|
Just so you know, neither of the univotes came from me. That's immature
I really don't buy into your point. Vista has been the exception, not the rule, and even in that singular instance, it was pretty much sorted out after a short time (by SP1, I think most of the problems were water under the bridge). Windows 7 has support for almost every configuration out there, and so does Windows XP
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You'll never see that debacle with a Mac
Only because Apple simply don't support products which aren't certified. I admittedly don't know much about the support process, so feel free to correct me; this interests me. While this does improve overall reliability by zapping bad drivers, it increases the time-to-market and price massively
By the way, I'm not a zealot. If I found a Mac which would support the common drivers (generic keyboard, mouse, printer), support a reasonable range of software and not break the bank (less than £500), I would happily buy it. But I haven't
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: Just so you know, neither of the univotes came from me. That's immature
At least we agree on something. 
Computafreak wrote:
I really don't buy into your point. Vista has been the exception, not the rule, and even in that singular instance, it was pretty much sorted out after a short time (by SP1, I think most of the problems were water under the bridge). Windows 7 has support for almost every configuration out there, and so does Windows XP
Sorry dude, you're being blind. You said you never have to worry. I pointed out one (recent but not the only) problem with your belief. And instead of saying good point you discredit my valid point. That's just being religious. Point is you'll have to worry even less with a Mac the crap always works. Now, you may not be able to always run something that a nobody manufacture makes, but then again nobody does that realistically anyway. So you're reasoning for liking PC is actually a reason to like Macs.
Apple isn't the only company making Apple hardware for one. Just google Lacie for one example. A lot of big names support them just as much. But nobody gives credence to that because they love their religion (ie, Windows).
And since you think the Vista example is bogus when it's not. Need I remind you of Win2K's problems when it first came out? Or did you forget about that too? What about NT4?
Computafreak wrote: Only because Apple simply don't support products which aren't certified.
Nobody supports someone else's products either. Singling Apple like that is extremely biased. Dell doesn't support HP printers now do they? That being said, Apple does work with their partners a lot better. You just don't have the driver issues on a Mac - period. Not nearly as bad.
Computafreak wrote: By the way, I'm not a zealot.
Then don't act like one by apologizing when someone buys one. 
Computafreak wrote: If I found a Mac which would support the common drivers (generic keyboard, mouse, printer), support a reasonable range of software and not break the bank (less than £500), I would happily buy it. But I haven't
You haven't looked hard then. A mac mini will do that. Now, can you build your own computer for less, sure. But most people don't. They go OEM as they aren't geeks like us. That being said IMO what makes a Mac great is the OS. The fact they put good care into the design of their systems is just a bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Sorry dude, you're being blind. You said you never have to worry.
I agree, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the vast majority
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And instead of saying good point you discredit my valid point. That's just being religious.
No; that's standard debating techniques.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Now, you may not be able to always run something that a nobody manufacturer makes, but then again nobody does that realistically anyway
Windows offers generic drivers for keyboards, mice, monitors, etcetera. However, you do bring up a good point - how many people actually use the colossal amount of drivers that Windows provides? Could the less-used ones be offloaded onto the Windows disc and/or be made available for download? But I digress. The fact that you can buy almost any hardware component from almost any computer dealer, knowing that you don't have to check if Apple support it is the biggest reason for me to support Windows
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Singling Apple like that is extremely biased
I agree. And there are other companies who have similar restrictions. But the topic is about Apple
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Dell doesn't support HP printers now do they?
Dells run Windows or Linux, and these usually have the necessary printer drivers, thus supporting the printers. I believe that there are generic drivers also supported
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Then don't act like one by apologizing when someone buys one.
I was expressing my opinion in the form of a joke
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And since you think the Vista example is bogus when it's not. Need I remind you of Win2K's problems when it first came out? Or did you forget about that too? What about NT4?
Windows 2000 was released in 2000. NT 4.0 was released in 1996. So both of your examples are from at least 9 years ago. The hardware drivers were far less coordinated then. Plug and Play was just getting started. Windows had less drivers
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You haven't looked hard then. A mac mini will do that.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for teaching me something new. However, it still doesn't let me connect almost any peripheral, knowing that chances are it'll work (even if only with the generic drivers), and I could get a PC for a similar price, which would almost certainly be able to run a wider range of software and support a wider range of hardware
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: No; that's standard debating techniques.
You tell yourself that lie if you must. Putting down what I say without any reason at all outside you being wrong is really standard stubbornness techniques man. Not trying to be rude, but let's get real yo.
