|
I'm not interested in Macs as surely Mac users are not interested in PC's.
This CPU convergence brought some stability between the two "worlds" but not enough, at least not yet.
If you're a XP or Vista user you'll be able to buy a better computer at the same price if it's not a Mac.
It's not worth the price, at least not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
That's total nonsense. I used Windows since 3.11, and didn't like it until XP, which was functional and stable, especially compared to the crashaholic Windows 98.
And I've used Linux since Red Hat in 1998, and still have an up-to-date Ubuntu Gutsy on my desktop at home.
Then I got a Macbook a couple of weeks ago (it shipped with Tiger, but I complained to Apple and they sent out a copy of Leopard for free).
The hardware works, it's a fast and efficient machine and operating system, and more and more ports are appearing from apps in the Linux world. And it only cost a little more than what I paid for my last Acer laptop, which is an oversized, overweight mammoth which sounds like an airplane taking off constantly.
You may not be interested in Macs, but I don't see any real reason for it other than that you have no real knowledge of the platform.
As a new Mac user, I would guess that Mac users have every reason not to be bothered with PCs. Except in my case, as a programmer, I'll keep my mind open and my feet in both worlds.
Don't be closed-minded.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: self ranting
...Although, to be fair, I do take issue with Apple taking the responsibility of writing the Java VM for OS X, and being a year late with Java 6 so far.
This is causing some consternation and threats to jump ship from Java developers using Macs, but I'm hopefully they'll either sort it out soon or hand the job over to the capable Sun.
But honestly, try using a Mac for a week or so. Spotlight and the like make things so much smoother. Plus you've got your Unix shell, tools and scripting.
As a longtime Linux user (Redhat, Slackware, Mandrake/Mandriva, Ubuntu), it's like all the good parts of Linux minus the horrifying hardware incompatibility, weird bugs and inefficient implementations (e.g. the popular window managers seem slow, at least on my home machine).
Although it's missing something like apt-get, so far as I can see.
|
|
|
|
|
No offense mate... I just think that for a Windows user it only worths for the look.
And btw, ACER is the lowest you can get on branded laptops. They have the best quality/price relation but you can't expect much from it when it comes to quality (battery, noise, chassis, etc...).
Although it's possible to run Vista on a Mac I don't feel comfortable with it, so I won't buy one.
O prefer to have a native Vista computer with Linux and even MacOS VM's that a Mac with Windows VM's.
"especially compared to the crashaholic Windows 98"
Do you call Windows 98 crashaholic?! What about ME? 
Congrats on your new Mac,
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
> And btw, ACER is the lowest you can get on branded laptops.
> They have the best quality/price relation but you can't
> expect much from it when it comes to quality (battery,
> noise, chassis, etc...).
You're absolutely right here; that thing runs for maybe 40 minutes on batteries, if I'm lucky...
Also, I killed it soon after buying it by flashing a newer BIOS onto it; turned out it was for another revision of the SAME model motherboard - obviously this wasn't mentioned in any way in the BIOS docs.
And of course, they apparently had no way to recover, nor to remove the flash BIOS since it was hard soldered rather than socketed. Cost me €350 or so from the Acer repair centre to get a whole new motherboard.
So not much chance of me ever buying from Acer again!
|
|
|
|
|
The hardware doesn't make the difference but the OS make a big one. I'm using both, and trust me, OSX is way more user friendly than windows. And OSX require less resource to work properly.
You should try and after that make your conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Have to disagree. Mac hardware is very good and makes a difference. If I were a Windows developer still I'd get a MacBook Pro with Windows XP on it.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't question that, mostly because I didn't use it much... actually never on a regular basis.
I still prefer Vista based on the fact that my "life" is settled on Windows environment. I'm a VS.net dev so I had to have Windows on my laptop.
I have 2 options, have it as the base OS or on a VM.
Why would I want MacOS as a base OS if it would only serve as a VM container?
I already had this kind of environment with Linux distros and I ended installing Windows as the base OS.
This all depends on your own way of using computers.
As MacOS being more friendly... hummmm... I don't think so.
MacOS is as friendly to Windows users as Windows to MacOS users, which is not even close as friendly.
You find yourself way less productive with the switch.
Then or you have the time to get use to it or you just leave it, and I'm not talking about developing here... "simple" word processing actions just do as an example.
"OSX require less resource to work properly"
Well, my Vista OS starts with 500Mb to 600Mb in memory... about 1/4 of its total capacity (2Gb).
With ease it reaches 1Gb+ hanging regularly around 1.2Gb.
Is this bad? I don't think so, I think that if the computer have 2Gb available the OS should fill it as much as possible, this will increase the overall performance.
How good is 2Gb of memory for you if your OS always tries to use as less as possible?
Never judge a OS by the amount of memory it uses.
I don't mean to limit my scope here, but I know I'm productive in Windows and I know that I (and everyone else) will be less productive switching to some other OS. I also know that the switch won't bring me any kind of advantages. So for me it's just for looks... nothing else... :->
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: I have 2 options, have it as the base OS or on a VM.
Why would I want MacOS as a base OS if it would only serve as a VM container?
Actually, you can do both. Bootcamp[^] allows you to install Windows natively on your Mac as well as the Mac OS!
AlexCode wrote: Then or you have the time to get use to it or you just leave it, and I'm not talking about developing here... "simple" word processing actions just do as an example.
This is true...of any new thing you try. It's called a learning curve.
AlexCode wrote: I don't mean to limit my scope here, but I know I'm productive in Windows and I know that I (and everyone else) will be less productive switching to some other OS. I also know that the switch won't bring me any kind of advantages. So for me it's just for looks... nothing else...
