Linked by mjhi11 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:13 UTC
Apple I love OSNews, but it does seem like some of its editors enjoy just a little too much taking a good natured jab at Apple upon occasion (well, more like every chance that particular editor can get). I thought it time for a little good news and analysis about Apple that critics often overlook.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:27 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has always taken a beating for the so-called "Apple Tax" the premium customers pay over similarly equipped PCs.


I built a Mac Pro Clone for $1500 a year or so ago. It actually ran OS X for awhile, until I had to go Windows for work.

These network related advances have revolutionized networking, making what was once difficult, painfully simple.

There are other wireless routers that come with easy-to-use software. While I have, and use, 4 Apple wireless routers in my home (overkill a little - but we get a lot of radio interference in our area) I would not hesitate to purchase another brand.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Tuishimi
by No it isnt on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tuishimi"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Apple is only priced "fair" if you treat it as a standard and look for a PC with the exact same specs. If you think rationally, on the other hand, and spec a system for what kind of performance you need, Apple is usually hideously expensive, and even worse when you consider the cost of upgrades.

I know a Mac would cost more than twice the price of my current PC if I were to go that route, and its performance would still be worse. Then again, I only wanted to be able to play GTA4.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tuishimi"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem is more often that Apple tends to make weird combinations to save money - big-ass processor, yet crappy and too little RAM, sub-standard hard drives, underpowered video cards, and so on.

That being said, Apple rules the roost when it comes to laptops (although HP's Envy line is comparable now, I just haven't ever seen one here) and the iMacs. Best computers you can recommended to friends and family.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi
by No it isnt on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

The laptop lines are fine (except the Airbook, which is mostly a vanity product), but the iMacs? The only thing they've got going for them is the form factor, certainly not the price. Upgradability is low, and OS X support cut-off means a >5yr old Mac is obsolete. It's a fine product, but it's still very expensive compared to a comparable PC.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Upgradability is low, and OS X support cut-off means a >5yr old Mac is obsolete.


Tell that to the happy folks at lowendmac.com and other PPC/old Mac communities. Hell, I used a G3 PowerBook "Pismo" daily until last year when the power cord shorted and fried the logic board. "Obsolete" is relative; that ten year old G3 'book was the absolute perfect writing machine for me. It had one of the best notebook keyboards ever made, it was quick enough for simultaneous writing, web browsing and listening to music, and it was one of the most durable Mac notebooks ever made. Sure, I'd never play Doom 3 on it, but why would I want to? It was a tool that did its job well, and I am still torn between getting another one and moving into this decade with a new MacBook.

Back to the iMacs in question: All Intel iMacs, all G5 iMacs and most later G4 iMacs can run Leopard, which hasn't been cut off at all. The only thing truly obsolete on those PPC Macs is the video processor, as it is integrated into the logic board and limits usefulness with regard to gaming and watching videos.

Also, while they won't run Snow Leopard, by the time 10.7 comes out (moving Leopard to "unsupported") those Macs will be nearing 10 years old anyway. I'd say that is a good run for an all-in-one PC. Try installing Windows Vista (the older of the two currently supported Microsoft OSes) on a maxed out eight year old Pentium 4 and watch it choke and struggle. I know, I've tried it. On the other hand, Leopard on a G4 iMac is as snappy as Tiger.

As for the current crop of aluminum iMacs, I'd expect them to remain useful and supported at least through the next two OS releases.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by mightshade on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
mightshade Member since:
2008-11-20

Try installing Windows Vista (the older of the two currently supported Microsoft OSes) on a maxed out eight year old Pentium 4 and watch it choke and struggle. I know, I've tried it.

So did I. Vista ran fine on my good old P4. There was no "choke and struggle", ever. It's a shame that it didn't work for you, but "Vista can't run on a maxed out P4" really isn't true.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I never said it wouldn't run; it was somewhat useable but it was nowhere near the performance of Vista on a modern system. The difference was striking.

Contrast that to a PPC Mac running Tiger and Leopard; if anything it will run slightly faster with the newer OS. I noticed that when I installed Leopard on a G4 eMac. Everything seemed just a bit snappier and even mundane tasks like Finder operations were quicker. The only bottleneck was the video processor, and I knew that going in; it wasn't meant to be a gaming machine anyway.

If I wasn't clear in my previous post, I apologize: My point was that older Macs take far longer to become obsolete than PCs mostly due to the OS. Linux is a similar experience; I find Slackware 13 to be just as useable on a six year old machine as my modern C2D based system. The only time I notice a real difference is when compiling; there's nothing from that era that can compete with a modern dual-core system for processor-intensive tasks.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Microsoft has begun to reverse this trend starting with Windows 7. I had the opportunity to run both Vista and 7 on this Core 2 Duo machine, and 7 was much, much faster than Vista in almost every way. If I still had my P4 I'd love to give 7 a spin on it, I'm sure I'd be impressed.

Edited 2010-09-17 01:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Tuishimi
by mightshade on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi"
mightshade Member since:
2008-11-20

I never said it wouldn't run; it was somewhat useable but it was nowhere near the performance of Vista on a modern system.

Yes, I exaggerated that part a bit further, because to me, your post sounded like Vista wasn't usable at all. Thanks for clarifying.

If I still had my P4 I'd love to give 7 a spin on it, I'm sure I'd be impressed.

Hehe, same here. I had to replace mine because the graphics card (and apparently some more parts) fried. If that hadn't happened, it would probably still serve me well.

Edited 2010-09-17 01:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Budd on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

No,not really. I am still using my G4 Quicksilver (without upgrade,well except a bigger HDD) almost every day. In fact is my only computer in my countryside home.Flash is dramatically slow on it but I really don't miss it. Email,web and photo work are just fine on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by No it isnt on Fri 17th Sep 2010 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It's "fine" because you're fine with the fact that it doesn't run any new software. I've owned a Powerbook and used it long its time, and compared to a Windows PC running an older version of Windows, it was really really painful. Consider using Windows XP (from 2001) today: you may not like it, but it still kinda works. Consider OS X Panther (2003): it doesn't even have a current browser. Add to it the fact that Apple force-obsoletes older hardware so that installing a newer version of OS X is a real chore.

My countryside computer is a Pentium 3, 500 MHz. It runs the latest version of Xubuntu, with updated Firefox and Flash as of April. Installation "just worked", which is more than you can say about installing Leopard on a sub 866 MHz Quicksilver.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by iinlane on Fri 17th Sep 2010 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
iinlane Member since:
2010-09-17

The OS X was still in infancy in 2003 but I think that after few years Tiger experience is still comparable with current Microsoft OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Tuishimi
by No it isnt on Fri 17th Sep 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

No, it's not, simply due to the fact that Apple developers have a raging hard-on for the latest and greatest and drop support for last year's wares as soon as they possibly can. And also that Windows 7 is actually a damn fine OS, whereas Tiger is more comparable to Vista (though not quite so much): it introduced a lot of new technologies and bloat that slowed the computer down.

I know I wouldn't run Windows 7 on an XP era computer (but happily on any PC that came with Vista), but the majority of the apps that work with Win7 also work with XP, and most of the exceptions (DX10/11 games) wouldn't run on that kind of hardware anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Finchwizard on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

Your right. 4GB RAM in the entire iMac range and Laptop range as standard. What bastards.

And Sub Standard hard drives? What are you smoking? Hitachi have always been a great brand, so have Seagate.