Computafreak wrote: I agree, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the vast majority
Which is my point. You could say the same exact thing about a Mac and Windows isn't that holy on hardware either. But yeah I'm a realist, there are more hardware vendors making drivers for Windows than any other platform. However that really has nothing to do with how you can use a lot of nice hardware on a Mac and get into one for a good price. Which is really the whole point of this anti-Mac religious thing people are spouting off on CP.
Computafreak wrote: Dells run Windows or Linux, and these usually have the necessary printer drivers, thus supporting the printers. I believe that there are generic drivers also supported
Wrong. They have drivers for hardware they sell. And so does Apple. The difference is you don't have to download them separately on the website like you do with Dell.
Computafreak wrote: Windows 2000 was released in 2000. NT 4.0 was released in 1996. So both of your examples are from at least 9 years ago. The hardware drivers were far less coordinated then. Plug and Play was just getting started. Windows had less drivers
I know my dates, I'm not the one that forgets history here. There's no satisfying a religious zealot. My first example was too recent and now these are too old. Tell me, do you enjoy being so blind to try and save face? My whole point was Windows isn't that holy with hardware like you want to believe. I gave you THREE examples and you gave me zippo to refute it... that's enough to anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you).
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You tell yourself that lie if you must. Putting down what I say without any reason at all outside you being wrong is really standard stubbornness techniques man. Not trying to be rude, but let's get real yo.
I understand what you refer to now. I hadn't justified my claims. My apologies
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Which is my point. You could say the same exact thing about a Mac and Windows isn't that holy on hardware either. But yeah I'm a realist, there are more hardware vendors making drivers for Windows than any other platform. However that really has nothing to do with how you can use a lot of nice hardware on a Mac and get into one for a good price. Which is really the whole point of this anti-Mac religious thing people are spouting off on CP.
Could you really say that Windows has comparable support for hardware to a Mac? You've acknowledged yourself that more vendors make drivers for Windows than a Mac. Now, by my standards (feel free to correct me) that means that Windows supports more hardware. That was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Wrong. They have drivers for hardware they sell. And so does Apple. The difference is you don't have to download them separately on the website like you do with Dell.
We appear to have differing definitions of 'support'. You appear to be referring to Dell providing telephone support (or something in a similar vein) for HP printers. I am referring to Dell providing a computer which supports (drivers can be installed to work with) HP printers. I agree with you if you refer to the first definition (that's not only strange, its bad business sense), but you have provided no evidence to disprove my point that Dell supports (second definition) a HP printer
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I know my dates, I'm not the one that forgets history here. There's no satisfying a religious zealot. My first example was too recent and now these are too old. Tell me, do you enjoy being so blind to try and save face? My whole point was Windows isn't that holy with hardware like you want to believe. I gave you THREE examples and you gave me zippo to refute it... that's enough to anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you).
I shall repeat myself. I am not a zealot. A zealot would be using personal attacks right now (for example "there's no satisfying religious zealots" or "anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you)")
However, if you must request a clarification, I am referring to a prolonged period of time during which support for most of the peripherals on the market at the time was non-existent or extremely patchy. Windows Vista's troubles were hardly prolonged; by the time of SP1, many of the issues were resolved. So that is out of the equation
Your other two examples (Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0) were in themselves valid, and at the time I concede that the Mac may have at least began to catch up in terms of hardware compatibility. However, what I tried to point out was that those two examples were nine years old. So they are very likely to be out-of-date. That has proved to be the case; the general consensus has been that the new version of Windows 7 has proved stable running both on real hardware and in a virtual machine
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: Could you really say that Windows has comparable support for hardware to a Mac? You've acknowledged yourself that more vendors make drivers for Windows than a Mac. Now, by my standards (feel free to correct me) that means that Windows supports more hardware. That was my original point
Fair enough, but that doesn't really make it ok to assume every other environment sucks, especially if you've never used it. Windows is popular, nobody can refute that, but it's not like if you go Mac you're stuck with using a iPod as your display. There's so many bogus arguments in the zealot crowd (it does go both ways) that are bogus and assuming you won't find hardware to run on a Mac is one of them. Of course, Windows will have more, most people don't really use weird hardware from a nobody vendor anyway.
