# What makes Mac better?



## Bobby Triton

I'm newer to operating systems.  I've heard that Macs are supposed to be the Cadillac of computers.  Is this an actual fact?  What makes them better?  Thanks. :good:


----------



## Drenlin

This is about to get ugly...

Here's my take on it, but opinions will differ here.

As far as the OS goes, windows is a bit more customizable and configurable, while OS/X is a bit lighter. Neither makes a huge difference.

As far as actually doing things, it's all personal preference. You can do just about anything on either system, though Windows has more software and games for it for obvious reasons.


----------



## The_Other_One

OS X is basically a glorified Linux.  To be honest, I wouldn't get a Mac just for OS X.  While it's good, I see really no advantages to using it over Windows.  Performance of equal programs (like Photoshop for Windows and Mac) typically performs better on PC.

Then, years ago, the reason to get the Mac was because of the hardware.  Macs used to have the PowerPC/G4/G5 processors that were supposed to trump any PC.  As I'm sure you know, they have now switched over to standard Intel based hardware, so no advantage there.

Build quality is very nice.  My mother got one to use at school so I got a lot of first hand experience with it.  I will say it's build very well, compact, etc etc...  HOWEVER, it was a new computer, barely used and the motherboard has already been replaced once and the battery won't hold a charge.  Among hers, I know of others who had bad luck with their machines.

I'm sure people will argue to the grave how much better Macs are than PC.  Above is just my opinion and problems/facts I've encountered over the years.  Take what you want from it


----------



## lubo4444

The_Other_One said:


> OS X is basically a glorified Linux.  To be honest, I wouldn't get a Mac just for OS X.  While it's good, I see really no advantages to using it over Windows.  Performance of equal programs (like Photoshop for Windows and Mac) typically performs better on PC.
> 
> Then, years ago, the reason to get the Mac was because of the hardware.  Macs used to have the PowerPC/G4/G5 processors that were supposed to trump any PC.  As I'm sure you know, they have now switched over to standard Intel based hardware, so no advantage there.
> 
> Build quality is very nice.  My mother got one to use at school so I got a lot of first hand experience with it.  I will say it's build very well, compact, etc etc...  HOWEVER, it was a new computer, barely used and the motherboard has already been replaced once and the battery won't hold a charge.  Among hers, I know of others who had bad luck with their machines.
> 
> I'm sure people will argue to the grave how much better Macs are than PC.  Above is just my opinion and problems/facts I've encountered over the years.  Take what you want from it



+1.  I support that too.  I really like it overall but they are so limited on programs for their OS.  Which i really hate.  I prefer just the regular pc with Windows installed as a OS.


----------



## raoul_1101

+1 again. The OS is beautiful and tends to flow really well. However, when it comes to software, there is a much better variety on a PC with much more customization available.
And don't assume Macs are invincible due to that hip young guy on their commercials. They break too.


----------



## Jet

I was amazed at the amount of quality freeware available for Mac. 

Build quality is amazing--if you're looking for a laptop, seriously consider a Macbook/Macbook Pro with the large multi-touch track pad. It is outstanding!

Desktops usually are better with Windows--mainly because it's much harder to build your own computer with OSX.


----------



## PohTayToez

Jet said:


> mainly because it's much harder to build your own computer with OSX.



Not to mention against Apple's EULA.


----------



## zombine210

bobby triton said:


> i'm newer to operating systems.  I've heard that macs are supposed to be the cadillac of computers.  Is this an actual fact?  What makes them better?  Thanks. :good:



$$$$ = 
$$ = 

it is, if you believe it.


----------



## tremmor

Never had nothing against it. But did also know about the graphic feature and capability of it. On the other hand i would rather stay with most buy for compatibility reasons. But do like it.


----------



## ganzey

think of it this way


----------



## MacBook

Basically, Mac's just... work.  There are no needing to install drivers to get things working (except for other non-Apple devices), I much prefer their user and application folder layout, you can simply copy a program from that folder to another laptop and they will work.  If you want to move from one computer to another, just copy their user folder and everything will be moved over as well.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I've had next to no experience in using one, but they look pretty good. The price just puts me off... I got my Studio 17 for ~AU$1150, a 13" MacBook would've cost around $1400 IIRC (which I probably don't, but it was more expensive nonetheless).


----------



## ganzey

i think you got the titlte messed up. it should be What makes PC better?


----------



## Twist86

Nothing makes it better. Macs are only better if don't like to mess with stuff. You plug it in and all the anti-stupid features are ready for you. You can still get viruses (yes Macs crash and get hacked too) though the odds are lower because Macs are like 5% of the market...its like robbing a store vs a armored car....why bother with the smaller job?


It falls down to preference.


----------



## gamblingman

*mac*

Do you want/need to be trendy and cool at the coffee house? Buy a mac

Or do you want to be able to buy software that will work on your computer _without_ having to use free software online or programs like Wine? Buy a PC

Want to play a game on your computer..... other than curveball? Buy a PC

Do you want to find lots of support for your computer online? Buy a PC

Is money is important in the decision? Buy a PC

Do you trust Steve Jobs? A guy that thinks computer progress is making a computer that looks like a big version of a phone!

Is there any reason to buy a MAC other than the looks?


----------



## MacBook

gamblingman said:


> Is there any reason to buy a MAC other than the looks?


Yes, the simplicity and better built OS.  No registry to mess with, very simply to add/remove/copy programs.


----------



## gamblingman

*ohhhh, its ok because the ball is on a string and attached to the cup*



MacBook said:


> Yes, the simplicity and better built OS.  No registry to mess with, very simply to add/remove/copy programs.



I was being sarcastic. I cant stand MAC's.


----------



## ganzey

MacBook said:


> Yes, the simplicity and better built OS.  No registry to mess with, very simply to add/remove/copy programs.



i would say windows is easier. installing programs is a breeze, just press next, next ,next, finish. and with windows 7 automatically downloading drivers for whatever you plug into it, well, that just makes it pretty darn simple

like stated above, mac is just glorified linux, with a huge price tag.



gamblingman said:


> I was being sarcastic. I cant stand MAC's.



