Macintosh

[Xenon Odyssey]

I got this MacBook Pro with my college tution. Apparently it was the newest model to come out, with a new "mecury-free" screen and other stuff...it also came with free PhotoShop (as well as an assload of Adobe programs), and Sibelius 5, Reason, and BandInABox.

But yeah, I'll have to echo about the programs being as reliable as their Windows counterparts, and how sometimes the systems locks up for no reason and there is no "command prompt" that allows you to fix anything.

tl;dr -

[The Coop]

tl;dr -

I always liked that video. It's so true at times, and funny besides.

[FR]

tl;dr -

That was awsome.

This thread is making me not want a Mac anymore...I guess I have to try ubuntu again .

[Bahamut]

System Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Trackpad -> Check "FOR SECONDARY CLICKS, PLACE 2 FINGERS ON THE TRACK PAD AND CLICK THE BUTTON"

That's not much different than what I do, hold ctrl and click, and it annoys me as it is.

[Drack]

I hate most Apple hardware. It's got too much flash, too little function, and costs way too much for what it does. It's just not practical.

I like their OS. It's solid software and has an interesting take on how an OS should be designed. It works really well with its software suite and I'm quite impressed. If only the software were more flexible and configurable (yeah I'm a Linux user most of the time) I could see it being my primary OS. On PC hardware of course.

[Shadow Wolf]

Speaking from 8 years computer support experience with 2 at a government particle accelerator, the type of OS any person uses largely depends on the level of abstraction you want to work at. In other words, how much do you want to know about what's going on with your computer? They go in this order:

Mac OS: This is the highest level of abstraction. Think like a spaceship. Almost no one knows how the fuck those things work, you press the button and they just do. People using Macs usually want some kind of productivity over all else. They don't account for the fact that every computer WILL have issues. Most people I run into use a Mac because it 'just works.' There's two problems with that. 1.) I've found that Macs don't 'just work' any better than a Windows PC does, and 2.) When a Mac just isn't working, it can be an extraordinary pain in the ass to peel away all the layers of graphical happiness and actually analyze what the HELL is wrong. Which is why I go a couple abstraction levels lower and use:

Windows: Windows is, despite all the crap people give it, far and away the best operating system available for almost all users, and here's why. Windows is like a CAR, because it works almost all the time, but you can pop the hood and get dirty. Windows is used by almost everyone anyways, just because of its huge market share. BUT the reason it rules the market like it does is that if something goes wrong with Windows, you can put that bitch on a lift and find out what's wrong. 95% of the time, Windows is a beautifully simplistic user experience. Does it crash sometimes? Yes. But, barring hardware going bad, in 9 years, I have never had a Windows crash where I could not at least backdoor into the hard drive via a command line and recover my data. Does it have more viruses? Absolutely. Any black hat worth his salt is going to write viruses that will affect as many people as possible. There's not many viruses for Mac, but you'll notice there's no viruses for the Tamagotchi either. But you can get into Windows and fix things in about a million different ways. The only fly in this ointment is Vista, which is trying to be too much like Mac OS, and it's a bit harder to find those back doors. But if you're really ambitious, you can use:

Linux: The operating system universally used by people that don't want to have fun with their computer. If Mac OS is a spaceship and Windows is a car, Linux is an enormous box of off-brand Legos. Linux is for people that like to WATCH their code run and know exactly what's happening, and by God if they don't know what's happening, they write a program to help them find out. I've used a lot of Linux. It's alright for me, but I don't wanna have to tell my computer how to install things from a command line. I value my fingers more than that. Nevertheless, you can get Linux to do some wicked crazy shit if you spend the time with it. I am suspicious that most government employees use Linux solely because it's so easy to make downloading porn look just like you're writing code for your next physics experiment, and I can't blame those scary greasy-haired foreign men for that.

EDIT: W00t! I broke 800 posts and it only took me 5.5 years!

[Kusabi]

I hate most Apple hardware. It's got too much flash, too little function, and costs way too much for what it does. It's just not practical.

Some of the hardware is impractical. The main one being my Power Mac G5. If a major component takes a dive into the netherworld, then its an arm and a leg to get it working again, because all the components are non-standard. Of course, by the time something _does_ take a dive into the netherworld, it's most likely time to be looking at a new computer away. That's exactly what happened when my motherboard on my Windows PC died freshman year at school. I called my parents up, said I'm buying a new computer because the old one died, and 4 hours later, I was walking out the door of the Apple Store Lenox Mall with a Power Mac G5 Quad.

