[Closed] mac v pc

I run a 17"Macbook Pro with VM fusion & XP which I need for work as the government issued software that I have to use is based on Access & Oracle with a touch of SQL thrown in.(hope that one day Filemaker Pro can make the need for these not required)

Boot up on the Mac approx 3x quicker than in XP. Also, running OSX I get 4.5hrs battery life in XP 3 if I am lucky.
I don' bother with Office for MAC as I use the Numbers/pages/keynote. All much less complicated to use which for me equates to easier. Even reads DOCX XLSX files which previous versions of Office can't in my experience. The options to use pop downs in Numbers is great for me. Mot an easy option in Excel.

We also have older powerbooks G4 still going strong
For us as a whole family (including Granny) all using MACS is just easier & it all just works without any hassle.

[i]DrJ: no I didn't. I suggested that PDF was an odd choice of format for bank statements[/i]

So Apple are responsible for banks' decisions on how to distribute statements? Interesting! But as I said before - irrelevant.

I work at a company developing software (mostly scientific apps & drivers) for Linux on machines ranging from large servers to RT embedded apps, and not a single dev uses Linux on the desktop.

I don't understand? So they just boot into console and code away in vim all day? 🙂

About 75% of our devs use vim (I use vim/gvim), the rest probably use some graphical IDE. All of us make some use of the desktop mind - you would have to be very stubborn not too I think...

Edit - I've probably got the wrong idea of what you mean by 'desktop' 🙂 *tired*

Crikey: yep and bikes are just transport. Girls don't care what you ride either.

Graham of m: you're comparing ancient XP and an old version of Office to the latest OSX. Hardly fair. But yes old versions of Office CAN open newer Office format files (if you install the add-on) but just saving in old format is definitely the better option if you need compatability.
oh and if your getting that much more battery life from OSX then your power options aren't set up in XP.

DrJ: man you latched onto that one. It made sense in the context of the conversation (you saying PDF was pretty standard. Me saying that my PC-mentality meant I expected accounting data in an accounting format, not a brochure).

[i]DrJ: man you latched onto that one. It made sense in the context of the conversation (you saying PDF was pretty standard. Me saying that my PC-mentality meant I expected accounting data in an accounting format, not a brochure).[/i]

Not really - I was just surprised that you didn't manage to make the leap of seeing that what was applicable to bank statements is also applicable to any other collection of documents, regardless of nature or format. Maybe that's a "PC thing" too.

Some PCs are good, unfortunately they are just supplied with imperfect software.

Macs come as a whole unit, with the Software designed for the Hardware.

There are some sleek looking Sonys out there which I like the look of, but running MS OS on it... I'm not going anywhere near it.

Mac all the way for me.... Oh, and my G4 is my everyday machine.

This PC vs MAC debate was Rubbish! It started off well with suggestions of gayness and underhanded advertising campaigns but then it degenerated in sensible discussion with articulate highlighting of the respective machines attributes. At least bringing linux into the mix generated a little bit of animosity but I'm very disappointed indeed.

Here Jon this might help correct it.
[url=

vs pc[/url]

Back to the original point though, Linux isn't windows, and from my experience, albeit limited it has issues on laptops with the sleep thing.

DrJ: yes, clearly being able to handle multiple threads of conversation are a PC-mindset thing too. I understand Quicklook works on a number of common file types and I believe I already conceded the more general point that Quicklook is potentially useful.

Drac: Good work.

On a more general point, why is Microsoft considered TEH EVILS, but Apple is everybody's best friend?
Surely some Apple practises are just as dodgy as MS?

Is it just a size thing? MS is the corporate giant whereas Apple is (perceived as) the plucky underdog?

[i]I believe I already conceded the more general point that Quicklook is potentially useful. [/i]

Well, that's progress, because when you said:

[i]To my PC-oriented mind that seems like a pretty typical example of Apple supporting users who are doing things in the wrong fairly odd way to start with.[/i]

a casual reader might have got the impression that you thought that Quicklook is a typical example of Apple supporting users doing things in a fairly odd way.

As for why M$ is seen as evil - just read the court records.

Is this still going? They're just computers ffs. They all do the same thing basically.

A casual reader might also have got the impression that when I said: [i]"I can see a benefit to being able to flip through tons of files easily and quickly, that would be handy."[/i] I was conceding a point, which is apparently more than you can do.

As for why M$ is seen as evil - just read the court records.

Well that's kind of what I mean.

Microsoft were done for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - but OSX comes with Safari.

Likewise MS were done for attempting to limit what hardware Windows could be sold with. But Apple have a long history of Apples only talking to officially sanctioned Apple products.

