Mac vs PC - Page 6

fullflavormenthol · 1st November 2009, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Lao

I have zero desire to spend more money than necessary to buy a machine that does the same thing, but makes me look trendy.

Which is exactly not the reason I own a Mac. This is the type of ignorant post that bothers me, because you think that the only reason I would own a Mac is to be trendy, and not even think that for me (graphic design, film, and 3D Animation) a Mac would be the best choice. I get tired of being in a library and here people say those things about me, not knowing that I bought my Mac for actual reasons other than being trendy.

NEVERTHELESS...I originally bought my first Mac not of deal with any of the bonuses you mentioned, and so that is all relative.

GreNME · 1st November 2009, 01:56 AM

It's so trendy to say you didn't buy your Mac because it's trendy.

I bought mine for one reason: "legal" access to OS X whenever I wanted (partly for support purposes, partly because I tend to hack at any new OS I use).

Dr. Lao · 1st November 2009, 01:57 AM

I forgot to add, I just installed Windows 7 on a new HD, smoothest install ever. And, my all in one HP printer/scanner installed in about a minute, no problems.

I have been running PC since the 8088 days with 2 floppy discs and before that Commodore 64 and Vic 20.

My PC can do anything a Mac can do, and much more and it cost less. And, I have the knowledge to upgrade it myself and tweak it myself and make it the kind of machine I want, for so much less money. But, I don't look trendy/ignorant, oh well.

(and I don't have the Apple smug that folks that don't understand how to build and program do)

jsiv · 1st November 2009, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Lao

My PC can do anything a Mac can do, and much more and it cost less.

It can't run software that is only available for OS X.

Darat · 1st November 2009, 02:12 AM

What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7?

Ducky · 1st November 2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7?

ps -ef | grep firefox | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -i kill {} \;

ohms · 1st November 2009, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by jsiv

It can't run software that is only available for OS X.

This isn't really true, OSX can be installed on PC hardware, although I would say that doing so isn't really for the faint hearted

a_unique_person · 1st November 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Terry

Except... you wouldn't be able to run your applications without it. Making it more than a bit useful in my mind.

Manufacturers provide the drivers. How to hook it up to an OS was solved years ago. If all you are doing is running the most popular apps, the hard work is all done in the app. There is a lot of pretty wrapping being worked on, but OSX is fundamentally just a pretty wrapping for a public domain version of Unix.

Modified · 1st November 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Ducky

ps -ef | grep firefox | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -i kill {} \;

With Cygwin I can do:
C:\>bash
bash-3.2$ ps -eWf | grep firefox | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -i kill -f '{}' ;

Of course, not being able to assume that those commands are always available for use in scripting is a problem. That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows.

As an OS, two things that hurt Windows are:
1) No multiple command line arguments. Applications are responsible for splitting the command line into arguments, and they don't all do it the same way. This makes program integration difficult.
2) Use of 2D console instead of stream-based terminals. No pty equivalent (except with Cygwin apps) makes program integration difficult, since output buffering can not be suppressed for many programs. The only work-around is to run programs in debug mode and monitor terminal activity, but that causes security warnings under Vista.

dtugg · 1st November 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Modified

That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows.

They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there.

jsiv · 1st November 2009, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by ohms

This isn't really true, OSX can be installed on PC hardware, although I would say that doing so isn't really for the faint hearted

Well yes, but then it pretty much qualifies as a Mac minus the Apple logo.

Originally Posted by dtugg

They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there.

It's nothing like any of the Unixy shells and will have anyone who is familiar with those hiding under their bed in terror. That's not saying it isn't good, but it is very different.

GreNME · 1st November 2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ducky

Originally Posted by Darat

What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7?

ps -ef | grep firefox | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -i kill {} \;

As for the commands themselves, most of them can be found in the Unix Utils for Win32 package.

-----

Originally Posted by jsiv

Originally Posted by dtugg

They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there.

It's nothing like any of the Unixy shells and will have anyone who is familiar with those hiding under their bed in terror. That's not saying it isn't good, but it is very different.

For server and system administration purposes, it's quite like 'Unixy' shells. That's the beauty of it (as soon as I get more acquainted with the C# language).

jsiv · 1st November 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

For server and system administration purposes, it's quite like 'Unixy' shells. That's the beauty of it (as soon as I get more acquainted with the C# language).

gci|? {!$_.psiscontainer}|sort -p length|% -b {$i=1} -p {do something}

Yeah. Totally!

Ducky · 1st November 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Modified

With Cygwin I can do:
C:\>bash
bash-3.2$ ps -eWf | grep firefox | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs -i kill -f '{}' ;

Of course, not being able to assume that those commands are always available for use in scripting is a problem. That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows.

As an OS, two things that hurt Windows are:
1) No multiple command line arguments. Applications are responsible for splitting the command line into arguments, and they don't all do it the same way. This makes program integration difficult.
2) Use of 2D console instead of stream-based terminals. No pty equivalent (except with Cygwin apps) makes program integration difficult, since output buffering can not be suppressed for many programs. The only work-around is to run programs in debug mode and monitor terminal activity, but that causes security warnings under Vista.

It was a joke...

However I have yet to see a windows port of dtrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace

OSX does support dtrace. As well as zfs.

But honestly I don't care. This is all semantics and os holy war nonsense.

