Who here uses Macs? I'm going to college soon and I want to get a new computer. Since everything will be new I was looking into Macs, since I've been a PC user all my life.

Anyone with experience Macs might be able to shed some light or impart some words of wisdom?

BTW, another option I've been looking into is that new OQO gadget they've been hyping. What does everyone think of that?

MAC OS10 is now a shell for Unix that runs on over priced hardware made by Apple.

Get a PC, install Linux RedHat and run Gnome if you don't want to be PC.

Business and government use PC's so why not learn what you're going to use???

- even graphic artist and video editors are going to the PC platform as they're hands down faster than MACS.

I use a Mac at home and  PCs and Macs at work. I prefer the Mac. Go to [url]www.apple.com[/url] and take a look at the new e-Mac.

It all depends on the track you choose.

MACs for graphics driven output

... or

IBM for data slaved programs

How come the PC's faster?

My wife and I own a Mac G4 (she is a freelance graphic artist..enough said), and we both love it.  

I was initially hesitant about getting a Mac primarily because of the lack of computer games that are available for it.
I have been a video game addict since PONG, and the idea of not being able to play many of the most popular games annoyed me at first.

After a while, I realized that the lack of good games is actually a Godsend for someone like me.  When I think of all the wasted hours that I would have spent gaming on a PC, I thank my wife for insisting on a Mac.

This touching tale is relevant to your situation because you are on your way to college, and the last thing you need to do is develop a 14 hour a day "Half Life" habit.

Instead, spend your time drinking, getting laid, and oh yes...hitting the books!  

Good luck, and get a Mac!

...and if you buy a boat, you will have a snazzy anchor for it[rolleyes]

PCs have more clock speed, but the Mac G4s have that supercomputer floating point processor.

I do have Linux, the problem isn't the operating system, it's the hardware. I guess PCs seem so generic. Macs seem more branded.

The thing is, I used to like downloading all sorts of stuff and trying out all sorts of stuff. So PCs are good because you have more choices. Eventually I hit a low point in my state of disorganization and decided that simplicity is better. I figured that my room and my current computer are lost causes, so I wanted to use college as a new starting point. I want to keep my dorm room clean and organized and my computer simple.

Plus, Mac runs on RISC processors, and I hate CISC. I did some x86 assembly a while back and I hated it. I also program calculators which use RISC processors and it's so much simpler.

BTW, what does everyone think about the OQO gadget they're coming out with? I would prefer a mobile platform in college since it would be convenient for research and stuff.

There's a vast difference between Linux and OSX. Namely, OSX is usable as an every day desktop machine, while Linux is not.

To answer the original question, it depends on what you want to do. If it's just word processing and web surfing, either windows or Mac will do. I think OSX has a better user experience. You should go to a store and try one out to get a feel for it and decide which you like.

If you're doing computer-sciency things with it, OSX is still a good choice. It runs a Unix variant and you can use all the classic unix tools if you like, while still having a usable every day computer.

If you're running a lot of custom windows applications, it's not a good choice.

Assembly is a dead language. Necrophilia will be punished. (Don't make a choice based on assembly language. It's unlikely you'll do much programming in it.)

Unless you're a gamer clock speed and CPUs are not much of an issue. I've got (among other things) a 600 MHz iBook. It's fast enough once you stuff enough memory into it and you can easily do development on it. A 1.5 GHz machine would let me do exactly the same stuff 0.1 seconds faster.

The iBook rocks as a laptop. It's small enough to not break your shoulder when carried, and fairly rugged. Plus it's got that whole Unix thing going for it.

Trust me, assembly is not a dead language. I write assembly not just for computers, but also calculators.

NYPatriot, oddly you should mention games. Have you ever played any of the EV series of games? They're Mac only and extremely addictive. I have Mac emulators for EV and EV:Override. But my emulator can't emulate PowerPCs so I can't play the new EV:Nova. I've somehow always felt that Macs seem more professional and more clean. They seem more efficient and you want to get work done on one, as opposed to PCs where you just want to fool around.