Computafreak wrote: We appear to have differing definitions of 'support'. You appear to be referring to Dell providing telephone support (or something in a similar vein) for HP printers. I am referring to Dell providing a computer which supports (drivers can be installed to work with) HP printers. I agree with you if you refer to the first definition (that's not only strange, its bad business sense), but you have provided no evidence to disprove my point that Dell supports (second definition) a HP printer
I understand clearly what it means. And I don't you do. Go plug your printer that's Mac-compatible into your Mac and watch what happens. Computers aren't psychic, so I'll let you do the figuring out of how it worked. Apple does provide OEM driver support just like Dell. No different except you only used one and bash the other.
Computafreak wrote: I shall repeat myself. I am not a zealot. A zealot would be using personal attacks right now (for example "there's no satisfying religious zealots" or "anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you)")
I shall repeat myself. You acted like one and you continue to acted like one. I suppose only other people are zealots... my bad. And sure, I'm not terribly patient with zealots, so sorry for being abrupt. I've spent years on CP defending intelligence and there's always another moron around the corner to fight it.
Computafreak wrote: However, if you must request a clarification, I am referring to a prolonged period of time during which support for most of the peripherals on the market at the time was non-existent or extremely patchy. Windows Vista's troubles were hardly prolonged; by the time of SP1, many of the issues were resolved. So that is out of the equation
That's not clarification that's a justification over a point you made I invalidated so you can feel right. The fact is I showed you three times your holy Windows isn't so peachy. The fact you refuse to admit says more about you than me.
Computafreak wrote: Your other two examples (Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0) were in themselves valid, and at the time I concede that the Mac may have at least began to catch up in terms of hardware compatibility.
I don't think you get it. Here's the short of it, if you buy a Mac you don't have to worry about your hardware working - period. Only a few times in history have they ever made that a concern (moving to OSX for instance). However, on Windows it's never like that. You don't know what'll work despite the claims of manufacturers and Microsoft. I pointed out three instances where they totally screwed up in the marketplace, but that's not valid as far as your concerned.
I'll be simple, you have less hardware issues on a Mac - period. More vendors make Windows drivers - period. It doesn't mean they do a better job at it - period. Macs aren't always more expensive - period. And IMO (and it's an educated opinion trust me) OSX is much better of an OS than Vista. All of this Mac hating is uncalled for.
If you get one you won't have these problems you think you'll have. And by no means, don't get one if you don't want one, but don't say "I'm sorry" to someone that does and expect the logical people to not assume you're a zealot.
There's nothing to argue with this outside of either being a zealot or trying to save face.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: it's not like if you go Mac you're stuck with using a iPod as your display
I never said that
Jeremy Falcon wrote: There's so many bogus arguments in the zealot crowd (it does go both ways) that are bogus and assuming you won't find hardware to run on a Mac is one of them
I acknowledge that more hardware will run on a Mac than previous versions. However, I have repeated myself several times; a PC does support more hardware than a Mac. That was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I suppose only other people are zealots... my bad. And sure, I'm not terribly patient with zealots, so sorry for being abrupt
No. There is not a single person who I can think of as being a zealot. Even though I disagree with you, you've clearly put a lot of rational thought into your posts, considering both sides of the fence, so to speak
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Apple does provide OEM driver support just like Dell
You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that Dell doesn't support HP printers. Could you please elaborate upon this, because it's a little perplexing. And you are indeed correct in that saying that Apple provides OEM driver support. But it's for less products; that was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's not clarification that's a justification over a point you made I invalidated so you can feel right. The fact is I showed you three times your holy Windows isn't so peachy. The fact you refuse to admit says more about you than me.
In all honesty, I'm rather bemused by your response. I know Windows has problems. It's unstable, insecure, buggy, and a nightmare to work with on the PInvoke level. I never denied that. However, chances are that if you plug an unbranded wireless network adapter in, drivers will be there (or at the very least supplied on the CD or downloadable through Windows Update/internet). Could you say that about a Mac, because the cheapest Mac compatible wireless network adapter I've come across cost rather a lot of money in proportion to the cheapest Windows compatible adapters
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Here's the short of it, if you buy a Mac you don't have to worry about your hardware working - period
Because they make certain every driver works. While this does increase quality, it decreases quantity and time-to-market and increases price. This is a good stratagem in itself, but it's been taken to an extreme level, making it more difficult to procure device drivers for a Mac than a PC. Which was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I pointed out three instances where they totally screwed up in the marketplace, but that's not valid as far as your concerned.
