I Hate Macs - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > ZOOTV > Restart and Reboot Yourself
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2004, 02:22 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,549
Local Time: 01:14 AM
these posts are too long to read
__________________

__________________
Tomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 06:59 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
nurse chrissi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 8,314
Local Time: 06:14 PM
My powerbook G4 is amazingly fast, easy to navigate (as gorman said the finder launch is so much nicer than the windows XP search), and place next to any PC laptop looks sleek and stylish (hey if you have to have a piece of machinary why not have one that looks good?) I flip btw my desktop PC and my mac pwerbook and I have to say the mac interfaces better with everything. Not to mention the customer service for apple is wonderful. I have a procare account that lets me go into an apple store whenever I have a question, etc and an employee will sit down and "tutor" me though the process (which I have only had to do once)
__________________

__________________
nurse chrissi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 07:07 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,015
Local Time: 06:14 PM
ah, no, this is really interesting, you oughta keep going

am still using XP but gorman's started to convince me. OSX is really nice-looking anyway...
__________________
alia612 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 01:28 AM   #34
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 06:14 PM
I used to be a rabid Mac fan and would be one to get extremely involved in any Mac vs. PC argument, but then I realized it doesn't really matter what you use. The average computer user can do whatever they need to do on either a Mac or PC - it all comes down to preference. As long as you are comfortable using it, use whatever the hell you want. If it gets the job done and doesn't cause you undue stress, then it's fine.

Personally I've been using Macs since my dad bought the original in 1984, and I still prefer using Macs - in my experience they're far more reliable and user-friendly (I'm talking average joe-computer-user). I've been using PCs since about '92 and though I prefer Macs, I like using PCs as well and can see advantages and disadvantages to both.

Bottom line: use whatever you want.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 07:24 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 07:14 PM
steve jobs is sexy. bill gates is not. end of discussion.
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 09:04 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Re: Re: I Hate Macs

I'll give a disclaimer: I hate Macs myself, for the most part, but I have used both extensively. For the most part, I can't justify spending tons of more money for a good looking computer whose programs I can all use on my PC.

Quote:
Originally posted by gorman
However, you are very misinformed when it comes to the way of the Apple & Mac world. You've made the common mistake of confusing top-notch usability and application design with over-simplification. There is no aspect of OS X or its applications that is over-simplified, they're simply all constructed with the best possible usability in mind. Apple has created a 500+ page document called HIDG, which stands for human interface design guidelines. This document defines every imaginable aspect of usability, and pretty much every Mac app conforms to it. As a result, it's almost second nature to figure out how to use a new application, and creates a very consistent feel throughout the OS.
Mac architecture is, indeed, more complex, due to its RISC-based core. Back when Intel was creating the original Pentium generation, there was a push to switch from CISC cores to more powerful RISC cores, and Apple took the plunge. But then Intel created a hybrid RISC CPU that was also backwards compatible with CISC, thus meaning that all the old x86 programs would remain compatible with the Pentium series of computers. However, this came at the cost of some performance, and that is more evident today. You can emulate Windows XP in a Mac environment, but you cannot emulate OS X in a PC environment, because PCs are merely not powerful enough.

At the same time, though, I often think that Mac doesn't utilize this power efficiently. For instance, Alias Maya (a 3D animation program) works at a disadvantage compared to the PC (or SGI, for that matter), so Macs are generally not the computer of choice for 3D animators, even though, with their RISC cores, they should theoretically be able to outdo PCs in this platform.

Quote:
Here's a good example of Mac vs Windows usability:

On the Mac, when you go to quit a program that has an unsaved document, the dialog box says "Do you want to save changes to this document before closing?" in fairly large print. Below that, in smaller print, it says "If you don't save, your changes will be lost." The options for that dialog are Don't Save, Cancel, and Save. The default is Save.

On windows, when you go to quit a program that has an unsaved document, the dialog box says "Are you sure you want to quit?" The options are Yes, No, and Cancel. The default is Yes.

I feel quite bad for the Windows user that doesn't realize quitting the application will lose any change they've made to the document.
That dialog box is software generated, not OS generated, as far as I know. In other words, that dialog box has more to do with the software. But maybe not.

