Apparently, many do have bugs/issues, but the claim that MacOSX is LESS stable than Windows in your entire life? Sorry, but that sounds like a load of horse manure. I've had a couple of Windows computers from Win98 to XP and know someone with Vista and I had Win98 crash more times than I can count. I've had a lot more stability with XP SP2, but SP1 was pretty sad also. That doesn't mean XP SP2 is rock solid. It isn't. I run my PowerMac 24/7 and leave it on for weeks even months at a time without rebooting. There is simply NO WAY ON EARTH I could EVER do that with Windows. MacOSX is Unix (namely BSD). Its internal cores are vastly more stable than Windows will probably ever be. That doesn't mean it doesn't have problems, but if I need stability on a PC platform (including my own), I run Linux. Its X interface sometimes crashes on me in the past (not so far in latest Mandriva), but it doesn't bring the machine down and I can just restart X again.
So this brings us to your next faulty claim.
You can think I lied all you want. But no matter what you say, I know what happened to me and nothing can change that FACT.
OS X locked up on many random occasions doing many random things. I was never ONCE able to repeat a problem. Not once.
OS X would lock up emptying the trash of pictures. One time I was in a Skype call and the entire system locked up for no good reason. The last crash I had before 10.5.4 was while clicking the reply button on this forum in Safari. I clicked it and BOOM system locked up.
I have never experienced any crashes like that in Windows. Never. The only crashes I had in Windows were due to flaky drivers. I learned my lesson, but quality hardware and guess what? Crashes went away.
This PowerMac I'm using right now is 7 years old and runs flawlessly. I think it's been out of warranty a LOT longer than 18 months. Similarly, I had a PC I used (also with a few upgrades) for 7 years (99-07). It topped out at 1GHz PIII on the motherboard. This PowerMac has a 1.8GHz 7448 and can support a dual version or a single 2.0GHz one and has 50% more ultimate memory expansion. Suffice to say, it has a little bit longer lifespan than the PIII I had which is now in pieces downstairs so I could reuse the case for the new motherboard, ram, GPU and hard drive I bought.
Even the most hardened Apple fanboys admit that Apple's build quality has gone downhill over the last several years, especially since the switch to Intel.
Again, look at the iBook issues. They had a design flaw that caused them to fail between 13 and 16 months of use. Apple refused to address it, certain Euro governments got involved and forced them to fix it.
So what are you saying here? The average desktop PC costs $480? I might agree with that, but that doesn't really help your argument much. You're not going to do much better capability wise than a MacMini at $480 (maybe considerably worse) without serious expansion.
Actually, theres one neat thing about those cheap desktops. You can upgrade them. You can walk into Fry's RIGHT NOW this very moment and, for $500, you can walk out with a system with a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz, 2GB of RAM, 400GB HDD, DVD writer, GeForce 8400M GS 256MB (PCI Express 16x), HDTV tuner (PCIe), 15-in-1 card reader, 2 firewire, 6 USB, digital audio in and out, etc. For an extra $140, you can walk out with a GeForce 8800GT.
So when you figure taxes, you're spending not even $100 more than the entry level Mac mini. You can sell that GeForce on ebay and probably recover a good $40 or so.
So there you have it. About $690 or so after taxes depending on where you live, and you get a system that has more functionality than a Mac Pro and is more upgradeable.
Unless you prebuild and find an old copy of WindowsXP or like Linux enough to use it full time, you're stuck with Vista and that means that hardware will perform like a computer made 2 years earlier. Vista just plain sucks. I'm sorry, but it does. XP isn't polished or intuitive in many respects, but it's lightweight compared to Vista.
Oh please. That is spoken like someone who has never used Vista for more than 5 minutes and believes everyone else over their own experience.