I've had both in my Macs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Feanor on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Feanor Member since:
2006-12-21

Brand is usually a high ranking brand (I've seen alot of WD HDDs), but they usually are behind on Cache levels, SSD drives pale in comparison to other brands.

Having worked in a Authorized repair center, I can tell you they had a nasty problem (which they release a service advisory for) of hard drives up and dying and killing all of your data.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi
by r_a_trip on Fri 17th Sep 2010 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Best computers you can recommended to friends and family.

Maybe if you want to brush your friends and family off and not have anything to do with support. I've found it much easier to just select a machine that has the necessary power to perform the tasks a friend or a family member wants to perform. (In my case that is more often light stuff). If Windows is a requisite, then that is what they'll get.

I'd rather they go with Linux. Intel system with *Nix OS. Same oomph as what Apple sells, but at a fraction of the cost. Some of my "clients" did go with Linux and they are the least intensive, support wise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by aesiamun on Fri 17th Sep 2010 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Offtopic: Your *Nix doesn't match Linux..just UNIX which includes Mac OS X ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is more often that Apple tends to make weird combinations to save money - big-ass processor, yet crappy and too little RAM, sub-standard hard drives, underpowered video cards, and so on.

That being said, Apple rules the roost when it comes to laptops (although HP's Envy line is comparable now, I just haven't ever seen one here) and the iMacs. Best computers you can recommended to friends and family.


So a Radeon 5XXX series video card and 4GB of RAM as standard is considered horrible these days? colour me confused given that I can do my work quite comfortably on 4GB of RAM. If the criticisms were directed at the Mac Pro - its always been a rip off ever since it was released. There was a moment in history where the PowerMac low end model was actually within reaching distance of the prosumer but these days in NZ you're forking over at least NZ$4K+ for something that is only marginally better than the NZ$600 cheaper maxed out iMac.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by _txf_ on Sat 18th Sep 2010 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17



So a Radeon 5XXX series video card and 4GB of RAM as standard is considered horrible these days?


The the issue here are the XXXes in the model number. There are plenty of (cheaper) gaming laptops with far more powerful gpus and much greater space and heat dissipation constraints...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The the issue here are the XXXes in the model number. There are plenty of (cheaper) gaming laptops with far more powerful gpus and much greater space and heat dissipation constraints...


Yes, which means that some of us don't want a laptop that is over two inches thick, horrible battery life and like carrying around a tank in ones bag all day. I'd sooner have a machine that has a good battery life that is slightly less powerful than the alternative offered by pc vendors.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by _txf_ on Sat 18th Sep 2010 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

That is true but you didn't see the my point. What I meant to say was that there are no technical reasons to but anemic gpus in an imac, especially considering macbook pros can have much more powerful gpus relative to its tiny size, why can't imacs. If you want a powerful gpu in a desktop mac you have to get a mac pro (which sometimes comes with exceptionally bad gfx cards relative to it's other specs and price).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sun 19th Sep 2010 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That is true but you didn't see the my point. What I meant to say was that there are no technical reasons to but anemic gpus in an imac, especially considering macbook pros can have much more powerful gpus relative to its tiny size, why can't imacs. If you want a powerful gpu in a desktop mac you have to get a mac pro (which sometimes comes with exceptionally bad gfx cards relative to it's other specs and price).


I would say in the case of the iMac's the GPU's chosen are ones that are relatively cool and don't require a fan running at a high speed to keep it cool (they tend to be the mobile version of the GPU). In the iMac there is more space but Apple also has to take into consideration the noise it would make - now for me I couldn't give a flying continental about a low quiet hum in the background when it comes to a fan but if you've ever hung out on a Mac forum you swear that some of them if they heard the slightest noise would have a mental break down.

Personally for me though, with the number of people buying iMac's and MacBook's it doesn't appear that 'performance' of the GPU's are a thing stopping them in any way - it goes back to what I said regarding what people want from their computer and how far too many people here get hung up on specifications instead of looking at the complete package and what it can offer - Mac OS X being a huge chunk of what makes a Mac a Mac.

Edited 2010-09-19 01:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

My comment was about the mac pro. I said I built a clone for $1500 which you then promptly read a million things into and made it some sort of personal vendetta.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi
by marsofearth on Sun 19th Sep 2010 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tuishimi"
marsofearth Member since:
2009-12-13

I know a Mac would cost more than twice the price of my current PC if I were to go that route, and its performance would still be worse.

Suggesting that a macintosh uses lower system specs than your "PC" for twice the price.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 01:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I built a Mac Pro Clone for $1500 a year or so ago. It actually ran OS X for awhile, until I had to go Windows for work.


Where you could easily get a iMac to do the same job - if you bought a maxed out iMac, in 4-5 years time it would do its job well over that time span. I'm sure you'll bring about 'piecemeal upgrades' but when you add those up you're no better off at the end of 4-5 years that if you kept with an iMac and did a total replacement.

I'm sitting on my iMac 2.66Ghz, Radeon 2600 HD, 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD (upgraded recently) etc. and I could easily see myself using it for another 2 years thus making the total life span 4 years. Thats a pretty good life span for a desktop if you ask me.

There are other wireless routers that come with easy-to-use software. While I have, and use, 4 Apple wireless routers in my home (overkill a little - but we get a lot of radio interference in our area) I would not hesitate to purchase another brand.


Yes, and software that use weird proprietary and buggy drivers when compared to Apple that uses bonjour, CUPS and so on. I have an Airport Extreme upstairs (dual channel) and before that I went through something like 4 routers in a couple of days with each of the routers having some issue with their firmware, signal and so forth. When coupled with the software provided I can share the printers easily, I can share files over AFP where SMB was a complete nightmare being a hit or miss whether other PC's pick up the shares. There are benefits to a vertically integrated business but too bad people ignore those benefits for what they perceive as 'freedom'.

Edited 2010-09-18 01:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Sat 18th Sep 2010 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06


Where you could easily get a iMac to do the same job - if you bought a maxed out iMac, in 4-5 years time it would do its job well over that time span. I'm sure you'll bring about 'piecemeal upgrades' but when you add those up you're no better off at the end of 4-5 years that if you kept with an iMac and did a total replacement.


What? As a work machine running windows 7? No? I built the equivalent of a mac pro in computing power (quad core, ATI 5850, 8 GB RAM, 3 TB of disk space, etc.) but was then required to switch to Windows so I switched to running Windows 7 full time on it. I am a software engineer and the more cores and the more memory I have the better when I am building apps and running several different web servers at a time.

Don't get me wrong, My son has my old Intel iMac, and my daughter has my old G5 iMac... I keep them and use them. I'm just saying I was able to build the equivalent of a Mac Pro for $1500. Period.

Yes, and software that use weird proprietary and buggy drivers when compared to Apple that uses bonjour, CUPS and so on.


You know, I don't know exactly what you are trying to get out (in reference to the rest of your post that I chopped out)... My household uses macs. We have:

4 Apple routers
1 iPhone
2 iPods
1 Intel iMac
1 G5 iMac
1 Macbook
and one old G4 Mac Mini.

My point was that the author is stretching HIS points a little. You can have the equivalent computing power for less money. Maybe not for better style, but for less money. As far as durability goes, I chose my components carefully and still spent far less money than I would have on the Mac Pro. Looks good, but when I build my own machine I know what goes in it, I am able to apply better cooling mechanisms, and while it isn't as pretty, my Cooler Master case isn't have bad looking, and is pretty functional.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sun 19th Sep 2010 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What? As a work machine running windows 7? No? I built the equivalent of a mac pro in computing power (quad core, ATI 5850, 8 GB RAM, 3 TB of disk space, etc.) but was then required to switch to Windows so I switched to running Windows 7 full time on it. I am a software engineer and the more cores and the more memory I have the better when I am building apps and running several different web servers at a time.