Let's all ****ing revert to using amigaOS.

jsiv · 1st November 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ducky

OSX does support dtrace.

Well, Windows has xperf for tracing. It also has things like just-in-time debugging (the ability to debug a program before it terminates), which few other OSes have!

There's pros and cons to everything.

Darat · 1st November 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Ducky

It was a joke...

However I have yet to see a windows port of dtrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace

OSX does support dtrace. As well as zfs.

But honestly I don't care. This is all semantics and os holy war nonsense.

Let's all ****ing revert to using amigaOS.

Surely you mean QDOS?

Modified · 1st November 2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ducky

It was a joke...

But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness.

GreNME · 1st November 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Modified

But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness.

Why?

Ducky · 1st November 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Modified

But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness.

There are similar equivalents to be installed with powershell. It's only a weakness if all you know is unixy bash scripting and are stuck on a windows server.

Uncle Otto · 1st November 2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by jimtron

I don't know, but I keep hearing folks say that Macs are much more expensive for comparable PCs. I did some Googling and I found some articles that showed there was a wash, or that Macs were actually cheaper. Maybe you're right, but I still haven't seen a comparison where the PC had the same (or better) features for significantly less money. I honestly don't know how much it would cost to add the other stuff.

I had pc's for 10 years. Two and a half months ago I decided to take the plunge. I bought a 24" iMac. I had long bought into the myth that Macs are way more expensive than pc's. Not so in my case. I sat down and figured out what it would cost to replace all the peripherals for a new pc, that come built into the Mac-------speakers, monitor, webcam, headset, printer, (I got a new wireless all-in-one for $100 with the Mac. They then send you a rebate for $100). Especially the monitor. The result was that it would have cost me just as much to replace my old pc system bit by bit as it cost to buy the iMac with all that stuff built into it.

I was also amazed at how much electrical spaghetti I got rid of behind the computer desk---------only the power cord off the back of the Mac. No VGA line and power cord for a monitor, no wires or power cords for the speakers or web cam, and no need for a microphone or a headset. The new printer is wireless, and the Mac comes wireless capable. It took me minutes to set it up and I'm no techie by any stretch of the imagination.

Now having said that, I'm not a Microsoft hater. I used Windows for all those years and feel quite comfortable with it. I also have a laptop with XP on it, and intend to keep it for a good while. I also have the option to load my XP disc from the pc onto the Mac, and have both OS's on the machine. It's quite a procedure though from what I can see, and I don't know if I'll do that or not at this point. I just sent for the upgrade to Snow Leopard. We'll see how that goes. I should have it this week.

So I'm new to Macs, but I know other people who have them, and they just rave about how good they are. My daughter and SIL both have them now and they tell me they will never go back to a Windows machine. I work with a couple of people who have them and they
tell me the same thing. I'm still in the learning curve here.

The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages. The Macs are nearly virus free, at least for the time being. Eventually, if Mac gets a much larger share of the computer market, someone will start finding ways to write the nasties for them. I have McAfee for Mac on mine because I'm a Comcast customer and it comes with your subscription. The fact is that right now, there are no known, current viruses for it to detect. Or so I've read.

GreNME · 1st November 2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages.

Interesting. I tend to look at them as more and more similar the more I learn about each.

Policenaut · 1st November 2009, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

I had pc's for 10 years. Two and a half months ago I decided to take the plunge. I bought a 24" iMac. I had long bought into the myth that Macs are way more expensive than pc's. Not so in my case. I sat down and figured out what it would cost to replace all the peripherals for a new pc, that come built into the Mac-------speakers, monitor, webcam, headset, printer, (I got a new wireless all-in-one for $100 with the Mac. They then send you a rebate for $100). Especially the monitor. The result was that it would have cost me just as much to replace my old pc system bit by bit as it cost to buy the iMac with all that stuff built into it.

I was also amazed at how much electrical spaghetti I got rid of behind the computer desk---------only the power cord off the back of the Mac. No VGA line and power cord for a monitor, no wires or power cords for the speakers or web cam, and no need for a microphone or a headset. The new printer is wireless, and the Mac comes wireless capable. It took me minutes to set it up and I'm no techie by any stretch of the imagination.

Now having said that, I'm not a Microsoft hater. I used Windows for all those years and feel quite comfortable with it. I also have a laptop with XP on it, and intend to keep it for a good while. I also have the option to load my XP disc from the pc onto the Mac, and have both OS's on the machine. It's quite a procedure though from what I can see, and I don't know if I'll do that or not at this point. I just sent for the upgrade to Snow Leopard. We'll see how that goes. I should have it this week.

So I'm new to Macs, but I know other people who have them, and they just rave about how good they are. My daughter and SIL both have them now and they tell me they will never go back to a Windows machine. I work with a couple of people who have them and they
tell me the same thing. I'm still in the learning curve here.

The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages. The Macs are nearly virus free, at least for the time being. Eventually, if Mac gets a much larger share of the computer market, someone will start finding ways to write the nasties for them. I have McAfee for Mac on mine because I'm a Comcast customer and it comes with your subscription. The fact is that right now, there are no known, current viruses for it to detect. Or so I've read.

iMac is just a style. AIO or all in one. There are PCs as well.

http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/touchsmart/
http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/category/desktops
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...ne&cs=19&s=dhs

There are others. Also in this day and age you don't really have the same "spaghetti wire" problem as before. Many monitors have built in speakers and webcam. Wireless mice, keyboards, and printers are common and cheap. So the only real cables you will have on a typical tower setup is the power cable from the pc, the power cable from the monitor, and the cable from the monitor to the tower.