+1, they may look good, but so does the HP envy


----------



## gamblingman

ganzey said:


> i would say windows is easier. installing programs is a breeze, just press next, next ,next, finish. and with windows 7 automatically downloading drivers for whatever you plug into it, well, that just makes it pretty darn simple
> 
> like stated above, mac is just glorified linux, with a huge price tag.
> 
> 
> 
> +1, they may look good, but so does the HP envy


Oh you know it! My fiancee pulled me over to the laptop section the other day so she could show me that model (She wants one for the graphics ability, her favorite game is Fallout 3. God she's great to have around!!!). I LOVE the keyboard, its got a great feel and look.


----------



## TFT

It ain't better really, just different with inflated prices.
Usually Mac owning people are those who failed to climb the social ladder and it's the nearest thing they can get to snobbery.


----------



## Justin

ganzey said:


> +1, they may look good, but so does the HP envy



it looks like a Macbook Pro.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> i would say windows is easier. installing programs is a breeze, just press next, next ,next, finish. and with windows 7 automatically downloading drivers for whatever you plug into it, well, that just makes it pretty darn simple
> 
> like stated above, mac is just glorified linux, with a huge price tag.
> 
> 
> 
> +1, they may look good, but so does the HP envy


And that's more expensive that the comparable Macbook Pro. Without the ISP monitor, backlight LED keyboard, and no multitouch... well, it tries, but fails hard. Talk about inflated prices. Plus you get all of HP's lovely bloatware. :good:

I hated Mac's for ages, and ranted about them a few times here. Then I took a mandatory Apple training course, and I fell in love with how well the hardware is integrated with the software. Not to mention you can do the exact same things you do on Windows, but in half the time. I mean, there is nothing Windows has that compares to iPhoto, Garageband, and iMovie right out of the box. I love my PC, and I don't mind putting the work in to organize everything and so on, but I really just want to open my laptop and have everything there. Without putting hours of work into organizing everything.


----------



## MacBook

Ethan3.14159 said:


> I hated Mac's for ages, and ranted about them a few times here. Then I took a mandatory Apple training course, and I fell in love with how well the hardware is integrated with the software. Not to mention you can do the exact same things you do on Windows, but in half the time. I mean, there is nothing Windows has that compares to iPhoto, Garageband, and iMovie right out of the box. I love my PC, and I don't mind putting the work in to organize everything and so on, but I really just want to open my laptop and have everything there. Without putting hours of work into organizing everything.


Same here, I used to think they were overpriced and useless because nothing would run on them, now that I have a MacBook I feel the same way you do.  Mac's come with some great software, no bloatware, and is very user friendly.


----------



## speedyink

Two words.

Personal.  Preference.

It doesn't take a genius to know I hate macs, though I'm forever trying to be opened minded and find ways to like them.  I haven't turned my mac on in a couple weeks now, though, so thats not going so well.  

Whoever said mac is easier is full of crap.  It's very much on par.

I've never dealt with such a narrow support path.  software supporting 10.2, but not 10.1, and 10.3 but not 10.2 or 10.4 but not 10.3.  What the hell?  Why can't 10.1 use firefox?? What is it missing?

Crashing..oh man I hate mac crashes.  No error message telling you what f**ked up, no odd chance that you can save your work, nope, you get to see your 2 hours of video editing disappear only to be greeted by "This program has unexpectedly quit".  Well guess what Mr iMac, you've unexpectedly been thrown out the window.  

On the plus side, I love how applications are installed, but some software makers like Adobe have to make it difficult and not completely delete when you delete the applications folder.


----------



## MacBook

speedyink said:


> Whoever said mac is easier is full of crap.  It's very much on par.
> 
> Crashing..oh man I hate mac crashes.  No error message telling you what f**ked up, no odd chance that you can save your work, nope, you get to see your 2 hours of video editing disappear only to be greeted by "This program has unexpectedly quit".  Well guess what Mr iMac, you've unexpectedly been thrown out the window.


Buy a PC and Mac laptop, turn them on, and see which one is easier to setup and get going.  Windows 7 makes it easier, but Vista was a real PAIN.

Same thing with Windows crashes, you get either the blue screen or sometimes an app will just hang and you will be forced to kill the process.  That's why you save work as you go


----------



## speedyink

MacBook said:


> Buy a PC and Mac laptop, turn them on, and see which one is easier to setup and get going.  Windows 7 makes it easier, but Vista was a real PAIN.
> 
> Same thing with Windows crashes, you get either the blue screen or sometimes an app will just hang and you will be forced to kill the process.  That's why you save work as you go



They're both easy.  My Dell laptop with Vista was easy, just turn it on and enter your info.  What you do beyond that can be difficult for both systems, ie customizing it the way you like.  

Sometimes if you move the error aside you'll still be able to access your program in windows.  I also find Tiger and prior usually crash a lot more than windows.  At least in my experience.  Dunno about leopard and up, haven't used them.  
And yes, I know know when using a mac to save my work at least every 10 mins.


----------



## MacBook

speedyink said:


> They're both easy.  My Dell laptop with Vista was easy, just turn it on and enter your info.  What you do beyond that can be difficult for both systems, ie customizing it the way you like.


I find that hard to believe, because with Vista by default it has UAC enabled so it bugs you every 5 seconds to confirm something, it automatically loads the sidebar and welcome screen, and the start menu is full of useless programs that no one will ever use.


----------



## gamblingman

*if i have to......ugh*

Well I hate the way mac looks. I dont like the look of the OS, its too shiny and tween-ish. I like a more mature desktop apperance to my computer. Mac feels like a toy, whats up with that mouse? I hate the mac mouse, I want a right click and a scroll wheel, I dont want touch sensitive scrolling. And the white shiny look of the cases is too sterile and boring. Mac's are as drab and boring as the old 90's compaq cases, and they were really ugly.

I also REALLY hate how small everything on a mac screen is. I dont have the best eyes, and I have to use larger fonts online for example. And on a mac I can barely see the minimize/close/maximize buttons at the top of the window, let alone anything else. 

I also dont want that crummy mini-laptop sized keyboard that comes with the mac desktops. Why do the keyboards have to be so small, thin and cheap feeling. There is almost no key movement!

