Design a computer...

[Laertes 10]

I'm aware you need windows on the mac to run pc games, well aware of it, was never in question... but still I reckon Mac must have some value. RE: my original post

Very few of you have ANYTHING positive to say about Macs at all

The whole point with Macs is that their best quality/attribute is the OS and the design. The hardware is normal. So, without the OS, you have a decent Windows PC with a fancy design that will probably end up having some heat problems when you start playing games like A2 on high settings.

[Bulldogs 10]

As a side note, you can install Mac OSX on a Windows PC if you know what you're doing. After all, all the hardware is based on the same properties.

[echo1 0]

That assumes that your machine has hardware that a Mac has. Lack of drivers are a big problem, rendering things like audio or ethernet useless.

Besides, if you're into that sort of thing, you're much better off looking into Linux.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Someone mentioned Boot Camp a few pages back and I never saw anybody give him an answer about it.

Boot Camp is a partition utility within OS X (it's free, it comes with the OS). It also installs all your drivers and so on and gives you control of things like your keyboard (Apple keyboards are slightly different layouts and don't have a Windows key, for obvious reasons) so you can map it and stuff and have access to the media keys inside Windows.

When you run Boot Camp, it'll ask you how much space you wish to devote to a Windows install, then it'll restart and it'll install just like any other Windows installation. When it's installed you put your OS X DVD into the drive and load the Boot Camp drivers, which will install the drivers for the GPU, audio card, networking and all the rest.

That's is, it's nothing complex. Windows also runs better on a Mac because the drivers are tailor made for that hardware, it's optimised. Quite a lot of "best Windows machine" awards have been given to Macs because of this.

About the £35,000 config. I call BS. The highest price I could get a Mac Pro to is £16,330.89 incl. VAT. That's with literally all the most expensive options selected including adapters that aren't required, One-to-One traning, printer, MobileMe and 3 year Apple Care.

You must have specc'd up an Xserve to come anywhere near that price or multiplied the Mac Pro by two.

You can install OSX onto machines with an EFI (or by flashing the BIOS to be one, or emulating it). It's not exactly legal, but Apple have yet to say anything against it if it's for hobbiests. They just take issue if you then go on and sell those machines, like Psystar.

On a side note. There's actually more custom hardware in a Mac than you think. It just happens to be of the same x86 architecture used in PC's. Ironically, PC's weren't made with off the shelf components so they were easier to upgrade, they were made that way because IBM didn't have enough time to come up with their own hardware and it was cheaper, then the clones appeared, thanks to some folks making their own BIOS that did the same as the IBM one much like how Macs are now, with their own EFI.

EFI's are actually the prefered method these days by the way. Microsoft have been trying to get BIOS replaced with this for years, but board makers and OEM's don't seem to want to do it for some reason. EFI is a more modern up to date BIOS.

[bangtail 0]

Mac users crack me up. Exactly why would I want Win 7 running on a Mac when I can just buy a PC? If I wanted to run OSX, I'd buy a Mac for obvious reasons and the door swings both ways.

They'll always have some irrelevant argument (and more often than not, false - ie "Macs never crash" or "Macs never get viruses") as to why Macs are better but between Apple's pathetic and childish advertising campaign (which comes across the same way most Mac users do) and their tiny market share, I just don't see the attraction.

I don't want to generalize (although unfortunately I'm going to), but people who buy Macs (in my experience), are always the same type of person. They're akin to religious zealots, they have to ram the fact that what they happen to like is better than anything else down people's throats and if you don't agree, you're somehow mentally handicapped (I refer again to the advertising campaign) :rolleyes:

Not an attack directed at anyone here btw, just my experience with Mac users I've dealt with past and present.

Edited February 14, 2010 by BangTail

[echo1 0]

Some of the hardware is nice if you look at them as PCs as opposed to Macs. The Mac Pro is a nice machine irrespective of the fact that it's made by Apple. When dealing with that sort of hardware, it's expensive no matter where you get it, even if you make it yourself (the standard dual CPU configuration is €3,000 but if you were to make it yourself, the equivalent motherboard and two CPUs would cost €1,500 alone, and the rest would be easily made up once you factored in the other parts)

Their laptops (in terms of value for money, the laptops compare favorably with some of the better Wintel laptops) and iMacs are nice enough, although once you up the screen size, they become quite expensive. In all these cases, I wouldn't recommend them as gaming machines, they just don't offer good bang-for-buck in graphics power.