Personally I use both but mac because of one thing really: Final Cut Studio. If this was not on a mac I would have no use for one. Every other program I need is on windows. Actually I could just use Avid (or even Premiere) and get cut macs out of the equation entirely but I like Final Cut more. But that choice isn't really up to me anyway.

And I agree they are more similar then they are different. Basically for the majority of typical home users who do simple tasks (web surfing, music, movies, light gaming, wp, etc.) there should be no debate. Both do the same things and they both do it well. Macs are great. I just have a disdain for their computer pricing. In fact the only thing I think they have priced reasonably for what you get is the new 27" iMac. Depending on the verdict I may even get a quad core 27". Though I can't see a typical user wanting one. That size is a bit large for most casual users and too small to use as a monitor from far away.

arthwollipot · 1st November 2009, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

Personally, I'd send that Mac back. They're not supposed to crash like that.

Your mom's PC wasn't supposed to crash like that either. Personallly, I'd have sent it back.

Whiplash · 1st November 2009, 08:04 PM

Ya, I think the idea of new hardware making a PC wipe it's OS is as crazy as someone saying to a mechanic that his dipstick causes his car to overheat. It makes zero sense to me. I think that computer must have had major hardware problems (if it's not being greatly exaggerated).

That and the 4 hours to get a printer working.. Ya, I'd have given up at that in 1/8th the time and returned it. I don't even spend 4 hours at it when I take the time to reinstall my entire OS and software (something I used to do more often, convinced it was useful, but now haven't done for over two years without incident).

Somehow I suspect that all these PC horror stories are greatly exaggerated. I was a tech for 6 years. Even in the worst cases of problems we never had anywhere near the nightmares that people claim.. and usually it's Mac people explaining why they gave up their PC for a Mac. Like those horrible commercials that were on the air before the more recent "Switch" campaign.

"Then one time I hit a key, and the entire machine started violently shaking! I thought it was going to explode any minute. Suddenly, the hard drives shot out of the machine, through the case. I could have been killed. I was just trying to load my word processor! That's when I said 'Screw it, I'm getting a Mac'".

Are Macs "computers for dummies"? Or "idiot proofed"?

daSkeptic · 1st November 2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Policenaut

Basically for the majority of typical home users who do simple tasks (web surfing, music, movies, light gaming, wp, etc.) there should be no debate. Both do the same things and they both do it well.

I'm inclined to agree. While there are certainly situations out there for which the differences between the systems might be significant, the average consumer does not generally fall into this category.

ETA: The only exception might be the field-configurability issue. However, as I do not have any data on exactly what percentage of consumers care about this, I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether they are representative of the average.

SkeptiChick · 1st November 2009, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Your mom's PC wasn't supposed to crash like that either. Personallly, I'd have sent it back.

If she'd bought it "out of the box" from a computer manufacturer, I'd have told her to. But she didn't. Well, originally she did buy it from a custom PC builder, but over the years she'd upgraded virtually everything in it (including mb and processor), so the only original piece left was the case... So she couldn't "send it back". She could have returned individual malfunctioning pieces, if she had actually been able to find the piece that was malfunctioning, but she couldn't, so returning anything was not an option.

arthwollipot · 2nd November 2009, 12:35 AM

Sorry, I responded without realising how far the conversation had progressed after the comment I was responding to.

uruk · 2nd November 2009, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Which is exactly not the reason I own a Mac. This is the type of ignorant post that bothers me, because you think that the only reason I would own a Mac is to be trendy, and not even think that for me (graphic design, film, and 3D Animation) a Mac would be the best choice. I get tired of being in a library and here people say those things about me, not knowing that I bought my Mac for actual reasons other than being trendy.

NEVERTHELESS...I originally bought my first Mac not of deal with any of the bonuses you mentioned, and so that is all relative.

I repeat again. There are very few Macs used in the 3D animation/film effects industry. All the major 3D animation software vendors, Just one now really (autodesk), do not provide a whole lot of support support for Macs. The reason being that there are no high end graphic workstation cards for Mac.

There are only one or two native 3D animation programs for the Mac and no one in the industry would really consider them "Professional". Autodesk does have Mac ports for Maya. But good luck trying to find Maya 2010 for the Mac right now.

I have read many trade magazine bemoaning the condition of Macs in the 3D animation/film effects industry.

Print and film editing are another story though.

jsiv · 2nd November 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

If she'd bought it "out of the box" from a computer manufacturer, I'd have told her to. But she didn't. Well, originally she did buy it from a custom PC builder, but over the years she'd upgraded virtually everything in it (including mb and processor), so the only original piece left was the case... So she couldn't "send it back". She could have returned individual malfunctioning pieces, if she had actually been able to find the piece that was malfunctioning, but she couldn't, so returning anything was not an option.

For every Mac you buy, I'm going to not buy two.

nota · 2nd November 2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by KingofMadCows

What I don't like about Macs is that there's just too little customization.

If I build a PC, I can choose between an AMD build and an Intel build. I can get a 500 watt Antec PSU or an OCZ 80 plus gold certified 1,000 watt psu. I can get a GTS 250 or a Radeon 5870.