I've used pc's all my life, and I remember when I was a kid, about 8 or so, and me an my brothers were dragged to some cousins house. They had a mac. At the time I only had a vague idea of what mac's were. But once I used it, I HATED IT. It was so awful then, and they haven't changed in all those years. They are still incredibly annoying, they cost too much and they arent natively compatable with any software worth using. 

If mac is so great, then there would be a big section for software targeting it, and not pc's. I want to be able to buy and use a program without having to use some annoying, troublesome middle-man program like Wine. (I know you dont use wine, but you have to use similar programs just to get PC software to work. How is that helping?)

Ahhhhhh ok, theres my diatribe raving rant. Im ok for another year.

But really, I could really care less about which one is "better", so to speak. I just wish the economy would improve.


----------



## canivari

Macs are better for video/foto encoding or program rendering because the OS it self
is very light,as allready some users allready said here.
But got one big incoviniente is that doesnt support so many platforms as PC does.
Why he doesnt hav so many bugs like PCs? same awnser (The OS doesnt support so many virtualized stuff as PC
so giving him less stuff t handle but limited at the same time)
I like Mac and PC but when it comes to use in normal days (not using or video/foto encoding or program rendering) i prefer PC.
Hope that helps


----------



## Ethan3.14159

gamblingman said:


> Well I hate the way mac looks. I dont like the look of the OS, its too shiny and tween-ish. I like a more mature desktop apperance to my computer. Mac feels like a toy, whats up with that mouse? I hate the mac mouse, I want a right click and a scroll wheel, I dont want touch sensitive scrolling. And the white shiny look of the cases is too sterile and boring. Mac's are as drab and boring as the old 90's compaq cases, and they were really ugly.
> 
> I also REALLY hate how small everything on a mac screen is. I dont have the best eyes, and I have to use larger fonts online for example. And on a mac I can barely see the minimize/close/maximize buttons at the top of the window, let alone anything else.
> 
> I also dont want that crummy mini-laptop sized keyboard that comes with the mac desktops. Why do the keyboards have to be so small, thin and cheap feeling. There is almost no key movement!
> 
> I've used pc's all my life, and I remember when I was a kid, about 8 or so, and me an my brothers were dragged to some cousins house. They had a mac. At the time I only had a vague idea of what mac's were. But once I used it, I HATED IT. It was so awful then, and they haven't changed in all those years. They are still incredibly annoying, they cost too much and they arent natively compatable with any software worth using.
> 
> If mac is so great, then there would be a big section for software targeting it, and not pc's. I want to be able to buy and use a program without having to use some annoying, troublesome middle-man program like Wine. (I know you dont use wine, but you have to use similar programs just to get PC software to work. How is that helping?)
> 
> Ahhhhhh ok, theres my diatribe raving rant. Im ok for another year.
> 
> But really, I could really care less about which one is "better", so to speak. I just wish the economy would improve.


You can turn off all of the cartoon-ish stuff. That's what I did. Plus the very basic Mighty Mouse has right click and scrolling. And all of the icon and text sizes are completely adjustable. Not to mention the keyboard shortcuts for everything are quicker than moving the mouse all about to close and minimize things.

The style of the Mac and Macbook's is minimalistic, there's no waste in ridiculous and tacky design. Some hate it, I love it. A lot of the things you're ranting about can be changed in 5-10 minutes. Just like how you tweak Windows when you first start up. And like when you first started using Windows it takes time to get used to.


----------



## Drenlin

canivari said:


> Macs are better for video/foto encoding or program rendering because the OS it self
> is very light,as allready some users allready said here.
> But got one big incoviniente is that doesnt support so many platforms as PC does.
> Why he doesnt hav so many bugs like PCs? same awnser (The OS doesnt support so many virtualized stuff as PC
> so giving him less stuff t handle but limited at the same time)
> I like Mac and PC but when it comes to use in normal days (not using or video/foto encoding or program rendering) i prefer PC.
> Hope that helps



The difference in resource usage between them isn't enough to make a big difference there at all. Maybe in years gone by, but not now.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Drenlin said:


> The difference in resource usage between them isn't enough to make a big difference there at all. Maybe in years gone by, but not now.


Yes, but software like Photoshop and Adobe Premier run much faster on Mac OS X than on Windows. The OS is much lighter, and has less processes running in the background. One of it's main advantages is longevity over Windows.


----------



## MacBook

Mac's do have a right click, just FYI.


----------



## canivari

Drenlin said:


> The difference in resource usage between them isn't enough to make a big difference there at all. Maybe in years gone by, but not now.



Well,is not about resources that i talking about.The problem is that the Windows OS Programing (the C++ language it self) still is too much ambiguous for PCs asking for the same resources to do a task as a MAC but taking more time.
I really enjoy Windows and MAC (and Unix..) but thats the reality..


----------



## tlarkin

wow, so much crap in this thread....I really refrained from posting, but hardly anyone has got their facts straight.

First off, and for the last time hopefully, you cannot build a PC that is equal to a mac part for part spec for spec and feature to feature that is cheaper.  It cannot be done.  For one, all Apple laptops are higher resolution, LED back lit screens that support IPS technology.

Just look at a google shopping search for IPS (in-plan switching) support LCD monitors.  On average a 21" is going to cost you over $600.

http://www.google.com/products?q=IPS+LCD+monitor&hl=en&aq=f

Almost all PC laptops have crappy resolution compared to Mac laptops.  That is just a fact.  

As for resource management, it is pretty widely accepted as fact in the world of computing Unix does a way better job than Windows.  Which is why Unix pretty much runs the Internet and other major networks.  Windows servers are really only good for managing Windows clients.  I will give MS credit on this, as their back end products (Exchange, Active Directory) are pretty robust and do a good job of what they are suppose to do.

Here is an example.   My iMac at work, which is a production machine for me, which I do all my work on, which includes but is not exclusive to:

* package creation
* coding scripts
* multi session terminal windows
* email client
* iTunes
* web browser
* Text editors 
* Casper Suite
* ARD Amin
* Server Tools
* chat client

I have minimum all those apps running at once all day every day, sometimes more.  I only have 1 gig of RAM in my iMac and it is snappy, never lags, opens everything up at once, and the only the fly memory management works great.  Even when firefox is being a punk and memory leaks it still runs great.

