on with my work. All this talk of the terrible burdens of working with PCs is like hearing someone claim that that they gave up buying GE lightbulbs because they keep exploding in a mighty fireball that destroys their entire house. I mean, sure, maybe that happened once somewhere, but it just doesn't fit with anything like a recognizable version of reality to me.
I've never owned a Mac, but I've worked quite a bit on ones that belonged to friends and family. They seem nice enough--but I've never found that there was anything significant I could do on a Mac that I couldn't do on a PC. I have friends who swear by Macs, but when I ask them what the advantages are to them of a Mac over a PC the answers are either demonstrably false (the mythical burdens of working with PCs that crash ever ten seconds, say, or some "amazing" thing you can do on a Mac which has, in fact, been standard on PCs since 2001) or completely idiosyncratic ("Mac's just feel more intuitive" is a pretty common one). The vast majority of users don't need anything more than a very low-end computer. If all you're going to do on your computer is word processing, email, music and video then you can get all that done reliably for substantially less money than the cheapest possible Mac. If it's worth it to you to spend $1000 on the cool styling and Mac's carefully cultivated brand image (I'm a hip, creative type!!) then go ahead, but I don't know why you have to pretend that it's based on some objective assessment of the relative practical merits of the different machines. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:15 PM
|
#90 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by jimtron
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I used a one of their computers for like five years with no real problems. And they do have a three year warranty in case something happens. I believe that is two years longer than Apple. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:17 PM
|
#91 |
|
Catholic School Survivor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,245
|
As both a Mac (home) and PC (work) user, I have to agree with Yoink. I can't think of anything I can do on one that I can't do on the other. They both crash, albeit quite rarely and I can't remember the last time I plugged something into either computer that wasn't recognized right away.
My next home computer is a 27" iMac but in all honesty the main reason I'm getting a Mac is for the looks and styling of it and not for any false notion of buying a computer that never crashes or makes everything easier to do. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:26 PM
|
#92 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by HarryKeogh
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:39 PM
|
#93 |
|
Catholic School Survivor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,245
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 01:51 PM
|
#94 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by HarryKeogh
But I suppose that's what you get with Apple. Whatever Steve Jobs says is best for you goes. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:06 PM
|
#95 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by uruk
There is no quad CPU Mac Pro. The one we were discussing is the single CPU Mac Pro. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:27 PM
|
#96 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by uruk
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I will say that you CAN game quite well on a Mac if you run Parallels (or boot camp if you so choose). Personally, I'm not a "gamer" -- I play WoW, and that runs on Mac natively anyway. But as I mentioned, with Parallels you can run any OS you want on a Mac, while retaining your Mac OS. Including any incarnation of windows you might feel like. So you can game to your heart's content. It just takes an extra click. I honestly believe that a big reason why PC is so popular for gaming (besides the economic concerns I've mentioned already) has to do with the mentality of the typical hardcore gamer, and less to do with the actual capabilities of a Mac (these things are workhorses, seriously, and kick out some serious power). It's that the gaming community is big into upgrading their computers every time a new video card is released. Always tweaking and poking and upgrading to try and get just one extra frame per second (not that it really makes a difference above a certain threshold... there's only so many FPS the human eye can see!). You can't do that on a Mac (well, you can on a MP, but most people don't want to pay the premium to be able to do that). But you can on a PC. |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits 
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:33 PM
|
#97 |
|
NWO cyborg
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 3,587
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
Quote:
Quote:
What went wrong there? (After drivers it was always straight-forward)
Quote:
Quote:
Doing computers,repairs and administration for six years.
