PDA

View Full Version : The Strong Points of a Mac



Locke
2nd September 2004, 12:19 AM
hi all
i am a PC user (please no rotten fruit, im wearing clothes.................................... which i dont want dirtied!!)
in the future i will be looking to get another computer and i was just wondering what you guys believe the strongest selling point of Macs are?
also, iv read around that the processor in a Mac is more effective than PC equivalents. is this true? if so what causes this, and does this strength come at the cost of stability in any way? any other comments about macs appreciated, other than the obvious, i love them, or in the case of oz's cat, "macs make nice seats"

oh just thought of this, im sure u can get docking stations for PC's, can u get them for mac laptops?

Ozi
2nd September 2004, 12:33 AM
yeah, my dad has a docking station for his powerbook, and I had one for my Black pBook (which you might remember, Locke.)

Also, its great to see a PC user like you interested in Apples! :D

In terms of processors, the actual GHz levels are the same. ie. a 3Ghz P4 is quicker processor than a 1.5GHz G4 (Apple) processor. However, Apple win in a number of ways.

Firstly, they have fast system bus's, and very fast internal hardware. The data moves more efficiently than in a PC, and this is a big speed bonus. A P4 may run fast, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in the case of most PCs, they are assembled from various different companies products, running at different speeds with varying levels of compatability. So the P4 can be really slowed down, whilst an Apple computer is not.

Secondly, Apple make both the Hardware AND the software. Acer just make computers, Microsoft just make software, and often the software and hardware of conventional PCs doesn't play nicely together.

With Apple, the Operating System is made by the same people who made the hardware, and is made to run very efficiently on the hardware. It is optimised for one sort of computer, and one only: Apple. This is unlike Microsoft stuff which must be able to run on varied different PCs. Apple stuff is apple only, and this means that it is fully utilised.

Apples are also the most stable computers out there. Often, uptimes of up to 60 or 70 days occur. I never achieve that because I choose restart my computer after installing new software updates. However, Apples are built like rocks. The unix based OS is incredibly stable.

But wait, there's more! Unix is very, very hard to hack into, and security updates and lack of hacker-interest in the Apple platform means that there are NO apple viruses. Thats right, your apple computer will never get a virus. This means no crashes, corrupted files, et.al. It is great!

OS X does have regular security updates though, and a built in firewall, just to be safe. :D

God i have written lots! Anyways, im sure the other Appletalk members can help fill you in on more. :)

Welcome to the forums, Locke.

~Ozi

jimmy
2nd September 2004, 01:21 AM
Ozi has a pretty big list there but I think that MacOSX's storngest point is its simplicity and ease of use. The main reason I switched back was mail, ical and addressbook. There are much fewer buttons than Outlook which makes them less confusing but more integrated and more functional in my opinion. the other advantage of apples in general is in my opinion the noise. I find alot of PCs really noisy you can't notice it if your used to it or your in a busy lab at uni. I'm still learning the ropes of apple again if you want an example of why macs are easier to use here is something Disko pointed out to me today



upgrading (http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/upgradetonewmac.html)

Anyway good luck with your next purchase

jimmy

decryption
2nd September 2004, 07:31 AM
You aren't quite right Ozi about the CPU. The CPU effeciency and the low clockspeed in a Mac has nothing to do with the quality of it's parts or the speed of it's front side bus.

The CPUs in Apple computers are what are known at RISC, where as x86 CPUs (Windows) are CISC. The simple way of putting it is, that a RISC CPU can get more work done, in each clock cycle (a hertz), so it has less off them (1.5GHz as opposed to 3GHz) in order to do the same amount of work.

A design difference in a G5 CPU to a Penitum 4 is that the G4 is more effecient, and can get more work done in a clock cycle, where as the Penitum 4 concentrates on clock speed, and ramping up the clock speed to get more work done in the same amount of time, rather than getting it done in one clock cycle.