Other stuff like iPods, iPhones, iPads etc etc are shit, in my most humble of opinions.

[bangtail 0]

Other stuff like iPods, iPhones, iPads etc etc are shit, in my most humble of opinions.

Amen.

Much like Britney Spears, they sell alot of units but that doesn't denote any modicum of quality.

[dmarkwick 261]

The thing I will say in favour of iWhatever (I don't own any of them, but I have used several of them), is that their operating systems seem to be designed by designers instead of engineers. That is, they're designed to be used, not learned. Mobile 'phones in particular for example seem to be designed to give you as much grief as possible sometimes.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Mac users crack me up. Exactly why would I want Win 7 running on a Mac when I can just buy a PC? If I wanted to run OSX, I'd buy a Mac for obvious reasons and the door swings both ways.

They'll always have some irrelevant argument (and more often than not, false - ie "Macs never crash" or "Macs never get viruses") as to why Macs are better but between Apple's pathetic and childish advertising campaign (which comes across the same way most Mac users do) and their tiny market share, I just don't see the attraction.

I don't want to generalize (although unfortunately I'm going to), but people who buy Macs (in my experience), are always the same type of person. They're akin to religious zealots, they have to ram the fact that what they happen to like is better than anything else down people's throats and if you don't agree, you're somehow mentally handicapped (I refer again to the advertising campaign) :rolleyes:

Not an attack directed at anyone here btw, just my experience with Mac users I've dealt with past and present.

By the same token all the people who say Mac fans are like that, are just like this. They have an equally religous type zealotary of putting them down and calling them religious zealots and claim they all have the same charactaristics you listed. How ironic, don't you think?

You also have to take into account that most Mac users were once Windows users. The majority of those users will have a much better and more rounded understanding of both systems (because they've USED BOTH for a reasomable length of time, not just messing around in the Apple Store or at School/College/Uni) and as such it's a more credible argument when they claim Macs are better than Windows machines. Using the market share argument is about as rediculous as you claim Mac users to be. We should all use say IE because most do? Or maybe we should all drive Fords because they have more users than Lexus?

Dispite this small market share, they manage to make 9 in every $10 spent on any machine over $1000, they're premium products. Apple are about $500million short of Microsoft in terms of cash equity, well above the likes of Intel and Google, so that small market share really doesn't seem to hurt them any. They're as big a company as Microsoft on the financial side of things.

Oh, and in regards to putting Windows on a Mac. It's there as an option. A lot of people who switch will still want to remain in the world they've been used to for all those years for certain things. Maybe they need to test browser copatibility in different versions of IE and other browsers within Windows? Even if browsers are on all platforms it doesn't mean they'll render exactly the same. Maybe they own a licence for some expensive peice of software in Windows and don't want to have to pay for it again (or jump through all the hoops to get it transfered) for the Mac version. Maybe they want to play a few games? Although that's becoming less of an issue with the drastic rate the PC gaming market is shrinking. It physically runs on the hardware so why not use it if you need it? Macs also run Windows better than PCs because the drivers are optimised for that hardware. With PCs the drivers are usually generic even when made for a specific bit of hardware (like GPU's, the same set can be used on many models), and the configurations are almost endless.

Macs DO crash, most often caused by a 3rd party app, not the OS itself (Windows has become much more stable over the years so this is generally the case on Windows too). The most common culprit of Mac crashes is Flash, thanks to Adobe's lack luster efforts of making a decent plug-in. Macs CAN get viruses, but there's currently only 3 of them out in the wild and they can only be installed by the user. They normally piggy back another installer (almost always found in illegally downloaded software). The user need to put their password in to install things that access the root, and bam, the virus goes in along with the application you're installing. There's NO defence against user screw ups, but a well designed robust system helps reduce the problems caused by it. Mac viruses aren't destructive though, they're not really maclious in the sense that many Windows viruses are. They have to operate very different to do anything anywhere near as destructive, which as yet, nobody has been able to achieve (and it's not from lack of trying). UNIX OS's are just far more robust than Windows, period.