My PC at home likes to lock up when it sleeps a lot and when I get home from work I have to power cycle it.  I haven't upgraded to Windows 7 yet though and am still running vista, with all the newest patches and service packs.  My PC has 4 gigs of RAM and on occasion when I get memory leaks I have to reboot it.  Typically from seeding too many torrents, my torrent client likes to eat up tons of RAM and along with Firefox, it can get messy.  

It all comes down to personal preference, but on a technical level the Apple platform in general performs better.  When you have a closed system, and you can design and specify your hardware to exact specs for your Operating System, it gives you so much control.   There is hardly any third party involved.  Which means there is more quality control over it.

I have seen brand new, high spec, custom built PCs run like absolute dog crap because of a third party driver that just hosed the system, or the fact that Windows did not like the driver update, or your certain configuration doesn't play well with another device in your system.

I am not dogging on PCs here, because I like my PC at home, but what I am getting at is this.  When you bring in the world of custom third party hardware from all over the place you are tossing quality control out the window (no pun intended) as well as configuration compatibility with performance.  Yes, custom built PCs can run at awesome speeds, but if you nix out windows and load say Unix or Linux your performance would boost even more.

The problem with most people is, they have no desire to learn anything new.  They don't care what their computer is and they just want it to work.  Nowadays, with the standard that Microsoft has set with BSOD, crashes, and so forth people have come to just expect computers to fail.  When you expect them to fail, you are disregarding the root of the problem.  

I can qualify my thoughts with my work experience.   At my current job I managed 8,000 Macs and about 33 Xserves.  We also have about 9,000 or so PCs at my work, which I don't oversee, but help maintain.   I get to see side by side how they work.

Of course they both break, and they both crash, that is not really an issue.  However, on the PC side we have to use deep freeze to manage them, because before we were ridden with so many viruses, malware and spyware that it just overwhelmed our small work force.  To me that is a pain in the butt.

Also, there is no such things as a Mac being incompatible as a Mac can run all Windows apps, Windows itself, and there is almost always either a mac version of said software or a Mac alternative.


----------



## speedyink

MacBook said:


> I find that hard to believe, because with Vista by default it has UAC enabled so it bugs you every 5 seconds to confirm something, it automatically loads the sidebar and welcome screen, and the start menu is full of useless programs that no one will ever use.



All that which is about just as hard as changing the scrolling options, installing firefox (safari is useless), And deleting all the garbage from the dock on a mac.

Like I said, both machines are easy to get going, it's customizing it that takes the time.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> All that which is about just as hard as changing the scrolling options, installing firefox (safari is useless), And deleting all the garbage from the dock on a mac.
> 
> Like I said, both machines are easy to get going, it's customizing it that takes the time.



I will give you one thing, OS X has a bit of a higher learning curve when it comes to customizing the innards of the OS.  You see, everything in OS X is stored in an XML property list and read from for the OS.  You can customize and configure just about everything.  From automounts, network mounts, how the system looks and operates, permissions, program arguments, launch daemons, and so forth.   XML is really a pain to read, it even bothers me.  I understand the reasoning behind it, and it makes it awesome for developers to customize things.  

Now there are GUI based customizations which are super easy to do, but when you get into the advanced, for lack of a better term - "hacking your OS," I would put OS X a bit higher learning curve.  I think the registry is just as confusing but the XML files just are really hard to read.

Here is a very smiple one, from the airport daemon (airportd)


		Code:
	

bash-3.2# cat /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.airportd.plist 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
	<key>Label</key>
	<string>com.apple.airportd</string>
	<key>ProgramArguments</key>
	<array>
		<string>/usr/libexec/airportd</string>
	</array>
	<key>MachServices</key>
	<dict>
			<key>com.apple.airportd</key>
			<true/>
	</dict>
	<key>ServiceIPC</key>
	<true/>
	<key>ThrottleInterval</key>
	<integer>0</integer>
	<key>OnDemand</key>
	<true/>
</dict>
</plist>
bash-3.2#


That one is simple, there are ones that have 100s of lines.  Applications also have these so you can customize them as well, and it is all self contained so if you botch one up (unlike the windows registry) you don't botch the whole system.  The plist I gave is a system level one, so it should never be fussed with.


----------



## hjahmad

you just gotta try it sometime. a 5 minute test at an apple store wont cut it. use it for about a week and youll get the hang of it and then decide what you like. i use both daily. they arent all that different anymore. with the internet everything has become more universal. before everything was different making macs and pcs incompatable, but now it doesnt matter. yeah some things do run better on one over the other but, that just something youll have to figure out to see what you like


----------



## tlarkin

hjahmad said:


> you just gotta try it sometime. a 5 minute test at an apple store wont cut it. use it for about a week and youll get the hang of it and then decide what you like. i use both daily. they arent all that different anymore. with the internet everything has become more universal. before everything was different making macs and pcs incompatable, but now it doesnt matter. yeah some things do run better on one over the other but, that just something youll have to figure out to see what you like



I don't know man, I used PCs and Windows for about 5 years before I ever touched a mac and it was what I first learned on.  So, it took me even more time to learn a mac because of the PC mentality was engraved in my brain.

I say to be honest, you need 6 months to a year of steady use to really fully being to understand how an OS works.   I mean, I doubt anyone on here even knows or understand how Apple uses preference files on each user account.  The simple methodology makes it, by practice better than Windows because it makes more sense.  In return, Windows is adopting a more Unix-like user environment over each release.  Notice how in Vista, the \Documents and Settings\ folder got removed and now everything is under \Users?  MS is making that shift, and I bet Windows 8 is even closer to a Unix-like OS on the user level.  Of course 95% of the people out there would have no clue what I am even talking about.

It takes time.  You can't learn Linux in a few weeks, you gotta keep at it for a while and really want to learn.   Otherwise you will just go back to Windows every time because that was your first experience.  I bet if I started a user out on Linux or Unix they would find Windows very odd, and probably go back to what they first learned.