In addition, that "Are you sure you want to quit?" is a major oversimplification. I just was in Microsoft Word and, after trying to exit an unsaved document, it asked me if I want to save the document, with "Yes" being default. I don't think that the vast majority of PC users have a problem with saving documents.

Quote:
Let me get back to the simplicity argument though. We'll use iTunes as an example, since it's available on both platforms. At first glance it looks very simple.

I moved to the Mac world from years, and years, and even more years in the PC world. That was before Windows was even usable (i.e. before 3.1). Once the whole MP3 thing started, Winamp came around and became my player of choice for years. I loved it, and was lucky enough to become good friends with its developers. When I decided to make the "switch", which I'll explain my reasoning for later on, I thought I would miss Winamp the most. When I first opened up iTunes, I was a little baffled, as it was such a different approach to being an MP3 player. I was use to having Winamp in mini-mode, and here was iTunes taking up the full screen. However, I expected change, so I attempted to embrace it. I loaded iTunes up with my music library, and started playing around with it.

At first glance, it seemed so simple, I knew it wouldn't have all of the functionality I was use to with Winamp. However, as I started to use it, I realized that wasn't the case. In fact, it was just so well put together, the functionality appeared when I needed it instead of sticking out all of the time. A great example was when I had all of these files I needed to edit the ID3 tags of. With Winamp (at the time), I was use to going file by file to edit tags. On a whim, I decided to select multiple songs, and then select to edit the tags. To my surprise, I was presented with the most useful multi-song ID3 editor I could have dreamed of. It was the usual easy-to-use editor, but had checkboxes next to the fields I wanted to edit on all of selected songs.

That's just one small example of great usability. That sort of thing holds true for every single Mac application, and the entire OS itself. Everything looks very clean, but when you find yourself needing certain functionality, it's there for you in a very natural way that doesn't require spending time searching the application for it. As I continued to use iTunes, I stopped becoming conscious of my interaction with it. The way it worked felt very natural, and I had to spend much less time to have it play what I wanted then with any other player.
Again, I do believe this has more to do with the software than the actual PC/Mac environment. After all, iTunes for PCs are equally user friendly.

Quote:
I'll give you a few other quick examples. To search in Windows, you have an annoying dog that presents you with a bunch of questions before you can even begin to search. Once you do, it takes forever to bring up your results. With a Mac, you have a search box in every Finder window (Finder is similar to My Computer/Explorer), and the second you start typing in your search, it brings up the results (just like iTunes does, and Mail, and Address Book, and so forth). If you have 10 IE/Firefox windows open in Windows, you have to alt+tab between then hoping to find the right one. With a Mac, you have visual representations of the contents of each window as an icon in the Dock (similar to the taskbar/start menu), or you can use something called Expose, which (in a very cool way) displays every window you have open at once (they are shrunk down to all fit on screen), or just every window of an application. Even better, you can have a file on your desktop, drag it to an Expose hot corner (a corner of your screen which you've defined to activate Expose), and then continue to drag that file to the window you want to the application/window you want the file to open in.
Yeah, I really do hate that dog, but, thankfully, I did know how to change it to the "classic" Windows 2000 search format, which is built into Windows XP. And I will admit that Microsoft often does not make it easy. I hated the Windows 9x/ME series, because I hated how it ripped out all the DOS functionality, yet was still nothing more than a DOS-core GUI like Windows 3.1.

Second, you don't have to "Alt-Tab" everything, if you don't want to (although you do have the option). There is the menu bar on the bottom that allows you to select your programs. All the Dock is is a graphical representation of that (and a good one at that, mind you).

Quote:
I could go on and on about the hardware accelerated UI that enables amazing looking effects and enhance usability (for instance, when you maximize a window, the "genie" effect allows you to know where it's going), the astoundingly good spam filtering of Mail, iChat's DVD-quality audio/video conferencing, or, most importantly in my mind, the top-notch third-party applications. I mean really, compare your P2P app (for legal purposes of course) to http://acquisitionx.com/ -- which is free of adware and spyware I might add.
Well, it is easy to have a hardware accelerated UI when you not only control the software, but also the hardware that it works with. This would be equivalent to Microsoft not only making Windows XP, but also being the sole creator and distributor of all the computers it runs on. Since Microsoft must deal with the open environment of the PC world, it must remain realistic about the computers being made to run it.