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
Quote:
Anyway macs simply have no value to me as I need to be able to upgrade as needed and what is needed. (GPU,RAM,CPU..) or add things. Like nice PC-Card adapter so I can reuse unused PC-Cards... Current main rig: Core2 E4500 Standard Gigabyte mainboard (USB,PCIe,PCI,LAN,5.1 sound,SATA and PATA) 2GB Corsair XMS2 500GB HDD Geforce 9500 512MB DVDRW 500W power unit in Big tower planned upgrade Core i7 and 6GB. (I have Xeon,but it is for compnay server) And BTW.:So far the only way to crash Windows 7 is to have bad driver and attempt to hibernate/sleep. (Usually wireless driver is culprit) |
|
__________________
ModBorg   NWO cyborg:I am destructive force of unspeakable might. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:36 PM
|
#98 |
|
NWO cyborg
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 3,587
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
__________________
ModBorg NWO cyborg:I am destructive force of unspeakable might. |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:40 PM
|
#99 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
Originally Posted by dtugg
(I do think that the person you were talking to meant dual or quad core CPU, not dual or quad CPU) |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:45 PM
|
#100 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 02:49 PM
|
#101 |
|
Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 3,160
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:06 PM
|
#102 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
I would also argue that "crappy" is subjective. I've definitely seen graphics cards that are much less in terms of quality and performance than what Mac uses. |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:09 PM
|
#103 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Folsom Prison
Posts: 5,955
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
The reason so many developers write so much more stuff for Windows and non-Apple computers-- and I hate to break it to you, but the software for other "unix based" operating systems doesn't work on Macs by default (and some not at all)-- is because Windows PCs make up greater than 90% of the personal computing market out there. That's the reason, plain and simple. The reason Windows PCs make up the overwhelming majority is because Microsoft did something that Apple didn't: wooed the business sector heavily and successfully. Apple has historically sucked and continues to suck at leveraging any real marketing savvy to get business presence. Zero or minuscule business presence means people are using something else at work than Apple, which means that most of them will opt for something similar to what they use at work for home use. Microsoft knew this 30 years ago and acted on that, and in the long run it's paid off-- they dominate the market as a result. As the dominant presence by an overwhelming margin, there is an overwhelmingly larger percentage of developers who are writing software for that platform. There's very little "Mac vs. PC" to the reasoning behind that explanation, unless you want to count corporate foresight and market influence as something inherent to Macs or Windows PCs. |
|
__________________
Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:10 PM
|
#104 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
You're arguing over things that are very obviously personal preferences, and I really don't see the point. |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:11 PM
|
#105 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Folsom Prison
Posts: 5,955
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
Originally Posted by dtugg
|
|
__________________
Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:12 PM
|
#106 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Folsom Prison
Posts: 5,955
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
__________________
Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:12 PM
|
#107 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by GreNME
|
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:17 PM
|
#108 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by GreNME
What exactly are you disagreeing with me on? |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:29 PM
|
#109 |
|
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen
Posts: 578
|
All of these issues about technical specs and whatnot are entirely irrelevant in my opinion. As GreNME correctly pointed out, Apple is different. They aren't trying to make field-upgradable commodity computers. They don't want those customers. They want 1) non-tech-savvy individuals, and 2) professionals whose top priority is getting a job done. They couldn't care less about the random people who want to tweak their systems or constantly replace parts with <insert unknown brand here>. That's not the market they're after.
|
|
__________________
If you want an expensive toy to mod out and screw around with, Apple would prefer you bought a PC. |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:30 PM
|
#110 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,508
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 03:32 PM
|
#111 |
|
Catholic School Survivor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,245
|
Originally Posted by dtugg
Rumor has it that Blu-Ray was pulled just before production started. Bummer. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 04:34 PM
|
#112 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by Yoink
ETA: Windows != PC, and the post you quoted was my personal experience, and thus the justification for my preference for my personal action of switching to Mac (from windows), not a rant on how "all macs are better than PC". |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 04:45 PM
|
#113 |
|
Masterblazer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 2,840
|
I've installed a lot of Windows (98, NT 4, XP), and the smoothest windows installation EVER was on my Mac.
To me, the most important thing about Macs is homogeneous hardware. Apple knows exactly which drivers to stuff on the Boot Camp partition because they are the only manufacturers. Windows has the horrible battle to fight of having to work correctly with an absolutely ridiculous amount of different hardware. Incidentally, it was 8 NT4 installs in one day. Had a striped raid, had to reinstall. But I didn't write down the raid striping scheme because I wasn't fully aware of what it meant, and had to keep retrying and guessing different configurations till I found the right one. That sucked. |
|
__________________
Almo! My Blog "God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." — Paul Erdős Stop being so rational. It doesn't make any sense. - Gauthier Malou |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 04:52 PM
|
#114 |
|
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 45,901
|
Originally Posted by uruk
|
|
__________________
If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 05:39 PM
|
#115 |
|
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen
Posts: 578
|
Originally Posted by Almo
|
|
__________________
If you want an expensive toy to mod out and screw around with, Apple would prefer you bought a PC. |
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 06:28 PM
|
#116 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,508
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 06:34 PM
|
#117 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by Yoink
And really, if you have to cherry pick that much to try and prove your point? I don't think you have much of a point. ETA: Fixed your quotes for you. |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 06:36 PM
|
#118 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,508
|
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick
ETA: It's also completely disingenuous of you to say that you were only talking about "personal preferences" when you were quite explicitly claiming that people in general who buy PCs will end up "wasting [their] time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up." You were, very clearly (and repeatedly) making the claim that Macs are more reliable than PCs and less fuss to use. You don't say "I've just personally had bad experiences with PCs, I guess I must have been unlucky" you say that PCs are simply inferior machines. |
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 06:55 PM
|
#119 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by Yoink
I don't consider it disingenuous at all to say that my personal experience with Windows and Linux causes me to feel that my time was wasted, and leads me to feel that other peoples time may be wasted (by my subjective definition of "waste") as well. What is the personal preference is whether or not you feel that it is a waste or not. Whether time is wasted is extremely subjective. But fine. If you want to ignore the entire context of what I said, and have been saying, sure. By your intentionally limited view, it may seem like I PC bashed once. I don't see it that way. |
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
|
29th October 2009, 07:10 PM
|
#120 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,546
|
Originally Posted by Klimax
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
__________________
Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Please remember 