----------



## hjahmad

tlarkin said:


> I don't know man, I used PCs and Windows for about 5 years before I ever touched a mac and it was what I first learned on.  So, it took me even more time to learn a mac because of the PC mentality was engraved in my brain.
> 
> I say to be honest, you need 6 months to a year of steady use to really fully being to understand how an OS works.   I mean, I doubt anyone on here even knows or understand how Apple uses preference files on each user account.  The simple methodology makes it, by practice better than Windows because it makes more sense.  In return, Windows is adopting a more Unix-like user environment over each release.  Notice how in Vista, the \Documents and Settings\ folder got removed and now everything is under \Users?  MS is making that shift, and I bet Windows 8 is even closer to a Unix-like OS on the user level.  Of course 95% of the people out there would have no clue what I am even talking about.
> 
> It takes time.  You can't learn Linux in a few weeks, you gotta keep at it for a while and really want to learn.   Otherwise you will just go back to Windows every time because that was your first experience.  I bet if I started a user out on Linux or Unix they would find Windows very odd, and probably go back to what they first learned.



i get what your saying. but general users wont even notice things like that.
i was all pc for as long as i can remember. i joined a high school club and they were all about macs. there was the fun division and constant arguing between the two just as there always is. and i was so against mac at that time. i did a pc project for graduation. but that club converted one of my friends over to mac and he got a powerbook. we ended up going to the same school, and me being the computer guy, he would always ask me for help on how to do things on a mac. id use it, look it up and help him for whatever it was. and that usage led me to buy and ibook. and today i have a brand new macbook pro and i love it. but i still love windows (not vista). 
i used boot camp and installed vista, and windows 7 beta on my mac and it ran much smoother than it did on my dad's brand new dell. 
even though macs and pc all have intel processors now, macs hardware is usually of higher quality. the specs maybe be the same, but the macs to me seem to use higher quality parts.


----------



## Drenlin

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Yes, but software like Photoshop and Adobe Premier run much faster on Mac OS X than on Windows. The OS is much lighter, and has less processes running in the background. One of it's main advantages is longevity over Windows.



A modern system using Adobe software should be using GPU acceleration. With that, there's not a large difference.

The only OS that can make a really big difference in multimedia production is Linux in audio, because certain kernels are capable of hard realtime operation. Other than that, you will notice a difference between them, but it's nothing to write home about.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> A modern system using Adobe software should be using GPU acceleration. With that, there's not a large difference.
> 
> The only OS that can make a really big difference in multimedia production is Linux in audio, because certain kernels are capable of hard realtime operation. Other than that, you will notice a difference between them, but it's nothing to write home about.



Well, Abode was originally a Mac only developer.  Their company started developing for Apple computers way back in the day.  Once they realized the potential for their products they ported them over to Windows, but they have been an Apple developer from the beginning of their conception.  

The difference between most *nix kernels is more of a licensing thing than anything else, are they GPL kernel or GNU kernel.  You want to read some heated geek arguments, go read up on GNU vs GPL, it gets kind of ridiculous.

When I was a sub contractor I had a few record labels and recording studios as clients.  All of them exclusively used Macs with Pro tools, DP, or Logic Audio.  Apple purchased Logic a while ago, and even started integrating some of their technologies into the OS, like direct midi support.  

However, it comes down to personal preference as the person using it is the one that is going to make the decision of what they want to use.


----------



## Drenlin

When were you a subcontractor?

In audio at least, it's only been in recent years that Windows platforms have caught back up in performance. Macs actually were better for quite some time. That's why they have the reputation. 

As far as linux/OS goes, it doesn't really matter how different they are. The fact remains that OS/X and Windows don't currently have the ability to do that (and aren't likely to), while linux, Ubuntu Studio in particular, does. They're getting closer though...both OS/X and Windows allow soft realtime operation.

You should give some of the stuff from Studio a try, btw. JACK and Ardour, among others, have been ported to OS/X. Again, no hard realtime, but it's still a really awesome setup once you learn it. It easily rivals Pro Tools in software functionality.


----------



## Bad_Stack

I just got a mac. It's good for art and stuff, but you can't really do much with it. I keep a pc for all my other non-art/music needs since I got my mac for bad-hooker cheap because I was starting school at the time. Mac's not my favorite.


----------



## Drenlin

Did you join the forum just to say that? Lol!

Welcome


----------



## zombine210

macs are targeted to a specific demographic, i'm thinking liberal hippies with money to throw around 

microsoft makes os for everybody, from starter to professional editions and even server class :good:

linux is even more user specific. you have a group of people developing an os to be how _they_ want it to be, everybody else is welcome to jump in if they can wrap their heads around packages and repositories and such 

as far as hardware goes, it's all the same. it's not pens vs pencils, it's what kind of ink you use


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> When were you a subcontractor?
> 
> In audio at least, it's only been in recent years that Windows platforms have caught back up in performance. Macs actually were better for quite some time. That's why they have the reputation.
> 
> As far as linux/OS goes, it doesn't really matter how different they are. The fact remains that OS/X and Windows don't currently have the ability to do that (and aren't likely to), while linux, Ubuntu Studio in particular, does. They're getting closer though...both OS/X and Windows allow soft realtime operation.
> 
> You should give some of the stuff from Studio a try, btw. JACK and Ardour, among others, have been ported to OS/X. Again, no hard realtime, but it's still a really awesome setup once you learn it. It easily rivals Pro Tools in software functionality.



I was a sub-contractor from 2005 till about 2007.  I gave it up because the company I was sub contracting through was horrible about paying me out on my invoices.  I am not an audio engineer at all, I am an IT guy.  So, when I did work for the record labels and studios it was because their technology broke and I was fixing it.

All of the studios I went to, pretty much exclusively ran Macs and Pro Tools.  A few of them ran DP from MOTU.  I don't claim to know what the hell the differences are other than they ran those.  1 or 2 of them ran Logic.  

A couple of the bands I helped ran Pro Tools off their Mac laptops.


----------



## tlarkin

zombine210 said:


> microsoft makes os for everybody, from starter to professional editions and even server class :good:



So you support feature limiting and DRM?????  I am not sure why this is a plus.  It is absurd that I have to buy a more expensive OS to BIND a client to a domain controller, it is also absurd that I have to pay so much more for that feature.  OS X has 1 version, with every single feature + tons more than ultimate versions of Windows and it costs under half the price.


----------



## diduknowthat

Apples are damn sexy looking. All my friends have Macbook pros and they are bar none the most beautiful looking laptops ever. And about that HP Envy laptop, do you know why it looks good? Because it looks like a Mac!