Outside of the courts, if Microsoft were to say "You can only run Windows on PCs built by Microsoft and you can only install applications that are approved by Microsoft." then there would be an outcry and everyone would bleat about evil Microsoft.

But that limiting of software and hardware is a major part of the reason why the Apple ecosystem is stable and well-integrated, and people love them for it.

Is this still going? They're just computers ffs. They all do the same thing basically.

So do bikes.

<cough> Ubuntu </cough>

the Apple philosophy is for non-technical numpties,
- if you want the ability to do things differently then get a PC but you need to do some thinking and fettling.

Linux is for individualist libertarians who like to build their own...
IMHO of course.

My wife, a non-technical numpty, thinks Mac's are beautiful which is apparently all that is required for a computer tool 😆

Linux is for individualist libertarians who like to build their own...

I think the *nix posse sometimes forget that OSX is Unix-based too.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/05/comment.media ]I hate Macs - Charlie Brooker[/url]

I hate Macs

o Charlie Brooker
o The Guardian, Monday 5 February 2007
o Article history

Unless you have been walking around with your eyes closed, and your head encased in a block of concrete, with a blindfold tied round it, in the dark - unless you have been doing that, you surely can't have failed to notice the current Apple Macintosh campaign starring David Mitchell and Robert Webb, which has taken over magazines, newspapers and the internet in a series of brutal coordinated attacks aimed at causing massive loss of resistance. While I don't have anything against shameless promotion per se (after all, within these very brackets I'm promoting my own BBC4 show, which starts tonight at 10pm), there is something infuriating about this particular blitz. In the ads, Webb plays a Mac while Mitchell adopts the mantle of a PC. We know this because they say so right at the start of the ad.

"Hello, I'm a Mac," says Webb.

"And I'm a PC," adds Mitchell.

They then perform a small comic vignette aimed at highlighting the differences between the two computers. So in one, the PC has a "nasty virus" that makes him sneeze like a plague victim; in another, he keeps freezing up and having to reboot. This is a subtle way of saying PCs are unreliable. Mitchell, incidentally, is wearing a nerdy, conservative suit throughout, while Webb is dressed in laid-back contemporary casual wear. This is a subtle way of saying Macs are cool.

The ads are adapted from a near-identical American campaign - the only difference is the use of Mitchell and Webb. They are a logical choice in one sense (everyone likes them), but a curious choice in another, since they are best known for the television series Peep Show - probably the best sitcom of the past five years - in which Mitchell plays a repressed, neurotic underdog, and Webb plays a selfish, self-regarding poseur. So when you see the ads, you think, "PCs are a bit rubbish yet ultimately lovable, whereas Macs are just smug, preening tossers." In other words, it is a devastatingly accurate campaign.

I hate Macs. I have always hated Macs. I hate people who use Macs. I even hate people who don't use Macs but sometimes wish they did. Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui.

PCs are the ramshackle computers of the people. You can build your own from scratch, then customise it into oblivion. Sometimes you have to slap it to make it work properly, just like the Tardis (Doctor Who, incidentally, would definitely use a PC). PCs have charm; Macs ooze pretension. When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, "I hate Macs", and then I think, "Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?" Losing that second mouse button feels like losing a limb. If the ads were really honest, Webb would be standing there with one arm, struggling to open a packet of peanuts while Mitchell effortlessly tore his apart with both hands. But then, if the ads were really honest, Webb would be dressed in unbelievably po-faced avant-garde clothing with a gigantic glowing apple on his back. And instead of conducting a proper conversation, he would be repeatedly congratulating himself for looking so cool, and banging on about how he was going to use his new laptop to write a novel, without ever getting round to doing it, like a mediocre idiot.

Cue 10 years of nasal bleating from Mac-likers who profess to like Macs not because they are fashionable, but because "they are just better". Mac owners often sneer that kind of defence back at you when you mock their silly, posturing contraptions, because in doing so, you have inadvertently put your finger on the dark fear haunting their feeble, quivering soul - that in some sense, they are a superficial semi-person assembled from packaging; an infinitely sad, second-rate replicant who doesn't really know what they are doing here, but feels vaguely significant and creative each time they gaze at their sleek designer machine. And the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are.