Don't get me wrong, My son has my old Intel iMac, and my daughter has my old G5 iMac... I keep them and use them. I'm just saying I was able to build the equivalent of a Mac Pro for $1500. Period.


Again you fail to actually explain to me why you require a Mac Pro when an iMac would do in the first place. I have already accepted in another post on this same article (do you actually read peoples posts?) where I said that the Mac Pro was horrifically over priced for what it provides - that you're better off getting a maxed out top of the line iMac than go down the route and get Mac Pro.

I come back and ask again, do you actually need a Mac Pro is it more a matter of having a 'tower' fetish of believing that real men who have real work to be done require a computer with a stand alone case ?

You know, I don't know exactly what you are trying to get out (in reference to the rest of your post that I chopped out)... My household uses macs. We have:

4 Apple routers
1 iPhone
2 iPods
1 Intel iMac
1 G5 iMac
1 Macbook
and one old G4 Mac Mini.

My point was that the author is stretching HIS points a little. You can have the equivalent computing power for less money. Maybe not for better style, but for less money. As far as durability goes, I chose my components carefully and still spent far less money than I would have on the Mac Pro. Looks good, but when I build my own machine I know what goes in it, I am able to apply better cooling mechanisms, and while it isn't as pretty, my Cooler Master case isn't have bad looking, and is pretty functional.


It has nothing to do with 'computer power', the term 'computer power' is the biggest load of horse crap since GWB post-9/11 speech where he said 'they had us because of our freedoms'. You purchase a computer to get a task done and quite frankly 'computer power' is but one on a long list of things I consider and no, I don't consider 'looks' as important as you may think - so stop projecting this bullcrap that some how every Mac user is a clueless idiot whose only concern is with aesthetics. I purchase my Mac because I prefer using Mac OS X - when people like you start labelling Mac users as moronic idiots dragged around by the nose because of looks rather than substance you better damn well back up such claims. You've failed to back up such claims every time you've opened your mouth and spouted such crap - and quite frankly I couldn't care about your 'Cool Master case' when it is coupled with a crap operating system, zero support in terms of warranty and having to deal with compatibility quirks between the different components.

Edited 2010-09-19 04:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Sun 19th Sep 2010 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I come back and ask again, do you actually need a Mac Pro is it more a matter of having a 'tower' fetish of believing that real men who have real work to be done require a computer with a stand alone case ?

Kaiwai, what's up your pipe? My original post was simple and easy for a 2 year old to understand. I built a computer with the equivalent CPU, memory speed, and BETTER graphics card than a Mac Pro for much less. That was IT. What's your problem?

What the hell does NEED have to do with my original post. I was simply pointing out that I can build a computer equivalent to a Mac Pro for less. Maybe YOU SHOULD READ my original post from whence you launched your attack.

But I DID answer you. I want a computer that can run RoR, JBoss and Apache servers (3 at a time) and compile our entire web site and services, and run tests on AT THE SAME TIME while connecting to a database 3000 miles away. Also while I have multiple documents open via MS Word and our HTML APIs. I want as much speed as I can garner from my system to do this so that I don't have to wait for compilations and deployements constantly and spend more time testing and coding - not waiting.

And I disagree that computational power is a load of horse crap since I want as much speed and multiprocessing capability I can get at a reasonable price. YOU aren't proving anything to ME except that you can spew rhetoric better than most people. Which isn't saying much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Mon 20th Sep 2010 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Kaiwai, what's up your pipe? My original post was simple and easy for a 2 year old to understand. I built a computer with the equivalent CPU, memory speed, and BETTER graphics card than a Mac Pro for much less. That was IT. What's your problem?


To which I pointed out that there are other computers from Apple you could have chosen from - your whole post was nothing more than a pathetic rant implicitly claiming that the Mac Pro was some how the only computer on offer by Apple. I stated before the Mac Pro was a rip off and you're better of getting an iMac and all you do is piss and moan about the Mac Pro as if were the only system on offer.

What the hell does NEED have to do with my original post. I was simply pointing out that I can build a computer equivalent to a Mac Pro for less. Maybe YOU SHOULD READ my original post from whence you launched your attack.


Then don't talk in hypotheticals unless you're talking about a real world scenario that one can marry up to what Apple provides; if your requirements sit outside the scope of what Apple is willing to cater for then get components and build one yourself, go to a big name vendor like Dell or HP and purchase one.

But I DID answer you. I want a computer that can run RoR, JBoss and Apache servers (3 at a time) and compile our entire web site and services, and run tests on AT THE SAME TIME while connecting to a database 3000 miles away. Also while I have multiple documents open via MS Word and our HTML APIs. I want as much speed as I can garner from my system to do this so that I don't have to wait for compilations and deployements constantly and spend more time testing and coding - not waiting.


So what you want sits out side what Apple is willing to provide - so why is there even an argument? it would be like me saying that Dell sucks because their all in one computer doesn't have what I want or their Studio range such because it is heavier and thicker than my MacBook Pro. Each company position their products to cater for a particular market and if they don't cater for my requirements life goes on and I choose something else. Simply because Dell doesn't sell me what I want doesn't make them automatically suck - they simply don't cater for what I want.

And I disagree that computational power is a load of horse crap since I want as much speed and multiprocessing capability I can get at a reasonable price. YOU aren't proving anything to ME except that you can spew rhetoric better than most people. Which isn't saying much.


No, speed isn't the 'be all and end all' if the reliability is a complete clusterf--k - when I'm writing my thesis for university, making videos and so on I couldn't care a rats ass whether it was the fastest computer on the planet if the net result is something that kernel panics every 30 minutes. Performance isn't the be all and end all - and my experience so far with Mac OS X is that it certainly doesn't fall behind the eighth ball when it comes to speed. My MacBook with a 9400M when benchmarked gets around 400fps from OpenGL 1.0 to OpenGL 2.1, my iMac with a Radeon 2600 HD is around 1200fps from OpenGL 1.0 to OpenGL 2.1. So no, Mac OS X isn't castrating performance but compared to Windows - maybe I like the idea that there is a consistent outcome rather than hearing from users that their fonts are fuzzy because of driver related issues and other weird stuff that happens.

Edited 2010-09-20 02:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

To which I pointed out that there are other computers from Apple you could have chosen from


Point it out? You mean by saying I have a "tower fetish" or something?

your whole post was nothing more than a pathetic rant implicitly claiming that the Mac Pro was some how the only computer on offer by Apple.


No, never did I even imply that, neither did I rant about it. I said "I built a mac pro clone for $1500".

That's quite a rant. Wow! You are the one that read your own feelings of the matter into it.

I stated before the Mac Pro was a rip off and you're better of getting an iMac and all you do is piss and moan about the Mac Pro as if were the only system on offer.


No I did not, again you make up crap to suit your imagined issue/conflict. But since you brought it up, actually the system I build costs the same as a second tier iMac. And still has (for my needs) a more useful CPU, more powerful graphics card, more RAM, more disk space and while I haven't checked lately, probably faster bus and memory speeds.

Then don't talk in hypotheticals unless you're talking about a real world scenario that one can marry up to what Apple provides


LOL! What the hell are you on about? What hypotheticals? You are the one hypothesizing about MY computing needs. Once more time, because once, twice even five times is not enough:

"I built a mac pro clone for $1500."

