I use to be a PC, Now im a MAC
- Thread starter Khondor
- Start date
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
Mac OS operates better with its hardware. Apple makes the hardware, and software, so it works in perfect harmony. Yes, I know that it would be impossible for MS to create software to work with all the hardware that is being manufactured, and I don't expect them to. Bottom line is that MS is doing a good job creating their software to work with all the hardware out there, but Apple is doing a better job on making their software work with their hardware. This is why, in 80% of cases, Mac OS will run faster than Windows with similar hardware.
JolietJake
Banned
Uh, apple doesn't make the hardware themselves, hardware manufacturers do. They just test it to make sure that it's as compatible with their software as possible. I'm sure they have strict quality standards and everything when choosing hardware to include in a system.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='Illini Jeeper']To you and all others who complain over price, that argument is not necessarily true.
Check out this article on the subject:
http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-the-mac-overpriced/[/QUOTE]
macbook air
Unless, of course, you want the one with less hdd space. Oh no wait, that one is more expensive. :lol:
Check out this article on the subject:
http://www.pcmech.com/article/is-the-mac-overpriced/[/QUOTE]
macbook air
Unless, of course, you want the one with less hdd space. Oh no wait, that one is more expensive. :lol:
c0rnpwn
CAGiversary!
I am more of a power user of mac than I ever was with windows -- I blame terminal. Yeah I know you can use Linux but this is the age old mac vs. windows argument. Also there's a TON of keystrokes you can use to replace mouse usage, more than I experienced with windows. However I love and use both, and I don't really think either is grossly better than the other. Windows you can use games, mac you get much better 3rd party software. Shareware is crap, I'd rather pay $5 or more usually free due to open source for the software available for OS X.
I've used windows all my life, and finally i just got sick of windows, i wanted to try something new and so i got a mac,(iMac 2.8ghz) and absolutely love it, i do run both windows and OS X on my mac and i only switch to windows to play games and it runs them perfectly. and the price isn't to bad after seeing what you get.
zzl365
CAGiversary!
Firstly, I would love to run OSX, and if Macs weren't so expensive, I would buy one, but I wouldn't be happy about it and here's why...
Imagine the hell that MS would catch (on the legal end and on the PR end) if their newest OS could only run on Microsoft hardware... even if the hardware was priced in line with the current average Dell machine. Everyone would be screaming about how much of a monopoly MS already had and how they are now trying to cash in by forcing people to buy their hardware.... yet Apple does the same exact thing, and no one cares, since they are "the alternative" (now the question is would they move away from their closed platform if they became the market leader, and I think the answer is "no, Steve Jobs likes money way too much"). In fact people think Apple is great for working on a closed platform (look at the synergy between the hardware that I just paid 1.5 times the MSRP on and an OS that won't run on anything but Mac hardware).
Another thing that is a very strange phenomenon to me, is that I'm seeing a lot of my friends who embrace open-source software, etc, moving into the Apple camp, when if anything they are worse from a consumer rights perspective than MS is (not that MS are saints mind you). The best thing that could happen is for some enterprising PC Manufacturer to really push linux on the average consumer (for people who don't use very specialized apps/play computer games, linux is awesome), or for Apple to allow their OS to be run on any x86 architecture machines.
Imagine the hell that MS would catch (on the legal end and on the PR end) if their newest OS could only run on Microsoft hardware... even if the hardware was priced in line with the current average Dell machine. Everyone would be screaming about how much of a monopoly MS already had and how they are now trying to cash in by forcing people to buy their hardware.... yet Apple does the same exact thing, and no one cares, since they are "the alternative" (now the question is would they move away from their closed platform if they became the market leader, and I think the answer is "no, Steve Jobs likes money way too much"). In fact people think Apple is great for working on a closed platform (look at the synergy between the hardware that I just paid 1.5 times the MSRP on and an OS that won't run on anything but Mac hardware).
Another thing that is a very strange phenomenon to me, is that I'm seeing a lot of my friends who embrace open-source software, etc, moving into the Apple camp, when if anything they are worse from a consumer rights perspective than MS is (not that MS are saints mind you). The best thing that could happen is for some enterprising PC Manufacturer to really push linux on the average consumer (for people who don't use very specialized apps/play computer games, linux is awesome), or for Apple to allow their OS to be run on any x86 architecture machines.
MacBook air's overpriced and crap, after having to work on a few prof's who bought them, please just buy a Macbook. Yea I like my Acer, but a MacBook would be nice. But for a desktop and heavy gaming and everday use I'll stick to a PC.
If you know how you can give macs some nasty viruses.
Also according to several sources (okay just one, wikipedia) that dude who plays the Mac guy on the commercials is computer illiterate.
If you know how you can give macs some nasty viruses.