What development tools are available for Macs? I've used CodeWarrior and I like their interface. What Graphics software are available for Macs? EV is what made me take notice of Macs, it seems so exotic.

I LOVE my pre-ban MAC-10.It's a bad MF'er.

Definitely get a Mac. Macs are way better than PCs. With OSX, Macs have a huge advantage over PCs.

Anyway, what kind of price range are you looking for?

Do you want a portable or desktop?

What do you plan to do with it?

BTW, People, it is "Mac" [b]NOT[/b] "MAC".

I'd prefer a mobile platform as it's for college.

I will most likely be doing programming, homework/papers. Research, internet browsing (like here). Probably some games, but that's not a priority for college. I don't know much about graphics, but it sounds like fun.

One thing though, what scientific computing and mathematical modeling/engineering software are available for Macs?

Also what development tools does Macs have?

OH MY GOSH!!! I LOVE the EV series. I registered for EVN before it came out. There is some hours of fun!


CodeWarrior is availble on the Mac, and is OSX Native. Apple also offers a free Mac-only dev environment called Project Builder. It is real simple to program with it once you know what you are doing. Even simpler is a program called REALbasic. Interface creation is done via drag and drop. Program language is a combonation of C and BASIC. Its real simple to learn, but real powerful.



What isn't. Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, and pretty much all of their software. Quark has their program. What are you looking for? Almost anything graphic you can think of is on the mac. That is where it excells.



Cool! BTW, [url=http://www.apple.com/switch/tell/us.html]tell[/url] Apple your story on switching to Macs, they would love to hear from you. Welcome to the light side!

BTW, here is a great link for PC to Mac switchers:
[url=http://www.apple.com/switch/]Switch[/url]

Here is a great link on Myths of Macs:
[url=http://www.apple.com/myths/]Myths][/url]

Just out of curiosity.. what are those advantages?
PC
---
-more software
-more accessories
-easily available replacement parts, upgrades
-abilty to run multiple OS's
-file security
-no chatty appletalk
-hundreds of millions of users
-vendor support
-oh and MORE software
-much more but my counterstrike dl is almost done.....

I would be more than happy to (honor system) compare some bechmarks with you and your system compared to mine

I think it has to do with personality/lifestyle more than performance.

UNIX->Geeky/Technical
Macs->Efficient/Artsy
PCs->Cheap/Generic

Well that's just how I see it. I mean I like cool toys and new things. I'm currently considering my options between the OQO (due to come out later this year) and an iBook. I like Apple's fonts and interface. Most windows programs have incredibly cluttered interfaces and it takes up valuable screen space. With Mac programs you feel like it's wide open space. With windows it feels like everything is squeezed into a small box.

Well, you have the choice of an iBook or a PowerBook G4.

The differences are many.

iBooks cost 1400-1800. PBG4's cost 2200-3000
iBooks have a G3 processor, with PBG4s have (obviously) a G4 processor. For most tasks, the G3 is just fine. For graphic work, scientific work, and for way better performance in OSX, you'll need a G4. The only difference b/w a G3 and G4 is the Altivec unit(which Apple calls the Velocity Engine). That is what OSX and other apps can take advantage of for high data processing. The iBooks G3 also runs at 700MHz, while the PBG4's proc runs at 800MHz. Not that big of a difference.
The iBooks have smaller HDs and RAM. The PBG4 comes with more, and is expandable more.
The iBooks have smaller LCD screens: 1024x768 at 12 or 14". PBG4s have 15.3 elongated rectagular screens w/1280x854.
iBooks have ATI RADEON 128's w/16MB of RAM. PBG4's have ATI RADEON 7500's w/32 MB of RAM.  The difference will be noticable in very high end games and the new version of OSX coming called Jaguar, with runs really good w/ 32MB of video RAM.
The iBooks are much lighter and smaller coming in at 4.9 pounds. The PBG4 is around 6 or so.
The iBooks has less connectivity options(it has USB, Firewire, and VGA). The PBG4 also has a PC Card slot and DVI & S-video out.