What is hypothetical about that? Do you want me to paste my newegg receipts up here for you?


So what you want sits out side what Apple is willing to provide - so why is there even an argument?


I have no idea, you are the one who started the argument.

it would be like me saying that Dell sucks because their all in one computer doesn't have what I want or their Studio range such because


No it is nothing like that at all. Very poor analogy. First, I never said Apple sucks, because I like Apple and their products and am a regular customer. Second they DO have what I wouldn't MIND having, because I do find the Mac Pro to be an attractive piece of equipment, but I realized that the guts are what mattered most so I saved 50% of the cost of a Mac Pro and built my own. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know why you thing I am conspiring to debase Apple and apple users.

No, speed isn't the 'be all and end all' if the reliability is a complete clusterf--k - when I'm writing my thesis for university, making videos and so on I couldn't care a rats ass whether it was the fastest computer on the planet if the net result is something that kernel panics every 30 minutes.


Wow! Again, you must be very unfortunate indeed! I don't have those kinds of problems on any of my computers... not the one running Haiku, not the one running Windows, not the one (which I recently reinstalled Mac OS X on for my daughter when I gave it to her) running Yellow Dog Linux. You must really be cursed to have your computers crash on you like that all the time. I'm glad your iMac doesn't do that, or you'd never get ANYTHING done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Sun 19th Sep 2010 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Here is my original post in case you missed it:
----------------------
Apple has always taken a beating for the so-called "Apple Tax" the premium customers pay over similarly equipped PCs.


I built a Mac Pro Clone for $1500 a year or so ago. It actually ran OS X for awhile, until I had to go Windows for work.

These network related advances have revolutionized networking, making what was once difficult, painfully simple.

There are other wireless routers that come with easy-to-use software. While I have, and use, 4 Apple wireless routers in my home (overkill a little - but we get a lot of radio interference in our area) I would not hesitate to purchase another brand.

-------------------

Now, however you got all those things you accused me of from that, I don't know, but if you were trying to piss me off with a load of bull crap you have succeeded. Does that please you? Stop reading between the lines and take what is written for what it is. Idiot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Mon 20th Sep 2010 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I built a Mac Pro Clone for $1500 a year or so ago. It actually ran OS X for awhile, until I had to go Windows for work.


Then the Apple Mac isn't for you - so why is there even a debate? you purchase a Mac because you want to run Mac OS X; if you don't want to run Mac OS X then it is entirely a waste of money to purchase a Mac and run Windows full time on it.

Now, however you got all those things you accused me of from that, I don't know, but if you were trying to piss me off with a load of bull crap you have succeeded. Does that please you? Stop reading between the lines and take what is written for what it is. Idiot.


Oh yes, the PC user logic coming right out now - when you fail to address valid points being raised you attack the person personally. You're as bad as those people who go out of their way to create whole websites bashing Mac's. You're like the Fred Phelps of the PC world who hates Mac's so much you spend you ever waking moment thinking about it - which says more about you than anything about Mac users.

I don't feel the need to spend hours trying to get Windows working on my computer like I see people lustfully slobbering over Mac OS X and trying to get it running on their home made PC. I'm happy with what I've got and if you want to run Windows then all power to you - whatever floats your boat. What I have a problem with are people some how saying that Mac's suck in general because they don't match your specific requirements. The issue has nothing to do with 'being sore' about people hating Mac's (I couldn't give a crap what people think in that regard) but people who knowingly lie and do so with impunity.

Edited 2010-09-20 02:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Kaiwai. I DID make my points and you just talked around them, providing your own personal opinion about what you THINK I meant by my posts. Not what I was saying. I got pissed because you obviously are not reading what I am writing and trying to play semantical games with my very simple original point. You just look for something to argue about and you continued to attack me, likely hoping I would lose my temper like I did. And you are STILL putting YOUR thoughts into MY words, making them something other than they were.

I said (try taking this literally could you?): I built a mac pro clone (internals, obviously not the layout and outer case) for $1500.

How can you possibly read all the stuff (you wrote many many paragraphs expounding on that) you wrote into that sentence?

Honestly, you think TOO MUCH. You are trying to read stuff into sentences that just are not there. What pissed me off is that YOU were putting words/thoughts in MY mouth that just weren't being said.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Sun 19th Sep 2010 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and lastly, project my pointy-toed cowboy boot up your ass.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Sun 19th Sep 2010 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Arg. Kaiwai. I apologize for being rude. That was uncalled for. In the future I will simply endeavor to answer your questions without becoming emotional about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Again you fail to actually explain to me why you require a Mac Pro when an iMac would do in the first place. I have already accepted in another post on this same article (do you actually read peoples posts?) where I said that the Mac Pro was horrifically over priced for what it provides - that you're better off getting a maxed out top of the line iMac than go down the route and get Mac Pro.


Again? I didn't know I had to try in the first place, nor did I realize you were the keeper of such knowlege and I was required to explain my life and needs to you. Forgive me! And no, I did not see your other post as I was simply clicking on an email notification that brought me directly to your response. Do you ever do that?


I come back and ask again, do you actually need a Mac Pro is it more a matter of having a 'tower' fetish of believing that real men who have real work to be done require a computer with a stand alone case ?


In another response you accused me of an ad hominem attack... what the hell is this? And you said this before I let my rant go... pot, kettle, black.

It has nothing to do with 'computer power', the term 'computer power' is the biggest load of horse crap since GWB post-9/11 speech where he said 'they had us because of our freedoms'.


That's subjective bull-droppings. I agree that you buy a computer to get a job done. But there is such a thing as computational power and it does make a difference. Obviously if you don't USE your computer for anything other than blogging or homework, you don't need a computer with much power, as it appears to be the case with you.

You purchase a computer to get a task done and quite frankly 'computer power' is but one on a long list of things I consider

and no, I don't consider 'looks' as important as you may think - so stop projecting this bullcrap that some how every Mac user is a clueless idiot whose only concern is with aesthetics.


Please oh please tell me where I even intimated that? Please! Seriously. Where did you get that from? Did you smoke something and have a vision that told you I felt that way or something? Because a) I never said anything like that and b) I am an apple user. I don't think you are a clueless idiot, but I do think you have an overactive imagination.

I purchase my Mac because I prefer using Mac OS X - when people like you start labelling Mac users as moronic idiots


Again, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? If YOU ever read MY other posts on OSNews you would see that I am rather FOND of Apple and their products. But obviously you did not and have not... you only read what suits you and then you make up other stuff to fill in the cracks that you want a post to say.

I couldn't care about your 'Cool Master case' when it is coupled with a crap operating system, zero support in terms of warranty and having to deal with compatibility quirks between the different components.


Yeah, you don't get a "warranty" on Apple products (for more than a basic 90 days) unless you fork over more $$$ as well. I know because our iPhone, and MacBook both have extended warranties. The G5 had one but it has expired.

And what compatibility quirks are you talking about? So you've owned a cooler master case and you've built your own PC before? You encountered quirks? What might those have been?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi
by JAlexoid on Sun 19th Sep 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tuishimi"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There are benefits to a vertically integrated business but too bad people ignore those benefits for what they perceive as 'freedom'.


Then you should try Microsoft's vertical integration, witch beats anything that Apple has to offer every time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Sep 2010 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Tuishimi"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

"I built a Mac Pro Clone for $1500 a year or so ago. It actually ran OS X for awhile, until I had to go Windows for work.


