[andyl]

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 04:40 PM, said:

I can go from power off, to the log-in screen in <45seconds. And from the log-in screen to the desktop READY TO GO in about another 10.

Ouch, that's painfully slow?! From off -> Chrome and Mail open ~ 25-30 seconds on a 4 year old iMac - and I'm looking to upgrade!

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 04:40 PM, said:

I wouldn't pay for a mac. EVER. I don't dispute that they're good pieces of kit, but they are not, under ANY circumstances worth the money.

Personal opinion. Maybe they're not for what you want, but if they weren't worth the money, their market share would not be increasing.

[KCooper]

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

Personal opinion. Maybe they're not for what you want, but if they weren't worth the money, their market share would not be increasing.

You gotta factor in the marketing apple has done aswell. I mean, for example, a LOT of people I know don't refer to MP3 players as an MP3 player, they call them iPods. I know people who didn't even realise there were viable alternatives for playing music "on the go". As far as they were concerned, iPod was the only option.

I'm starting to get this impression with PCs/Mac's now. Market share is increasing sure, and I am not arguing one iota that apple don't make quality products, but they have that apple brand name. Many people don't realise (or care) that there are alternatives. I don't consider this a comforting notion.

I've met designers who have said, no word of a lie, that they NEED a mac to do thier design work; not prefer, NEED. This is using the Adobe suite. Now, this, I think, is pretty ridiculous. Or, when asked "can you recommend a graphic tablet", they will answer "dunno. something apple?".


Kyle

[Scott S]

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

Ouch, that's painfully slow?! From off -> Chrome and Mail open ~ 25-30 seconds on a 4 year old iMac - and I'm looking to upgrade!



Personal opinion. Maybe they're not for what you want, but if they weren't worth the money, their market share would not be increasing.

Slow? Not for an OS it isn't. How many applications is that loading at start up? What spec is the system?

It's NOT personal opinion. It's fact. Apple products are grossly overpriced for what they are. The only people who disagree, are mac users/fanatics, who refuse to admit that they're blinded by the shiny advertising.

I don't deny that Macs are lovely pieces of kit, but I can get a HIGHER spec PC for a LOT LESS than a mac (including the grossly overpriced M$ O/S if I want it). That's a FACT, not an opinion.

KCooper, on 02 July 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

You gotta factor in the marketing apple has done aswell. I mean, for example, a LOT of people I know don't refer to MP3 players as an MP3 player, they call them iPods. I know people who didn't even realise there were viable alternatives for playing music "on the go". As far as they were concerned, iPod was the only option.

I'm starting to get this impression with PCs/Mac's now. Market share is increasing sure, and I am not arguing one iota that apple don't make quality products, but they have that apple brand name. Many people don't realise (or care) that there are alternatives. I don't consider this a comforting notion.

I've met designers who have said, no word of a lie, that they NEED a mac to do thier design work; not prefer, NEED. This is using the Adobe suite. Now, this, I think, is pretty ridiculous. Or, when asked "can you recommend a graphic tablet", they will answer "dunno. something apple?".


Kyle

I agree completely. With all the advertising Apple do, it's no wonder that the dumb, advertising lead people of today assume apple = the only solution.

[imaginarynumber]

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

I beg to differ. Over 5 years of OS X, not one issue. There is a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".

But how would you know if you never run a scanner?

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

Unfortunately that's just a made up opinion of your own so can't really comment on it.

The UnrealIRC servers were hacked back in November 2009 and they didn't notice until recently. Any linux user that has a "I don't believe in running a scanner" mentality and that downloaded the software will still be infected.

Had that been a windows virus it would not have taken half a year to notice that the virus/malware existed in the wild.

I agree that most linux users have a tendency toward being savvy. The same cannot be said for mac users. I know lots of Mac users that don't even know how to force a shut down. They got a MAc because they are sheeple.

How many of those mac users will have recently picked up the malware in the screen savers that are doing the rounds again?

IMO never running a scan is irresponsible and arguably can make one complicit in the spreading of malware.

I even scan my mobile phone.

It cannot be denied that as the number of mac and linux users increase so will the levels of malware. The main "problem" with M$ is that most users run with full admin rights they are at greater risk.