Of course, the new Macbook Air is quite vapid in terms of actual value. Tech showcase, you bet your booties, Grandma. Value: None....unless you really like to waste money.

I like their OS. It's solid software and has an interesting take on how an OS should be designed. It works really well with its software suite and I'm quite impressed. If only the software were more flexible and configurable (yeah I'm a Linux user most of the time) I could see it being my primary OS. On PC hardware of course.

Part of how Apple creates their operating environment is by having strict control over what is in it, in regards to hardware. Plus tying the OS to their hardware means a nice revenue stream that Apple is not willing to give up.

<sarcasm>Remember, you are paying to share the "Mac Experience"</sarcasm>

[bobsideways]

My dad is a computer engineer, and I've grown up with Windows all of my life. Every version I had of Windows, from 95 on up to XP (never owned Vista though I have played with it) has crashed on me somehow, even without a program running (in actually most cases). Sometimes, yes, it was because I was trying to run something that my computer couldn't run at the time, but in 9 out of 10 times it was Windows that crashed. There were several times that I had to reinstall Windows just to get it to run again. That happened at least once a month (or it at least certainly seemed that way). I had to update or reinstall drivers all the time. It was constantly downloading "updates" that really only took up space on the hard drive. Even the safe mode and "restore date" option took up more hard drive space than my games - and that's saying something.

By far, out of them all, I liked 95 and XP. They crashed the least, and for the most part ran what I wanted them to.

However, about a year ago I started getting into Macs, and was given a MacBook from the college I attend so that I could have something to do my homework on. Granted, it was the lowest rung: last of the 60 GB HDs, decent but minimal graphics card; though they upped the RAM to 1GB, so that we could run CS2/CS3 on it better (which really doesn't matter with a 1.83 GHz processor). Yes, I know, it's for art/graphic design and all that, but hey, it's something.

The only crashes I have are when the program itself tries to take over all the RAM, can't do it, and shuts itself off. This happens mostly with the designing programs, since they take the most - I have never had OSX itself crash on me, though I do know it happens on occasion. There have been a few times, yes, that I've had to hard reset the thing, but when it restarts it's clean as a whistle again. It clears the main cache every time you turn it off, like all the actions you took that session and all that, and you can clear the cache of everything you want to to keep it running smoothly. You can do this on Windows as well - after finding where they hid it this time in the new one or waiting forever to load the Control Panel.

I've only once had to reinstall OSX - and that was because I was stupid and didn't use Boot Camp when I tried to partition the HD to have Windows too. You guys say that Macs crash as much as Windows, which is right, but have you compared the severity? Yes, you have many many back doors to recover all of your files, but what do you have to do to view them all again normally on that machine? Cntl-alt-del only works so much. Yes, it's a fancy, overpriced machine. I'd rather pay more for one that works than pay at all for one that doesn't. I'm not saying it's perfect or god-given or whatever, but come on.

Btw - Ramaniscence: to toggle through the windows in one single program is Command-~ (the button just above Tab). You can also Command-Shift-~ to cycle backwards (same with Cmd-Shift-Tab for reverse through programs). For some reason, though, the only time that doesn't work is to cycle through the different tabs on Safari. Weird.

Hope that helps!

[I-n-j-i-n]

I think it's mostly fair to say that Macs just simply underperform compared to the PCs of a similar price (A new, trendy $1700 Mac is going to have to bow down to a monster machine you can build for a PC).

But I agree the OS is great, though its lack of modifiability within its own OS's is annoying. It was annoying a decade ago.

[Kusabi]

I think it's mostly fair to say that Macs just simply underperform compared to the PCs of a similar price (A new, trendy $1700 Mac is going to have to bow down to a monster machine you can build for a PC).

But I agree the OS is great, though its lack of modifiability within its own OS's is annoying. It was annoying a decade ago.

Compare carrots to carrots. If you are going to compare a Mac to a PC, one should compare to a pre-assembled PC, as that is what the Macintosh targets.

Otherwise you are saddling the Mac with the cost of assembly (which you forgo when you order a set of components) and the cost to offer some kind of user support (which you forgo in part when you buy components). This is not even getting into profits that are made on the assembled hardware.

The correct analogy is that ANY pre-assembled computer is going to underperform compared to the components that can be purchased for the same amount of money.

But this is comparing carrots to celery.

[Fishy]

Somethings LACKING on OS X is a good PSX emulator pretty much. Since I don't really care to emu systems I own and can easily get games for I don't mind but I can see loads of people minding. Fishy did for example

This STILL pisses me off. Even when I'm using XP on boot camp, the PSX discs get ejected after about 10 seconds even with the EMUs open. Simply put, theres no way I can emulate PSX at all . I was really looking forwards to being able to play my old FF games anywhere at Uni, I was muchly dissapointed.