You cannot possibly say a G4 1.5 is the same as (insert Pentium 4 here) as the CPU architecture is entirley different. The Penitum 4 or the G4 is designed to do certain things well and other things not as well, which is the same as any other CPU. The way the CPU carries out the execution is where the difference is, so it's really like comparing Apples to oranges :P

If you want a lot more info on the topic, I really suggest checking out this artricle: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997. It goes into detail comparing x86 to PPC and explains much better than I can about the differences between a Mac CPU and a Windows CPU :P

estoyloco
2nd September 2004, 09:28 AM
Yeah decryption is right.. a friend of mine described it as doing laps of the motherboard or whatever to reach the desired task...

P4 have to do more laps to get the same task done as apple, hence 1.5GHZ doesnt equal p41.5GHz or whever..

he also said that pentium processors have like a bottleneck at some point in the architecture, where the info is slowed down.. apprently apples architecture doesnt have this bottleneck and so info moves much more quicly in comparison....

I dont think you will be disapointed with a G51.8GHZ iMac... i dare say they would be as fast as a the computeri just built for my bro-in-law (p4 3.0GHZ).. which doesnt seem that fast... but of course a p4 is about $1000 cheaper with an LCD screen (if you build it yourself!)

I dont think you will be disapointed from everything BUT a gaming point of view.. i only say this cos i never play any games on my MAC.. only played WARCRAFT 3, because my friend has the original cd and its XP and OSX compatible... that ran flawlessly MY FRIRND said better than his older 1.8AMD, and his new 2.8AMD in terms of graphics...
I was running that on my old 17" 1.5GHZ G4 powerbook with the upgraded video card,HDD etc...


I think that macs will have a hard time converting the DESKTOP people that arent that serious about performance.. BUT in terms of laptops i think appleis the best in its class... if they still had the 3 year warranty i wouldnt even think twice, if i wasnt a mac user... sorry to blab.. hope this makes some sense...

Quasar
2nd September 2004, 09:39 AM
I'm in sort of a similar position.

For awhile I've been looking around for a cheapish notebook to complement my XP box. And oddly enough (considering Apples reputation), the iBook is in about the same price-range as a current lowend wintel notebook. Add to this my new interest in unix (through Linux) and my long time interest in Apple (despite the fact I've never been able to afford one) I've pretty much decided to get myself an Apple iBook.

At the moment, the one thing holding me back from getting a 12" iBook now is the video processor. It doesnt fully support the next generation of OSX. Thus, I'm sitting on my hands untill the iBook gets an update or a real cheap 2nd hand iBook drops into my lap.

As for Mac on my home desktop, a few factors are holding me back now and look to continue to. The main factors here are price and customisability. On price, at the moment at least I really can't justify spending more than $2k on any PC. Secondly, I like some customisability/upgradability. Especially WRT video. Thus untill Apple offer some kind of mid-range non-intergrated-monitor machine thats upgradable (I'd be happy with something that only had one slot...for the video) I don't have much of a choice. Unless I win lotto...then I can splurg on a full G5 tower.

Not that it helps you...though it gives me a chance to whinge about why I still don't have a mac at home.

Quamen
2nd September 2004, 10:58 AM
Instead of blabbing on like everyone else. I'm going to ask you some questions. Not that their points aren't valid or anything, it's just that it's easier to decide if you answer these questions.

What do you use your computer for?
What do you see yourself possibly using your computer for in the future?

Do you love games? Mac's really aren't a good choice for games.

Do you have the money to buy a complete machine? I ask this because PC users often complain of the price of macs. Purely because they don't do the maths and often stagger their upgrade cycle.

Answer these and then we can tell you why a Mac would be better/worse off.

Ozi
2nd September 2004, 12:43 PM
True.... gaming is not as good on Apples. Not horrible, but certainly not as good, mainly because much more people have PCs and games are targeted at this larger audience. Often, Mac games come out a few months after PC games, and because they are ported to OSX by a third party developer, they suffer performance wise.