With regard to MAC market share- much of this seems to be driven by the sheeple who went from crappy key based symbian phones to the iphone. Many of them never even tried WM or Android and were sucked in by the adverts, oblivious (blinded) to the glaring faults of the iphone. Actually given the proprietry nature of the iphone and the awfull itunes they possibly are better off buying a mac.

[sunwukung]

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

Personal opinion. Maybe they're not for what you want, but if they weren't worth the money, their market share would not be increasing.

LMAO, you're a marketing man's wet dream. I can almost hear the next meeting: "Let's charge more for ot, they'll think - Whoah, this must be even MORE value for money"...

Seriously dude, it's a BS argument. Betamax was better than VHS - but VHS won the war. Market share is no indicator of product quality - it's an indication of good marketing and product strategy. That in itself is no mean feat - but it doesn't mean that a Mac is value for money.

KCooper, on 02 July 2010 - 04:38 PM, said:

Viruses attached to pornography? Your having a laugh aren't you?..................

http://www.pcpro.co....ed-than-thought

nope.

[andyl]

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 07:44 PM, said:

Slow? Not for an OS it isn't. How many applications is that loading at start up? What spec is the system?

Upon login, Chrome and Mail are set to open, alongside the usual offenders such as Growl, Logmein, VMWare Tools, etc.. I will say that iTunes slows it down a hell of a lot, I used to have that set to open on login but it wasn't worth it for quick computer usage.
My iMac spec is very low, as I said it's 4 years old. 2.33GHz Duo, 2GB DDR2 RAM @ 667MHz, 256MB GFX - even our downstairs PC takes less than 30 seconds to boot Vista to login screen. My MacBook Pro takes about 15 seconds from off->logged on with Safari and Mail open, about 1~2 seconds from logged on -> off.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 07:44 PM, said:

I don't deny that Macs are lovely pieces of kit, but I can get a HIGHER spec PC for a LOT LESS than a mac (including the grossly overpriced M$ O/S if I want it). That's a FACT, not an opinion.

Find me an example and I'll believe you You can't try the low-end PC excuse since Apple don't do low-end. People often compare the likes of Dell or Acer with Macs - it's not even worth talking that one out. It must have the same specs (including bus widths, cache sizes and HDD speeds), a monitor with the same resolution, contrast ratio and colour depth as your chosen iMac, a bluetooth keyboard + mouse, a built in mic+camera, wireless N card, silenced fans, firewire and run W7 Ultimate.

imaginarynumber, on 02 July 2010 - 08:54 PM, said:

But how would you know if you never run a scanner?

Fair point, but as I said, I've had no problems; and after having Windows compatibility issues on my network, I've got Little Snitch on my Mac telling me exactly what my Mac is sending/receiving.

sunwukung said:

"Let's charge more for ot, they'll think - Whoah, this must be even MORE value for money"

I've never said they're value for money? Only, you get what you pay for. I've previously given you proof using a Dell Alienware laptop vs. Apple MBP's.

Edit: I hate to fuel your fire, but this is what you call overpriced! £25 rubber bands!

[Scott S]

sunwukung, on 02 July 2010 - 08:57 PM, said:

LMAO, you're a marketing man's wet dream. I can almost hear the next meeting: "Let's charge more for ot, they'll think - Whoah, this must be even MORE value for money"...

Seriously dude, it's a BS argument. Betamax was better than VHS - but VHS won the war. Market share is no indicator of product quality - it's an indication of good marketing and product strategy. That in itself is no mean feat - but it doesn't mean that a Mac is value for money.

LOL well said sir. And the betamax/vhs analogy is spot on!

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

Upon login, Chrome and Mail are set to open, alongside the usual offenders such as Growl, Logmein, VMWare Tools, etc.. I will say that iTunes slows it down a hell of a lot, I used to have that set to open on login but it wasn't worth it for quick computer usage.
My iMac spec is very low, as I said it's 4 years old. 2.33GHz Duo, 2GB DDR2 RAM @ 667MHz, 256MB GFX - even our downstairs PC takes less than 30 seconds to boot Vista to login screen. My MacBook Pro takes about 15 seconds from off->logged on with Safari and Mail open, about 1~2 seconds from logged on -> off.