If I had the money, I'd get a PBG4, but an iBook will do just fine.



I don't know much about that, but I'm sure you can find something for your needs. Plust, there is always VirtualPC to run PC-only software.


See my post above.

Where do I start?

Mac
---
Better software
Better OS
Better interface
More efficient

and more that I respond to below:



Macs have more than enough software. Counting the shareware apps, we have tons of software.

Macs have tons of accessories availble.

Except for the motherboard, everything else is standard and can easily be replaced and upgraded. HDs, CD/DVD ROMS, and Zips are ATA drives. Macs have USB and Firewire for external options. RAM is PC133. Monitors use DVI or VGA. PCI slots are standard.
BTW, have you seen how the PowerMacs open? I don't thing any PC can match that.



MacOS 9, MacOS X, Linux, Unix, Windows(through Virtual PC)

Like what? PGP? Available on both 9 and X. As for security, Windows is FAR from secure

AppleTalk makes it easy for anybody to set up a network. PCs can't match that.

What does that have to do with anything? Popular does not equal better.

Macs have that too.

See above


Meh. Benchmarks are worthless when comparing Macs to PCs.

You can do assembly if you like--but you're not going to do it better than a modern optimizing compiler for any length of time, since optimizing register use and pipelines on modern chips can be very tricky indeed. Attempting to use assembler to write modern applications is roughly like building an AR-15 from bauxite ore. You can use it in a few places for optimization, but other than that you want to avoid it and get some useful work done.

OSX includes a free download of their development tools, which are excellent. Their frameworks make extensive use of Objective-C, a C-variant object language that takes a lot of features from Smalltalk. (This is a Good Thing.) It's a Unix box as well, so it includes all the usual unix things, including gcc, make, lex, yacc, C++, etc. Interface builder rocks. The frameworks are good. It's a pleasant environment that encourages you to do good work.

Since it's Unix, you also get all the other stuff that runs on Unix machines. I'd expect most of the Unix command line apps to have OSX ports shortly, since Apple will shortly become the world's largest Unix vendor.

Mathworks has announced they'll port MatLab to OSX. That's important if you do a lot of scientific programming. What other things are you interested in?

Graphics programming support is fine. If you want to do large scale graphics you have to worry about the graphics chips on the hardware.

There is no reason to get a mac.  None.  They used to be best when it came to graphics but now they are inferior in that category as well.  Now the only thing in which they are higher than their competition is in price.

You're right, it must be about personality/lifestyle because there is no valid reason to purchase one.  While I am sure there are many straight people that use mac, it seems to be the computer of choice for [b]artsy[/b] people like theater majors and their limp-wristed friends.

As far as PCs being cheap/generic, you can customize it any way you want.  Although I'm not sure they ever developed a hockey-puck mouse for the PC like they did for the mac.

[img]http://a1776.g.akamai.net/7/1776/51/3899ec404468d0/www.apple.com/ibook/images/index_top04232002.jpg[/img]

I replaced my desktop computer with an iBook about a year ago, and love the crap out of it. The screen is sharp and bright, the size and weight make it easy to tote (I slip mine in a 2-pistol soft gun case), it's got plenty of expansion capability (connectors for 1394, 10/100 Base T and USB), the battery is good for an honest 3.5 hours (at full speed, mind you — none of that Intel "speed step" sh*t), and it's affordable (I paid a little over $1100 for mine).

I don't think that you can find a more solidly-built laptop for anywhere near the price. Plus, the refinement of the OS matches that of the hardware. Nobody does "attention to detail" like Apple.