I can't even use a program to get the .iso files and use a virtual drive, because the disc is literally ejected straight away. Looks like I'm just gonna have to download them from somewhere... I own the originals so whatever.

There also aren't any chiptune players that support N64 filetypes yet, a minor gayance.

[CHz]

There also aren't any chiptune players that support N64 filetypes yet, a minor gayance.

I actually rate the lack of a Mac USF player as a severe gayance.

[Fishy]

It would be severe if I couldn't use chipamp when I'm in XP mode. Its not impossible to get to them, just annoying.

[Kautzman]

Speaking from 8 years computer support experience with 2 at a government particle accelerator, the type of OS any person uses largely depends on the level of abstraction you want to work at. In other words, how much do you want to know about what's going on with your computer? They go in this order:

Mac OS: This is the highest level of abstraction. Think like a spaceship. Almost no one knows how the fuck those things work, you press the button and they just do. People using Macs usually want some kind of productivity over all else. They don't account for the fact that every computer WILL have issues. Most people I run into use a Mac because it 'just works.' There's two problems with that. 1.) I've found that Macs don't 'just work' any better than a Windows PC does, and 2.) When a Mac just isn't working, it can be an extraordinary pain in the ass to peel away all the layers of graphical happiness and actually analyze what the HELL is wrong. Which is why I go a couple abstraction levels lower and use:

Windows: Windows is, despite all the crap people give it, far and away the best operating system available for almost all users, and here's why. Windows is like a CAR, because it works almost all the time, but you can pop the hood and get dirty. Windows is used by almost everyone anyways, just because of its huge market share. BUT the reason it rules the market like it does is that if something goes wrong with Windows, you can put that bitch on a lift and find out what's wrong. 95% of the time, Windows is a beautifully simplistic user experience. Does it crash sometimes? Yes. But, barring hardware going bad, in 9 years, I have never had a Windows crash where I could not at least backdoor into the hard drive via a command line and recover my data. Does it have more viruses? Absolutely. Any black hat worth his salt is going to write viruses that will affect as many people as possible. There's not many viruses for Mac, but you'll notice there's no viruses for the Tamagotchi either. But you can get into Windows and fix things in about a million different ways. The only fly in this ointment is Vista, which is trying to be too much like Mac OS, and it's a bit harder to find those back doors. But if you're really ambitious, you can use:

Linux: The operating system universally used by people that don't want to have fun with their computer. If Mac OS is a spaceship and Windows is a car, Linux is an enormous box of off-brand Legos. Linux is for people that like to WATCH their code run and know exactly what's happening, and by God if they don't know what's happening, they write a program to help them find out. I've used a lot of Linux. It's alright for me, but I don't wanna have to tell my computer how to install things from a command line. I value my fingers more than that. Nevertheless, you can get Linux to do some wicked crazy shit if you spend the time with it. I am suspicious that most government employees use Linux solely because it's so easy to make downloading porn look just like you're writing code for your next physics experiment, and I can't blame those scary greasy-haired foreign men for that.

I put another 5 years of IT experience into this thread and say that this post has more truth in it than Steven Colbert before a writers strike.

In addition, I'll emphasize this point:

Macs really do look pretty and Macs really are sleek. But, Macs break too. 75% of the time a Mac breaks, it's easy to fix. The thing practically fixes itself. The other 25% of the time, it's nigh impossible to fix because it's impossible to see whats actually going on behind all the pretty graphics. Because of that, a Mac either doesn't break, or when it does, it breaks really, really badly.

Everyone complains about a BSoD hitting but guess what? BSoDs have a lot of information. Things ranging from potential causes, to files that caused a crash and if you really know your stuff, memory addresses. This lets a skilled tech easily diagnose and fix the problem quickly.

When a Mac crashes and it says, "OS X has encountered an error." What do you honestly expect a tech to do about it? No information, no hint at what would have caused it. Nothing. I know Macs pretty well but I don't know where they keep an error log. I'm sure there is one floating around but honestly, if OS X really breaks, I call the UNIX guys because I really don't want to deal with it.

Half the reason I use Windows is because I can fix it. The other half is compatibility.

So to Apple I say this: Information. Provide it. Please.

My dad is a computer engineer, and I've grown up with Windows all of my life...I'm not saying it's perfect or god-given or whatever, but come on.