Look, I got this HP back in October. When I first got it, I believed that nonsense about Vista being slower too. So I put XP on it. Then Vista SP1 came around, along with nVidia's 174.74 drivers. I gave Vista another shot and I noticed no speed difference between the two. When SP3 came out for XP I decided to give both a shot. So I installed XP fresh with all of the latest drivers and SP3. I installed Vista fresh with all of the latest drivers and SP1. Guess what? Vista outperformed XP in every aspect. Startup time, application launching, GAMING, CPU intensive tasks.
XP ran faster on Vista a year ago, when Vista was still new and drivers were still immature.
But any person who says Vista runs slower than XP now obviously has NOT used Vista recently and has no room to make that decision or judgement.
Vista IS faster than XP on the same hardware (this is a case where Microsoft is NOT lying), it runs better, it looks better (looks better than Leopard too), has more features.
Plus the DirectX10 hit is now almost non-existant, especially when you take into consideration just how much better things look with DirectX 10.
I know you probably won't believe me, but my low-end GeForce 8400M GS pushes UT3 in Vista using DirectX10 better than DX9 in XP. It runs faster and looks better.
It's comments like that which I would refer to as immature.
No more immature than saying "Vista sucks" when you clearly haven't used it.
You seem out of touch with the 'average' Windows user who knows very little about hardware and buys whatever some teenager that makes barely above minimum wage and has almost no training tells them at Best Buy (I should know; I used to work there while going to college around 12 years ago and not much has changed since then from what I can see visiting there).
People like that deserve what they get. They'll do no better with Macs.
4x as fast? In what areas, exactly? I won't argue about GPU measurements because it's pretty much true, but when a magazine rates the fastest Vista laptop as being a MacbookPro last year, one has to call into question the 4x comment. Beyond GPU operations, there is NO computer out there that is 4x faster than any current Mac CPU wise. No such CPU exists.
Yes I am going based on GPU. Why? because it has more of an affect on real world applications than the CPU. More people are playing games and watching high definition video than encoding video. If they are encoding video, the vast majority are converting to watch on their iPod. In that case, converting to low res and low bitrate video is quite fast on any CPU from the last few years. My old Athlon XP could use Videora iPod converter and run convert TV shows and other DVD quality video down to 320x240 768kbps at double real-time.
GPU also has a major affect on video playback. Modern GPUs from the last few generations of dedicated graphics have had full bitstream support for nearly every major ISO standard under the sun. But OS X does not take advantage of this. As a result, a 720p video that eats up 60% of 1 core on my MacBook will spike at 5% of 1 core on my HP, while the GPU does all the work.
Also, that particular magazine has shown an undeniable bias towards Apple products as of late. Let's not forget the article that was run recently that tried to debunk the "myth" of Macs being more expensive by comparing a fully loaded XPS M1330 with unnecessary add-ons like an expanded capacity battery and software it didn't need to the MacBook, and neglecting to mention that the XPS had features the MacBook didn't. They also tried to say an HP/Compaq mobile workstation was more expensive than the MacBook Pro, forgetting to mention the HP came with 3 years of on-site support, had 6 USB ports, multiple types of card readers, a workstation GPU, etc.
When someone calls something that is clearly subjective (i.e. ease of use) a "lie" and tells people to stop giving that opinion, they prove to me they've lost the argument because they can't tell a fact from an opinion. What is 'easier' for someone to use to another is subjective and yet the Mac has always had a reputation for being easier for 'average' people to use.
Actually, Macs only have that reputation among Mac fanatics. Windows does everything that OS X claims to do easier. Let's look at digital cameras. Back in the day when Apple ran those "Switch" ads and the one girl talked about downloading drivers on Christmas day for the new digital camera, just about everyone who used Windows had a good hardy laugh. Why? Because that simply was not true. You plug a digital camera into a Mac and what happens? iPhoto pops up and allows you to import your photos. Windows? Well, you plug your camera in and the first time it will ask you if you want to do it manually or have Windows automatically do it. Better yet, I can take the memory card and plug that into the built-in reader and it will automatically import my photos.