Aside from crowing about sartorial differences, the adverts also make a big deal about PCs being associated with "work stuff" (Boo! Offices! Boo!), as opposed to Macs, which are apparently better at "fun stuff". How insecure is that? And how inaccurate? Better at "fun stuff", my arse. The only way to have fun with a Mac is to poke its insufferable owner in the eye. For proof, stroll into any decent games shop and cast your eye over the exhaustive range of cutting-edge computer games available exclusively for the PC, then compare that with the sort of rubbish you get on the Mac. Myst, the most pompous and boring videogame of all time, a plodding, dismal "adventure" in which you wandered around solving tedious puzzles in a rubbish magic kingdom apparently modelled on pretentious album covers, originated on the Mac in 1993. That same year, the first shoot-'em-up game, Doom, was released on the PC. This tells you all you will ever need to know about the Mac's relationship with "fun".

Ultimately the campaign's biggest flaw is that it perpetuates the notion that consumers somehow "define themselves" with the technology they choose. If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. Of course, that hasn't stopped me slagging off Mac owners, with a series of sweeping generalisations, for the past 900 words, but that is what the ads do to PCs. Besides, that's what we PC owners are like - unreliable, idiosyncratic and gleefully unfair. And if you'll excuse me now, I feel an unexpected crash coming.

[i]Microsoft were done for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - but OSX comes with Safari.[/i]

The difference is related to the market shares. M$ had, and exploited, an effective monopoly.

So do bikes.

I've had 2 laptops running XP for the last few years and never had any problems at all, no crashes, no failures, they just work as they should.

I feel sorry for you guys who need something "easier to use." 😉

Microsoft were done for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows - but OSX comes with Safari.

The difference is related to the market shares. M$ had, and exploited, an effective monopoly.

Also, you can easily remove Safari if you so wish.

[i]they just work as they should[/i]

And I feel sorry for you guys whose idea of "how a computer should work" is so limited that running XP fulfils your requirements. Still, if you're happy, who am I to complain?

The difference is related to the market shares. M$ had, and exploited, an effective monopoly.

So that plays to my point. In that particular instance Apple are the heroic "plucky underdog" so it's okay for them to do it - but if Microsoft use the same tactic then they are EVILS.

I think it basically comes down to Apple having a better marketing department.

LOL! But surely, Charlie Brooker is just an angry man with terrible hemorrhoids? Hardly someone you'd look to for an informed, objective, intelligent response on anything.

My wife, a non-technical numpty, thinks Mac's are beautiful which is apparently all that is required for a computer tool

See, that's the thing. If we have to use these things, at least make them more pleasurable to use. Or should car/clothing/furniture designers not bother with aesthetics, but focus instead purely on function?

I've mentioned this before, but when I was running my Photoshop class, my Mac using students seemed to get on a lot better with doing tasks, and had more confidence with using their computers, than the PC users. I put this down to the more intuitive and user friendly OS and GUI. Vista seems to have made a leap towards a better GUI, but come on, most of the features are a blatant rip-off of Apple's.

But that limiting of software and hardware is a major part of the reason why the Apple ecosystem is stable and well-integrated, and people love them for it.

That's why I prefer Macs. I don't need my computer to do all sorts of boring number crunching data analysis stuff, or whatever, and neither do most people. I need it to do pretty picture stuff, which it is very good at (me mate told me that Macs are used at the Uni where he works, to do some very sophisticated scientific stuff, like protein molecule growth simulations and all sorts of mad stuff; Macs are actually a lot more versatile than people think).

Apple have taken the computer out of the lab, and put it into peoples' homes and daily lives. And they've done that very well indeed. About time MS realised that's where we want to use them.

That's why I prefer Macs

Yes but if Microsoft did the exact same thing then people would bleat about evil Microsoft and they would get sued into oblivion.

The perception seems to be that Microsoft would do something like that purely to help their own evil profits, whereas kindly Apple do it because they know what is best for the users and only have your best interests at heart.

And that's just good marketing.

I don't need my computer to do all sorts of boring number crunching data analysis stuff, or whatever, and neither do most people.

No, true. Most people want to be able to play games...

We use a MacBook Pro and an HP Vista laptop at home which both have their own little quirks and niggles.

The main issue with both machines which affects our workflow is that Adobe CS4 (all of it...) seems to be incredibly infuriating compared to previous versions but that's got nothing to do with the OS 🙂

[i]So that plays to my point. In that particular instance Apple are the heroic "plucky underdog" so it's okay for them to do it - but if Microsoft use the same tactic then they are EVILS.

I think it basically comes down to Apple having a better marketing department. [/i]

Umm ... no. Apple can't do the same thing, even if they wanted to (and there's no suggestion that they would, if they could), because they have a very small market share.

See here for some facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Umm ... no. Apple can't do the same thing, even if they wanted to (and there's no suggestion that they would, if they could), because they have a very small market share.

Apple [u]do[/u] already use that same tactic, and several other dubious ones that Microsoft are frequently criticised for.