Where you could easily get a iMac to do the same job - if you bought a maxed out iMac, in 4-5 years time it would do its job well over that time span. I'm sure you'll bring about 'piecemeal upgrades' but when you add those up you're no better off at the end of 4-5 years that if you kept with an iMac and did a total replacement.
"

See? Right here you are making assumptions that you know what I need or don't need to do my job. And it is OFF-TOPIC to boot. I said I built a mac pro clone for $1500 and suddenly you are off saying I don't need a mac pro (even tho' at this point you have no idea what I do for a living) and could do my job more cheaply with an imac. Well here is some more news for you... what are the price ranges for the iMac? For the second range iMac I built something more powerful (and yes, powerful in the sense that it has much more disk space, a CPU that can handle more threads at a time, double the ram, etc.)

I'm sitting on my iMac 2.66Ghz, Radeon 2600 HD, 4GB RAM, 1TB HDD (upgraded recently) etc. and I could easily see myself using it for another 2 years thus making the total life span 4 years. Thats a pretty good life span for a desktop if you ask me.


That's awesome! I am so happy for you! Really. Again, what's that have to do with me building a mac pro clone for $1500?

Yes, and software that use weird proprietary and buggy drivers when compared to Apple that uses bonjour, CUPS and so on.


You mean weird proprietary code/drivers that fit with Windows, the virtually ubiquitous operating system in most of the civilized world?

I have an Airport Extreme upstairs (dual channel) and before that I went through something like 4 routers in a couple of days with each of the routers having some issue with their firmware, signal and so forth.


You seem to be an unlucky fellow as I cannot count on one hand the hardware failures I've had with my computers over the past 15 years. All the computers I've built and the Macs I've owned prior to the current set have been given to family members or sold on craigslist or ebay for a fair sum. I still have my scallop-shaped airport from at least 6 years ago. I also have an HP scanner and my wife has an HP PSC that are at least 3 years old. They still work. I guess I should consider myself lucky.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:49 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

Apple generates a lot of strong opinions and a good fraction of the negative ones comes from apple enthusiasts who like one aspects of the company and its products but dont like the others Apple critics are not always apple haters.

Nobody knows anybody else online and hence any person who speaks favorably to any aspect of the company and its products is automatically called a fanboy and anybody who speaks the opposite is called a hater. Who is to blame for this? I think Apple created this to sell more buzz for their products and to create sells. I believe Apple hired a person whose name sound like "Kawasaki" to jump start apple's enthusiast's passionate opinions online.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple generates a lot of strong opinions and a good fraction of the negative ones comes from apple enthusiasts who like one aspects of the company and its products but dont like the others Apple critics are not always apple haters.


That's pretty much how I am about it. I think OS X is the best modern commercial OS by far, but I'm not a big fan of the current line of hardware -- with the exception of the newest Mac mini, that thing is a work of art!

I'm of the opposite opinion when it comes to the iOS line; I love the hardware, especially the 4th generation iPhone/iPod touch, but iOS itself feels too limited to me. My dream phone/mobile multimedia device is the Nokia N900, which I plan to purchase soon. Everything I've seen about it blows me away, including the physical design. While I'd prefer a device made with a sturdy metal frame, the N900 looks simply amazing, plastic and all.

I must say too that I am conflicted regarding Apple's company policies. While I consider Jobs to be a visionary and a great company leader, he (and Apple's legal team) can be down right oppressive at times. They all definitely have a God Complex.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mrstep on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Yeah, what was that guy's name again?

Reply Score: 1

pricing
by kristoph on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:11 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I think Apple is competitive, price wise, with other large computer 'brands'.

However, it's important to note that a system can be bought from a less known brand or built on your own for a much lower cost.

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE: pricing
by marsofearth on Sun 19th Sep 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "pricing"
marsofearth Member since:
2009-12-13

I'd love to Build an i7 iMac for less... and I can, If I purchase a lower quality screen with smaller dimensions, and convince myself that an AMD Phenom processor is just as good.


What people seem to be arguing here, is that Low End PC's is pretty much all that people need... And this is true, I agree... However, If you are a computer user that needs greater performance, or performance longevity (A small percentage of computer users ~ ergo Mac's small market share of a small market), purchasing a Mac or similarly Spec'd and priced "PC" is reasonable

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: pricing
by JAlexoid on Sun 19th Sep 2010 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE: pricing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'd love to Build an i7 iMac for less... and I can, If I purchase a lower quality screen with smaller dimensions, and convince myself that an AMD Phenom processor is just as good.


Considering that mostly Mac owners don't use the power of those CPUs to the max(hello, lack of power hungry games...), I'd say that is most cases AMD Phenom is just as good.

PS: If you spec the actual system, you'll find that you pay at least $200 more for an iMac than most other branded systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: pricing
by marsofearth on Tue 21st Sep 2010 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pricing"
marsofearth Member since:
2009-12-13

Games? I was thinking Photo editing, Video Editing/Encoding and Music....

AMD Phenom is fine, and so is the i3's and i5's.

PS: If you spec the actual system, you'll find that you pay at least $200 more for an iMac than most other branded systems.

... maybe, IF you max it out with Apple RAM instead of the bare bones 4GB...

These are no longer the days of PPC vs X86.

If anything, people take issue that Apple does not sell a "cheap" box for $300 - $400 that is "good enough" for people who just want to check email, and surf the web...

Reply Score: 1

surprise: opinions differ
by l3v1 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:16 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm sorry but that just hasn't held true in the last decade. Time and time again you'll find head-to-head comparisons between the price of an Apple system versus the main PC manufacturers (usually Dell) and in most cases Apple is competitive, or often less expensive than a similarly configured PC.


I don't even know why I'm going into this, but it's late, and it's weirdly relaxing, so here you go. We buy desktop PCs from time to time, usually one-two at a time, 90% of them are computation beasts, high end mobos, high end cpus, high end gpus (sometimes multiple), and so on. Rarely, but sometimes we buy branded ones, but most of the time we build them. Why? Because we can always beat the price, with around 30-50%, and with better quality components. Also, outside the U.S. Apple product pricing is sometimes just unbelievable. E.g. I can take any one of the Macbook pro line and find a similar configuration at multiple other brands for half the price. If we're talking Mac pro let's say 8-core, well I've got a beast here on my work desk with higher specs for ~60% of the startig price of that macpro. This pricing argument was never able to hold its ground anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE: surprise: opinions differ
by fanboi_fanboi on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:51 UTC in reply to "surprise: opinions differ"
fanboi_fanboi Member since:
2010-04-21

Yup. Custom-built PCs with parts from newegg beat the living crap out of similarly priced Apple computer, as far as performance. And, if you purchase the proper combination of parts, they last a loooong time, and have no issues working together.

OTOH, Macs are built similarly, with matched components. But you pay a premium for that, and for OS X.

To each his own, but for me, that premium just isn't worth it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: surprise: opinions differ
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE: surprise: opinions differ"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Keep in mind too that a lot of what you would pay for a Mac goes towards their excellent support system. They control the hardware and software so they can offer a level of support that no other company can match. It's not unheard of for someone to cart an old G4 or G5 Mac to the local Apple store and the Genius behind the counter will look at it and offer advice for free, despite it being over five years out of warranty. To be sure, they won't miss the opportunity to try to upsell you to a new model, but they will be equally happy to help you get your old beast working right again.