My years old all-in-one printer/scanner/fax? Well, I plug it into my Vista machine and guess what? No drivers needed. Full functionality. OS X needs drivers to be able to scan. Vista also recognizes my compact photo printer and allows me to select smaller photo paper. OS X recognizes it but will absolutely not, no matter what, allow me to select the right photo paper size. I have to send the picture over to the printers internal drive and print from there.
Plus regardless of the REASON for less spyware and virus threats (well virtually none really), I feel a whole lot better doing financial transactions and the like on a Mac.
UAC in Vista catches nearly all forms of malware. SP2 and 3 in XP make it next to impossible for malicious websites to install malware via IE. In fact, the only way you can get malware in XP in SP2 is to actively install it yourself.
How do you put a price on no blue screen of death when copying over an application compared to running some flaky installer in Windows. I've had MANY such an encounter in my years running Windows exclusively (that would have been from 1999 until 2007, barring playing with Linux on and off during part of that time)
The blue screen of death is caused by driver issues or hardware failure. Don't buy cheap hardware.
It is also no more common than kernel panics, gray screens, and having to repair disk permissions in OS X.
But compare that to running Vista and all its confirm/deny crap
UAC pops up no more often than the password prompt in OS X.
while encountering endless barrages of viruses and malware
Well, if you didn't visit the backwoods of the internet and shady "adult" sites, you wouldn't have to worry about that now would you? Even then, SP2 in XP makes it next to impossible for IE to download and install malware. FF has never done that. The only real security threat from browsers in Windows is from Safari!
Oh and UAC in Vista will catch all of that.
In fact, the only way to get a virus on a modern Windows system that is updated regularly is to actively download and install it yourself.
Awful performance? Yeah, a year ago. Now Vista is at least every bit as fast as XP, and faster in many cases.
Someone who actually used Vista recently (or at all) would know this.
Microsofts own internal spying/DRM technology.
Spying? Proof?
DRM? What, activation? Please. You click Activate and thats it. you're done.
That already puts the Mac ahead leaps and bounds.
Then it gets dragged back and outperformed by Vista because of basic things like system wide hardware acceleration for video, Media Center, software and game choices, etc.
They simply need to close the remaining gaps and because of the flop known as Vista, they've got a good opportunity to do so.
Flop known as Vista? rofl. Vista has already sold what? Six times more copies than there are Mac users total? Yeah, Vista is a flop how? It outperforms XP and Vista Home Premium has more features than OS X that matter more to users, like system wide hardware acceleration for video.
This is true and has some positive merits to it, but it's ALSO true on the flip side that those issues have traditionally been the BANE of Windows as well.
That doesn't make sense. How is it an issue that my 4 year old TV tuner would still work on a brand new PC because it still receives driver updates?
That TV tuner NEVER gave me any issues.
You spend the extra $5 when buying components for your PC and guess what? You will not have problems.
It's hard to get games, in particular, to run without any bugs/issues, etc. when they have to support so many hardware variations.
What are you talking about? The last time I had ANY issues playing a PC game was WAY back in 1998 when I had a RivaTNT and Epic was slow to get their Direct3D patch out. Even then it was just an oddly placed texture here and there.
Ever since then I have bought quality hardware and playing games on my machines (and those I have built for others) has been every bit as flawless of an experience as it would have been on a console.
Again, if you spend the extra $5 on an Asus motherboard instead of going with some no-name, or you spend the extra $5 for a GPU made by a reputable manufacturer, you won't have these problems.
By limiting its hardware choices, the Mac actually avoids a lot of the driver problems that plagues Windows machines.
What driver problems?
You buy quality hardware that usually only costs a few dollars more and you end up not having these issues. None. When a new OS comes out, you wait a few months to upgrade and you don't have the issues then either.
A little bit of common sense goes a looooong way.
Have it run the way you want? I want Windows to behave more like my Mac or even like Compiz in Linux. It can't. Heck, without certain hardware Vista can't even have hardly ANY eye candy at all.