You're missing out. 
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
|
I'll just comment the learning curve issue...
Why bother? What will it give me that I don't have already?
I learn new dev languages for example because they will give me something I don't have on the ones I already have... hummm... I can't relate to Mac the same way.
I admit I may be wrong, and I don't mean to be rude on my point of view, but I really can't see the advantage to loose time on a Mac.
Believe me, I would probably feel the same way if I was a Mac user about Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: I'll just comment the learning curve issue...
Why bother? What will it give me that I don't have already?
Short Answer:
Don't bother. It sounds like you don't have time to be bothered with silly things like usability, beauty, and things that just work. 
Long Answer:
This may be the right decision for you. I spend too much time on a computer to let my decision be made by something like that. I did the research...I learned the nuances of both platforms. Both have their merits, both have their weaknesses. I still use both to make a living...I prefer the Mac OS. I've never met or heard of anyone who made the commitment to immerse in the Mac OS who regretted it.
I didn't think you were being rude. However, take a little time to fully research the Mac OS before you dismiss it completely...it's worth it to make a fully informed decision. Assuming you are at least moderately intelligent (you're a developer, right?), you'll figure it out. the OS is not that different...you still navigate by clicking a mouse button, The keyboard has two buttons that are different than a PC keyboard, and it's still a "window" based operating system.
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: If you're a XP or Vista user you'll be able to buy a better computer at the same price if it's not a Mac.
It's not worth the price, at least not yet.
It may look that way on paper...but there's more to it than that. I spend 10-14 hrs a day at a computer. It's worth it. If you're an impartial observer, do you ever wonder why Apple users are so passionate...and PC users are so defensive? There's a reason.
Full Disclosure: I'm a Windows/ASP.NET developer and a regular presenter at the local .NET User's Group; I have 3 Apple Computers at home.
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
|
How do you develop Windows/ASP.NET apps on a Mac?
Are we talking about the harware or the OS?
|
|
|
|
|
I do Windows/ASP.NET development using Visual Studio 2005 running on Windows. Windows will run on an Apple Computer or any generic PC (Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq, choose your poison). I don't use the Mac OS to do Windows development, if that's what you're asking.
★ Shane Shepherd
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you. I do the same with my MacBook Pro. It is a beutiful machine and it is worth every penny.
Raul Macias
|
|
|
|
|
For the first time, I switched to Mac for my main development machine. I can run both Leopard and Vista on it. I use Leopard for personal matters and Vista for work.
After this experience I am staying with Mac computers from now on.
Raul Macias
|
|
|
|
|
My home development environment has been a Mac for some time. Running Parallels, Vista, Visual Studio. At this point I'm using a Mac Mini. Space requirements prompted the mini and it's been great choice thus far. With Blue Tooth kb and mouse there is no clutter and virtually no machine footprint. The ability to to use PS, Illustrator, Lightroom under Mac (sharing the images easily) and then VS under Vista is sweet. Coherence mode in Parallels makes things sweet.
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: you'll be able to buy a better computer at the same price if it's not a Mac
Please tell me where you get a PC to beat the MacMini in terms of speed, volume and space, sound while running, heat and external interfaces at the same (or lower, as you boasted) price?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Everything I said above, right or wrong, was thinking about laptops, completely forgot desktops, sorry about that.
I never seen one of these working, so I'm not able to write any kind of comparison.
However it seems like nothing new...
You can build your own "mini" desktop from parts and I believe it wont lack anything this one does despite "the look" (here I go again).
Take a look at these motherboards: http://www.mini-itx.com/
Don't miss the third party cases for them...
Here's one more link: http://www.minipc.de/
What I'm saying here is that that MacMini brought nothing new to the scene except its look... We just got to love the Apple design team, that's out of question.
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: Everything I said above, right or wrong, was thinking about laptops
I, myself completely forgot laptops.
All those mini-ipcs are either nowhere near silent or severely lacking in external or both.
Plus they are not cheaper than a MacMini.
Examples I have seen tests of are AOPEN MP965 and HFX Micro[^] Sorry, linking a page in German. Much techi-talk, though.
The AOPEN is ridiculously loud and lacks peripherial connections, the HFX Micro is by a factor 1.5 more expensive.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Several studies have shown that Apple doesn't care about environmental issues in any of their products.
I would not buy anything from Apple under these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
antoncl wrote: Several studies have shown that Apple doesn't care about environmental issues in any of their products
Citation please - And how does this compare with the environmental record of companies such as IBM, Dell, Gateway, HP and so on?
|
|
|
|
|
Greenpeace has made a number of studies, where Apple has consistently scored low
Here are some links:
http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/rotten_apple_greenpeace.php
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=BA2CE941-976A-BF4F-F737C0FE47796936
http://www.news.com/Greenpeace,-Apple-clash-over-toxic-waste/2100-1014_3-6110513.html
Here is a link to Greenpeace's website dedicated to the Apple campaign http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/
A search on Google with the keywords "apple environmental impact" will return numerous links.
|
|
|
|
|
Given the nature of high technology manufacturing in general, and semiconductor and printed circuit manufacturing specifically, none of these companies are 'environmentally friendly'.
You have a choice. Do your calculations by hand on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, or make a slide rule using second-growth farmed trees.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Environmentally friendly isn't an absolute. My objection isn't against technology as such, I am trying to explain one of the reasons why I - currently - would NOT buy any hardware make by Apple. IMO there are environmental cosiderations to be made, when purchasing any product, including high tech machinery.
Apple has consistently scored low when the environmental impact of their products are compared to other similar products from other companies, like Dell, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
