why mac?

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

waterborne

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
26
i just recently was lucky enough to receive a 15in powerbook and absolutely love it. before now i used windows. i really like the mac a lot but want to know what the computer experts like about mac. personally it feels like a very solid system and high quality piece of equipment.
 

Del

Joined
Aug 31, 2001
Messages
3,452
Hi,
I was a devout Windows person, until Sept of 2004. I got an eMac and did not use it much, was still tied to my Windoze machine. Was so much fun, looking for Trojans and viruses. I have not turned my Windoze machine on in months. I only use my Mac and have not had a virus, trojan or even popups with Firefox as a browser.
Hope you enjoy your Mac, and you will save a lot of time and money not having to invest in the antivirus software etc that you did with Windows.
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
89
I know it sounds cliche, but the fact is, Mac's just work.

You want to add a peripheral, you plug it in. Rarely are drivers needed.
Networking has been a part of every Mac since the first Mac's made, Sure it was apple-talk but that converted nicely to IP.
You can, all but forget viruses and stuff like that. This may change as Mac carves out a larger market share, but we really have it easy.

They look better, laptops are lighter. My laptop simply wakes up and goes looking for a wireless network whenever I open the case.

The hardware has been a more stable chip also, since day 1. The original Motorola chips used RISQ processing which is just faster than the CISQ used in Intel chips. < It will be interesting to see what happens with the new path Apple has chosen >. This is why the speeds seem so far apart and still the Mac's run with or faster than Pentiums out on the market.

OK, my 2 cents worth.

John
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
22,816
I have a Mac and a PC, and to be quite frank, with the advent of very good virus protection for the PC, it really isn't a problem. Windows XP is so stable that I haven't had a problem with my machine in over two years! So why Mac----styling aside (I dont fetishsize my computers) it has an incredibly elegant operating system. For me, its that simple.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
21,334
Nytemagik said:
I know it sounds cliche, but the fact is, Mac's just work.

You want to add a peripheral, you plug it in. Rarely are drivers needed.
Networking has been a part of every Mac since the first Mac's made, Sure it was apple-talk but that converted nicely to IP.
You can, all but forget viruses and stuff like that. This may change as Mac carves out a larger market share, but we really have it easy.

They look better, laptops are lighter. My laptop simply wakes up and goes looking for a wireless network whenever I open the case.

The hardware has been a more stable chip also, since day 1. The original Motorola chips used RISQ processing which is just faster than the CISQ used in Intel chips. < It will be interesting to see what happens with the new path Apple has chosen >. This is why the speeds seem so far apart and still the Mac's run with or faster than Pentiums out on the market.

OK, my 2 cents worth.

John

The speed issue is a myth perpetuated by Apple to keep the zombies believing that MACs were faster than their PC based counterparts. The fact is they are not faster and never have been. Why do you think Apple is moving to an Intel CPU? Your entire premise for being a devotee of MAC is looks, the OS looks better, and do not consider price or performance at all when making a decision. If I didn't want to think I may have purchased a MAC as well. Going to the Apple web site and looking at the "SWITCH" page only confirms the fact that Apple users are really mindless zealots.
 

waterborne

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
26
haha rockn that post seemed somewhat critical of mac users. macs being faster (whatever your opinion) isnt about processor speed. if you look at note books the macs have lower clocked speeds than there counterparts; however, it is my opinion that the programs run faster and smoother on my mac than on my pc. this isnt about mac users being "mindless zealots" it is about what they would prefer to use. i think windows is great- ive used it for the past 10 years; however, i like my mac better. no need to turn this into an argument rockn. you comment is appreciated though.
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
1,064
I put very little stock in anti-Macintosh propaganda pushed by people who cannot distinguish between an acronym (MAC) and the name of an Apple product (Mac or Macintosh).
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
89
All I can say, is I am so hurt. the idiot didn't li...... wait, what was that???...... he's an Idiot savant???


Never mind

As we speak I am placing a call to my friends at MIT letting them know they've been wrong all these years.