Brand loyalty means a hell of a lot to a company like Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: surprise: opinions differ
by JAlexoid on Sun 19th Sep 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: surprise: opinions differ"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

offer advice for free

OMG! An advice for free!?!?!? That's impossible! <sarcasm/>

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: surprise: opinions differ
by mrstep on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE: surprise: opinions differ"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

It's definitely cool when you install more RAM on your Mac Pro and you get a pop-up utility on your next boot suggesting you move the modules to a different configuration for maximum performance (with current and suggested module layout in the suggestion). Same with video cards. There's just a lot of nice extras in there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: surprise: opinions differ
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 17th Sep 2010 15:03 UTC in reply to "surprise: opinions differ"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It depends when you look. Historically, when a new refresh of macs takes place they are pretty close to comparable computers from other name brands. Then a month later, Apple's prices or specs haven't changed, but the competition has increase their specs and lowered their prices. If you blink, you'll miss it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: surprise: opinions differ
by marsofearth on Sun 19th Sep 2010 17:26 UTC in reply to "surprise: opinions differ"
marsofearth Member since:
2009-12-13

I need your email address, so you can build me one of these "beasts" at 50% off!

Reply Score: 1

Can't change your own battery? Ridiculous!
by bannor99 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:42 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

or perhaps Riddikulus! ( Can't wait for the next Harry Potter installment).
But seriously, all that hardcore super-slick, Steve-approved design and I can't change my own freakin' battery?
Fuggitaboudit.

Reply Score: 5

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That's one of the reasons I'm leery of buying a new MacBook. While you can replace an end-of-life battery yourself using the wonderful teardown guide at ifixit.com, it's not a substitute for the old fashioned external battery design still maintained by all other laptop makers.

Apple's answer, of course, is that with their 10-hour-plus battery life you won't need to swap, but these days you can get that with some of the better netbooks. Carry a spare battery and you get nearly 24 hours straight on the little buggers.

Reply Score: 3

redshift Member since:
2006-05-06

My workplace recently moved me to a maxed out 17" Macbook Pro from a Dell M6500. The Mac is hands down a better computer and is the nicest laptop I have ever used.

I am a little leery about the built in battery too. But I must say it is getting much better battery life than a similarly equipped dell that it is replacing and it weighs considerably less. The Dell was more of a outlet hopper whereas the Mac can run an afternoon on a charge.

By making the battery non user serviceable it will likely mean that more batteries are properly recycled. Which is a good thing since batteries have some nasty elements in them that can find their way in to water supplies when disposed of improperly.

Hopefully these batteries will live up to the claims of having long useable service lives.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by telns
by telns on Thu 16th Sep 2010 21:54 UTC
telns
Member since:
2009-06-18

Apple revolutionized networking?

I'm willing to be convinced, but I've never used any of the Air[fillinblank] products--or had trouble doing any of the things mentioned that they do with different products.

Could someone flesh it out a bit more? Hyperbolic praise of whichever Air[fillinblank] product while doing it is perfectly OK; I'm just looking for a summary version of why they are supposed to be so much better.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by telns
by Tony Swash on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by telns"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple revolutionized networking?

I'm willing to be convinced, but I've never used any of the Air[fillinblank] products--or had trouble doing any of the things mentioned that they do with different products.

Could someone flesh it out a bit more? Hyperbolic praise of whichever Air[fillinblank] product while doing it is perfectly OK; I'm just looking for a summary version of why they are supposed to be so much better.


Its worth noting that Apple has had a long term strategy of creating plug and play wireless (and wired) networking between devices. I think that Airplay and Airprint, the latest two Apple networking technologies which are just arriving, along with FaceTime, are part of a new wave that is about to break. I think we will see some big initiatives in this area in the next year or so. iPad V2 will be part of this as will be that gigantic data centre they are nearly finished building and I also expect a lot related new features in the next MacOS 10.7 release.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by telns
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by telns"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Apple revolutionized networking?

I'm willing to be convinced, but I've never used any of the Air[fillinblank] products--or had trouble doing any of the things mentioned that they do with different products.

Could someone flesh it out a bit more? Hyperbolic praise of whichever Air[fillinblank] product while doing it is perfectly OK; I'm just looking for a summary version of why they are supposed to be so much better.


They included Gigabit ethernet as standard on the Mac line, long before most PC's even offered it. My G4 Power Mac 450mhz had a gigabit port on it. They also offered wireless as standard long before most PC makers did the same.

And don't forget about Apple's role in USB adoption and Firewire. The Original iMac had USB ports only for Keyboard and mouse and peripherals which is credited as helping to popularize USB and make it more widespread. I can't believe all the PC's that still include PS/2 ports on their computers today considering that you can hardly buy PS/2 keyboard/mouse models these days. Well some include adapters, I suppose.

Firewire was developed by Apple before it was released to the IEEE standards body for all to use. In some ways it is still superior to USB but has been more specialized these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by telns
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by telns"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree completely on Apple bringing USB, gigabit ethernet and firewire into the mainstream.

As to PS/2 on modern systems, I believe it goes to legacy support. After all, that quad-core i7 you just bought technically is capable of running something as old as DOS, and USB HID support in DOS is fully dependent on the BIOS. It makes sense to have a tried-and-true HID interface just in case your antiquated software requires it.

That's one of the huge differences between the Mac and PC universes; Macs are all about modern technology (with the curious exception of Blu-Ray and eSATA) and PCs are forever locked into as much legacy support as possible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by telns
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by telns"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Yeah that is a good point. I guess sometimes we tend to forget about backwards compatibility. Of course they could always provide a USB solution with PS/2 ports on it. On my built PC's I still use the PS/2 Ports for keyboard and mouse just to free up the USB ports, even though my system has about 10 USB 2 ports. ;-) Of course I still use a MS keyboard pro from 10+ years ago! I can't help it I love it! But if that keyboard ever dies I guess it is back to USB.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by telns
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by telns"
mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

Bonjour (originally called Rendezvous) was released in 2002 as a zero-configuration network protocol designed to seek out hardware across the network and make those resources available to other computers. The first application was mostly for file and printer sharing, but its use has expanded over the years to include the sharing of other resources including iTunes music libraries, iPhoto libraries, scanner sharing (particularly useful if there's an all-in-one printer/scanner on your network), not to mention more esoteric uses, for example to broadcast telephony resources available (using the open source Asterisk software). Bonjour is also used as a protocol with the iPhone and iTouch to allow you to control your Apple TV using your iPhone.

The next major advance from Apple recently announced is remote printing from an iPad, iPhone or iTouch, and wireless video streaming between iPads, iPhones, iTouches and desktop computers to the new Apple TV.

Here's are a few Wikipedia links that do a pretty good job of going into more detail about these technologies and a good overview from Apple regarding the benefits of their wireless technology streaming to the Apple TV...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software)
http://www.apple.com/appletv/#whatis

Reply Score: 3

I'm A Little Surprised...
by mjhi11 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:09 UTC
mjhi11
Member since:
2009-08-15

I'm sincerely surprised that the majority of commentary here has focused on hardware pricing. I guess this is because I've failed the first rule of journalism...know your audience!

Of course many of the individuals who follow OSNews.com may very well be able to build a comparably spec'd machine by hand for less. My point was, compared to name brand, industry leaders (such as Dell for example), Apple is in fact competitive. If you don't believe so, give Dell's online configuration tool a spin. You may be surprised.

But let's be fair. The appearance, the materials and quality is worth something too and this is an area where few home-built systems can match Apple.