Oh please, hardware as old as the GeForce FX 5200 can run Aero. The GMA 900 can even run Aero if you know what you're doing.
Compiz is over done and, in most cases, looks terrible. It's flashy eye candy made by programmers, not artists, and it shows terribly.
I want Windows to act like Windows. Meaning I can tweak the hell out of it to get the performance and customization I want. Not like OS X where its "iWay or the Highway". heh. I like having drivers give me performance increases while my Mac stays the same way it has been for many months. I like knowing my HP can play blu-ray discs while in a reduced power state, while my MacBook's CPU breaks a sweat decoding 720p video thanks to both the lack of dedicated graphics AND OS X not having system wide hardware acceleration for video.
These are examples of what seems like immature or possibly trolling comments (even if not directed at me) that make me question why I'm even replying. It sounds like you're arguing to argue (I recall people like that in debate class many moons ago) rather than discuss the matter.
There was another thread where he tried to claim the same things in this thread, that Macs have more hardware and features than PCs do for the same money. I proved him wrong and he left the thread without even replying.
OSX for me is vastly more stable than Windows has ever been
Well, it's not Windows or Microsoft's fault you buy crap hardware.
easier and more elegant to use in several areas
Such as? Give me an example.
currently lacks the virus and spyware threats that literally PLAGUE the Windows platform (every time you buy something online you either have run a viral/spyware sweep first or leave it running the background, slowing your machine way down OR take your chances that some key logger malware slipped in and is giving away your identity and ruining your credit)
rofl, drinking the Kool-Aid aren't you?
Once again, the only way you can get virus or spyware or anything like that on a modern Windows XP or Vista machine is to actively download, install, and run the malware yourself. UAC will catch it in Vista and you still have to run it even after that. XP SP2 and SP3 make it next to impossible to install things in the background without the users knowledge.
There's also some professional software only available for the Mac I'm interested in that I can't get on Windows such as Logic Pro.
Whats wrong with Pro Tools? Pro Tools is essentially the industry standard. Plus Windows gives you more hardware choices.
What's hilarious about 8 cores? If you're rendering 3D for a living, the only thing funny is how a dual core PC takes 2-4 longer.
The price and the fact that Apple is marketing it as a "workstation" when it clearly has consumer hardware and specs is what is "hilarious".
If you're rendering 3D graphics for a living, you'd be stupid to be using a Mac with consumer processors anyway. Theres much better hardware out there, as well as software that (gasp) takes advantage of hardware that is specifically designed for 3D rendering.
Sure, you can get more expensive PCs, but then you're creeping into MacPro price ranges so the point becomes moot.
But the thing is, with those PCs, you actually get workstation quality graphics (that are meant for 3D rendering! Not offloading it to the CPU) and work station quality hardware, software,etc.
Apparently, you're confusing gaming with overall application ability. Adding more GPUs will not get you faster applications unless the only important aspect of those applications are 3D graphics.
Again, if you're rendering 3D graphics, you're going to be using applications and hardware designed for rendering. Offloading that work to multiple CPU cores is silly.
I'm not sure what you're configuring there to get at that particular price point, but I doubt 8-core workstations running Windows (most versions of Vista don't even support that many cores to begin with) cost a lot less than $2700. I'm not saying there isn't room for a mid-range tower; in fact I've been espousing one for a long time now, but comparing the MacPro to in a professional environment as your quote above indicates to a PC optimized purely for gaming is a bad comparison. Your final comment implying there are no games for that hardware ignores Boot Camp entirely. You WERE talking about hardware, not software in that diatribe were you not? Frankly, just throwing out inaccurate information reminds me of trolling more than anything else. There are newer games for the Mac and BootCamp will generally allow Windows + any modern games (within the capability of the GPU) to run.
Again, Apple is trying to say the Mac Pro is a "workstation" when it clearly is not. It has consumer hardware. Not workstation hardware.