Don't use the market share argument either, that's bull. It's simply easier to attack Windows. Being the most common helps, but being poorly deisgn is the main reason. Linux servers are the most common type of web servers, their market share compared to Windows server is similar to the Windows to OS X share on the desktop, yet Linux has far fewer viruses and malicious files hitting it than Windows server. More specifically, Apache vs IIS.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Madus_Maximus

[bangtail 0]

By the same token all the people who say Mac fans are like that, are just like this. They have an equally religous type zealotary of putting them down and calling them religious zealots and claim they all have the same charactaristics you listed. How ironic, don't you think?

Not really, I deal with both groups and the Mac crowd are always the more borderline fanatical. Most PC people just don't care about Macs. That's why we don't try and make silly arguments about running OSX on our machines. There is simply no need.

You also have to take into account that most Mac users were once Windows users. The majority of those users will have a much better and more rounded understanding of both systems (because they've USED BOTH for a reasomable length of time, not just messing around in the Apple Store or at School/College/Uni) and as such it's a more credible argument when they claim Macs are better than Windows machines. Using the market share argument is about as rediculous as you claim Mac users to be. We should all use say IE because most do? Or maybe we should all drive Fords because they have more users than Lexus?

Utter nonsense, but hardly surprising given your preference.

Dispite this small market share, they manage to make 9 in every $10 spent on any machine over $1000, they're premium products. Apple are about $500million short of Microsoft in terms of cash equity, well above the likes of Intel and Google, so that small market share really doesn't seem to hurt them any. They're as big a company as Microsoft on the financial side of things.

I'm talking about the PC market, not gadgets and phones etc. Fish like shiny things as well.

You'll notice that I never said Mac was bad, just that I don't like them. As with their infantile and rather petty ad campaign, you respond with "reasons" why you think the Mac is "superior".

As far as Win 7 running better on a Mac, that may well be your opinion but I don't share it. Macs are more "idiot proof" than PCs, that is probably true, but that certainly doesn't make them better.

I respect the fact that you prefer Macs, I just don't accept that they are "better".

In my experience, it makes little sense to protract these discussions as they rarely, if ever, result in a consensus ;)

Cheers

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[echo1 0]

You also have to take into account that most Mac users were once Windows users. The majority of those users will have a much better and more rounded understanding of both systems (because they've USED BOTH for a reasomable length of time, not just messing around in the Apple Store or at School/College/Uni) and as such it's a more credible argument when they claim Macs are better than Windows machines. Using the market share argument is about as rediculous as you claim Mac users to be. We should all use say IE because most do? Or maybe we should all drive Fords because they have more users than Lexus?

Not really. There's plenty of people who use Windows who don't really know anything about it, i.e. the vast majority of Windows users. So there's plenty of people who go to Mac without properly understanding Windows, and hey, most of them probably won't understand Mac properly either. There's also plenty of Mac users who had Mac user parents and have consequently no real experience of Windows either.

But yeah, the market share argument was retarded.

[bangtail 0]

Not really. There's plenty of people who use Windows who don't really know anything about it, i.e. the vast majority of Windows users. So there's plenty of people who go to Mac without properly understanding Windows, and hey, most of them probably won't understand Mac properly either. There's also plenty of Mac users who had Mac user parents and have consequently no real experience of Windows either.

But yeah, the market share argument was retarded.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. Apple don't do well in the personal computer market.

They do very well in the gadget/phone market.

Please explain to me how pointing out that Apple don't do well in the personal computer market is "retarded" or, for that matter, not on topic.

Macs are prone to less virus infection because there are far fewer people using them. The same can be said for crashes/instability. There are far more hardware configurations and there is way more software available for PC. Obviously, this exponentially increases the chances of potential instability.

You'll notice that whenever you bring up certain points as an argument against Apple, you are immediately "told" not to use that "BS" as an argument. There is no arguing with Apple users, you might as well bang your fucking head against the wall until you fracture your skull. They always have some obtuse rationale to justify why Mac is "better".