Plus I'm not sure about the quality of some of the Apple parts. I know for sure that the quality of the Gigabyte motherboard I have is excellent. I don't know how good the Mac mobo is. I don't even know the efficiency of Apple psu's.

just try to buy a mac M/B for a intel chip
I can't find any for sale anywhere

apple makes some nice but very over priced stuff

but with the hackintosch type programs
and the right intel based parts [do your homework ]
you can run O/S 10.Xx on a pc box
for about 1/2 the cost of a mac
0verclock your pc for a faster rig

all the latest mac's use the same chips as pc's
same HD
same dvd/cd burners/players
same memory chips

so why do mac's cost twice as much ?

greed

jsiv · 2nd November 2009, 12:57 PM

(Ignoring the claim that they're twice as expensive..)

Because people are willing to pay what Apple charges. You can sit there all day and rant about how expensive Macs are. If people--lots of people--didn't think they were good products, they wouldn't sell. Clearly a lot of people like the Macs. They like the whole package, both hardware and software. The two aren't separate. The Mac is a complete package.

Yoink · 2nd November 2009, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by jsiv

(Ignoring the claim that they're twice as expensive..)

Because people are willing to pay what Apple charges. You can sit there all day and rant about how expensive Macs are. If people--lots of people--didn't think they were good products, they wouldn't sell. Clearly a lot of people like the Macs. They like the whole package, both hardware and software. The two aren't separate. The Mac is a complete package.

People will pay $20,000 for power cables that "clean" the electricity that is entering their amps, despite the fact that any sane person can see that this is self-evidently money for nothing. You really can't use the "people pay the money, therefore it must be worth it" argument. There are lots of cases of marketers artificially raising prices on certain product lines so as to convey the sense that they are "luxury" or "top of the line" items. Macs have long tried to separate themselves from PCs on the basis of these kinds of intangible advantages. It will actually pose a dilemma for Apple if they ever start to seriously rival PCs as commodity computers: how to brand yourself as the special computer for special people if everyone's got one?

jsiv · 2nd November 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

You really can't use the "people pay the money, therefore it must be worth it" argument.

His question was why they cost what they do, and the answer is that they cost what they do because people are willing to pay what they cost. The reason why people are willing to pay what they cost, is because they feel it's worth it (which for something that actually works, like a Mac, is subjective). Why would Apple charge less than they can?

Sunray Breaker · 2nd November 2009, 01:32 PM

I hear the virus protection on mac is far superior. I just bought a brand new Vaio and it's already having more problems than my bandmates old ass G-4

jsiv · 2nd November 2009, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sunray Breaker

I hear the virus protection on mac is far superior.

You don't need much protection when there's only five viruses in total, compared to trillions for Windows.

Yoink · 2nd November 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by jsiv

His question was why they cost what they do, and the answer is that they cost what they do because people are willing to pay what they cost. The reason why people are willing to pay what they cost, is because they feel it's worth it (which for something that actually works, like a Mac, is subjective). Why would Apple charge less than they can?

Hey, I'm not knocking it as a business model. But I know that when it comes time to replace any one of my current computers I won't bother even so much as thinking about a Mac, because I know I can get a PC that will "just work" for all the things I need it to do for less than the price of the cheapest possible Mac.

jsiv · 2nd November 2009, 01:38 PM

I agree completely. My PCs cost far less than Macs and do everything I want. Macs don't interest me in the slightest. In fact I'd rather go Amish.

daSkeptic · 2nd November 2009, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by uruk

The reason being that there are no high end graphic workstation cards for Mac.

While it in no way refutes your core argument, I did find this:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...or_mac_us.html

uruk · 2nd November 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by daSkeptic

While it in no way refutes your core argument, I did find this:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...or_mac_us.html

Too be more acurate I should have added "yet" to the end of my sentance.

The QuadroFX 4800 is nothing to sneeze at.

But to see what kind of horse power is needed to do proffessional level 3D CG check out the "geek bait" on the Tranformers 2 blueray disk. *Warning: there are several 3D geek jokes in the documentary that only an extremely small percentage (%.0000000000000000001) of the human population will find funny*

There's this baby"
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...x_5800_us.html

And for those of you who are willing to give up a car in order to visualized molecular actions within a chemical reaction, I give you the Nvidia Quadroplex:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadroplex.html

That sucker will set you back $20,000.00

Take that Crysis

daSkeptic · 2nd November 2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by uruk

But to see what kind of horse power is needed to do proffessional level 3D CG ...

You are quite correct that this is an area where Macs have not seen a great deal of use. SGI was the big name for a long time, but once things started becoming cheaper it shifted to Windows PCs. There's not really any technological reason to exclude Macs, the market just shifted to where the bulk of the business was.

1st November 2009, 01:56 AM	#202
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 5,955	It's so trendy to say you didn't buy your Mac because it's trendy. I bought mine for one reason: "legal" access to OS X whenever I wanted (partly for support purposes, partly because I tend to hack at any new OS I use).
	__________________ _{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}

1st November 2009, 01:57 AM	#203
Dr. Lao Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 378	I forgot to add, I just installed Windows 7 on a new HD, smoothest install ever. And, my all in one HP printer/scanner installed in about a minute, no problems. I have been running PC since the 8088 days with 2 floppy discs and before that Commodore 64 and Vic 20. My PC can do anything a Mac can do, and much more and it cost less. And, I have the knowledge to upgrade it myself and tweak it myself and make it the kind of machine I want, for so much less money. But, I don't look trendy/ignorant, oh well. (and I don't have the Apple smug that folks that don't understand how to build and program do)
Dr. Lao Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 378	__________________ Being a Conspiracy Theorist is easy, you never have to provide proof, you only demand that others disprove you. And when they do disprove you, you can accuse them of being part of the conspiracy, and make up a new one.