Find me an example and I'll believe you You can't try the low-end PC excuse since Apple don't do low-end. People often compare the likes of Dell or Acer with Macs - it's not even worth talking that one out. It must have the same specs (including bus widths, cache sizes and HDD speeds), a monitor with the same resolution, contrast ratio and colour depth as your chosen iMac, a bluetooth keyboard + mouse, a built in mic+camera, wireless N card, silenced fans, firewire and run W7 Ultimate.

Why running W7 Ultimate? My FREE linux distro pisses all over W7. 90% of the snazzy features in W7, are DIRECT linux rip-offs. M$ themselves admitted that they'd "borrowed heavily" from Linux.

I have a an old 1.2 ghz pc running linux, with less than 1gb of ram (768mb if memory serves), and I'd bet it still runs faster than your mac. It may take a few seconds longer to load, but so what?

If I was to build a PC (linux, not windows) of comparable spec to what you're suggesting, I GUARANTEE you it'd cost about half as much as the mac equivalent. Then you've also gotta factor in the cost of any software you'd then need, whereas I wouldn't.

You're talking like a typical Apple fanboy to be honest. (I don't mean that in a nasty, confrontational way)

EVERY argument you're coming out with has been done before, and dis-proven before.

It simply boils down to Apple being nothing more than a fashion accessory, and if you're happy to pay WELL over the odds for your computer, then that my friend is your choice. I'll take the £500+ I can save, and spend it on something useful.

It's been said on more than one occasion, that I'm quite evangelical about Linux (hell, I've said it myself), and it's probably true. However, it's nothing compared to the cultist beliefs of Mac users.

At least I'm willing to explain WHY I feel the way I do about Linux.
95% of Mac users just spout bull**** propaganda that the almighty Jobs has quoted, and think they're reading from some sort of damn holy book.

"but but it's made by Apple!" "The lord Jobs said it's the best thing since sliced bread" give me a break!

You give me 5 VALID reasons why macs are better than PC's (and remember PC does NOT necessarily mean windows).

Oh, and as an aside, "2.33GHz Duo, 2GB DDR2 RAM @ 667MHz, 256MB GFX" is hardly low spec! You can still buy computers with lower spec than that these days. Talk about chatting crap!

[andyl]

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

Why running W7 Ultimate? My FREE linux distro pisses all over W7. 90% of the snazzy features in W7, are DIRECT linux rip-offs. M$ themselves admitted that they'd "borrowed heavily" from Linux.

I don't disagree. You said 'including the grossly overpriced M$ O/S' ... that's why it must run W7 Ultimate since W7 home doesn't compare to *nix anymore. I personally really like Linux and, I think I've already mentioned, I use Ubuntu 10.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

I have a an old 1.2 ghz pc running linux, with less than 1gb of ram (768mb if memory serves), and I'd bet it still runs faster than your mac. It may take a few seconds longer to load, but so what?

I don't doubt it, but as you said, so what? That's not what I'm questioning. I was purely stating that 45 seconds to boot an OS to logon is a long time

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

If I was to build a PC (linux, not windows) of comparable spec to what you're suggesting, I GUARANTEE you it'd cost about half as much as the mac equivalent. Then you've also gotta factor in the cost of any software you'd then need, whereas I wouldn't.

I'm not talking about building a PC. I could build a PC for half the price of a Dell, hell I could even put OS X on it - what a novelty, huh? Again, this isn't the argument at hand. We're talking about Apple. Comparing Apple prices to eBay isn't exactly valid; same goes for almost any company.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

You're talking like a typical Apple fanboy to be honest. (I don't mean that in a nasty, confrontational way)

I'm sorry it seems that way
If I were arguing that Dell don't overprice computers, I wonder if I'd be called a Dell fanboy? Nope.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

EVERY argument you're coming out with has been done before, and dis-proven before.

Correct, in the past.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

pay WELL over the odds for your computer

I tend to call this 'profit', I thought most companies looked for it?