Take the Mac Mini for example. Small, efficient, elegant. To hand-build something at the same level of quality would be quite a task, not impossible, but quite a task and that's not even considering whether it can be built at a significant discount.

The same thing with the 13" Aluminum MacBook Pro. I purchased it for $1100 and it's been the absolute best laptop I've ever owned. Light, reliable, dependable, built like a tank, fast and in typical Apple fashion "it just works". Yes there are bare-bones laptop kits as well, but I've yet to see a hand built laptop that is as well-engineered as my MacBook Pro.

Of course someone can always built a cheaper mouse trap, but does it work as well as the competition, is as durable and retains its value over the long term?

Every Mac I've bought in the at least the last 5 years is still in use, operational and productive, looks as good as new and none have needed a single repair. I can't say that about the 2 PC based laptops that I've used during the same period (keyboard replaced on one, wireless card replaced on the other, cracks in the plastic casing, loose screen hinges, broken latches) not to mention weighing almost twice as much as my MacBook Pro and with power supplies that are almost as big as my laptop and weigh almost as much as the laptop as well.

So let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples (no pun intended, I only wish to be that clever). Yes I'm sure the smart readers of OSNews.com can probably build a system less expensive, but I contend that building one as well designed, reliable, dependable, elegant and in similar form factors has been difficult for Apple's many competitors to date, and poses some challenges to the home builder as well.

How abou the other points made in the article? I enjoy the feedback!

Reply Score: 4

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by No it isnt on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:35 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Instead of looking at an Apple and then trying to get a different brand with equal features, do it the other way around. Put together a nice Dell that does what you need it to do, and then see what you have to pay for a Mac of similar performance. Voila: now the Mac is ridiculously expensive.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That's because Apple bends you over the fence with their upgrade and CTO pricing. It's common knowledge among Mac heads that you should buy the Mac stock and get your upgrade components third party.

I remember way back in '05 when I bought a G4 mini, I had configured it up with the specs I wanted and it was close to $1000 for a machine that started out at $499. I backed up and just bought it stock plus WiFi/Bluetooth (those were optional on the first G4s), and maxed out the memory and hard drive aftermarket. After throwing in the cost of the two putty knives, I came to a grand total of about $700. That was a savings of nearly $300!

In short, NEVER configure-to-order a Mac. Buy it stock and upgrade it yourself, and you'll stay within the realm of comparable Windows PC prices.

Reply Score: 3

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Wrong. I can get a fine Dell (monitor and all) for less than the cheapest iMac, and only the most expensive iMac supports a half-decent GPU. Apple just isn't competitive in the midrange desktop space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by Morgan on Sat 18th Sep 2010 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

What in the world does that have to do with Apple overcharging for upgrades? I was speaking of the mini, not the iMac, which is an all-in-one and should be compared to similar computers like the HP TouchSmart.

Edited 2010-09-18 00:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by theTSF on Sat 18th Sep 2010 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

The issue isn't that Macs are more expensive then PC's it is that there are not many models of macs to choose from. You are correct if you build a PC to fit what you need it do it will be cheaper then a Mac.

However the thing complaint is Apple is marking their hardware up just because it is a Mac. And that is untrue. because as the studies go if you try to match all the specs of a Mac into a PC you get about the same price. So when you are buying say $500 more for a Mac it is because you are get $500 more technology (wether it being smaller or faster)

Apples issue has been the limited models available. Or the lack of truly custom built systems. That isn't the MacPro.

So to get the best bang for your buck and you know what to get Getting a PC now adays with Windows 7 or Linux if you want to go that route, and your time to try to figure out what will truly fit your needs chances are you will get a good deal on a PC. However if you get a Mac you will get more then what you need. And sometimes that is a good thing as you may find that the new feature you though was a joke is actually quite useful. Or (like my lighted keyboard) a feature you could do without.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by dukes on Sat 18th Sep 2010 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
dukes Member since:
2005-07-06

So I guess the rest of the points brought out in this article has merit since the "Apple Tax" has been beaten to death in the comments.

This all really just shows that people who want things to just work are willing to pay a little bit more for a good product. The most successful companies have figured this out, which is why they aren't as hurt as the rest(mainstream) when the economy gets bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by Finchwizard on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:42 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
Finchwizard Member since:
2006-02-01

It's impossible to show some people reason.

And I agree with you.

Apple seems expensive. Particularly if you're comparing PURELY hardware. Then again you're not just paying for hardware are you. You're paying for a very well designed product, the operating system that ties into it, and a machine that lasts easily 5 years.

You will have upgraded twice with a PC and probably past the cost of the initial Mac.

Not to mention their laptops. PC laptops around a School environment I work in, don't last long. They aren't made very well. But hey, at least they were cheap.
Meanwhile the Macs with the aluminum casing are being dropped and bumped into things and just keep working.

People never like to admit that there's more to prices than just the initial hardware purchase. Don't take into the consideration that certain tasks will take half the time. And my time is precious, and expensive ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by alcibiades on Fri 17th Sep 2010 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12


You will have upgraded twice with a PC and probably past the cost of the initial Mac.

Why would you? Of course you don't. And here is the proof, in corporate or academic environments where computers are not an individual purchase, the replacement life is the same. If you get a mac, you do not have to keep it five years, and if you buy a pc, which is anyway identical hardware wise, you do not get a new one every two. They are on the same depreciation schedule, because, if anything, non-Apple hardware works longer. Better components, mostly.

Wake up, Cupertino, stop blowing smoke!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by nt_jerkface on Fri 17th Sep 2010 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I spilled an entire 12oz latte on a Satellite and it kept on ticking.

Anecdotal evidence but this study didn't surprise me:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-a...

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by ciplogic on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:48 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

+1
I've bought a Mac Book for 1000 euros (in EU) and because the performance even it was somewhat enough, was not impressive, I've bought a Sony Vayo product (3 month difference, Sony bought later).
In short differences are like this:
Mac/PC:
CPU: Core 2 - 2.13 / Core i5 540M
RAM: 2 GB DDR2 / 4 GB DDR3
Graphics: NV 9400M/ NV 330M
Screen: 1280x800 / 1920x1080
Screen diagonal: 13 inch / 15.4 inch
Hard drive: 250GB / 500GB
To be fair the OS X may be cool and it has not installed Office 60 days evaluation version or other bloatware.
But as far as pricing goes, I really could not find a high res Mac laptop display on less than 2000 euros.
Another problem with Macs is that they don't offer low ends, like the healthy netbook market. Bobcat CPU from AMD shows this: we need laptops with good top to bottom hardware and working. We need innovation and not being someones cherry picking of our options.
The specs that are mostly missing in "PC"s are mostly the style that you pay that much, and some finesse things. In rest, I do agree that prices are fairly looking bad to Macs in general, but for users I think that OS X is priceless, enough to pay another laptop for it ;)

Edited 2010-09-16 22:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

As you said, you bought the Vaio after the Mac, and you didn't say exactly when the purchases were made, just that they were three months apart. I'm going to assume you bought them a little less than a year ago, as the MacBook you describe is a mid-2009 model.

So, a few points:

* You're not going to get a 1920x1080 screen at 13 inches, Mac or PC; you're comparing a 15" to a 13" and complaining about the difference in resolution?
* Apple has yet to put a Core-i series processor in the MacBook line; they reserve that for the MacBook Pro line, which does have a 15 inch model.
* The current MacBook has NV 320M graphics and DDR3 RAM; as I said I'm not sure when you purchased each machine but I felt it was worth mentioning.
* You never mention what you paid for the Vaio; the one my sister has is roughly comparable to the MacBook that was in production when she bought it and the Vaio was about $100 more expensive.