1st November 2009, 02:11 AM	#204
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by Dr. Lao My PC can do anything a Mac can do, and much more and it cost less. It can't run software that is only available for OS X.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

1st November 2009, 02:12 AM	#205
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7?
	__________________ 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

1st November 2009, 06:02 AM	#207
ohms Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 181	Originally Posted by jsiv It can't run software that is only available for OS X. This isn't really true, OSX can be installed on PC hardware, although I would say that doing so isn't really for the faint hearted
ohms Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 181	__________________ Long time lurker

1st November 2009, 01:49 AM	#201
fullflavormenthol Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,480	Originally Posted by Dr. Lao I have zero desire to spend more money than necessary to buy a machine that does the same thing, but makes me look trendy. Which is exactly not the reason I own a Mac. This is the type of ignorant post that bothers me, because you think that the only reason I would own a Mac is to be trendy, and not even think that for me (graphic design, film, and 3D Animation) a Mac would be the best choice. I get tired of being in a library and here people say those things about me, not knowing that I bought my Mac for actual reasons other than being trendy. NEVERTHELESS...I originally bought my first Mac not of deal with any of the bonuses you mentioned, and so that is all relative.

1st November 2009, 04:30 AM	#206
Ducky Titanium Superhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota Posts: 10,342	Originally Posted by Darat What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7? ps -ef \| grep firefox \| grep -v grep \| awk '{print $2}' \| xargs -i kill {} \;

1st November 2009, 06:25 AM	#208
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sitting in the ghostly glow of an LCD screen Posts: 26,949	Originally Posted by Terry Except... you wouldn't be able to run your applications without it. Making it more than a bit useful in my mind. Manufacturers provide the drivers. How to hook it up to an OS was solved years ago. If all you are doing is running the most popular apps, the hard work is all done in the app. There is a lot of pretty wrapping being worked on, but OSX is fundamentally just a pretty wrapping for a public domain version of Unix.
	__________________ "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." SH Roberts " Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." Monbiot "I am not the fine man you take me for"

1st November 2009, 07:37 AM	#209
Modified Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 1,798	Originally Posted by Ducky ps -ef \| grep firefox \| grep -v grep \| awk '{print $2}' \| xargs -i kill {} \; With Cygwin I can do: C:\>bash bash-3.2$ ps -eWf \| grep firefox \| grep -v grep \| awk '{print $2}' \| xargs -i kill -f '{}' ; Of course, not being able to assume that those commands are always available for use in scripting is a problem. That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows. As an OS, two things that hurt Windows are: 1) No multiple command line arguments. Applications are responsible for splitting the command line into arguments, and they don't all do it the same way. This makes program integration difficult. 2) Use of 2D console instead of stream-based terminals. No pty equivalent (except with Cygwin apps) makes program integration difficult, since output buffering can not be suppressed for many programs. The only work-around is to run programs in debug mode and monitor terminal activity, but that causes security warnings under Vista.

1st November 2009, 08:02 AM	#210
dtugg Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NWO headquarters Posts: 3,160	Originally Posted by Modified That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows. They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there.

1st November 2009, 08:16 AM	#211
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by ohms This isn't really true, OSX can be installed on PC hardware, although I would say that doing so isn't really for the faint hearted Well yes, but then it pretty much qualifies as a Mac minus the Apple logo. Originally Posted by dtugg They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there. It's nothing like any of the Unixy shells and will have anyone who is familiar with those hiding under their bed in terror. That's not saying it isn't good, but it is very different.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

1st November 2009, 09:29 AM	#212
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 5,955	Originally Posted by Ducky Originally Posted by Darat What can you do in OSX Snow Leopard that you can't do in Windows7? ps -ef \| grep firefox \| grep -v grep \| awk '{print $2}' \| xargs -i kill {} \; As for the commands themselves, most of them can be found in the Unix Utils for Win32 package. ----- Originally Posted by jsiv Originally Posted by dtugg They have. It, which they call PowerShell, is included with Windows 7. It is also available as a free download for XP and Vista. Now, I have no idea how to use it or how good it is compared to UNIX, but the function is there. It's nothing like any of the Unixy shells and will have anyone who is familiar with those hiding under their bed in terror. That's not saying it isn't good, but it is very different. For server and system administration purposes, it's quite like 'Unixy' shells. That's the beauty of it (as soon as I get more acquainted with the C# language).
	__________________ _{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}

1st November 2009, 09:40 AM	#213
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by GreNME For server and system administration purposes, it's quite like 'Unixy' shells. That's the beauty of it (as soon as I get more acquainted with the C# language). gci\|? {!$_.psiscontainer}\|sort -p length\|% -b {$i=1} -p {do something} Yeah. Totally!
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