Quote:
It really does come down to "it just works" though. There simply aren't any viruses or spyware/adware to worry about. When there's an update for the OS, Software Update opens instead of you having to go to a website and deal with a bunch of additional steps. Also, when it comes to updates, there aren't thousands of them to deal with. You can download and install them all in one step. For new installations of OS X, you don't have to deal with downloading every update released for OS X ever. Instead, they are combined into one update. Speaking of new installs, if you ever have to reinstall the OS (which is very uncommon), you don't have to worry about backing up your data. Thanks to something called Archive Install, all of the system components are completely replaced, but your applications, data, and preferences are all left alone. Just in case, a copy of everything that gets touched is backed up automatically in a convenient folder. Oh, one more thing about installs, it's entirely visual, there are very few steps, and it reboots just once during the process.
Security is certainly an issue that Mac OS X does better on. Windows 2000/XP runs a core ultimately designed for business use, and was stupid to leave open, by default, a lot of services that most people will really never need or use. At the same time, though, the Mac platform only has about a 2% market share. Who wants to create viruses to affect only 2% of computer users, when you can attack the other 95+% using Windows? If OS X does have vulnerabilities, they may not be exploited, merely because you don't have the number of hackers out there willing to expend the energy to exploit only 2% of users.

Quote:
It is true though, one of the reasons it works so well is because Apple provides both the hardware and software. That's a great thing though. The hardware is the best you'll find, period. PC World (yep, PC) just gave the new iMac 5 stars and a glowing review. Also, because Apple does both, you never have to worry about driver issues, hardware conflictions, or parts going bad. If in fact you do have a hardware failure, you have just one company to deal with, and they also happen to provide excellent warranty support. You get what you pay for. Their computers are also priced very well, and I'm not sure why people think that's untrue. Check out the new iMac G5s. For $1300, you get an extremely fast 64-bit processor, the best 17" LCD you'll find, and a CDRW/DVD drive. That's all enclosed in 2" of space, and pretty much every part is replaceable. Or if you want a laptop, the iBooks start at $999, and also include a CDRW/DVD drive. Unless you're building your own PC, which runs its own obvious risks, you won't find better deals. You certainly won't find higher quality.
The Mac G3/G4 series were far more revolutionary than the G5 series. The former two forced Intel to be a bit more generous with resources (of course, this was also around the same time that AMD started making its own CPUs, so maybe that competition had more to do with it). I'm not terribly impressed with the G5 series, especially when compared to the AMD 64/FX series, which (despite Apple's ad claims) was the first 64-bit CPU designed for personal use. The G5 runs hot and the aluminum tower, while pretty, is downright useless. At least the G4 allowed for internal drive expansion; you're forced to have all external drives with the G5. But sure...I certainly like that 30-inch flat screen monitor Apple just created, but I also don't have thousands of dollars to blow on a monitor either.

My biggest beef with OS X, however, is all of the expensive versions of it out there, while Windows XP has consistent free updates/service packs to keep the software relevant. Apple, though, thinks that they can attach a new animal pattern to its OS X logo and pass it off as something more than just a service pack to its original OS X--and then charge you $130 for it. No thanks.

Quote:
Finally, if you were thinking Macs were for newbies and people that know nothing about computers, let me tell you my story. I decided to switch to a Mac shortly after OS X came out. I'm a professional web developer, and I work all day maintaining and coding for Unix-based servers. While a PC user, I always questioned switching to Linux, but it simply wasn't ready to be used on the desktop. Due to the lack of consistency, lack of major applications, and other various things, I always stayed away from it. When I saw OS X was built on a Unix core, yet had an unparalleled interface, all the major applications I needed (Photoshop and MS Office for instance), and the most usable and consistent applications I'd seen, I knew I had to make the switch. As a web developer, that Unix core means a lot. It gives me the ability to compile all of the server applications I use, and work entirely locally. Windows simply could not provide that. As a Unix system administrator, having a fully Unix-standard terminal to work with was a dream. Obviously the average person has no need for that, but as a developer, it's a dream. Speaking of developers, OS X has _the_ finest C++/Java/etc development tools you'll find on any OS. All for free, I might add. Just for newbies? Not a chance.
The switch to the Unix core for OS X is an obvious advantage to switching to Macs, if you need to utilize it, that's for sure. The Linux environment, while getting better, is still not accessible enough for the general public. Thus, as a web developer, if Unix accessibility is an asset to your work, I can certainly see why you made the leap to the Mac environment. No arguments here.