----------



## MacBook

Drenlin said:


> A modern system using Adobe software should be using GPU acceleration. With that, there's not a large difference.
> 
> The only OS that can make a really big difference in multimedia production is Linux in audio, because certain kernels are capable of hard realtime operation. Other than that, you will notice a difference between them, but it's nothing to write home about.


Linux and Mac OS X are very similar.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

MacBook said:


> Linux and Mac OS X are very similar.


Under the hood, I guess you could say that since they're both Unix-like. But the parts of the OS that the average user touches are nowhere near similar IMO.


----------



## ganzey

diduknowthat said:


> Apples are damn sexy looking. All my friends have Macbook pros and they are bar none the most beautiful looking laptops ever. And about that HP Envy laptop, do you know why it looks good? Because it looks like a Mac!



i agree, macs do look good. but if i bought a mac(which i would never do) the first thing i would do is install windows.


----------



## PabloTeK

I'll give you my impressions on using Macs and PC's everyday at university...

I use my Mac in lectures, seminars and writing essays etc, there it excels beatifully compared to my PC (the touchpad is lovely, the keyboard almost so), it's also more responsive than the PC (despite it being much more powerful spec for spec) which regularly locks up. Right now I have iTunes, MSN, Firefox, Pixelmator, ssh, stfp and Coda running quite happily, Spaces is a godsend which I do wish MS would put in, even Linux has that!

Installing Windows is a good plan for people who are a little unsure; the freedom is great. Although there are one or two bugbears with the systems, the first being the superdrive which is rather noisy when inserting a CD and also the fact that the MBP must sleep when the lid closes or it overheats! Seems expensive if you look at the specs, but things like the light sensor, multitouch trackpad, and that aluminium monocoque make it all a very attractive prospect. That and the last 2 PC laptops have both broken in < 12 months, very different models too. Do wish though that the Magsafe charger took a smidge more force to knock out >_>


----------



## zombine210

ok, so i went to bestbuy and i took my open mind and started looking at their mac selection and let me tell you, i wasn't impressed.

first i tried a mac book pro, don't remember the specs but i think it had a core duo with like 4gb ram for like 15 or 16 hundred. so i was expecting a pretty fast system, something compared to my computer at home. but it was sloooow! i tried the progam Pages, to type stuff on. the thing took like 5 seconds. it might not seem long, but if you sit there and count them, it is pretty slow. my pentium 3 doesn't take that long to open ms word 03.

the keyboard was pretty nice, the keys were spaced pretty far apart though, so you can't type very fast. i did like the huge touch pad  that was nice! but it was lacking a number pad.

then i moved to the imac, with the ginormous display for like 18 hundred. it had garage band, safari, and other software that i dind't know what it was for. so i opened up the program Numbers, again slow, and started typing up a spreadsheet and i noticed something that put me off right away: the icons and program menus were small, like really small. srsly for a 27" display, you're going to be sitting at least 3ft from it, i couldn't see shit i was standing 1ft away!

another thing i didn't like was the keyboard. i really hope you can plug in any keyboard you like because the stupid metal board was really just a laptop keyboard that was also missing a number pad!

i seriously don't know what people see in a mac, it's really more like a fad.


----------



## MacBook

If you've never used a Mac, it takes a while to get used to it.  I love the Mac keyboards and laptop keyboards, they are much easier to use then most PC laptops that try to fit too many keys in such a small space.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

zombine210 said:


> ok, so i went to bestbuy and i took my open mind and started looking at their mac selection and let me tell you, i wasn't impressed.
> 
> first i tried a mac book pro, don't remember the specs but i think it had a core duo with like 4gb ram for like 15 or 16 hundred. so i was expecting a pretty fast system, something compared to my computer at home. but it was sloooow! i tried the progam Pages, to type stuff on. the thing took like 5 seconds. it might not seem long, but if you sit there and count them, it is pretty slow. my pentium 3 doesn't take that long to open ms word 03.
> 
> the keyboard was pretty nice, the keys were spaced pretty far apart though, so you can't type very fast. i did like the huge touch pad  that was nice! but it was lacking a number pad.
> 
> then i moved to the imac, with the ginormous display for like 18 hundred. it had garage band, safari, and other software that i dind't know what it was for. so i opened up the program Numbers, again slow, and started typing up a spreadsheet and i noticed something that put me off right away: the icons and program menus were small, like really small. srsly for a 27" display, you're going to be sitting at least 3ft from it, i couldn't see shit i was standing 1ft away!
> 
> another thing i didn't like was the keyboard. i really hope you can plug in any keyboard you like because the stupid metal board was really just a laptop keyboard that was also missing a number pad!
> 
> i seriously don't know what people see in a mac, it's really more like a fad.


What do you expect from a display machine? How many people do you think messed around with it, not knowing what they're doing?

I don't have any of these problems on my Macbook Pro. Plus the icon sizes are completely adjustable, down to the pixel.


----------



## zombine210

Ethan3.14159 said:


> What do you expect from a display machine? How many people do you think messed around with it, not knowing what they're doing?
> 
> I don't have any of these problems on my Macbook Pro. Plus the icon sizes are completely adjustable, down to the pixel.



whatever, and when you go to the library and have to use a public computer? guess mac isn't good for that either. what a sissy little machine.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

zombine210 said:


> whatever, and when you go to the library and have to use a public computer? guess mac isn't good for that either. what a sissy little machine.


I lol'd.

I don't think anyone on this forum with an iMac, Mac Pro, or Macbook has the problems you're talking about. And I'd rather use a Mac in a library instead of some silly XP machine with a Pentium 4.


----------



## zombine210

lol, the library at work installed some macs next to the PCs. but they put one per table because the displays are so huge!

honestly, i wouldn't want everybody looking at my email or whatever i'm doing.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

zombine210 said:


> lol, the library at work installed some macs next to the PCs. but they put one per table because the displays are so huge!
> 
> honestly, i wouldn't want everybody looking at my email or whatever i'm doing.


Well, the displays are immense. No argument there. But they're absolutely amazing monitors.