If you are forced to Reinstall Windows because of crashes, then it probably is an issue with the end user. Windows is not nearly as mindless as Mac OS X is. You can break Windows pretty easily if you don't know what you are doing. Unpredictable crashes are almost always a result of the end user screwing around with things he/she shouldn't be or mis configuring drivers etc. I've had Windows since 3.1. I've been exceptionally skilled with the OS since 98 and I've seen crashes that I wasn't expecting twice since then. A lot of Mac people argue that "Windows crashes a lot". Yeah, Windows does crash a lot if you don't fully understand what you are doing. It's kind of like, but on a different level, of people who unknowingly download things like Stormworm etc. It's just a matter of not knowing and understanding the dangers and potential risk of messing with the OS.

Compare carrots to carrots. If you are going to compare a Mac to a PC, one should compare to a pre-assembled PC, as that is what the Macintosh targets.

So because you (For the average user) cannot build your own Mac, PCs are supposed to step down to their level when comparing potential features and performance? The fact that it's difficult to custom build a Mac is a flaw with the system, not an unfair comparison.

Edit: A lot of people also praise Mac security. I have news for you: Security by obscurity doesn't count. The day Mac gets Market share is the day that Mac's amazing security will seem to evaporate.

[Katsurugi]

Personally, I thought that this thread would be more geared about what stuff they unveiled at MacWorld '08. Nevertheless, I was actually looking into the Macbook Air before they actually released some details about it. I'm seriously underwhelmed by it. For a ultra-thin and light notebook, it is quite impressive. However, in achieving this, I think that they surrendered a lot of features that would be simply practical.

I think that opting not to have the optical drive is fine. USB has become a lot more universal, but it should have more than only one USB connection. If I were using any computer I probably would like to use a mouse instead of a trackpad and it would occupy my only USB port. What if I had to save something to a flash drive at the same time? There are a lot of what if's. But I think they could have all been avoided if they just made 2 USB ports available at the minimum. My second objection is the lack of an ethernet jack. This decision is classically Apple. If you have a product named the Macbook Air, you probably don't want it to be tied down to anything. Still, you could argue that you don't necessarily need to call it the Macbook Air in the first place. Since Apple caters to those who do usually have a little extra in their bank account, making the assumption that wireless is good enough fits their reputation. They don't appeal to the most common denominator and find some pride in their niche community.

I guess I just have to look for another thin, light laptop.

[Bahamut]

Compare carrots to carrots. If you are going to compare a Mac to a PC, one should compare to a pre-assembled PC, as that is what the Macintosh targets.

Otherwise you are saddling the Mac with the cost of assembly (which you forgo when you order a set of components) and the cost to offer some kind of user support (which you forgo in part when you buy components). This is not even getting into profits that are made on the assembled hardware.

The correct analogy is that ANY pre-assembled computer is going to underperform compared to the components that can be purchased for the same amount of money.

But this is comparing carrots to celery.

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Macs are still more expensive in general than their PC counterparts being sold by OEM vendors like Dell or HP.

[zircon]

I think it's mostly fair to say that Macs just simply underperform compared to the PCs of a similar price (A new, trendy $1700 Mac is going to have to bow down to a monster machine you can build for a PC).

Didn't PC World or PC Magazine run a test of multiple laptops and find that the one that ran Vista the best was actually a Mac? Or something?

[Kusabi]

So because you (For the average user) cannot build your own Mac, PCs are supposed to step down to their level when comparing potential features and performance? The fact that it's difficult to custom build a Mac is a flaw with the system, not an unfair comparison.

Comparing a purpose built race-car to a production car isn't exactly fair either. An Audi R8 race car will spank the pants off an R8 road car.

So therefore the R8 road car has a major flaw because the R8 racer performs far better and is more customizable.

Bzzzzt.....Try again.

A lot of people also praise Mac security. I have news for you: Security by obscurity doesn't count. The day Mac gets Market share is the day that Mac's amazing security will seem to evaporate.

So therefore any attempt to use a slightly better security model is pointless because market share will immediately cause "security" to evaporate?

Running as an unprivileged user for basic things _is_ a slightly better option than running as an administrator to do the same basic things. The problem is that 90% of end users on Windows are running as an Administrator.

UAC is a good idea in concept, but it gets so irritating after about 5 minutes (literally) that I shut it off. Yes, it defeats the purpose, but every time I turned around, I get the "Are you sure you want to do this?" box. That's more irritating than anything else.

Plus my Linux PC has perfect security right now. It's turned off and not connected to a network

[Fishy]

Didn't PC World or PC Magazine run a test of multiple laptops and find that the one that ran Vista the best was actually a Mac? Or something?