1st November 2009, 10:38 AM	#214
Ducky Titanium Superhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota Posts: 10,342	Originally Posted by Modified With Cygwin I can do: C:\>bash bash-3.2$ ps -eWf \| grep firefox \| grep -v grep \| awk '{print $2}' \| xargs -i kill -f '{}' ; Of course, not being able to assume that those commands are always available for use in scripting is a problem. That isn't really an OS issue - MS could "fix" this by including UNIX-ish commands and shells as part of a future version of Windows. As an OS, two things that hurt Windows are: 1) No multiple command line arguments. Applications are responsible for splitting the command line into arguments, and they don't all do it the same way. This makes program integration difficult. 2) Use of 2D console instead of stream-based terminals. No pty equivalent (except with Cygwin apps) makes program integration difficult, since output buffering can not be suppressed for many programs. The only work-around is to run programs in debug mode and monitor terminal activity, but that causes security warnings under Vista. It was a joke... However I have yet to see a windows port of dtrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace OSX does support dtrace. As well as zfs. But honestly I don't care. This is all semantics and os holy war nonsense. Let's all ****ing revert to using amigaOS.
	Last edited by Ducky; 1st November 2009 at 10:43 AM.

1st November 2009, 10:46 AM	#215
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by Ducky OSX does support dtrace. Well, Windows has xperf for tracing. It also has things like just-in-time debugging (the ability to debug a program before it terminates), which few other OSes have! There's pros and cons to everything.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

1st November 2009, 10:48 AM	#216
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 45,901	Originally Posted by Ducky It was a joke... However I have yet to see a windows port of dtrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace OSX does support dtrace. As well as zfs. But honestly I don't care. This is all semantics and os holy war nonsense. Let's all ****ing revert to using amigaOS. Surely you mean QDOS?
	__________________ 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

1st November 2009, 11:21 AM	#217
Modified Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 1,798	Originally Posted by Ducky It was a joke... But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness.

1st November 2009, 11:23 AM	#218
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 5,955	Originally Posted by Modified But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness. Why?
	__________________ _{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}

1st November 2009, 12:13 PM	#219
Ducky Titanium Superhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota Posts: 10,342	Originally Posted by Modified But lack of those or similar commands as part of the standard installation really is a serious weakness. There are similar equivalents to be installed with powershell. It's only a weakness if all you know is unixy bash scripting and are stuck on a windows server.

1st November 2009, 04:25 PM	#220
Uncle Otto New Blood Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 15	Originally Posted by jimtron I don't know, but I keep hearing folks say that Macs are much more expensive for comparable PCs. I did some Googling and I found some articles that showed there was a wash, or that Macs were actually cheaper. Maybe you're right, but I still haven't seen a comparison where the PC had the same (or better) features for significantly less money. I honestly don't know how much it would cost to add the other stuff. I had pc's for 10 years. Two and a half months ago I decided to take the plunge. I bought a 24" iMac. I had long bought into the myth that Macs are way more expensive than pc's. Not so in my case. I sat down and figured out what it would cost to replace all the peripherals for a new pc, that come built into the Mac-------speakers, monitor, webcam, headset, printer, (I got a new wireless all-in-one for $100 with the Mac. They then send you a rebate for $100). Especially the monitor. The result was that it would have cost me just as much to replace my old pc system bit by bit as it cost to buy the iMac with all that stuff built into it. I was also amazed at how much electrical spaghetti I got rid of behind the computer desk---------only the power cord off the back of the Mac. No VGA line and power cord for a monitor, no wires or power cords for the speakers or web cam, and no need for a microphone or a headset. The new printer is wireless, and the Mac comes wireless capable. It took me minutes to set it up and I'm no techie by any stretch of the imagination. Now having said that, I'm not a Microsoft hater. I used Windows for all those years and feel quite comfortable with it. I also have a laptop with XP on it, and intend to keep it for a good while. I also have the option to load my XP disc from the pc onto the Mac, and have both OS's on the machine. It's quite a procedure though from what I can see, and I don't know if I'll do that or not at this point. I just sent for the upgrade to Snow Leopard. We'll see how that goes. I should have it this week. So I'm new to Macs, but I know other people who have them, and they just rave about how good they are. My daughter and SIL both have them now and they tell me they will never go back to a Windows machine. I work with a couple of people who have them and they tell me the same thing. I'm still in the learning curve here. The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages. The Macs are nearly virus free, at least for the time being. Eventually, if Mac gets a much larger share of the computer market, someone will start finding ways to write the nasties for them. I have McAfee for Mac on mine because I'm a Comcast customer and it comes with your subscription. The fact is that right now, there are no known, current viruses for it to detect. Or so I've read.
Uncle Otto New Blood Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 15

1st November 2009, 06:47 PM	#221
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 5,955	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages. Interesting. I tend to look at them as more and more similar the more I learn about each.
	__________________ _{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}