John
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
21,334
waterborne said:
haha rockn that post seemed somewhat critical of mac users. macs being faster (whatever your opinion) isnt about processor speed. if you look at note books the macs have lower clocked speeds than there counterparts; however, it is my opinion that the programs run faster and smoother on my mac than on my pc. this isnt about mac users being "mindless zealots" it is about what they would prefer to use. i think windows is great- ive used it for the past 10 years; however, i like my mac better. no need to turn this into an argument rockn. you comment is appreciated though.
In your opinion! In real world tests using benchmarking software thye do not stand up to their counterparts in the PC world. I am not trying to argue with anyone, just clear up a perpetuated misconception. Apple has been losing the GHz wars for years and thus their recently announced jump to Intel CPUs.

As far as the mindless zealots comment, have you ever visited the Apple "switch" page on their web site? Seems pretty self-deprecating, the comments these folks are putting in their testimonials.
 

waterborne

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
26
it seems to me the switch site is intended more for the people who are not very skilled with computers. that was my thought when reading that.

nyte im glad to hear they use macs at mit! i am a math/physics major and am glad to hear they use macs at mit
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
289
What is the point of comparing GHz stats? Microsoft are privvy to just as much 'over-marketing' when their products are shipped.

The fact is there is little to seperate both PC & Mac platforms now.
Microsoft needs Apple and it's in there interests to have a competitor.
The OS is purely down to choice. IMO OS X (run on decent specs) is the better OS, but WXP is a good OS aswell.

I think it's true to say that the switch to Intel will further collaborate the 2 platforms, especially since Jobs announced that Windows will run on a Mac. No doubt OS X will run on a PC eventually. Power PC was a good chip, but its future roadmap didnt match Apples, and that fair enough.
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
89
waterbourne..... I was taking a few liberties with the MIT joke. While I am sure they have a Mac tucked away somewhere, I was refering to the way older difference between RISQ and CISQ type processor command line structure. The old Cray super computers, for example, for many years the fastest systems,used RISQ.

Fact is, I use both and without any of my own controlled scientific benchmarking, I can simply say that rendering out a 3D graphic animation is just faster and smoother on a Mac, compared to my fastest PC which is almost a GH faster in raw clock speed. I don't know how that can be justified as a myth.

The drawback I still see in Macs is the lack of software in certain areas. My company does environmental reports, using many air, water and other biological models, and almost none of those are available in a Mac version. Good news is that they all run fine under VirtualPC, which while it pains me to say, is a Microsoft product now, I'll give them credit for expanding a good product. With tongue in cheek, I even told the VirtualPC product manager at the last MacWorld. Although I prefer the W2K Pro platform due to it's lower resource drain that WXP.
Oh well

I agree with zoombini that the move to Intel chips is a move towards the "black box" concept. I am not sure I agree with it, but from a business perspective, it may be the best thing Apple has done in years.

John
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
21,334
I don't think the "black box" concept will be a problem for Apple. I have read that they may consider doing some of this for lower end units and allow there to be OEM manufacturers of thos products while Apple themselves will control the marketing and manufacture of their high end units.

With a well put together PC (no boxed units from DELL or other) you can and will see a performance difference over the MAC units. I can see where some would think it is better because it is such a closed system with rigid hardware and software constraints all controlled by Apple that would make everything used on it compatible.

I also agree with your XP and Win2K porting issues. Why would anyone consider porting a high end application to a gaming, candy coated OS like XP? When I found out that Adobe only wrote Premiere for XP I almost lost control of my lunch.
 

waterborne

Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
26
rockn- so you are talking about performance between custom built computers? i probably dont know as much as you guys but i have always thought of dell computers as a computer that performs for average user. i think they slow down very quickly (i found the same with our gateways). if not windows xp what would you guys use?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
21,334
Custom built or self built because you can control what hardware goes into it. With a DELL or other boxed system you get what they put in which is generally the lowest quality they can get away with to keep competitive with other manufacturers. These systems are generally underpowered and the components are a bit lacking. Windows 2K is a really good, stable OS without all the candy coated performance robbing GUI crap you don't really need.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top