However, this didnt stop me buying my mac. I can play Diablo II and Unreal Tournament 2004 flawlessly, and these games came out at the same time for both PC and Apple. Americas Army runs perfectly, and I have Halo (although it was a crappy port to Apple OS)

Another question, to add to Quamens list:

Will you need the computer for mainly gaming, or will you be using it for more productive activities: Word Processing, graphics (which macs excel at) Music (again, Apple are the best in the world at personal music) and internet?

I would suggest that an Apple iBook would be great for you, as you still have your PC AMD as a gaming machine at home. :)

Jaymz
2nd September 2004, 01:55 PM
I can't say that PC hardware or Mac hardware is better than the other... there's good and bad points on both sides of the fence, and a lot of arguments for the superiority of one over the other is often nullified by the fact that both the PC and Mac share a lot of hardware, and general design.

In fact, PC design differs amongst itself again. The design of an AMD64 motherboard is thoroughly alien, when compared to the design of a Pentium 4 motherboard, which differs substantially to the design of a P3 motherboard, etc, etc..

Apple hardware, as a general rule of thumb, is better quality than most available PC hardware - but this isn't due to PC hardware being poor quality at all. It's due to the variance of quality in PC components. For instance, if you buy ASUS parts - you generally have good quality. If you buy Jetway, then heaven help you - because Jetway sure won't. A lot of "PC people" sacrifice quality for cost, and this is where all the infamous PC troubles come from. OEMs like HP and Dell are unfortunately infamous for this.

Ultimately, your decision between Mac or PC shouldn't come from the quality of hardware, or even from how both systems perform in comparison (which is silly, because Macs don't generally run Windows, and PC's don't generally run OS X - it's an apples and oranges debate) - it should come from the first question ANYONE in the market for a computer really needs to ask themselves - what do I want to do with my computer? The answer to the great Mac or PC question lies in evaluating the pros and cons of both systems, and how that effects the first question.

elvis
2nd September 2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Locke@Sep 2 2004, 12:19 AM
i was just wondering what you guys believe the strongest selling point of Macs are?
For starters... No viruses, no spyware, no trojans, no evil software. That alone is enough for most of my corporate clients to make the switch (especially after having entire offices get taken down by the Blaster Worm and friends).

Plus with applications like Fink, Darwinports and Gentoo, the range of free software available for Apple users is amazing. Meanwhile PC users in Windows land shell out $300 for the OS, $500-1000 for Office and email, so on and so forth. No thank you.

Hardware debates are a moot point. The only users who NEED multi-gighertz processors are gamers and creative-design individuals, all of whom are catered for on Mac and PC. I don't think we can use the architecture wars as a reason to switch any more.

I think the biggest seller of any platform is what you can do with it, and how much it costs to do that. For me, an iBook packed with the default Apple software and some free stuff via Fink is far cheaper than a PC Lapop bloated up with Microsoft products.

Jaymz
2nd September 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by elvis@Sep 2 2004, 02:14 PM
For starters... No viruses, no spyware, no trojans, no evil software. That alone is enough for most of my corporate clients to make the switch (especially after having entire offices get taken down by the Blaster Worm and friends).
The more people harp on about this, the more it'll come back to bite them on the ass.

Microsoft DO have a bad track record when it comes to security, and half of this comes from poorly made decisions (highly complex scripting languages integrated into the most simple of applications, the very notion of "local zones" in IE, making content downloaded onto your computer and executed locally capable of doing thoroughly nasty things, users in XP are administrators by default, etc, etc), but other half comes purely from the sheer number of Wintel PC's out there.

I've seen viruses propogate on many different platforms. The Amiga was incredibly bad for it, for instance. Even the Mac has had quite a few over its entire lifetime. Mac OSX has had it pretty good so far, in terms of viruses and security vunerabilities.. but the Mac is only getting more popular, and I believe it's just a matter of time before other systems are afflicted.

The first lesson of computer security is this: Obscurity is not security.