1st November 2009, 07:34 PM	#222
Policenaut Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Shadow Moses Island Posts: 1,201	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto I had pc's for 10 years. Two and a half months ago I decided to take the plunge. I bought a 24" iMac. I had long bought into the myth that Macs are way more expensive than pc's. Not so in my case. I sat down and figured out what it would cost to replace all the peripherals for a new pc, that come built into the Mac-------speakers, monitor, webcam, headset, printer, (I got a new wireless all-in-one for $100 with the Mac. They then send you a rebate for $100). Especially the monitor. The result was that it would have cost me just as much to replace my old pc system bit by bit as it cost to buy the iMac with all that stuff built into it. I was also amazed at how much electrical spaghetti I got rid of behind the computer desk---------only the power cord off the back of the Mac. No VGA line and power cord for a monitor, no wires or power cords for the speakers or web cam, and no need for a microphone or a headset. The new printer is wireless, and the Mac comes wireless capable. It took me minutes to set it up and I'm no techie by any stretch of the imagination. Now having said that, I'm not a Microsoft hater. I used Windows for all those years and feel quite comfortable with it. I also have a laptop with XP on it, and intend to keep it for a good while. I also have the option to load my XP disc from the pc onto the Mac, and have both OS's on the machine. It's quite a procedure though from what I can see, and I don't know if I'll do that or not at this point. I just sent for the upgrade to Snow Leopard. We'll see how that goes. I should have it this week. So I'm new to Macs, but I know other people who have them, and they just rave about how good they are. My daughter and SIL both have them now and they tell me they will never go back to a Windows machine. I work with a couple of people who have them and they tell me the same thing. I'm still in the learning curve here. The way I see it is that they are two different OS's, each with their own quirks, problems and vulnerabilities, and advantages and disadvantages. The Macs are nearly virus free, at least for the time being. Eventually, if Mac gets a much larger share of the computer market, someone will start finding ways to write the nasties for them. I have McAfee for Mac on mine because I'm a Comcast customer and it comes with your subscription. The fact is that right now, there are no known, current viruses for it to detect. Or so I've read. iMac is just a style. AIO or all in one. There are PCs as well. http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/touchsmart/ http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/category/desktops http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...ne&cs=19&s=dhs There are others. Also in this day and age you don't really have the same "spaghetti wire" problem as before. Many monitors have built in speakers and webcam. Wireless mice, keyboards, and printers are common and cheap. So the only real cables you will have on a typical tower setup is the power cable from the pc, the power cable from the monitor, and the cable from the monitor to the tower. Personally I use both but mac because of one thing really: Final Cut Studio. If this was not on a mac I would have no use for one. Every other program I need is on windows. Actually I could just use Avid (or even Premiere) and get cut macs out of the equation entirely but I like Final Cut more. But that choice isn't really up to me anyway. And I agree they are more similar then they are different. Basically for the majority of typical home users who do simple tasks (web surfing, music, movies, light gaming, wp, etc.) there should be no debate. Both do the same things and they both do it well. Macs are great. I just have a disdain for their computer pricing. In fact the only thing I think they have priced reasonably for what you get is the new 27" iMac. Depending on the verdict I may even get a quad core 27". Though I can't see a typical user wanting one. That size is a bit large for most casual users and too small to use as a monitor from far away.
	Last edited by Policenaut; 1st November 2009 at 07:36 PM.

1st November 2009, 07:43 PM	#223
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Originally Posted by SkeptiChick Personally, I'd send that Mac back. They're not supposed to crash like that. Your mom's PC wasn't supposed to crash like that either. Personallly, I'd have sent it back.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

1st November 2009, 08:04 PM	#224
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 3,014	Ya, I think the idea of new hardware making a PC wipe it's OS is as crazy as someone saying to a mechanic that his dipstick causes his car to overheat. It makes zero sense to me. I think that computer must have had major hardware problems (if it's not being greatly exaggerated). That and the 4 hours to get a printer working.. Ya, I'd have given up at that in 1/8th the time and returned it. I don't even spend 4 hours at it when I take the time to reinstall my entire OS and software (something I used to do more often, convinced it was useful, but now haven't done for over two years without incident). Somehow I suspect that all these PC horror stories are greatly exaggerated. I was a tech for 6 years. Even in the worst cases of problems we never had anywhere near the nightmares that people claim.. and usually it's Mac people explaining why they gave up their PC for a Mac. Like those horrible commercials that were on the air before the more recent "Switch" campaign. "Then one time I hit a key, and the entire machine started violently shaking! I thought it was going to explode any minute. Suddenly, the hard drives shot out of the machine, through the case. I could have been killed. I was just trying to load my word processor! That's when I said 'Screw it, I'm getting a Mac'". Are Macs "computers for dummies"? Or "idiot proofed"?
	__________________ "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" -Jim Last edited by Whiplash; 1st November 2009 at 08:07 PM.

1st November 2009, 08:08 PM	#225
daSkeptic Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen Posts: 578	Originally Posted by Policenaut Basically for the majority of typical home users who do simple tasks (web surfing, music, movies, light gaming, wp, etc.) there should be no debate. Both do the same things and they both do it well. I'm inclined to agree. While there are certainly situations out there for which the differences between the systems might be significant, the average consumer does not generally fall into this category. ETA: The only exception might be the field-configurability issue. However, as I do not have any data on exactly what percentage of consumers care about this, I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether they are representative of the average.
	__________________ If you want an expensive toy to mod out and screw around with, Apple would prefer you bought a PC. Last edited by daSkeptic; 1st November 2009 at 08:18 PM.