Quote:
P.S. I don't work for Apple, but I probably should
One of the people from the Apple Switch ads went to my college. He was a walking Mac ad...lol.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 09:07 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
steve jobs is sexy. bill gates is not. end of discussion.
I admire Steve Jobs more for being the CEO of Pixar. Now there's a company that makes me drool...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 09:42 AM   #38
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,600
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomer
these posts are too long to read
then don't read them. if you think a post is too long, fine; but you don't have to post in the thread saying this. if you're trying to get in serious trouble here you're doing a great job.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 04:28 PM   #39
Refugee
 
gorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,444
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: I Hate Macs

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I'll give a disclaimer: I hate Macs myself, for the most part, but I have used both extensively. For the most part, I can't justify spending tons of more money for a good looking computer whose programs I can all use on my PC.
After reading your post, it doesn't sound like you hate them, or if you do, it's simply due to cost Sure, there are applications that perform the same basic function on both Windows and Mac. My argument is about quality, usability, and overall experience. I've yet to find a Mac application that wasn't better than a comparable Windows application. I even like MS Office a lot more on OS X. It doesn't have the ridiculous bloat that the newest iterations Office do on Windows, and it's actually quite usable.


Quote:

Mac architecture is, indeed, more complex, due to its RISC-based core. Back when Intel was creating the original Pentium generation, there was a push to switch from CISC cores to more powerful RISC cores, and Apple took the plunge. But then Intel created a hybrid RISC CPU that was also backwards compatible with CISC, thus meaning that all the old x86 programs would remain compatible with the Pentium series of computers. However, this came at the cost of some performance, and that is more evident today. You can emulate Windows XP in a Mac environment, but you cannot emulate OS X in a PC environment, because PCs are merely not powerful enough.
No arguments there. Although, RISC is actually a much cleaner design, since it doesn't have the legacy support that x86 has to maintain.

Quote:

At the same time, though, I often think that Mac doesn't utilize this power efficiently. For instance, Alias Maya (a 3D animation program) works at a disadvantage compared to the PC (or SGI, for that matter), so Macs are generally not the computer of choice for 3D animators, even though, with their RISC cores, they should theoretically be able to outdo PCs in this platform.
There are definitely some applications that don't take advantage of the full potential of the processors. Fortunately, Apple's pro-line of media applications, which are highly used (such as Final Cut) are entirely optimized. It's rare to see a power-hungry application that isn't optimized for the platform, but I agree that Maya is an exception to that. Hopefully that'll change.

Quote:

That dialog box is software generated, not OS generated, as far as I know. In other words, that dialog box has more to do with the software. But maybe not.

In addition, that "Are you sure you want to quit?" is a major oversimplification. I just was in Microsoft Word and, after trying to exit an unsaved document, it asked me if I want to save the document, with "Yes" being default. I don't think that the vast majority of PC users have a problem with saving documents.
Actually, the OS does generate them. Between that and the guidelines set forth for them by the human interface guidelines, you'll never see a non-consistent dialog. I know Microsoft applications have something similar, but _every_ application on OS X has proper dialogs.