----------



## ganzey

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Well, the displays are immense. No argument there. But they're absolutely amazing monitors.



yea, those 27" imacs are doin great


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> yea, those 27" imacs are doin great


Yeah, they are. Well, they are compared to the fault rates of HP and Dell machines.


----------



## zombine210

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Yeah, they are. Well, they are compared to the fault rates of HP and Dell machines.



got any numbers?


----------



## Ethan3.14159

This is for laptops, but you get the idea.










This one was Rescuecom's desktop results.


----------



## ganzey

^^whats the source?  desktops are not the same as laptops. the number for hp is so low becasue it most likely includes compaqs(which suck)


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Sources: 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/most-least-reliable-notebooks-laptops,9102.html

Full publication of the above article:
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

Rescuecom's desktop press release:
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-24-2009/0004993489&EDATE=

Plus, personal experience. When I'm working service at my shop, at any given time there are 5 HP/Compaq laptops being worked on. There's a reason HP allows every shop with a service dept. to be a licensed repair agent. Because they can't deal with the amount of faults coming back to them alone. I mean today, there are 6 HP/Compaq's in my service deptartment, 1 ancient Acer, and 1 Toshiba. 2 of the Compaq's have faulty RAM slots, not fault RAM, but actual faulty slots. That's something we see like 5 times a year, not at once. I wouldn't take an HP even if it was given to me. Maybe an HP business laptop.... maybe.


----------



## zombine210

if you think about the demographics, since more people buy hp/compaq, then it's logical that more idiots withing that group also buy hp/compaq, therefore the failrate is much higher.
as opposed to the number of people that buy sony. the lower the market share, the lower the failure rate reported.

apple is doing good, but i wouldn't call it 'great'.

also, if i buy something for cheap, i wouldn't mind throwing it around a bit, as i would some two thousand dollar ceramic doorstop


----------



## zombine210

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Plus, personal experience. When I'm working service at my shop, at any given time there are 5 HP/Compaq laptops being worked on. There's a reason HP allows every shop with a service dept. to be a licensed repair agent. Because they can't deal with the amount of faults coming back to them alone. I mean today, there are 6 HP/Compaq's in my service deptartment, 1 ancient Acer, and 1 Toshiba. 2 of the Compaq's have faulty RAM slots, not fault RAM, but actual faulty slots. That's something we see like 5 times a year, not at once. I wouldn't take an HP even if it was given to me. Maybe an HP business laptop.... maybe.



yeah, you can't use personal experience when you're trying to convince people of something. for all we know, you might be the only one in your village with electrical power


----------



## ganzey

^^thats weird. all my family buys is hp. my parents old computer, their current one, my bros laptop, my netbook, my sisters laptop, and we even have an ancient hp running win 95. all still work, never had a single problem with any of them


----------



## Gooberman

ganzey said:


> ^^whats the source?  desktops are not the same as laptops. the number for hp is so low becasue it most likely includes *compaqs(which suck)*



HEY i have a compaq (with 2 upgrades xD) and it's been doing just fine for the past 2 years!


----------



## Ethan3.14159

zombine210 said:


> if you think about the demographics, since more people buy hp/compaq, then it's logical that more idiots withing that group also buy hp/compaq, therefore the failrate is much higher.
> as opposed to the number of people that buy sony. the lower the market share, the lower the failure rate reported.
> 
> apple is doing good, but i wouldn't call it 'great'.


But we're talking hardware failure. Only problems that are covered by warranty. Software and physical damage aren't covered by warranty. Can't really blame hardware faults on customers, regardless of how stupid they are.

There's a reason laptops from companies like HP, Acer, Dell, etc have a low price, and that's because they cut corners. They outsource manufacturing to whoever will do it the cheapest, not who will do it best.


----------



## zombine210

Ethan3.14159 said:


> But we're talking hardware failure. Only problems that are covered by warranty. Software and physical damage aren't covered by warranty. Can't really blame hardware faults on customers, regardless of how stupid they are.
> 
> There's a reason laptops from companies like HP, Acer, Dell, etc have a low price, and that's because they cut corners. They outsource manufacturing to whoever will do it the cheapest, not who will do it best.



well, then for the price of a macbook, and looking at the fail rates, i'll have to say apple isn't doing very good at all either, considering their market share.


----------



## ganzey

Ethan3.14159 said:


> But we're talking hardware failure. Only problems that are covered by warranty. Software and physical damage aren't covered by warranty. Can't really blame hardware faults on customers, regardless of how stupid they are.
> 
> There's a reason laptops from companies like HP, Acer, Dell, etc have a low price, and that's because they cut corners. They outsource manufacturing to whoever will do it the cheapest, not who will do it best.



and where are apple's manufactured?
china


----------



## Gooberman

bet it has some lead in it *cough* xD jk first time i was on a mac was in my digital media class and we dual booted with XP


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> and where are apple's manufactured?
> china


Yeah... name one computer manufacturer than doesn't use China or any Asian country.



zombine210 said:


> well, then for the price of a macbook, and looking at the fail rates, i'll have to say apple isn't doing very good at all either, considering their market share.


lolwut. Did you not see the numbers on the last page? Far higher reliability scores than HP and Acer. Only Asus and IBM have a higher score. And to be fair to Asus, they make good laptops. Plastic-ey, but good. And even with Asus there's a price premium over other manufacturers.


----------



## ganzey

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Yeah... name one computer manufacturer than doesn't use China or any Asian country.



thats my point. you said hp outsources to get it done cheapest way possible. so does apple


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> thats my point. you said hp outsources to get it done cheapest way possible. so does apple


Except the factory in China where the stuff is assembled is owned and run by Apple. HP parts come from several factories all across Asia. They never know what's happening until it's time to put everything in the shell.... which happens to be the only thing they really manufacture.


----------



## tlarkin

I think there needs to be some clarifications here on the differences of the Mac and PC business models.

1)  Apple designs all their hardware.  They choose what chipsets to use, what resisters and capacitors, they design the printed circuit boards, configure power flow, and so forth.  They do not contract this out to the lowest bidder.  Then PCs, they don't design anything.  Instead, they come up with specs.  Then give those specs to a third party and say design me a board or let us purchase an existing one that are to these specs.  They also will bargain for price per a unit as well.  This cuts down the production cost of the PC as paying contractors to the lowest bidder is way cheaper than having people on actual payroll.  