Hey jz02,

Two things: I tried to get the PDF but still didn't see it. From what I can tell and its hard without the TI info, it looks o.k.

Secondly, I use a PowerMac G4 and Mac OS-X.

Most PC users who have negative things to say about the Mac either haven't used it much, if at all, or haven't used one for years!

I use Mac OS-X and RedHat Linux. There are some similarities and some differences. There is alot of software available for the Mac (despite the rumors), its a fast efficient computer.

Yes, it have some areas where it dominates, e.g. - Destop publishing, Digital Audio, etc...

Being that it is a Unix-like OS, many UNIX apps can be ported over to run on the Mac. Bear in mind most super high end CAD/CAM/CAE software runs on Unix machines (e.g.- L-Edit is a package for VLSI design). I believe because of its Unix underpinnings, more good things will be available as it is easy to port software over.

Mac OS-X comes with developer tools as part of the OS package.

Assembly is not dead as it is used all of the time in the electronics industry. Many microcontrollers that control simple devices are programmed in assembly. Assembly is one of the most efficient programming languages available, when compiled it is converted directly from its human nmenonics to machine language. Its doesn't have libraries or other things which have to be converted or compiled in order to run. Its a very direct interaction with the microprocessor.

Now regarding speed, the Mac is fast! While I don't do video editing, I do use it for multi-track digital audio (e.g.- Recording Studio).

I can easily run over 32 tracks of audio [b]AND[/b] perform multiple effects (digital signal processing) upon those tracks and this is on my "older" 500MHz single processor G4. The Newer ones can handle over 100 tracks of audio [b]and[/b] effects.

Also, I might add, how often do you have to reboot XP??? Not to mention if I make changes to my hardware I don't have to reauthorize my OS with Apple [:D]. As far as Linux goes, I love it as will but the Mac has more going for it and is POSIX compliant.

jz,

to me, space and portibility were important as a student. if you think same, i suspect you'll find the 12 or 14 inch ibook to be an ideal school machine. and you can connect to  an external monitor if you ever feel you need the larger image. but i've been using a 12 inch ibook at home for over a year and have never wanted an external monitor, keyboard, or anything else. it works as is.

most likely when you start getting assignments and turning in papers, your life will be much easier if you have things in microsoft word/office format. mac osx and office x should cover all of your non specialized academic needs. i wouldnt even think about trying to use any other word processor or productivity package. its a pain in the ass for faculty, staff, friends and not worth your time unless you have to have an office alternative. and with all of the exisiting apps for the mac os, your academic needs should be covered.

osx will provide you with tons of tinkering ability. you'll have access to to all the unix tools and open source stuff. plus, if you want to start developing, the apple developer tools are simply incredible and will give you an astounding number of options and languages to explore.

unless you aspire to be a microsoft developer or work in a microsoft environment, the value of the ibook and the unix with gui combination is very difficult to beat. if you aren't familiar with its potential, do give it a good look.

as for science and math apps, the unix core is opening a lot of doors for apple. wolfram's mathmatica is osx native and there are already numerous free tex implementaions . also, lots of bioengineering and research apps are making the move to osx.

mail if you want to talk further.

I've got to throw in my $.02 here...

I've got an old Mac (Power Mac 7200) and a PC.  I also have several MAC's (9mm).  I can't count how many times I've nearly used one of my MAC's on my PC.  Not a day goes by that I don't have at least one crash with the PC.  When the Mac was my main computer, I never had problems.  Never.  My Mac is every bit as reliable as my MAC.  Unfortunately when I wanted a newer/faster computer than my Mac, I bought into the PC line and chose one over a Mac.  Its faster, but its about as reliable as a Lorcin.