Plus with applications like Fink, Darwinports and Gentoo, the range of free software available for Apple users is amazing. Meanwhile PC users in Windows land shell out $300 for the OS, $500-1000 for Office and email, so on and so forth. No thank you.

I've been using free software on the PC for years - including operating systems. Furthermore, Mac OSX 10.3 costs something like... $230 now? Likewise for the price Office applications on the Mac, the main one being... gasp... Microsoft Office? (Fun fact: Most of MS's Office apps were originally Mac apps by other companies)


Hardware debates are a moot point. The only users who NEED multi-gighertz processors are gamers and creative-design individuals, all of whom are catered for on Mac and PC. I don't think we can use the architecture wars as a reason to switch any more.

As per my previous post, I too believe that the hardware argument doesn't hold water between Mac and Apple, but I have to strongly disagree with this reason. If we didn't "need" faster and better computers, we'd still be using System 7! PC users would still be on some ancient version of DOS, and we wouldn't even have 32-bit computers, let alone contemplating the move to 64-bit today.

If PC or Mac hardware didn't advance at all, I'd be very sad, and I consider myself neither a 'hardcore gamer' or a 'creative individual'.

Locke
2nd September 2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Ozi+Sep 2 2004, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ozi &#064; Sep 2 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can play Diablo II and Unreal Tournament 2004 [/b]
dont let him fool u guys, hes the biggest gamer i know, and thats saying something, as i am doing an IT degree and there are some hardcore game nuts in there&#33;&#33;&#33; lol Oz


hey, thanks for the responses&#33;
couple more questions:
<!--QuoteBegin-Elvis
No viruses, no spyware, no trojans, no evil software.[/quote]
why is this? is the software coded more "completely" than PC software? i would have thought that all computers were succecptible (sp) to spyware, since it can be "caught" by visiting web sites.

also, does anyone have a description of Risc vs Cisc? or a link to a page which describes it?

thanks for the link decryption, will go check it out.

ok, traditionally, or from what i saw, Macs were sold as "arty" computers which were superior at doing multimedia stuff, for want of a better term, and PC&#39;s were sold as being adaptable,and able to do anything (although not brilliantly ;)) (was born in 84, so i never got to see the big brother apple ads, tho i have seen clips of it - was a good advertisiing ploy)
firstly, what do you think of thie view?
and, (dont know how to word this) what would you say is the area that mac excell in? are they good business computers? good at running databases? etc

matttt88
2nd September 2004, 04:06 PM
i have owned my 12" PowerBook for one week now.

my first Apple, was against apples until i saw what they could do arond the time the first version of OSX came out. it was amazing.

if i were to build another server for myself, i would build it out of x85 hardware, because it is cheaper, and would run Linux on it.

Apple hardware is more expensive, but with apple hardware you wont get hardware conflictions like you do with a PC, Apple&#39;s are like the BMW&#39;s of computers, perfectly designed.

i could not find a more advanced laptop than this, without getting the 17" PowerBook, but that is too big for my use.

In other words, i would never buy any hardware again to run a Microsoft product on it :P

EDIT: i think BMW and Apple have a affiliation anyway hehe :P

decryption
2nd September 2004, 04:25 PM
Locke, I really suggest going down to an Apple store and playing with a few machines, you&#39;ll find out what you what about it more than if you just asked questions here.

Jaymz
2nd September 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Locke@Sep 2 2004, 03:47 PM
also, does anyone have a description of Risc vs Cisc? or a link to a page which describes it?
Don&#39;t have any links off the top of my head, but basically the rundown is this:

RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computing, and CISC stands for Complex Instruction Set Computing. Generally, it&#39;s two different schools of thought when designing a processor.

As it suggests, a RISC system has small, simple instructions that only do minimalist tasks. The benefit of having instructions like this, is that your processor doesn&#39;t spend a lot of time thinking about an instruction (or processing, as we call it), and you can go through a lot of instructions quickly.