Quote:

Again, I do believe this has more to do with the software than the actual PC/Mac environment. After all, iTunes for PCs are equally user friendly.
Again though, there's really no application that doesn't follow the human interface guideline document. Additionally, thanks to Interface Builder (the development tool used to visually design application interfaces), it's very easy to follow that guideline. In the end, it's simple for any application developer to create software that's consistent and has great usability. Furthermore, OS X developers tend to pride themselves on creating usable and innovative applications that fit in perfectly with OS X. You truly won't see this level of quality from third-party applications on any other OS. I'll gladly provide examples

Quote:

Yeah, I really do hate that dog, but, thankfully, I did know how to change it to the "classic" Windows 2000 search format, which is built into Windows XP. And I will admit that Microsoft often does not make it easy. I hated the Windows 9x/ME series, because I hated how it ripped out all the DOS functionality, yet was still nothing more than a DOS-core GUI like Windows 3.1.
Exactly.

Quote:

Second, you don't have to "Alt-Tab" everything, if you don't want to (although you do have the option). There is the menu bar on the bottom that allows you to select your programs. All the Dock is is a graphical representation of that (and a good one at that, mind you).
Oh I know, I had gone over my issues with the taskbar in a previous post as well. I was just comparing Windows' alt+tab to OS X's command+tab.

Quote:

Well, it is easy to have a hardware accelerated UI when you not only control the software, but also the hardware that it works with. This would be equivalent to Microsoft not only making Windows XP, but also being the sole creator and distributor of all the computers it runs on. Since Microsoft must deal with the open environment of the PC world, it must remain realistic about the computers being made to run it.
Well, Microsoft is trying to make that happen with Longhorn, the upcoming version of Windows. It's fairly easy for them detect video hardware acceleration and use it if it exists, or use software rendering otherwise. It's certainly possible for them and has been for quite a while, and they're now trying to do it. The only thing is, OS X has had it for quite a few years now.

Quote:

Security is certainly an issue that Mac OS X does better on. Windows 2000/XP runs a core ultimately designed for business use, and was stupid to leave open, by default, a lot of services that most people will really never need or use. At the same time, though, the Mac platform only has about a 2% market share. Who wants to create viruses to affect only 2% of computer users, when you can attack the other 95+% using Windows? If OS X does have vulnerabilities, they may not be exploited, merely because you don't have the number of hackers out there willing to expend the energy to exploit only 2% of users.
The nice part about building on a Unix core is that you're inheriting years and years of security work. Since Unix has been intended for servers since the beginning, there has always been a huge focus on security. From day one, Darwin (OS X's Unix core) has been extremely secure, and it's done nothing but improve since. Apple stays very on top of security issues, to say the least. Whenever an exploit is detected in a Unix package that they've included, they immediately issue a fix. The same is true about any other aspect of the OS. With that said, security updates are not that common, and certainly not overwhelming like in Windows.

Also, OS X was recently certified by NSA, the department of the government that deals with computer security. They do such extensive security testing, it's ridiculous. They've even recommended OS X in fact. That's definitely saying something about the level of security on OS X.

Quote:

The Mac G3/G4 series were far more revolutionary than the G5 series. The former two forced Intel to be a bit more generous with resources (of course, this was also around the same time that AMD started making its own CPUs, so maybe that competition had more to do with it). I'm not terribly impressed with the G5 series, especially when compared to the AMD 64/FX series, which (despite Apple's ad claims) was the first 64-bit CPU designed for personal use. The G5 runs hot and the aluminum tower, while pretty, is downright useless. At least the G4 allowed for internal drive expansion; you're forced to have all external drives with the G5. But sure...I certainly like that 30-inch flat screen monitor Apple just created, but I also don't have thousands of dollars to blow on a monitor either.
The Optoron was AMD's first 64bit chip, and it was released a few months before the G5. However, it was in no way intended for personal use. The AMD FX series wasn't launched until quite a few months after the G5. When the G5 was released, it was definitely the first 64bit consumer-level CPU, and the fastest (confirmed in test after test).

The G5 is not nearly as hot these days, since they got it down to .09m. A great example of that is the fact it's running in a 2" enclosure for the new iMac. There will most likely be the first G5 Powerbook in January. The G5 also has very, very good power management, which is ideal for a laptop. It's called Powertune, and it dynamically decreases or increases the processor's usage nearly instantly. I'd love to be more specific about it, but I'll have to dig up the articles I had read about that. It is an efficient chip really, it's just taken some time for IBM to get everything worked out.