Also according to several sources (okay just one, wikipedia) that dude who plays the Mac guy on the commercials is computer illiterate.
Xevious
CAGiversary!
I use a Mac at work and I have a PC at home. If I had the choice, I would go with PCs.
Also the next version of Photoshop will be 64 bit on the PC only; The reason is that the Mac people changed a program in their OS and the the Adobe people will have to redesign Mac Photoshop from scratch.
Also the next version of Photoshop will be 64 bit on the PC only; The reason is that the Mac people changed a program in their OS and the the Adobe people will have to redesign Mac Photoshop from scratch.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
franz ferdinand
CAGiversary!
Bought a Mac two years ago. Now I use it to sync my iPod, and use my Linux laptop for all my real work and fun.
I fell out of PC gaming years ago, so Wine + DosBox suffices for my needs - YMMV and I don't recommend this for real PC gamers. OS X has some very nice features (Expose is what I miss most), but I found the system to be dog slow, and the Unix underpinnings aren't that impressive to someone who'd been using Unix for over a decade. I wish Apple and Mac users the best, as the more options the better, but it's not to my tastes, and I'm too used to Linux.
I fell out of PC gaming years ago, so Wine + DosBox suffices for my needs - YMMV and I don't recommend this for real PC gamers. OS X has some very nice features (Expose is what I miss most), but I found the system to be dog slow, and the Unix underpinnings aren't that impressive to someone who'd been using Unix for over a decade. I wish Apple and Mac users the best, as the more options the better, but it's not to my tastes, and I'm too used to Linux.
c0rnpwn
CAGiversary!
[quote name='zzl365']Firstly, I would love to run OSX, and if Macs weren't so expensive, I would buy one, but I wouldn't be happy about it and here's why...
Imagine the hell that MS would catch (on the legal end and on the PR end) if their newest OS could only run on Microsoft hardware... even if the hardware was priced in line with the current average Dell machine. Everyone would be screaming about how much of a monopoly MS already had and how they are now trying to cash in by forcing people to buy their hardware.... yet Apple does the same exact thing, and no one cares, since they are "the alternative" (now the question is would they move away from their closed platform if they became the market leader, and I think the answer is "no, Steve Jobs likes money way too much"). In fact people think Apple is great for working on a closed platform (look at the synergy between the hardware that I just paid 1.5 times the MSRP on and an OS that won't run on anything but Mac hardware).
Another thing that is a very strange phenomenon to me, is that I'm seeing a lot of my friends who embrace open-source software, etc, moving into the Apple camp, when if anything they are worse from a consumer rights perspective than MS is (not that MS are saints mind you). The best thing that could happen is for some enterprising PC Manufacturer to really push linux on the average consumer (for people who don't use very specialized apps/play computer games, linux is awesome), or for Apple to allow their OS to be run on any x86 architecture machines.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Steve Jobs is very pro-Open Source. Darwin is open source, after all.
Imagine the hell that MS would catch (on the legal end and on the PR end) if their newest OS could only run on Microsoft hardware... even if the hardware was priced in line with the current average Dell machine. Everyone would be screaming about how much of a monopoly MS already had and how they are now trying to cash in by forcing people to buy their hardware.... yet Apple does the same exact thing, and no one cares, since they are "the alternative" (now the question is would they move away from their closed platform if they became the market leader, and I think the answer is "no, Steve Jobs likes money way too much"). In fact people think Apple is great for working on a closed platform (look at the synergy between the hardware that I just paid 1.5 times the MSRP on and an OS that won't run on anything but Mac hardware).
Another thing that is a very strange phenomenon to me, is that I'm seeing a lot of my friends who embrace open-source software, etc, moving into the Apple camp, when if anything they are worse from a consumer rights perspective than MS is (not that MS are saints mind you). The best thing that could happen is for some enterprising PC Manufacturer to really push linux on the average consumer (for people who don't use very specialized apps/play computer games, linux is awesome), or for Apple to allow their OS to be run on any x86 architecture machines.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Steve Jobs is very pro-Open Source. Darwin is open source, after all.
zzl365
CAGiversary!
[quote name='c0rnpwn']What are you talking about? Steve Jobs is very pro-Open Source. Darwin is open source, after all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right, parts of OS X are open source (i.e. the unix command line interface aka Darwin), but it's not like that makes the OS open source... also doesn't it kind of fly in the face of the opens source way to require software to run on specific hardware for no particular reason(i.e. they can't claim different architecture anymore, like they could when it was running on PPC)?
Yes, you're right, parts of OS X are open source (i.e. the unix command line interface aka Darwin), but it's not like that makes the OS open source... also doesn't it kind of fly in the face of the opens source way to require software to run on specific hardware for no particular reason(i.e. they can't claim different architecture anymore, like they could when it was running on PPC)?
bread's done