CISC handles this from a different approach. It has much larger, complicated instructions which are capable of doing a lot more. Processing an instruction takes longer, but you can do more stuff with a single instruction, instead of using several smaller instructions.

What does this mean in the real world? Not much. Both the modern PowerPC and x86 architecture have CISC and RISC like tendencies nowadays, so the line between them is very blurry, and not as contrast as it used to be.

Personally, I like the PowerPC architecture a lot more, but my reasons are purely from a CPU theorist standpoint. Again, it means little in the real world. :P

Ozi
2nd September 2004, 05:29 PM
decryption, he also gets to play around with mine. :D My evil plan to convert him to apple-goodness is coming along well. <insert evil laugh here>

Apple computers do do businessy stuff well. I know that MYOB has just brought out there latest version, and it is completely compatible with both PC and Macs. NO compatability issues at all. Also, it is often easier to get an apple to talk to a PC than a PC to talk to a PC&#33; This is because of the simpler, easier networking tools built into Mac OS X.

Oh and I have Microsoft Office 2004, which runs awesome on my Apple, and is completely compatible with PC versions of Office. Any PC-created spreadsheet, .doc file et. al. will work no probs on my computer, and vice versa. :)

But i agree, go and look at an apple store, and annoy the hell out fo the salespeople with heaps of questions. then you will learn even more than you will from questioning me. (but not much... :lol:)

~Ozi

Locke
2nd September 2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by decryption+Sep 2 2004, 04:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (decryption @ Sep 2 2004, 04:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Locke, I really suggest going down to an Apple store and playing with a few machines, you&#39;ll find out what you what about it more than if you just asked questions here. [/b]
awwwww
*looks around nervously*
would that require interacting with other people?
it means i have to leave my room and *shudders* sunlight :(

do you think i could do a web conference with them? :lol:


lol
<!--QuoteBegin-Oz
he also gets to play around with mine[/quote]
dude, seriously, lets not go there, i know u did that thing with that guy when u were at that place on that stuff, but some things just shouldn&#39;t be repeated, for everyones sake&#33;&#33;1 :D

thanks very much for the responses, looks like ill have to find a mac store now.
of course, i dont have enuf money atm, but theres no harm in looking



and grabbing and running while the shop assistants back is turned. lol ;)

moo
2nd September 2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Jaymz+Sep 2 2004, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jaymz &#064; Sep 2 2004, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Locke@Sep 2 2004, 03:47 PM
also, does anyone have a description of Risc vs Cisc? or a link to a page which describes it?
Don&#39;t have any links off the top of my head, but basically the rundown is this:

RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Computing, and CISC stands for Complex Instruction Set Computing. Generally, it&#39;s two different schools of thought when designing a processor.

[/b][/quote]
try Ars for RISC - CISC
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

Currawong
2nd September 2004, 09:31 PM
To get back to the original question....

The strongest selling points of Macs basically come down to the quality hardware, and the excellent operating system - Mac OS X. It&#39;s been said that people buy Macs for OS X, and it&#39;s completely true. With all the complexity, worries and considerations attached to Windows, you just switch on a Mac, and do whatever you wish to do, without those things.

You plug in a new mouse - it just starts working. No grinding of the hard disk, no pause, no nothing, it just works. You plug in any device. It just works, or not if it&#39;s not a device based on a given standard that Apple, and the computer hardware world recognises. You download a program. You run the program, or at the most, run a compressed installer that places it in the "Applications" folder. You don&#39;t like the program, you delete it. No fuss, no mess left over. Nothing else to worry about.

You point, you click, you work, as you should be doing all the time with a computer.

When choosing the hardware, the options are straight-forward. You don&#39;t need to consider chipsets, peripherals, compatability, sound cards etc etc. There are essentially two choices by two.

The first choice is desktop or laptop.
The second choice is regular consumer or professional consumer versions.
The iMac and iBook are regular consumer desktop and laptop.
The G5 and PowerBook are the desktop and laptop professional user versions.
All the necessary hardware needed is built into the machine. You only need to choose RAM, Optical drive and Hard drive, as well as screen size.