I've been doing user support for quite some time, and a lot of that was spent in pure mac or mixed mac/PC environments.  I've always found macs to be a bit more responsive and a whole lot more intuitive than a PC.  I haven't yet had my hands on OS X, but I've heard that it's just as easy to use.  The trade-off, however, is proprietary hardware.  Some accessories may be harder to find, but with recent macs using USB and firewire, you should be able to find everything you need at a sane price.  
If you want to find a bargain on a refurbished Mac, check [url]www.smalldog.com[/url] or [url]www.macresq.com[/url].

I USE BOTH PC & MAC. MAC IS WAAAAAAY BETTER!!!

from a gaming stand point, pc gets the edge. and that's about it. if mac had gaming (not that i'm all about games), PC would be worthless!! right now PC is only semi worthless. macs just flow so much better.

the best discription i can come up with is this. drive a luxury car down a dirt road, & that's the PC. drive one on pavement, and that's the MAC.

SOME OF YOU GUYS ARE GETTING GOOFY !

1. 97% of the computers in the world are PCs !

2. PCs have been multi tasked since 32 bit since the the 386 intel for almost 12 years !

3. 99 % of professional scanners, RIPs, and graphic devices are designed around the PC firmware and parts !

4. The NEW MACs are based now on IDE PC Drives, Chip Design (ie. IBM) Video card chipsets and even memory.

5. UNIX was done because Apple couldn't get their own operating system to multitask and in the future its been said everything before OS 9 wont work on future variants.

(I WORK IN THE GRAPHIC INDUSRTY IN A CORPORATION THAT BUILDS PROFESSIONAL DRUM, FLATBED SCANNERS, SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE FOR EVERYTHING FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY (ie. Military to Comericial) Photolabs, Ad agencies and, Professional Photographers and others.

6. OUR SYSTEM RUN ON AVERAGE 3 TIMES FASTER ON A PC THAN A MAC!


Now if you don't care about anything I said above and dont care about the thousands of more applications and upgradeable parts available for a PC over MAC. Then really it doesn't matter which one you get. Get the one you like.

So when you said that you were an "academic" what you really meant was that you were a high school student.

That explains why you didn't know things you would have otherwise, and instead of acknowledging that fact decided to skirt the issue.

1.MAC are much more expensive machines, you can get a PC that will do the same things at 50% to 70% the cost of a MAC.

2.You can do anything on PC including graphics that you can do no a MAC. Most small market TV stations use PC to edit video and do graphics because there are much more cost effective and just as powerful and small market stations have to watch their budget.

3.MACs get current software later than the PC. Adobe always delivers PC versions of their software 1st. MAC users have to wait from month(s) to over a year later. Software makers have to deliver software first to PCs, PCs have 96% of the markets MAC has 4%. A lot of software will never see the MAC.

4.The MAC is a niche machine, Apple only has 3.8% of the computer market and it is showing no significant growth. This is why peripherals are more expensive.

5.Windows XP is a fine operating system it rarely crashes and from what I can discern from honest MAC owners far less than OSX. OSX has a reputation of being slow not quite finished and even after a year many MAC apps have still not been ported to OSX.

6.If you do not like Windows you do have a choice with a PC, and you can run multiple operating systems.

7.Most people buying MAC at this stage are buying flash and style over substance. This comes back to bite many MAC owners take a look at the recent ICube and there are repeated reports of problems with the new IMACs displays.

8.Benchmarks are valid when comparing Macs to PCs. Speed does make a difference and will make more of a difference in the next 2 years.

9.Upgrading a PC is much easier in, 2 years when your machine starts getting old in the teeth you go out get a new processor and motherboard and you have a new machine for a couple hundred bucks.

10. If Steve jobs and Apple were not scared of competing head to head in the real world and OSX were all it is cracked up be they would have ported OSX to Intel machines that hold 95%+ of the market. The fact they do not even attempt to penetrate that market tells you a lot.

11.MAC owners are fanatics, kind of like Kamikaze pilots of the PC world. They would rather crash their MAC in flames than face the truth.

If you have more money than brains, are attracted to bright colors like a monkey, only have one finger on your hand, and have a obsessive personality by all means buy a MAC. If you are relatively sane buy a PC.