From your Wikipedia article:

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.

How is that different from Apple bundling Safari, Garage Band, iLife, iPhoto, Time Machine etc with OSX?

The only difference is, as you rightly say, market share.

Fortunately in areas where Apple does have a controlling market share, like say MP3 players, they don't force people to use iTunes and Apple software. Oh.. no wait.. actually they do...

Well at least they don't actively prevent people removing those restrictions. Oh.

Well at least they don't insist on personally vetting every single application that can be sold for those devices. Oh.

Or assume control of the only way to legally distribute applications to those devices so they can make a profit on every application sold. Oh dear.

Still they do make very shiny mp3 players, so everyone is happy. 🙄

[i]Apple do already use that same tactic, and several other dubious ones that Microsoft are frequently criticised for.[/i]

That just doesn't make sense - a small company cannot abuse a monopoly, as it doesn't have one!! Apple can't force anyone to do anything, unlike Microsoft. Apple bundling Safari isn't threatening anyone, is it?

The claims about iTunes are just silly - the player and the s/w are a bundle - one can't work at all without the other. Shall I sue Nintendo because I can't use it with Sony games? Or sue Mercedes because I can't use the ashtray from my Ford?

[url= http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10228811-16.html ]Naughty Apple[/url]

[i]Apple can't force anyone to do anything, unlike Microsoft[/i]

sorry? what did Microsoft force me to do?

this is much better, paeople are starting to get cross.

That just doesn't make sense - a small company cannot abuse a monopoly, as it doesn't have one!! Apple can't force anyone to do anything, unlike Microsoft. Apple bundling Safari isn't threatening anyone, is it?

Let's say for instance that my company sold backup software for Apple systems. Would I have been completely screwed when they started bundling Time Machine?

The claims about iTunes are just silly - the player and the s/w are a bundle - one can't work at all without the other.

By design. Other mp3 players manage that just fine.

Why do I need Bonjour, Apple Mobile Device Helper, QuickTime, Apple Update and iTunes installed just to copy some mp3 files?

And why exactly does iTunes try to install Safari?

Again the simple answer is because it's easier that way. Kindly uncle Apple knows what's best. Apple definitely aren't abusing that monopoly to push other Apple software on me. No sireeee. That's the kind of thing Microsoft would do. Apple are just helping me.

Like when they ban apps that might contain bad language. Or make fart noises.

It's for my own good.

Whip me again Master Jobs.

Why has the sole point for comparison between Windows and Mac OS got to be ease of use? I work every day on a PC, it has a piece of software for everything I require, most third party apps by companies who specialise in their respective areas. If something goes wrong with any we can physically email that company and get support.

Windows is generally quite a bare OS, yes it comes with a few random apps, they're normally just .exe files dropped in there though to give it some basic usability and add features to their sales pitch. Do want my operating system to nicely catagorise my music and make my photos into a nice coffee table photo album? No, not really, and if it did I'd download an application to do this.

I don't use Acrobat for viewing PDFs, it's slow and tries its best to pester me about updates. I stuck Foxit on, 3mb, tabbed viewing, free, very fast. I like having the choice what I use, not being told Mac software is best because it's best for someone else?

Much as I don't use iTunes, it's a huge bulky tool, it reencodes things it doesn't understand into another lossy format, further losing quality. I'm using Winamp, tiny app, does everything I want, plays everything, very low memory usage, masses of plugins incase I require anything odd (remote control support, more file formats, visualisations etc).

I am a student.
I can get a 10% discount on Apple things.
Alternatively, I can use Windows Server 2008 which is [i]free[/i] & legal. (Essentially Vista without bloat, bloat can be installed if you want it.)
I [i]built[/i] this PC over 3 years ago now. I have spent £250 on [i]upgrades[/i] in those 3 years to keep my framerate up in newer [i]games[/i], and it runs far quicker than new. I have given no money to Microsoft. I can see no better situation to be in.

Words italicised to draw attention to things fruitboxes lack in.

Oh, and it's brushed aluminium and looks pretty.

Incidentally I see OSX [s]Service Pack 7[/s] update 10.5.7 [url= http://lifehacker.com/5242695/os-x-1057-update-may-drop-this-friday ]may or may not come out this Friday[/url].

Microsoft have only released one service pack for Vista and are planning a second one soon. This is because Microsoft are evil and their code is full of bugs.

This will be the seventh [s]patch[/s] update for 10.5 that Apple have released. This is because Apple are lovely and constantly striving to make their product better.

I think Charlie Brooker's article needs to be in every one of these threads. It's funny.