Know that Macs are geared towards professional audio, graphic and video production (or home version of the same actions). Software optimised for the Altivec processor in each machine will give up to 3 times the performance of an equivalent Pentium. However, many games that were written originally for Windows are very un-optimised in Mac OS X and run much slower.

That&#39;s it in a nutshell.

elvis
2nd September 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Jaymz@Sep 2 2004, 02:49 PM

The more people harp on about this, the more it&#39;ll come back to bite them on the ass.

Microsoft DO have a bad track record when it comes to security, and half of this comes from poorly made decisions (highly complex scripting languages integrated into the most simple of applications, the very notion of "local zones" in IE, making content downloaded onto your computer and executed locally capable of doing thoroughly nasty things, users in XP are administrators by default, etc, etc), but other half comes purely from the sheer number of Wintel PC&#39;s out there.

I&#39;ve seen viruses propogate on many different platforms. The Amiga was incredibly bad for it, for instance. Even the Mac has had quite a few over its entire lifetime. Mac OSX has had it pretty good so far, in terms of viruses and security vunerabilities.. but the Mac is only getting more popular, and I believe it&#39;s just a matter of time before other systems are afflicted.

The first lesson of computer security is this: Obscurity is not security.

I&#39;ve been using free software on the PC for years - including operating systems. Furthermore, Mac OSX 10.3 costs something like... &#036;230 now? Likewise for the price Office applications on the Mac, the main one being... gasp... Microsoft Office? (Fun fact: Most of MS&#39;s Office apps were originally Mac apps by other companies)
1) MacOSX is built on BSD. Like Linux, these operating systems clearly define boundaries between user space and root space. This greatly reduces the ability for folks to write viruses for these operating systems.

People keep telling me "Windows has viruses because it&#39;s popular". Well, more than 50% of the internet is run from non-Windows machines. With e-commerce sites of some of the biggest bastard corporates running Linux/BSD, there&#39;s plenty of havok that could be caused by any budding virus-writer. So where are the viruses? Oh... they don&#39;t exist....

The reason there are none is because it&#39;s pointless. The viruses that could be written at best would be a nuisance, and nothing more.

OS8 and OS9 were both susceptible to viruses, and had their share. Yet OSX is the most popular MacOS to date, and still there are no viruses&#33;

Interestingly enough, the only MacOSX applications that are vulnerable to any sort of virus-like attack is Microsoft Office for Mac. Isn&#39;t that ironic? :)

2) Um... Open Office anyone?

http://www.openoffice.org/

It opens/reads/writes to any MS format you could imagine. It even exports to PDF, and saves powerpoint and draw files to Macromedia Flash SFW&#33; If you&#39;re STILL using MS Office on Mac (or even Windows for that matter), it&#39;s time to open your eyes and step out of the circle.

There is no NEED for Microsoft, especially on Mac. Time to move forwards.

While you&#39;re in the process of downloading OpenOffice for FREE, check out Fink, DarwinPorts and Gentoo for Mac. Thousands of free programs at your fingertips:

http://fink.sourceforge.net/
http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/
http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/

I heartily recommend Inkscape (Illustrator Replacement), GIMP (Photoshop replacement), Scribus (Quark/Indesign/Pagemaker replacement), Blender (3DSMax/Maya replacement), QCad (AutoCAD LT replacement), Cinerella (Shake/Premier replacement) and hundreds more.

If anyone has a commercial application they&#39;d like to replace with a free one, simlpy PM me and I&#39;ll do my best to track one down for you&#33;

Phillip
2nd September 2004, 11:26 PM
many things for me for getting a mac

- design - i want something the looks pleasing. i want a computer that was designed with care with nearly every aspect. i want a computer that came in a box that looks as good as the computer. i want the apple style.

- the operating system - mac os x isn&#39;t perfect, but the point is that IMO, its much nicer than windows.