Yeah, I've heard this aswell. The Mac hardwares are supposedly better for running Windows then PCs are. I can state no doubt that they run it just as well by experiance.

[The Author]

Comparing a purpose built race-car to a production car isn't exactly fair either. An Audi R8 race car will spank the pants off an R8 road car.

So therefore the R8 road car has a major flaw because the R8 racer performs far better and is more customizable.

Bzzzzt.....Try again.

Ok, lets try this:

The Mac is a car, pretty good engine, runs well. Retails at 20 000$.

You can buy a PC car, much better engine, extremely good performance, top of the line all the way. Retail price: 20 000$

You can also buy a PC car equivalent to the power of the Mac Car. Retail value 16 000$

There ya go, compare equivalent performance between a Mac and a PC and the PC will be cheaper. Compare same priced Mac and PC and the PC will be stronger.

[CHz]

It would be severe if I couldn't use chipamp when I'm in XP mode. Its not impossible to get to them, just annoying.

I'd find having to reboot into XP every time I want to listen to a USF more aggravating than annoying. Getting dat Parallels or VMWare instead of Boot Camp would be a more acceptable solution, but honestly the whole thing just boils down to me being hosed no matter which way you slice it because I have a PPC Mac.

When a Mac crashes and it says, "OS X has encountered an error." What do you honestly expect a tech to do about it? No information, no hint at what would have caused it. Nothing. I know Macs pretty well but I don't know where they keep an error log. I'm sure there is one floating around but honestly, if OS X really breaks, I call the UNIX guys because I really don't want to deal with it.

. . .

So to Apple I say this: Information. Provide it. Please.

Not that it particularly matters if you just call the UNIX guys, but ~/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/AppName.crash.log for application crash logs and /Library/Logs/panic.log for kernel panic logs.

[Kusabi]

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable. In addition, Macs are still more expensive in general than their PC counterparts being sold by OEM vendors like Dell or HP.

I pulled two systems from Apple and two from Dell: One desktop and one laptop.

For the laptops: (Apple Macbook Pro 17 inch, Dell Precision M6300)

Full client OS

Intel C2D 2.6GHz

2GB RAM

200GB Hard drive, 7200rpm rotational speed

Standard graphics, standard warranty.

Apple: $3349

Dell: $3328

Difference: Dell, by $21.

For the desktops: (Dell Precision T7400, and Mac Pro)

Full client OS

2xIntel Quad Core Xeon at 3.16GHz

2GB RAM

DVD burner

1TB SATA drive

nVidia QuadroFX 5600

Apple: $7649

Dell: $8429

Difference: Apple, by $780.

$780 is a nice chunk of change.

[Kusabi]

Ok, lets try this:

The Mac is a car, pretty good engine, runs well. Retails at 20 000$.

You can buy a PC car, much better engine, extremely good performance, top of the line all the way. Retail price: 20 000$

You can also buy a PC car equivalent to the power of the Mac Car. Retail value 16 000$

There ya go, compare equivalent performance between a Mac and a PC and the PC will be cheaper. Compare same priced Mac and PC and the PC will be stronger.

Huh?

See above. Equivalent Mac and PC, and the PC is close to $800 more expensive.

Bzzzt......Try again.

[The Author]

Huh?

See above. Equivalent Mac and PC, and the PC is close to $800 more expensive.

Bzzzt......Try again.

Same specs, different performance.

Failure is headed your way, not mine.

Please note how I compared performance, and not specs. You can stick a V8 engine in a car made of lead. It's gonna be a V8, but it won't be able to get the top notch performance found in a well built car with a V6.

[Bahamut]

I pulled two systems from Apple and two from Dell: One desktop and one laptop.

For the laptops: (Apple Macbook Pro 17 inch, Dell Precision M6300)

Full client OS

Intel C2D 2.6GHz

2GB RAM

200GB Hard drive, 7200rpm rotational speed

Standard graphics, standard warranty.

Apple: $3349

Dell: $3328

Difference: Dell, by $21.

For the desktops: (Dell Precision T7400, and Mac Pro)

Full client OS

2xIntel Quad Core Xeon at 3.16GHz

2GB RAM

DVD burner

1TB SATA drive

nVidia QuadroFX 5600

Apple: $7649

Dell: $8429

Difference: Apple, by $780.

$780 is a nice chunk of change.

Except once Dell throws out some of their insane deals/coupons, you can find deals that would cost thousands less than what you can get from Apple. There is no question for a deal seeker which is cheaper.