🙂

[i]sorry? what did Microsoft force me to do?[/i]

Err .. to not use Netscape, for a start

[i]Let's say for instance that my company sold backup software for Apple systems. Would I have been completely screwed when they started bundling Time Machine?[/i]

Dunno - ask the makers of Retrospect or SuperDuper.

But surely it has even penetrated your addled noggin that there is a difference between a company with a 95% market share doing something, and a company with a 3% market share doing something? Why not go look up the history of Standard Oil, or Ma Bell, and then rejoin the discussion?

[i]By design. Other mp3 players manage that just fine[/i]

Of course by design - that's the point - that's what it [b]is[/b]. You want to copy mp3 files from place to place, there are any number of POS players will do that for you. Hell - maybe you want to buy a nice brown Zune?

[i]Err .. to not use Netscape, for a start [/i]
Good, it (Navigator) was crap.

I don't mind using IE to do things on the box itself. I resent having to use it to access other places but that's ok, no-one was ever forced to do that.

Is this still going on? It's got a bit more interesting since people started getting testy though.

It seems to me that the most significant difference is that the PC has users while Apple has disciples. Kudos to GrahamS for attempting a discussion, but even he appears to be getting grumpy now.

Dunno what Charlie Brooker's on about - my Mighty Mouse right clicks.

123 posts and not a girlfriend in sight..... 😀

surely it has even penetrated your addled noggin that there is a difference between a company with a 95% market share doing something, and a company with a 3% market share doing something?

Don't [i]ad hominem[/i] me son.

I think I have ably demonstrated that in areas where Apple have market dominance (e.g. in mp3 players) then they are quick to indulge in the same kind of monopoly tactics that Microsoft got slated for. But that no one is calling them on it because Apple is everybody's friend.

And that by deciding to bundle software with OSX they can harm other companies that were already in that market in just the same way that Microsoft harmed Netscape.

[url= http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1792 ]Apple pushing Safari through with iTunes has hit Firefox's share of the browser market[/url] - explain to me how that isn't Apple abusing monopoly power??

Of course by design - that's the point - that's what it is. You want to copy mp3 files from place to place, there are any number of POS players will do that for you.

And that's the Apple mindset. You want [i]iThis[/i]? Right then you'll need iThat, iTheOther and iSomeOtherDamnThing. And if you want to charge it you'll need to buy a new Apple iCharger because the electricity produced by your old charger isn't Apple compatible.

They forcibly join everything together like this, and the result is that it's all nicely integrated, works simply and well. Which is why people like them.

But if Microsoft did that they'd get absolutely slated.

Hell - maybe you want to buy a nice brown Zune?

No ta. I've got an iPhone and I love it.

Of course I wish I could install whatever I like on it. And that Apple didn't try to prevent me jailbreaking it. And that I could develop my own apps for it without buying a Mac. And that I could distribute those apps without Apple wanting a cut of my profits.

But it's still better than a Zune.

GrahameS - I'm glad you're happy with your efforts but from where I'm sitting I don't see a single example of apple creating an unfair barrier to entry to the mp3 player Market. On the contrary - if you or I decided to manufacture an mp3 player tomorrow there is nothing to prevent us competing with the iPod. We can even make one that plays music bought from the iTunes store using free apple software. If there really were grounds to complain don't you think that there would be a line of lawyers a mile long waiting to file suit?

Of course apple's strength is its integrated product. But that is also its weakness. On the other hand the M$ business model was to make an is that runs (I use the term loosely) ok every box of crap from Kansas to Kowloon. That was the strategy that made them so hugely successful so it seems a little strange at this point to claim that they were prevented from adopting a different strategy!

from where I'm sitting I don't see a single example of apple creating an unfair barrier to entry to the mp3 player Market.

Well no and I didn't accuse them of doing so either.

In the case you cited Microsoft were accused of using their market dominance of desktop operating systems to gain advantage for their browser by bundling it with the OS.

I pointed out that Apple are doing exactly the same thing. Using their market dominance of MP3 players to push other Apple products (i.e. Safari, MobileMe, Bonjour). Yup.

But yet they are perceived very differently - as your ardent fanboism ably demonstrates - they are "the good guys" and can do no wrong in the eyes of the Apple faithful.

Of course apple's strength is its integrated product. But that is also its weakness.

I'd argue that it is also their "evilness". And that the tie-in, restrictive integration is a major part of the reason that some folk are wary of Apple generally.

Reading back, several other Apple sceptics have made similar comments in this very thread.

it seems a little strange at this point to claim that they were prevented from adopting a different strategy!

You mean apart from that bit where they actually tried a strategy of tighter integration and got thoroughly sued for it.