- software design - not perfect, but definitely the best designed apps in the world in terms of the user interface and the &#39;cool&#39; factor. no company comes close in the pc world. lets not even think about Microsoft&#39;s interface design...

- apple - sounds sad, but i do. i just like how they do stuff. there&#39;s really no computer company like it. apple redefines what "corporate culture" is.

- the whole mac community - i feels good being a mac user. you are part of a small community and i like that. mac only programs done by passionate mac users, who care nearly as much as apple - there&#39;s nothing like it. reading all the rumor sites and thinking "why the hell is there no dell rumors".

- and more of course but u can figure out for urself when u get a mac :P

pipsqeek
3rd September 2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Currawong@Sep 2 2004, 09:31 PM
To get back to the original question....

The strongest selling points of Macs basically come down to the quality hardware, and the excellent operating system - Mac OS X. It&#39;s been said that people buy Macs for OS X, and it&#39;s completely true. With all the complexity, worries and considerations attached to Windows, you just switch on a Mac, and do whatever you wish to do, without those things.

You plug in a new mouse - it just starts working. No grinding of the hard disk, no pause, no nothing, it just works. You plug in any device. It just works, or not if it&#39;s not a device based on a given standard that Apple, and the computer hardware world recognises. You download a program. You run the program, or at the most, run a compressed installer that places it in the "Applications" folder. You don&#39;t like the program, you delete it. No fuss, no mess left over. Nothing else to worry about.

You point, you click, you work, as you should be doing all the time with a computer.

When choosing the hardware, the options are straight-forward. You don&#39;t need to consider chipsets, peripherals, compatability, sound cards etc etc. There are essentially two choices by two.

The first choice is desktop or laptop.
The second choice is regular consumer or professional consumer versions.
The iMac and iBook are regular consumer desktop and laptop.
The G5 and PowerBook are the desktop and laptop professional user versions.
All the necessary hardware needed is built into the machine. You only need to choose RAM, Optical drive and Hard drive, as well as screen size......[snip]
Great curra. couldn&#39;t be put better. It Just Works&#33;&#33;&#33;


nterestingly enough, the only MacOSX applications that are vulnerable to any sort of virus-like attack is Microsoft Office for Mac. Isn&#39;t that ironic?

2) Um... Open Office anyone?

http://www.openoffice.org/

It opens/reads/writes to any MS format you could imagine. It even exports to PDF, and saves powerpoint and draw files to Macromedia Flash SFW&#33; If you&#39;re STILL using MS Office on Mac (or even Windows for that matter), it&#39;s time to open your eyes and step out of the circle.

There is no NEED for Microsoft, especially on Mac. Time to move forwards.

While you&#39;re in the process of downloading OpenOffice for FREE, check out Fink, DarwinPorts and Gentoo for Mac. Thousands of free programs at your fingertips:

Try NeoOffice, which is OpenOffice but porting project for Mac, doesn&#39;t require X11 and its getting better and slowly more aquaised.

Get it here: http://www.neooffice.org/

Steve

Currawong
3rd September 2004, 07:45 PM
I&#39;m shifting this topic to Apple Tech/General, by the way ;)

Jaymz
5th September 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by elvis@Sep 2 2004, 10:31 PM
1) MacOSX is built on BSD. Like Linux, these operating systems clearly define boundaries between user space and root space. This greatly reduces the ability for folks to write viruses for these operating systems.
What a complete load of rubbish. The NT architecture has very clear distinctions between users and those with administrative rights, and again, very clear distinction between programs that run in user mode (applications) and kernel mode (low level services, drivers, etc). You can&#39;t instantly label something secure just because it has a BSD heritage.

Furthermore, a lot of viruses and spyware attack systems through security vunerabilities nowadays, and no operating system on earth is truly secure against something like that.