Disclaimer: While I firmly believe the PC is a superior machine to the MAC much of the above was meant as humor. Before you MAC owners blow a gasket take a pill and relax (by the way most MAC owners do need medication… sorry I can't stop).

I use both PC's and Macs. I have to add my vote to the Mac side. Now, the only reason I use a PC is because my job forces me to do so. At home, I got rid of the PC because it was turning into a giant paperweight.

I like Macs for the same reason I like my HK's -- primarily reliability. I have to reboot my PC at work at least once or twice a day. My Mac keeps chugging along regardless of what I throw at it. It's faster and easier to use. From my experience, Windows had never been anything but a kludgy attempt at duplicating the WYSIWYG MacOS and it bogs down anytime I try to do heavily disk or processor intensive.

I admit that I'm not techie enough to appreciate fully benchmark standards. But I know that in a real use environment, I don't have delays and waits with Apples the way I do with PC's. From my perspective, throwing around benchmark numbers is like arguing about stopping power; if the gun won't let me hit what I'm aiming at, I don't give a damn how good the numbers are.

Yes, they are not the most common tools in the world but I don't particularly care whether I'm part of a crowd. I'm surprised that anyone on this board thinks that more is better. Check into how much of the US auto market that companies like Volvo and BMW have -- then decide whether that's a problem for owners of those cars.

I run into the same problem with my HK's -- whether it's holsters or spare magazines. But I don't have a problem with that because I can still get everything I need. Just because there's more out there for something else doesn't make it a better gun (or computer). And with USB and Firewire on every Mac, it's becoming even less of an issue.

As far as the volumes of software available for the PC, as long as I have the software I need, why does it matter that there are more titles for another platform? That strikes me as a non-issue as well. Software matters only if there's some killer-ap that I absolutely need that doesn't exist on whatever platform I happen to be using. But I don't know of anyone using a Mac that has trouble finding all the software that they need to do whatever it is that they bought a computer for in the first place. So whether it's hardware accessories or software titles, unless I'm vying for the Most Computer Stuff In My Office award, I don't see how this matters.

Yes, Macs are more expensive. Deal with it. If it's not your money I'm spending, why is that an issue for any non-Mac people? And since when does something being cheaper make it better? It may be a more attractive purchase up front but that doesn't by necessity make it a smarter purchase. Are we looking for the better or cheaper tool?

Yes, Mac owners do tend to get fanatical. Just like Harley owners. Again, how does a product being able to inspire such a following make it a bad thing? On the contrary, I'd think it was a good thing.

Obviously there are a lot of factors that go into buying any expensive tool (whether it's a gun, car or computer). But all things being equal, the one you should buy is the one that's going to do what you want it to do most effectively and efficiently (the axiom of "software determines hardware" holds here). My experience on both sides of this argument tells me that Macs work better for me. In this particular situation, I'd recommend one of the new iBooks (post toilet seat models).

Now, what I really want to know is if I should buy a Ford or a Chevy.

HAHahahah... eh haha... anyway.  What OS are you running on your PC?  I never reboot, I don't even power down at the end of the day.  I can't remember the last time I rebooted.  I run Win 2000, before that is was NT 4.0.  Win XP is good, 95 and 98 are crap.

It's nice to be able to bring joy to another person's life.


Yes, the system I'm forced to use at work has Win98 -- which you acknowledge is "crap" (although I would have used a more politic term). My former system at home (which has been well used as a target for my AR in an unspecified desert around here) was also running Win98. The laptop they gave me runs WinME which is marginally better but still isn't (in [b]my[/b] opinion) as good as my trusty Mac.

All the answers and observations I gave are based solely upon my experience. I've had better luck with Macs than I've had with PC's and I've been using Mac's since OS 6 or so and PC's since the days of DOS and 286's. I'm not a techie, so perhaps there's a way to configure a PC better but I want to the tools I have to be about the work I have to do with them, not the work that I have to do on them.