I knew I should have avoided this discussion ;)

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Not really. There's plenty of people who use Windows who don't really know anything about it, i.e. the vast majority of Windows users. So there's plenty of people who go to Mac without properly understanding Windows, and hey, most of them probably won't understand Mac properly either. There's also plenty of Mac users who had Mac user parents and have consequently no real experience of Windows either.

But yeah, the market share argument was retarded.

I think you missunderstood my point there. I was saying that most Mac users were once Windows users, meaning they understand both platforms because they've used them both on a daily basis as their primary system for however long it is, which means they're generally more rounded in their experiences. You can't have a credible argument if you've never used what you're claiming is crap can you?

Most people don't like change, they think it's "wrong" or "stupid" if something is different when trying to achieve the same end goal. It's human nature, we like what we're used to and don't like to learn other ways. That's not to say either way is wrong, it's just what you're used to.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 PM ----------

It's not an argument, it's a fact. Apple don't do well in the personal computer market.

They do very well in the gadget/phone market.

Please explain to me how pointing out that Apple don't do well in the personal computer market is "retarded" or, for that matter, not on topic.

Macs are prone to less virus infection because there are far fewer people using them. The same can be said for crashes/instability. There are far more hardware configurations and there is way more software available for PC. Obviously, this exponentially increases the chances of potential instability.

You'll notice that whenever you bring up certain points as an argument against Apple, you are immediately "told" not to use that "BS" as an argument. There is no arguing with Apple users, you might as well bang your fucking head against the wall until you fracture your skull. They always have some obtuse rationale to justify why Mac is "better".

I knew I should have avoided this discussion ;)

Apple do VERY well in the personal computer market, they just don't have as many users as Microsoft. That isn't to say one company is a failure and the other isn't. Looking at Microsoft over the last few years you could argue they've been failures. Vista, 360 (hardware wise, they've made sweet FA on the XBox compared to what they put into it), Zune, Windows Mobile, Bing.

Microsoft make money by selling in massive bulk, like PC makers. They sell cheaper products in higher numbers to maintain their bottom line. Companies like Dell would LOVE the profit margins Apple enjoy with the Mac. OEM's make their good profit on the premium end machines, those premium machines which Apple own the market with. Most plus $1000 computers sold in the US are Macs, infact, 90% of them. That means Dell and HP and so on are losing their market with their top end machines and instead have to offer many much lower spec, lower quality and cheaper machines and sell them in rediculously high numbers. Microsoft doesn't care either way, they get the same fee from the licence if the PC is $100 or $100,000 which is why a lot of people slagged off the Laptop Hunter adverts, they basically said you're an idiot to buy a premium machine when you can get one that "makes do", their hardware partners bottom line was put at risk.

[bangtail 0]

I think you missunderstood my point there. I was saying that most Mac users were once Windows users, meaning they understand both platforms because they've used them both on a daily basis as their primary system for however long it is, which means they're generally more rounded in their experiences. You can't have a credible argument if you've never used what you're claiming is crap can you?

Most people don't like change, they think it's "wrong" or "stupid" if something is different when trying to achieve the same end goal. It's human nature, we like what we're used to and don't like to learn other ways. That's not to say either way is wrong, it's just what you're used to.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 PM ----------

Apple do VERY well in the personal computer market, they just don't have as many users as Microsoft. That isn't to say one company is a failure and the other isn't. Looking at Microsoft over the last few years you could argue they've been failures. Vista, 360 (hardware wise, they've made sweet FA on the XBox compared to what they put into it), Zune, Windows Mobile, Bing.

Microsoft make money by selling in massive bulk, like PC makers. They sell cheaper products in higher numbers to maintain their bottom line. Companies like Dell would LOVE the profit margins Apple enjoy with the Mac. OEM's make their good profit on the premium end machines, those premium machines which Apple own the market with. Most plus $1000 computers sold in the US are Macs, infact, 90% of them. That means Dell and HP and so on are losing their market with their top end machines and instead have to offer many much lower spec, lower quality and cheaper machines and sell them in rediculously high numbers. Microsoft doesn't care either way, they get the same fee from the licence if the PC is $100 or $100,000 which is why a lot of people slagged off the Laptop Hunter adverts, they basically said you're an idiot to buy a premium machine when you can get one that "makes do", their hardware partners bottom line was put at risk.