1st November 2009, 08:16 PM	#226
SkeptiChick Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 1,546	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Your mom's PC wasn't supposed to crash like that either. Personallly, I'd have sent it back. If she'd bought it "out of the box" from a computer manufacturer, I'd have told her to. But she didn't. Well, originally she did buy it from a custom PC builder, but over the years she'd upgraded virtually everything in it (including mb and processor), so the only original piece left was the case... So she couldn't "send it back". She could have returned individual malfunctioning pieces, if she had actually been able to find the piece that was malfunctioning, but she couldn't, so returning anything was not an option.
	__________________ Nimari (80), Guild Leader of <Empirical>, Horde, Madoran(US) Happily welcoming skeptic recruits

2nd November 2009, 12:35 AM	#227
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Sorry, I responded without realising how far the conversation had progressed after the comment I was responding to.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

2nd November 2009, 11:11 AM	#228
uruk Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 4,343	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Which is exactly not the reason I own a Mac. This is the type of ignorant post that bothers me, because you think that the only reason I would own a Mac is to be trendy, and not even think that for me (graphic design, film, and 3D Animation) a Mac would be the best choice. I get tired of being in a library and here people say those things about me, not knowing that I bought my Mac for actual reasons other than being trendy. NEVERTHELESS...I originally bought my first Mac not of deal with any of the bonuses you mentioned, and so that is all relative. I repeat again. There are very few Macs used in the 3D animation/film effects industry. All the major 3D animation software vendors, Just one now really (autodesk), do not provide a whole lot of support support for Macs. The reason being that there are no high end graphic workstation cards for Mac. There are only one or two native 3D animation programs for the Mac and no one in the industry would really consider them "Professional". Autodesk does have Mac ports for Maya. But good luck trying to find Maya 2010 for the Mac right now. I have read many trade magazine bemoaning the condition of Macs in the 3D animation/film effects industry. Print and film editing are another story though.
	__________________ 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

2nd November 2009, 11:25 AM	#229
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by SkeptiChick If she'd bought it "out of the box" from a computer manufacturer, I'd have told her to. But she didn't. Well, originally she did buy it from a custom PC builder, but over the years she'd upgraded virtually everything in it (including mb and processor), so the only original piece left was the case... So she couldn't "send it back". She could have returned individual malfunctioning pieces, if she had actually been able to find the piece that was malfunctioning, but she couldn't, so returning anything was not an option. For every Mac you buy, I'm going to not buy two.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

2nd November 2009, 12:45 PM	#230
nota Student Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 43	Originally Posted by KingofMadCows What I don't like about Macs is that there's just too little customization. If I build a PC, I can choose between an AMD build and an Intel build. I can get a 500 watt Antec PSU or an OCZ 80 plus gold certified 1,000 watt psu. I can get a GTS 250 or a Radeon 5870. Plus I'm not sure about the quality of some of the Apple parts. I know for sure that the quality of the Gigabyte motherboard I have is excellent. I don't know how good the Mac mobo is. I don't even know the efficiency of Apple psu's. just try to buy a mac M/B for a intel chip I can't find any for sale anywhere apple makes some nice but very over priced stuff but with the hackintosch type programs and the right intel based parts [do your homework ] you can run O/S 10.Xx on a pc box for about 1/2 the cost of a mac 0verclock your pc for a faster rig all the latest mac's use the same chips as pc's same HD same dvd/cd burners/players same memory chips so why do mac's cost twice as much ? greed
nota Student Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 43

2nd November 2009, 12:57 PM	#231
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	(Ignoring the claim that they're twice as expensive..) Because people are willing to pay what Apple charges. You can sit there all day and rant about how expensive Macs are. If people--lots of people--didn't think they were good products, they wouldn't sell. Clearly a lot of people like the Macs. They like the whole package, both hardware and software. The two aren't separate. The Mac is a complete package.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

2nd November 2009, 01:23 PM	#232
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508	Originally Posted by jsiv (Ignoring the claim that they're twice as expensive..) Because people are willing to pay what Apple charges. You can sit there all day and rant about how expensive Macs are. If people--lots of people--didn't think they were good products, they wouldn't sell. Clearly a lot of people like the Macs. They like the whole package, both hardware and software. The two aren't separate. The Mac is a complete package. People will pay $20,000 for power cables that "clean" the electricity that is entering their amps, despite the fact that any sane person can see that this is self-evidently money for nothing. You really can't use the "people pay the money, therefore it must be worth it" argument. There are lots of cases of marketers artificially raising prices on certain product lines so as to convey the sense that they are "luxury" or "top of the line" items. Macs have long tried to separate themselves from PCs on the basis of these kinds of intangible advantages. It will actually pose a dilemma for Apple if they ever start to seriously rival PCs as commodity computers: how to brand yourself as the special computer for special people if everyone's got one?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,508

2nd November 2009, 01:29 PM	#233
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by Yoink You really can't use the "people pay the money, therefore it must be worth it" argument. His question was why they cost what they do, and the answer is that they cost what they do because people are willing to pay what they cost. The reason why people are willing to pay what they cost, is because they feel it's worth it (which for something that actually works, like a Mac, is subjective). Why would Apple charge less than they can?
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

2nd November 2009, 01:32 PM	#234
Sunray Breaker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Denver Posts: 374	I hear the virus protection on mac is far superior. I just bought a brand new Vaio and it's already having more problems than my bandmates old ass G-4
	__________________ "There are actions none but you can perform that might tip the balance. That might create new circumstances...Change forces, force changes, create facts. History is formless and oppressive all around me, a nightmare i will make into sense." - China Mieville (The Scar)

2nd November 2009, 01:33 PM	#235
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,013	Originally Posted by Sunray Breaker I hear the virus protection on mac is far superior. You don't need much protection when there's only five viruses in total, compared to trillions for Windows.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!