BTW, the stereotype that mac owners are all a bunch of theater majors is rapidly changing. OSX is a full-fledged Unix system, so a lot of serious hackers have been buying macs lately. It's the same story--a useful desktop system (unlike Linux) plus Unix. The titaniums and iBooks have been much in evidence at some of the academic conferences I've been too lately.

My experience with Macs are bits and pieces, but from what I can see they're pretty fun to have.

I still haven't decided anything final yet because I've been hearing a lot of good stuff about the new OQO that's coming out so I want to wait and see. However, about Macs, I think the difference between Macs and PCs run deeper than just hardware and software implementations. I think the difference (from what I can tell) lie in the fundamental approach to personal computing. PCs approach personal computing from the perspective of the guy who builds it. The machine can do this and it can do that, and it can do all this at so and so many megahertz. For years PCs have been sold on their technical specifications. Especially Intel which have managed to market Mhz clock speed as a measure of processing horsepower to the public. Samething with windows, according to Microsoft Windows 98 has so and so many millions of lines of code. It has so and so features that will integrate it tightly into the Microsoft framework and have all these features that most people never even know about and just take up space and CPU time. Apple approach personal computing from the user's perspective. Their computers are like toaster ovens and other appliances. They look cool and does their job (reliably).

Now that I switched to Windows 2000 the reliability problem isn't actually that bad. Although I do wish MS would clean up their interface. I guess Macs just have more cool factor to them. Actually, truth be told, my favorite thing about Macs have always been their fonts and buttons. They look way cooler (I guess it's the rounded edges). And the progress bars, they look more organic than windows progress bars.

No one wants to comment on the new OQO system? I think it looks incredibly cool and if it can deliver it would make a really good mobile platform.

Amen, although mine is a pre-ban MAC-11.

The one thing I really have against MACs is that they are proprietary and it is hard to find software. Using the car anolgy mentioned above.  Sure a Rolls Royce is better than a Chevy but try to find parts for it in Cucamonga.
On the gaming side(which I play a lot); there is no contest which is the better format.  If you really want unix get red hat and save a lot of money.

My MAC doesn't require software, only hardware(you know, mags, springs, pins, etc.

And...

- Being able to open a link in a "NEW" window.

But don't switch just to get petty revenge on Windows.  That is a bad reason IMO.

I tried to like Apple but I couldn't.

I've used both. MACs are better.

OH I use a Mac 11 in 9mm, love to get a Mac 10 in .45  acp

Sure there is.

- Easy to Use
- Better Software
- Reliable
- Total Cost of Ownership is lower

and on and on.


So? Popular doesn't equal Better.


So? Mac had a GUI back in 1984, before the PC.


Then how come I can open up a Mac Mail Order Catalog and see tons of those devices, all which work for the Mac?


So? They may be BASED on PC stuff, but they work much better than PC stuff. BTW, the Chip Design was a combonation of Apple, Motorola, and IBM, with Moto doing most of the work


So 9 could multitask very well. It basically was System 1 with stuff tacked on that it was never designed for. Apple decided to start from the ground up, and they succeeded immensely.
As for stuff working in 9, but not in X, there is a thing called the Classic Environment. Almost any software that runs in 9 can run in Classic. In fact, Classic IS 9, except for some small changes to make it run in X.


GOOD FOR YOU!!!!


Is the system optimized for a Mac, or just a quick and dirty port, because I find it highly unlikely that it would run faster on a PC, especially since the Mac has the G4 w/ Altivec, which can deal with data much better than any PC processor.


Yes they are more expensive, but then you get what you pay for. Cheaper does not equal better, and it usually equals worse.
Plus, over the life of the Mac, it actually is cheaper than a PC.
Also, with a PC, you don't have to pull your hair out trying to get it to work right, but a Mac you get it to work right most of the time. That is part of why it is expensive.