I'm looking for facts and figures and friendly/honest 'banter', not just to be shrugged off as a 'fanboy'. Just because Acer's homepage shows prices 1/3 that of Apple's isn't to say that Apple overprice their MacBooks/iMacs by '£500'. Low-end < Top-end; and yes, they may be slightly more expensive, but not by up to ~125%. I like most other *nix systems I've tried just as much as OS X, and I like W7 almost as much as those, as I've already mentioned. I don't think that classifies me as an Apple fanboy...I'm just down to Earth and fairly up-to-date with this ongoing battle

Anyway, I think I'll stay clear of here for now

Edit: Myself and sunwukung have had history of fair Apple debates. This post is of specific relation to our debate here, and the whole topic may be of interest to you.

This post has been edited by andyl: 02 July 2010 - 11:28 PM

[Scott S]

My apologies if you felt I was being confrontational, because I honestly wasn't.

I just get quite annoyed with the whole "mac is better, cos it's a mac" thing, that I occasionally rant about it.

Ultimately, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect peoples right to have that opinion.

As you say, this is probably a good place to end the discussion, cos we could be back-and-forth like this for the next 20 years

Peace.

S

EDIT:

Oh yeah, and macs suck, cos they've only got one mouse button

Interesting thread you linked to Just reinforces my point that this debate will never be resolved lol.

This post has been edited by Scott S: 02 July 2010 - 11:32 PM

[andyl]

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

My apologies if you felt I was being confrontational, because I honestly wasn't.

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

Oh yeah, and macs suck, cos they've only got one mouse button

Damn, thought you'd never notice

Scott S, on 02 July 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

Interesting thread you linked to Just reinforces my point that this debate will never be resolved lol.

True, which is why I mentioned Chrome much earlier on in this thread; I mean, I've never met a 'Google hater' in the same way the world is flooded with Apple/MS haters!

[Scott S]

andyl, on 02 July 2010 - 11:51 PM, said:

Damn, thought you'd never notice


True, which is why I mentioned Chrome much earlier on in this thread; I mean, I've never met a 'Google hater' in the same way the world is flooded with Apple/MS haters!

I'm observant like that....

lol Give it time - they'll come!

[sunwukung]

Just want to say, I've installed Ubuntu on dual boot - and i AM STOKED!!! It's *&^*ing sweet!
Thanks to all of you for recommending it - I may be about to wave bye bye to MS forever...

[N1ckR]

I was weaned on a variety of computers, we have an Amiga and a Win 3.1 PC at home, Uni we used a mixture of OS9, NT4 and Unix/Linux systems.

Currently I think all the Major OS are pretty good, such as OSX, Ubuntu, Windows 7; stability, security and features all within ball park of each other.
Alot of it depends on what your specific needs and software required are and in this day and age with the ease you can dual boot or virtualise, why stick to one OS ?

IMHO -
OSX is the more user friendly, consistent OS out there at the moment, but in my case I can't justify the Apple hardware premium, so not used it as extensively.

Windows 7 - I don't have to pay for it (work provides it), slightly slower than OSX or Ubuntu. The UI is the busiest and I do find I forget more often than with Ubuntu or OSX where stuff is. When stuff goes wrong quite often takes longer to fix, especially if at mercy of 3rd party software/drivers (points finger at my previous laptop purchased after the release of Vista which has Vista compatible hardware, just Vista compatible drivers never released).

Ubuntu - Fastest OS on my laptop (4gb ram dual core). Lacks a bit of polish in certain areas, forever getting little bugs (like my USB external drive wont spin down in Ubuntu but does in Windows), missing odd useful features (like good desktop friendly backup/versioning like time machine or Win7s built in file versions). Though quite user friendly desktop, fixes for issues can be technical cmdline affairs, though far more responsive than with Window (especially in fixing the most critical of bugs).

So my final answer is it depends on How much you have to pay, what your hardware is and how well supported and what software you need to run and how technical minded you are.

Cheers, Nick

[sunwukung]

I can see that MacOS gives the speed and integrity of Linux coupled with the usability enhancements of Windows (well, superior usability enhancements). At the same time, Linux does play into that strange masochistic urge developers have to learn cryptic syntax for simple tasks, and you get mucho brownie points as a dev for being able to operate a LAMP stack from the terminal.

[jamesmarks]

I like Windows

[terydinho]

For design... give me my 27" iMac every day.

For development.... it doesn't really matter what you code in - they all do the same job once you are inside a text editor!

For testing.... give me a mac, windows, 17 phones, 4 tablets, 32 browsers and access to some internet TVs too!