People keep telling me "Windows has viruses because it&#39;s popular". Well, more than 50% of the internet is run from non-Windows machines. With e-commerce sites of some of the biggest bastard corporates running Linux/BSD, there&#39;s plenty of havok that could be caused by any budding virus-writer. So where are the viruses? Oh... they don&#39;t exist....

Where does this 50% number come from, and what does it relate to? Do you really expect hundreds of home users to get onto the Internet in the mornings using Solaris SPARCStations? Servers &#33;= users. Again, Linux and BSD aren&#39;t more or less secure than a Windows machine just because of the name attached, and any poorly configured Linux/BSD box can be overrun from a 13 year old with letters in his name, armed with only a root kit he found on l33tscriptkiddies.cjb.net. Security requires vigilance, not OS evangelism.

Here&#39;s an alarming fact about viruses: They&#39;re not written by very clever people at all. In fact, when dissected, most viruses are poorly coded, have serious bugs, and often fail when attempting to do things (The original CIH virus tried to flash the PC&#39;s BIOS on a certain date, but bugs in the code prevented it from working).


2) Um... Open Office anyone?

This exists on the PC as well. As does Gentoo Linux, which can be ran on quite a large number of different architectures. As I said, I&#39;ve been running free software on my PC for years now, and as my previous argument proved, commercial software is just as every bit expensive on the Mac as it is on the PC.

The Mac is a good enough platform to stand on its own, don&#39;t you think? Do you really need to attack the PC by quoting things you have no understanding of, repeating the same tired excuses which have been proved invalidated thousands of times before, and flat out lying to make the Mac somehow superior to the PC?

LCGuy
5th September 2004, 11:43 AM
Why do i use a Mac? Well, i like to USE a computer, not get used by one&#33;

hawker
5th September 2004, 02:19 PM
I thought I should put in my two cents worth about this topic.

You know the whole time I have worked with Macintosh, I have seen so many PC users going into their cases and changing stuff, moving dodgy video cards around PCI slots to try and get them working. Its amazing how many people you see with the their PC case open all the time, because they are sick of needing to open it to move something dodgy.

If that&#39;s not it, someone is trying to save Windows XP from the clutches of a virus. And yet I&#39;ve never had this problem&#33;

The only time I open up my iMac(s), Powerbook is to put extra RAM in. My OS works, and I never fear virsues. The only thing I fear is someone using my Mac&#39;s and moving my documents etc. around. But with Mac OS X Tiger&#39;s new search feature, I fear nothing...

But it&#39;s a personal decision. At the end of the day, PC users use PC&#39;s because it fits into their life, and I use a Mac because it fits into mine...

estoyloco
5th September 2004, 02:58 PM
i think you can get stuff done quicker and more efficiently on a MAC OS.

People sometimes day macs are for people that cant use computers.. but they just make applications easier to use and you can get what you want from them.

I would give video and motion pictures for an example. You can get slideshoes and videos made quickly and easily on a mac. I think it would take alot longer and alot more money on a PC if you were to buy adobe products.

Thats basically an example.
I try to think of whats stopping me from buying a &#036;600 PC box 3ghz p4 etc VS outlaying &#036;3k for a mac. That was the biggest thing stopping me.. the programs and OS. I dont think i would be as producutive or get the results like i would on the mac.

I guess thats what it comes down to essentially. Just because the programs are simple to use, doesnt mean they are for stupid people or not fulyl featured.

I could do FOR EXAMPLE what took a friend months to do on a PC, in a few hours on a mac. He made a slideshow video with pictrues music and text for a birthday present.. it took him ages.. i made one for my friends mum in about 30 minutes..

you wont need convincing to switch to mac.. just do it if you like it.. if you just surf and play games and dont really care... get a &#036;600 pc box and save your money...it will do that fine.. you can build a 2.6AMD XP system for around &#036;400.....

the things you can do in iLife are priceless tho.. but as i said if you have no interest then dont spent top &#036;&#036;&#39;s on a computer ofany kind...i wouldnt&#33; they become worthless so quickly&#33;

Hope this helps rather than confuse&#33;