You might be able to do it on a PC, but is it easy? No, in most cases it is not. Companies lose time(which means losing money), trying to get the PC to work.
Plus, I doubt it is as powerful, because the Mac has Altivec.

So? Macs still have more than enough software.
Plus, it is actually cheaper and more profitable to make software on a Mac than on a PC.




No significant growth? Well, Macs are making inroads everywhere now.
Plus, peripherals more expensive? Not really. That's because most perihperals can be used on both Macs AND PCs


I hear WXP is less crashy than its predecessors, but compared to OSX it probably  crashes more. I haven't had OSX crash in about a year. And I use it everyday for at least for hours, and then put it to sleep at the end of the day.


Yes, OSX is slow and not quite finished, but Apple created this in about 4 years. The OS is brand new(not the UNIX undercore, but the GUI and the Finder). Many Mac apps HAVE been ported, and more are on the way. Any that hasn't can be run in the Classic Environment.


Same with the Mac: MacOS9, MacOSX, UNIX, Linux, BeOS, etc.


I bought my Mac for usability. That was 2 years ago. After using it every single day since then, I have had not ONE SINGLE hardware problem. It has worked every day. I could not be more please in my investment.


No, benchmarks are worthless. It is like comparing Apples to Oranges(pun intended). PCs and Macs have two totally different architectures, and making "benchmarks" that can compare the two is very difficult.
Speed isn't really that important. Most people don't need more speed. Plus, Mac's processor speed is equal to a PC's speed which is twice as fast as the Mac's.


True, but you can keep the Mac for longer than the PC, and a lot of Macs CAN be upgraded.

The is a very good reason why Apple will not EVER port Mac OS X to PCs: They would lose money and fold. Apple makes money on their hardware, not software. Take away the Macs primary advantage(MacOSX only on Macs), and Apple would be gone.

You are right Paul, that's why Apple took the money that Bill Gates offered Apple to keep them from going tits up.  I wonder how much "windows development" Apple does for Microsoft now...

"The MacHeads have a cult and routinely meet in Los Angeles to share their work arounds and tricks. The PC crowd wouldn't dream of sharing such secrets which would give another company help."

This is a myth, or at least a matter of individual opinion.  I personally find any standard windows operating system much more intuitive than mac.  It seems mac was designed by a bunch of artsy people whereas PCs were designed by engineers and people looking for maximum capability.  The mac folks spent so much time trying to make their interface idiot-friendly (and they succeeded, just like AOL) that it became illogical and often disfunctional.

I don't see how you can honestly think that.  PC software is simply better.  Maybe it's because large companies spend so much more money and time on PC stuff since that is where the money is.  You also ignore the fact that many things come out months or years later for macs.
You sound like you don't use PCs very often.  Have you ever tried Win2k?  It doesn't crash.  It's actually much more stable than even my linux box.
Woa, where did you come up with that!?  Even mac zealots admit that macs cost a lot more and upgrades are more limited.  For half the cost of a top of the line mac I can make a twice as useful PC.

Considering that none of what you said is true, there must not be much to your "on and on".

Please explain your reasoning.  This is simply not true.

Funny, I don't have trouble with my PC, and I assembled it myself.  I also have an order on the way for a new motherboard, a 1.6GHz northwood p4, and 512mb DDR400 memory.  It cost me about $450, $200 of which was for the memory.

Which means it must be pretty stable.  Even with win98 I haven't had more than a couple crashes in the last year, and it's often on for 15 hours a day.

Great, and I can make the same claim about my current PC (except I haven't used it quite every day...you need to get out more).  I have had this for almost 4 years and have had no problems except for a western digital hard drive that started to die, which would be just as likely in a mac as anything else.

That is not true, since macs are generally already obsolete at the time you purchase them.  Some macs can be upgraded?  Great.  All PC's can.