2)  Every single electronic piece of technology has a failure rate.  They all break.  Apple is not immune to this.  My experiences with every company have been mixed, even with Apple.  However, the one thing that I can say about Apple is they actually have done recalls and extended warranties for known issues of their product.  The iMac video card issue comes to mind, where they had manufactured logic boards with faulty capacitors which blew and affected the video card.  The recent one I use a lot at work is on the 2007 Macbooks that have a chipped front top case.  They will replace the top case for free, and it is an extended warranty repair.  The G5 desktops had an issue where the liquid cooling system had an issue and the warranty was extended for free to the customer.  What I am getting at is, Apple has taken care of their customers more so than any other company.  I have also had a few Macs at my previous job where they got repaired so many times under apple care that Apple actually just replaced the whole machine out right.  The user got a brand new Mac Pro, which was an upgrade since their current mac desktop was a last generation G5.  

3)  Everything is made in Asia.  Your clothes, your computers, your gadgets, your plastics, your toys, your cell phones, that is the dumbest argument anyone could ever have on computers.  End of story.

4)  You cannot build a mac equivalent PC spec for spec, part for part, and feature for feature and make it cheaper than a Mac.  Every time anyone here has actually try to do so, they cut so many corners, and then their only justification is, well who needs that?  It is not a question of need, it is a question of is a Mac fairly priced for what you get, and the answer is yes.  

5)  It ultimately comes down to personal preference.

On a last note, 99% of people don't know what goes on under the hood of an OS.  They have no clue what is going on other than they use the mouse to click on an icon and something happens.  Unix, by design is the best OS humans have made thus far.  That is why it has been around since the 60s, and runs that little thing called the Internet.  Most high end web based applications are also ran off giant Unix servers, like Google Earth for example.  Windows, is a great consumer OS because it doesn't deal with POSIX, or any other sort of authentication/permissions model other than read only and read/write.  Windows also uses a Registry, which is the dumbest idea anyone has ever had.  Why put all your eggs into one basket?  However, Windows has allowed developers direct access to their kernel via kernel hooks and Microsoft was very smart with business.  Gates and Balmer aren't computer geniuses, but they are good a business.  They struck deals with every computer company out there, all the while other computer companies designed everything in house (Amiga, Commodore, Sun, Apple, so forth and so on).  Many of those companies never made it, because they could not compete with the fact that too many other hardware companies were using Windows.  Microsoft, was also one of the first companies to brand their OS as such.  Where every other computer company wrote their own OS and developed their own hardware.

So, this thread should pretty much now be over.


----------



## MacBook

tlarkin is exactly right.


----------



## zombine210

TL;NR
all i saw was:



tlarkin said:


> I think there needs to be some clarifications here on the differences of the Mac and PC business models.
> 
> 1)  Apple designs all their hardware.  They choose what chipsets to use, what resisters and capacitors, they design the printed circuit boards, configure power flow, and so forth.  They do not contract this out to the lowest bidder.  Then PCs, they don't design anything.  Instead, they come up with specs.  Then give those specs to a third party and say design me a board or let us purchase an existing one that are to these specs.  They also will bargain for price per a unit as well.  This cuts down the production cost of the PC as paying contractors to the lowest bidder is way cheaper than having people on actual payroll.
> 
> 2)  Every single electronic piece of technology has a failure rate.  They all break.  Apple is not immune to this.  My experiences with every company have been mixed, even with Apple.  However, the one thing that I can say about Apple is they actually have done recalls and extended warranties for known issues of their product.  The iMac video card issue comes to mind, where they had manufactured logic boards with faulty capacitors which blew and affected the video card.  The recent one I use a lot at work is on the 2007 Macbooks that have a chipped front top case.  They will replace the top case for free, and it is an extended warranty repair.  The G5 desktops had an issue where the liquid cooling system had an issue and the warranty was extended for free to the customer.  What I am getting at is, Apple has taken care of their customers more so than any other company.  I have also had a few Macs at my previous job where they got repaired so many times under apple care that Apple actually just replaced the whole machine out right.  The user got a brand new Mac Pro, which was an upgrade since their current mac desktop was a last generation G5.
> 
> 3)  Everything is made in Asia.  Your clothes, your computers, your gadgets, your plastics, your toys, your cell phones, that is the dumbest argument anyone could ever have on computers.  End of story.
> 
> 4)  You cannot build a mac equivalent PC spec for spec, part for part, and feature for feature and make it cheaper than a Mac.  Every time anyone here has actually try to do so, they cut so many corners, and then their only justification is, well who needs that?  It is not a question of need, it is a question of is a Mac fairly priced for what you get, and the answer is yes.
> 
> 5)  It ultimately comes down to personal preference.
> 
> On a last note, 99% of people don't know what goes on under the hood of an OS.  They have no clue what is going on other than they use the mouse to click on an icon and something happens.  Unix, by design is the best OS humans have made thus far.  That is why it has been around since the 60s, and runs that little thing called the Internet.  Most high end web based applications are also ran off giant Unix servers, like Google Earth for example.  Windows, is a great consumer OS because it doesn't deal with POSIX, or any other sort of authentication/permissions model other than read only and read/write.  Windows also uses a Registry, which is the dumbest idea anyone has ever had.  Why put all your eggs into one basket?  However, Windows has allowed developers direct access to their kernel via kernel hooks and Microsoft was very smart with business.  Gates and Balmer aren't computer geniuses, but they are good a business.  They struck deals with every computer company out there, all the while other computer companies designed everything in house (Amiga, Commodore, Sun, Apple, so forth and so on).  Many of those companies never made it, because they could not compete with the fact that too many other hardware companies were using Windows.  Microsoft, was also one of the first companies to brand their OS as such.  Where every other computer company wrote their own OS and developed their own hardware.
> 
> So, this thread should pretty much now be over.



i agree


----------



## tlarkin

zombine210 said:


> TL;NR
> all i saw was:
> 
> 
> 
> i agree



If this were the troll-lympics and I were a Judge, I'd give you an 8.5 for that.


----------



## MacBook

zombine210 said:


> TL;NR
> all i saw was:
> 
> 
> 
> i agree


Total win!


----------