Correct. Your first example (Vista) was not a prolonged period of time, and your other two were excused in my opinion because the marketplace was far less friendly towards cooperation. Plug and Play (which was also developed by Intel) was still getting started. However, at that point I acknowledge that Apple was more likely to be compatible with the hardware on the market. My dispute is that your examples were at least 9 years old
Jeremy Falcon wrote: More vendors make Windows drivers - period. It doesn't mean they do a better job at it - period
But it does mean that if one turns out to be [malicious|broken|incomplete], you can remove it and try another one. If all else fails, you could fall back onto a generic driver (depending on the type of hardware)
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And IMO (and it's an educated opinion trust me) OSX is much better of an OS than Vista. All of this Mac hating is uncalled for.
I never disputed your education, so why you bring it up is beyond me. I don't hate Macs; they have a wide range of applications, and are very good at supporting compatible hardware. My dispute is with the amount of hardware they support. While OSX may well be better than Vista, that wasn't my original point. You just went off on a tangent there
Jeremy Falcon wrote: don't say "I'm sorry" to someone that does and expect the logical people to not assume you're a zealot.
I remain amused when I consider how two words sparked this entire discussion. However, expressing my opinion as a light-hearted joke does not make anyone a zealot
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: I never said that
I know. I love sarcasm though since it's the only that keeps an otherwise dry post somewhat entertaining.
Computafreak wrote: I acknowledge that more hardware will run on a Mac than previous versions. However, I have repeated myself several times; a PC does support more hardware than a Mac. That was my original point
Yes, but it was pushed under the guise of making it seem like you'd have all these problems with a Mac. That's just not the case. My point is people here tend to give them an unfair deal just because they know and are used to and married to Windows.
Computafreak wrote: You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that Dell doesn't support HP printers. Could you please elaborate upon this
They don't support HP printers to the extent they offer. That's my point. If you go buy an HP printer from HP directly that's not a model Dell offers, they won't support it - HP does. That's how Apple does it and what I was trying to convey. My other point is you can also get non Apple supported hardware that works on Macs. So, it's not like would never have any choice, just not as much as Windows. Realistically though, you have more than enough to get your job/playing done.
Computafreak wrote: But it does mean that if one turns out to be [malicious|broken|incomplete], you can remove it and try another one. If all else fails, you could fall back onto a generic driver (depending on the type of hardware)
It sure does mean that, and you can do that on a Mac too. It's almost like they're also computers. But, that has nothing to do with your point I was refuting with that line.
Computafreak wrote: I never disputed your education, so why you bring it up is beyond me. I don't hate Macs
I never said you disputed it; I'm letting you know I don't participate in zealotry. It's as simple as that. I won't pass judgment on something I don't know anything about.
Computafreak wrote: You just went off on a tangent there
By virtue of your apology you deem Macs inferior. I addressed the common zealot issues - which you tried to dispute. So, it wasn't that far fetched. But, now since there is no real dispute as I'm the only one in this with real Mac experience, I'm off on a wild tangent.
Computafreak wrote: I remain amused when I consider how two words sparked this entire discussion. However, expressing my opinion as a light-hearted joke does not make anyone a zealot
Yes it does. Repeated jokes are keys to the truth, just a veil of humor is thrown over it. Besides, if I was the believe that your not I'd have to take into account the whole thread where you acted like one anyway. Maybe you're not a zealot and just like to argue - fine.
Just to recap how I believe. I'd never suggest using a Mac if you prefer Windows. That's everyone's right to choose what they like. But, I am totally against religious bashing of something people have no clue about because their God didn't make it. It happens a lot and I get tired of it is all. I'll give you another perfect example...
Back in the day on CP people used to bash Java left and right. Microsoft and Sun were mortal enemies. Microsoft did .NET and hired some top Java gurus to implement C# (it's what it's based on). Now people around here will not talk so bad about Java. Java didn't change one bit, and this is just another example of religion. It just gets old after seeing it for years man.
|
|
|
|
|
Although this has been a very interesting conversation, I'm afraid I have to bow out. I've got a fair amount of work to do, and the messages are starting to slip down my last posts list. Thanks
I do not deem Macs inferior. They have their uses, and they are legion. However, if I want to run the most software, and use the most hardware, then I will use a PC. If that situation changes, then I will happily run to the nearest Apple store, and try to get a reasonably priced [Mac 3000|iFuture|etc]. But it hasn't yet, so I'm not
My joke was not repeated. In fact (you'll have to trust me on this), that was the first Mac joke I made on the internet in my life. You are correct in that saying that repeated jokes show people's opinions, but this does not make me a zealot in that my opinions aren't that strong either way. I'm also not at all bothered about arguing - I was asked to defend my views, and I tried. Perhaps not as eloquently as I would like, but hopefully my basic point got across. If it didn't, then the previous paragraph outlined it
Either way, thanks for the experience. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this one
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and don't get me wrong. It's not like the Java and Mac crowd aren't full of the same types of people. I'm not trying to imply that. Zealotry spreads everywhere despite environment.
|
|
|
|
|
The obvious caveat should be that if it's not Mac supported hardware then don't expect it to work. But in the instance of going to a OEM like Dell or Apple you will find many, many less hardware issues if any. There is no disputing that to anyone that has actually used a lot of computers over the past couple of decades and actually paid attention.
|
|
|
|
|
Becaue now that oyu have it you'd prefer to "downgrade" back to a PC?