Any self respecting "professional" who needs to render 3D graphics will not use software or hardware that depends on the CPU for rendering, but on actual graphics processors for the job.
Just look how much faster GPUs are at everything. The PS3, for instance, spits out 1 completed unit on F@H every 8 hours. My low end GeForce 8400M GS can do 1 every 2 hours.
So its foolish for any self respecting "professional" who depends on 3D rendering for a living to depend on a Mac Pro.
Likewise, any consumer who wants such powerful hardware is not going to even consider a Mac Pro based on cost alone. Why spend $3000 to get the same thing you can pick up at Fry's for not even $700?
Just to be clear--are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference in hardware quality from on brand to another?
They ALL use the same Chinese manufacturers. Apple used to contract Asus for their hardware manufacturing but now they use Quanta, just like HP does.
If you are, then you're forgetting that quality isn't just who put the design together. It's also a) the quality of the design itself and b) the components that were chosen to realize that design. The manufacturer doesn't dictate those. Apple does. There's a reason my eMachine went through so many power supplies in such a short time and finally ran out of warrant without EVER working: it's really, truly, NOT the same power supply part as in a Mac.
Thats funny because my eMachines lasted for 5 years until it was fried, while I'm already on my second MacBook in a year.
Apple goes with whoever the lowest bidder with the best promises is at that the time the contract has expired.
You seem to think that Apple uses higher quality components for some reason, but you open it up and you'll find the same Matsushita DVD drives that are in countless other notebooks, you'll find the same Intel chipset that is used in god knows how many other notebooks, you'll find the same HDDs, the same Sony made battery, the same Samsung RAM, etc.
The only true difference between a Mac and an HP (or Dell, or Gateway) is the casing and the logo on the back.
your link since Firefox won't let me copy it without making it a link itself
Yes, we all know that Epic confirmed Gears of War and UT3 for the Mac nearly a year ago. And where are they now? What progress has been made since then?
THAT is why I made my comment. At this point it seems rather unlikely that either game will make it to the Mac, simply because the vast majority of the Macs in the marketplace canNOT run either game.
But I'm not sure you've been into recent Macs enough to know what's true and isn't these days. The fact is, Macs in general and Mac gaming in particular have been getting better and better. Mac gamers know there's LONG way to go--but we're having fun and if we choose to game on a Mac there are VERY good reasons. We know there are two sides. You pretend there is only one. That's difficult to take seriously--especially on a Mac gaming forum
Macs and games go good together? Well, let's see.. the cheapest "consumer" Mac with a dedicated GPU costs $1200. Even then, its the lowest end of that family of mobile dedicated graphics.
And I already showed you can get a gaming machine as powerful as the Mac Pro IN A B&M STORE for less than $700. Throw in a monitor for another $200.
Let's look at things how a regular person would. You walk into Fry's and see an iMac at $1199. It has a mobile CPU, a mobile GPU, and both are at the low end of their product lines.
You see that Windows desktop with the 2.66GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, 400GB HDD, and realize you can get an 8800GT for $139 more. Total price of the computer, monitor, and speakers will be somewhere around the $900 mark. It will not only outperform every iMac, but it will outperform the standard 8-core Mac Pro at $2,799.
Macs have a LOOOOOOONG useable life--not for people wanting the latest 3D games, but for just about any other computing usage. Not disposable by any stretch. You can get a VERY long useable life out of a Mac. (Check eBay for the value of used Macs vs. Windows PCs of the same age. And check speed tests for OS X: note how it often gets faster even on old hardware, unlike Vista.)
See, thats one thing that is going to change. Back when Macs used PPC chips, there was no way anyone could dispute Apple's lies of "superior hardware". But now the tables have turned. Macs now use the same hardware. No sensible person is going to spend several hundred dollars on a used MacBook with a gig or 2 of RAM and an Intel GPU when the same amount of money will get them an HP or Dell with 3GB of RAM and dedicated graphics that put the MacBook Pro to shame.
)