Actually, that's not how it works. There are winners and losers and Apple is the CLEAR loser and underdog in the personal computer market.

Your predictable obtuse Apple biased rationale just won't cut it I'm afraid. If Mac was ahead you'd better believe you'd be talking about the winners and losers.

As far as Apple selling 90% of $1000.00+ computers goes (If it's even true), that's because people like you are easily duped into paying way more than what the Mac is actually worth. That's been going on since the inception of Apple. You pay a huge premium for the brand.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[dmarkwick 261]

F**king Mac users. They do my head in.

I think we're seeing the true rationale behind these posts :) Couple more comments should confirm it :D

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

As far as Apple selling 90% of $1000.00+ computers goes (If it's even true), that's because people like you are easily duped into paying way more than what the Mac is actually worth. That's been going on since the inception of Apple. You pay a huge premium for the brand.

Actually, people are easily duped into paying a lot of money for a system that works, works easily, and is of a standardised design. There is a reason why the VAST MAJORITY of design companies use Macs you know. And it isn't because they're "easily duped".

[Zipper5 74]

The main reason I view peoples' bias against PCs and their love for Macs as "strange", to say the least, is that, for gamers especially, they have to run Bootcamp and some version of Windows to run their games and certain other programs. Doesn't that essentially turn a Mac into a PC? You can easily make a Mac-looking case, or a mouse, or a keyboard, all to be used for the PC, but the thing that Macs have that PCs don't is their OS, yet to make stuff work you need to use Windows? What's the point?

Highly expensive, underpowered, very well designed aesthetically, and handicapped. That's Macs in a nutshell.

In my opinion...

But we're going way offtopic...

[bangtail 0]

The main reason I view peoples' bias against PCs and their love for Macs as "strange", to say the least, is that, for gamers especially, they have to run Bootcamp and some version of Windows to run their games and certain other programs. Doesn't that essentially turn a Mac into a PC? You can easily make a Mac-looking case, or a mouse, or a keyboard, all to be used for the PC, but the thing that Macs have that PCs don't is their OS, yet to make stuff work you need to use Windows? What's the point? Highly expensive, underpowered, very well designed aesthetically, and handicapped. That's Macs in a nutshell.

In my opinion...

But we're going way offtopic...

/QFT

/10 Chars

[dmarkwick 261]

The main reason I view peoples' bias against PCs and their love for Macs as "strange", to say the least, is that, for gamers especially, they have to run Bootcamp and some version of Windows to run their games and certain other programs. Doesn't that essentially turn a Mac into a PC? You can easily make a Mac-looking case, or a mouse, or a keyboard, all to be used for the PC, but the thing that Macs have that PCs don't is their OS, yet to make stuff work you need to use Windows? What's the point?

Highly expensive, underpowered, very well designed aesthetically, and handicapped. That's Macs in a nutshell.

That's an assumption that people want to use ONLY Windows on a Mac, which is quite plainly a wrong assumption. People don't buy Macs to run Windows software, they buy it to run Mac software. The Windows bootcamp option is exactly that, an option beyond the primary reasons they bought a Mac. A secondary function.

[Zipper5 74]

Yes, of course. But hardly any games work for Macs. Granted a number of program developers make their programs compatible with Macs nowadays, but there are still those which don't. But isn't there another issue with software? Microsoft Office is the most commonly used office software in the world, and even Mac users are forced to use it because Macs don't have a substitute. Again, turning a Mac more and more into a Windows PC. Not really a case where they choose to use Windows, but where they're forced to use Windows.

Can Macs run Linux?

[echo1 0]

Please explain to me how pointing out that Apple don't do well in the personal computer market is "retarded" or, for that matter, not on topic.

Because it has no bearing on how good or not good Apple's stuff is. As pointed out earlier, popularity doesn't always mean quality, particularly with consumer goods like desktop PCs where the buyer actually has very little choice due to various factors.

Macs are prone to less virus infection because there are far fewer people using them. The same can be said for crashes/instability. There are far more hardware configurations and there is way more software available for PC. Obviously, this exponentially increases the chances of potential instability.