Finally, I disagree that the G5 is a smaller jump than the G4 was over the G3. The G4 was basically the G3 with Alti-Vec and a faster bus. The G5 has a much, much faster bus, 64 and 32bit native support, and really is an amazing design. If you check out the PDF on Apple's site about it, I think you'll be a little more impressed with it. Not only is the chip great, but the architecture Apple designed around it is equally as impressive.

As time goes on, this will become more and more evident. IBM has a very exciting roadmap for its PPC line of processors, which Apple will make very good use of.

Quote:

My biggest beef with OS X, however, is all of the expensive versions of it out there, while Windows XP has consistent free updates/service packs to keep the software relevant. Apple, though, thinks that they can attach a new animal pattern to its OS X logo and pass it off as something more than just a service pack to its original OS X--and then charge you $130 for it. No thanks.
Ah, this is another common misconception. You can't look at an update to OS X the same way as, say, SP1 to SP2 on Windows. The difference between 10.2 and 10.3, for instance, was far greater then the difference between 2000 and XP. I say that from experience too. I was a beta tester of both 2000 and XP for MS, and also one for Apple. The difference between 10.3 and 10.4 is shaping up to be even larger. I'll gladly go into detail if you want. Actually, send me a message on AIM (screenname is g0rman - the 0 is a zero), and I'll show you. It's really impressive.

Simply put though, the $130 dollars is very worthwhile. However, Apple realized releasing huge updates so quickly was a lot to ask for (due to the cost), and have moved to a year & a half cycle instead of just a yearly cycle. This will result in even larger updates. Apple's OS team is huge, and it's astounding how quickly they work. They're also very, very good. The underlying technology and structure of OS X is a thing of beauty, and the innovative and truly useful functionality they build makes every release something to look very forward to.

Quote:

The switch to the Unix core for OS X is an obvious advantage to switching to Macs, if you need to utilize it, that's for sure. The Linux environment, while getting better, is still not accessible enough for the general public. Thus, as a web developer, if Unix accessibility is an asset to your work, I can certainly see why you made the leap to the Mac environment. No arguments here.
Definitely, OS X is really the ideal development platform, in my opinion.

Quote:

One of the people from the Apple Switch ads went to my college. He was a walking Mac ad...lol.
That's awesome! Who is he? I thought those ads were hilarious
__________________
gorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2004, 04:35 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 07:14 PM
I will never buy a PC. Macs for life.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005, 04:11 AM   #41
War Child
 
EdgeVox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Texas/Mexico
Posts: 903
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Wow.......this thread maybe old news but I'm about to buy a Mac Mini and that was like a crash course in random Mac vs PC facts. Thanks you guys

Xavier
__________________
EdgeVox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005, 04:36 AM   #42
Refugee
 
gorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,444
Local Time: 07:14 PM
You'll love it! If you need help or pointers, contact me!

Here are a few good links to get you started:
http://macupdate.com - Great for finding applications
http://macosxhints.com - Amazing resource for figuring out all of the intricacies of OS X
http://macrumors.com - The best Apple news / rumors site
__________________
gorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005, 09:19 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:14 PM
In college, a friend had two of the original Macs (little beige creatures with no hard drive - you swapped floppy disks endlessly).

It was revolutionary, offering the first WYSIWYG interface.

Now, I prefer a computer you can open up and change parts.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005, 10:27 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by daafish


Windows 98 is not even as stable as XP. Perhaps your computers' BIOS cant handle XP? That would cause instability problems.
I hated Windows 98. It was so unstable, my computer was always crashing. It was really hard to use. XP is a huge improvement, I like it OK.
__________________
verte76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005, 10:39 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 07:14 PM
One reason I've never wanted one is because somebody on PLEBA told me you can't post pics with one. Also, it seems like having one would be like having a foreign car was in the 70's, too hard and expensive to get parts for since most everything is made for windows. Then there is the factor of having everyone you know have stuff for PC and you can't interchange (not that I do anyway, but I guess for some of you it's like trading and loaning video games, or beta or VHS, everyone needs to have the same to share) so it seems having a Mac would be like being the odd man out or something. Anyway, I have a PC and no money to buy anything else, so that's what I'm sticking with.
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com