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: Becaue now that oyu have it you'd prefer to "downgrade" back to a PC?
Nope, not a chance. Why do you think that?
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice  That's a great machine. I considered buying a MBP but opted for a Thinkpad instead because of the price.
Just don't drink the kool-aid
|
|
|
|
|
I actually got the previous generation (late 2008 non unibody). A local computer store was dumping the $2499 model for $1499. I sprang for a 4GB memory upgrade at $60 on top of that. So far, I'm VERY happy dual-booting Leopard and Vista (for games).
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Got my 5. I've never looked back since I went to Mac.
Christian Graus
Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
another person, who belives the marketing stuff and thinks that an over-prized macintosh is really better... it has the same components, produced in the same country as any other PC.
i want to add that mac-boooks belong to high-end pc's so compare it to other high-end notebooks. it's generally true that the same company always makes sh*t low-end notebbooks and good mid-high end ones.
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
As several people have already stated, it's not just the hardware, but the software, the integration between software packages, and the support from the company that make a Mac worth the money. It just works -- and that is worth a lot of money to people.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Developing on MAC = installing a VMWare with windows = the same as not having a MAC...
And software integration in MAC way is not what i'd like. Do you know that a super program exist for navigation via MAC, and that the company cannot sell the SW, because MAC has to approve it? It smeells like a legal way of blackmailing... The marketing politics is what i dislike in MAC. Otherwise it may be good...but still, if 2 stuff can do the same (quality, support and almost everything), why buy the expensive one?
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
This is my second machine in about six years. I only upgraded because my old one broke and I wanted another one as quickly as possible. My old one had an 80 GB hard drive and 384 MB of RAM. It ran Windows XP, Visual Studio and Firefox relatively well. Since then, I've upgraded to an Acer M1640 with a 250 GB hard drive and 2 GB of memory. It runs everything my old machine used to, only on Windows Vista (soon to buy Windows 7)
Really, most people don't need a quad-core, 3.142 GHz processor with an 8 TB hard drive and some other vast amount of memory. As long as it gets the task done and I feel comfortable, I'll use it; I don't play games, and if the system requirements for an application require me to get a new computer, then I just won't buy the application. Chances are there's another application out there (or I can whip one up) which can perform the action I need to, with far less memory consumption
|
|
|
|
|
I would have liked to see "Whenever the powers that be feel like doing it"
|
|
|
|
|
This is more like when I add small priced items ($100 or less). But replacing the main components (CPU/mobo) is around every 2 years. Sometimes shorter sometimes longer.
My big interest for a future purchase are SSDs and blueray writers. I am waiting till I can get a 250GB SSD that nets over 150MB/s writes and costs less than $100 US. I am also waiting for a $100 blue ray writer with write once media that costs $1 / disk.
John
modified on Monday, March 9, 2009 3:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
And its variant "whenever the Powers That Be let me".
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
For most of my career, my desktop PC has merely been a glorified dumb terminus for developing on "real" computers.
Then and more recently (using .net) I only got to upgrade when the previous system died.
As for my home systems:
My most recent upgrade (January 2009) was because Fry's had a good deal on a Core 2 Quad.
The previous upgrade (summer 2005) was because the previous system had died.
I had built that system after WinXP came out (late 2001).
Prior to that, I had a system that I had built when I upgraded from Win3.11 to Win98se (because I wanted to use Photoshop).
I'm pretty sure that before that I was still using what had begun as a 486SX in 1992, along the way it got more RAM, HDDs, and an Overdrive chip.
My current system should still be sufficient if I choose to install Win7 when it comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
My financial circumstances dictate that this is also the case for me.
My current system is about two years old and unfortunately the increase in energy prices and the recent cold weather have almost wiped out my 'new system pot'.
It therefore looks like, barring a catastrophic failure, this one is going to have to last at least 4 years, if not more.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