I'd agree with that to some extent, particularly in relation to the hardware point, but not to others. Unix systems tend to be far more reliable than even well tweaked Windows ones. The fact that *nix systems the server market (where unlike the consumer market, people are far more picky and free to make choices about what OS suits them best), and the various horror stories that arise when people try to switch to Windows Server reflect this fact.

Actually, that's not how it works. There are winners and losers and Apple is the CLEAR loser and underdog in the personal computer market.

Your predictable obtuse Apple biased rationale just won't cut it I'm afraid. If Mac was ahead you'd better believe you'd be talking about the winners and losers.

As far as Apple selling 90% of $1000.00+ computers goes (If it's even true), that's because people like you are easily duped into paying way more than what the Mac is actually worth. That's been going on since the inception of Apple. You pay a huge premium for the brand.

Again, this is a pointless argument because you assume that the best things will conquer the market. Anyone with half an ounce of knowledge about the history of computers will know this not to be the case. Besides, the fact that a single company like Apple has a ~10% market share is impressive as it gets these days.

I'd say that OS X would be far more popular if it was opened up for anyone to use on any machine. The flip side of this is the lack of Apple's iron-fisted grasp on quality control would caused lots of buggy drivers and software... The reality is that Apple's business strategy revolves around them being an underdog. During the period where Steve Jobs was off at NeXT, they tried opening out the Mac architecture with disastrous consequences.

Highly expensive, underpowered, very well designed aesthetically, and handicapped. That's Macs in a nutshell.

Depends on what you want to do with it. But if you want a gaming machine, I'd agree.

Microsoft Office is the most commonly used office software in the world, and even Mac users are forced to use it because Macs don't have a substitute.

Oddly enough, MS Office was originally Mac software. It came to the PC later.

Edited February 15, 2010 by echo1

[dmarkwick 261]

Can Macs run Linux?

I don't know, but since Macs went to a more broader standard in hardware, allowing Windows for example to run, I would stick my neck out and say yes.

[bangtail 0]

Because it has no bearing on how good or not good Apple's stuff is. As pointed out earlier, popularity doesn't mean quality.

I'd agree with that to some extent, particularly in relation to the hardware point, but not to others. Unix systems tend to be far more reliable than even well tweaked Windows ones. The fact that *nix systems are far more common than Windows in the server world reflects this fact.

Again, this is a pointless argument because you assume that the best things will conquer the market. Anyone with half an ounce of knowledge about the history of computers will know this not to be the case. Besides, the fact that a single company like Apple has a ~10% market share is impressive as it gets these days.

I'd say that OS X would be far more popular if it was opened up for anyone to use on any machine. The flip side of this is the lack of Apple's iron-fisted grasp on quality control would caused lots of buggy drivers and software... The reality is that Apple's business strategy revolves around them being an underdog. During the period where Steve Jobs was off at NeXT, they tried opening out the Mac architecture with disastrous consequences.

No, I don't think more is equal to quality but more is more money and a bigger share of the overall market. I also agree that it is their strategy to function as the underdog, but to a certain extent, that still limits their potential to move beyond that niche.

I started on a ZX81 but I went on to Apple (2E, Classic etc) and they were great machines. Macs do not suit my purposes now, as I can do anything I can do on a Mac on a PC and then there is the whole gaming aspect.

I have more of an issue with Mac users than I do with the machines themselves. I still maintain that they are massively overpriced and this is purely due to the brand name and the hype that follows it.

Cheers

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[Zipper5 74]

Oddly enough, MS Office was originally Mac software. It came to the PC later.

Hm, I never knew that. Guess you learn something new every day.

HALO was also originally a Mac game. :p

I wonder if the mods hate us for going so far offtopic...

[echo1 0]

Can Macs run Linux?

Yes, although getting it booting natively without Boot Camp is a pain in the arse, or so I've been reliably informed.

AFAIK, Linux Torvalds ran Red Hat on a Mac for a long time.

[bangtail 0]

Hm, I never knew that. Guess you learn something new every day.

HALO was also originally a Mac game. :p

I wonder if the mods hate us for going so far offtopic...

Some really good games that I first played on Apple - Dark Castle was one and Wolfenstein and then Beyond Wolfenstein.

I think I first played Tapper on Apple as well :)