Another problem with Macs is that they don't offer low ends, like the healthy netbook market.


Well Apple has always said they wouldn't know how to make a sub-$500 laptop that wouldn't suck. My personal view is that the MacBook is their netbook: It's their lowest end model, it has excellent battery life, and considering that netbooks have steadily risen in both screen size and price -- they now average $600 when you look at all laptops marketed as "netbooks", including 12" and 13" models -- I'd say it falls neatly into the high end of the netbook market.

And you're right about something else too; for most Mac users, it's as much or more about the OS as the hardware. That's definitely the case for me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by pos3 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
pos3 Member since:
2010-06-25

Well Apple has always said they wouldn't know how to make a sub-$500 laptop that wouldn't suck.

Aren't the components manufactured in china? Hence cost of components should be similar to other dell/hp components. What we are paying extra would be brand and design.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're pretty much right. What I think they meant by that statement is, they can't keep to the same build quality and finish as the MacBook, in a 10-inch form factor, at $500 or lower and still make a profit.

Granted, that statement was made two years ago and since then netbooks have generally increased in quality while staying at or below that price point. I still maintain that the current MacBook is about as low as they're willing to go when it come to price vs performance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by dagw on Fri 17th Sep 2010 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

So sell it for more than $500. Lots of companies have high end 10-11" notebooks which cost over $500. So that is a bullshit excuse. If Apple ever released essentially a 10-11" macbook Air, I'd happily buy it even if it cost $1000. And you know that if Apple wanted to make a laptop that size they have the design skills to make it the best in market.

My take is that they knew the iPad was coming and they knew that a 10-11" laptop would compete directly with the iPad and thus wanted to stay out of that market. However they couldn't say anything about the iPad some they just made up some lame excuse that doesn't even make sense.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by reconciliation on Thu 16th Sep 2010 23:23 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
reconciliation Member since:
2009-07-02

"Of course many of the individuals who follow OSNews.com may very well be able to build a comparably spec'd machine by hand for less. My point was, compared to name brand, industry leaders (such as Dell for example), Apple is in fact competitive. If you don't believe so, give Dell's online configuration tool a spin. You may be surprised."
I don't care much for apple or dell, but I did do that.
I compared some iMac (3.2GHz i3, Radeon HD5670) to a machine by dell (3.06GHz i3, Radeon HD5450). Turns out the dell machine costs roughly €600 while the iMac costs roughly €1700.
Unless I'm missing an included 50" Plasma TV the iMac seems like a bad deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by NeoX on Thu 16th Sep 2010 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm A Little Surprised..."
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


I don't care much for apple or dell, but I did do that.
I compared some iMac (3.2GHz i3, Radeon HD5670) to a machine by dell (3.06GHz i3, Radeon HD5450). Turns out the dell machine costs roughly €600 while the iMac costs roughly €1700.
Unless I'm missing an included 50" Plasma TV the iMac seems like a bad deal.

Really? Do you have a link? I didn't think they made all-in-ones that were anywhere near as good as the iMac. Was the Dell a 27" HD display with all in one form factor?

Show the link so I can check it out...

EDIT: Oh wait Dell used to make the XPS One, which WAS a competitor to the iMac. I say WAS because they don't make it anymore. Oh and when they did sell it, less then 3 years ago, it was $300 MORE then the comparable iMac...

Edited 2010-09-16 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by aledujke on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
aledujke Member since:
2010-01-02

how about this then:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/laptop-studio-xps-16/pd.as...

compare a mac to this... 1200$ for an outstanding dell laptop.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC373LL/A?mco=MTc0Njg1ODE

Similar mac would be 2199$ +100$ for a higher resolution screen. The hard-drives are similar.. since the one in xps is rotating @7200 but is smaller than the one in macbook Pro ._. and the look of xps is great.. it even has leather ;)

besides why are we the ones who are supposed to show any links... the OP should have included the links to the mac/dell machines he claims are competitive to the dell machines.

Or anyone else who say mac is competitive to anything else price wise.

Also for custom built machines there is a website that seems to eb popular in US... but I'm from Eu so I'm not really sure about it.. I just played with their configurator...
it's cyberpowerpc or something like that.

edit:
here it is:
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Gamer_Xtreme_XI/

compare that to mac pro

Edited 2010-09-17 00:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

You are missing the point. First of all it is a Dell with a "classy" paint job. It still does not have:

+ The MacBook Pros Aluminum uni-body enclosure for durability and weight.
+ No Bluetooth Standard (It is listed as an option)
+ No Firewire 800
+ No Long-life extended battery
+ No Illuminated keyboard and ambient light sensor
What about Optical Digital Input and Outputs? How about a Multi-touch Trackpad?

Those are just a few of the Hardware differences. There are things that you get with the MacBook Pro that you do not get with the DELL and the other way round too. But in my eyes there is no comparison and while sure you can get a decent laptop for less then a MB Pro it will not be as good as one. You do get what you pay for here.

We haven't even touched on the software you get (and the crap ware you don't get).

As to the links I was referring to the iMac- Dell comparison listed above. The Pro line of Macs has always been a premium price. But there is a reason it is that way, nothing exists that is of the same quality and design. Shouldn't that cost a bit more? The consumer Macs are another story and are still very competitive. I am not going to provide links as a simple search will give plenty of examples both ways. I was referring to links to the specific post above.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by aledujke on Fri 17th Sep 2010 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
aledujke Member since:
2010-01-02

+ The MacBook Pros Aluminum uni-body enclosure for durability and weight.
uni-body? It feels solid as it is. No really. you make it sound like it's a ugly looking and poor quality which it is not. It is durable.

+ No Bluetooth Standard (It is listed as an option)
20$!!! for internal bt... okay so price is not 1200 it's 1220$

+ No Firewire 800
-Srsly? You buy mac for firewire? Why do you need it? I never saw a pc laptop with firewire... it's a mac thing. Only practical use for this would be for old camcorders and external harddrives - made by apple. The newer camcorders (for few years now) all have USB interface.

+ No Long-life extended battery.
-Battery is good what is not is power saving techniques. Like having switchable graphics. But having more than 3hrs of battery life is more than 90% ppl. would need.

+ No Illuminated keyboard and ambient light sensor.
-The keyboard is illuminated and I'm not sure about ambient light sensor.

---------------
There are things that you get with the MacBook Pro that you do not get with the DELL and the other way round too.
---------------
Yes that's true. But the price you pay for what you get with mac is too high. That's what we (pro pc guys) are saying. And since you clearly say otherwise I'm not sure we can continue this -_- It will become "It is!"/"It's not!" discussion >.>

My personal opinion here is: Mac is overpriced. And apple is the company that makes me want to destroy beautiful things ._. Yeah they revolutionized some things like OP said... but the article focused only on the good side of things. Like the app market. It's a neat concept. But I do not like the way apple has made it. They way they fuck things up for developers. Op said that developers get a neat percentage. But apple until recently did not allow ads inside of apps (unless you use their ads platform?). why not!? Because they are greedy. They fucked adobe over by not allowing 3rd party developers tools. Yeah I know since few days ago they do. But years have passed since the app store was started. They do not allow flash because they do not want to allow you to be able to play flash games from sites like kongregate and miniclip. They want you to buy them from their app store. And they make excuses like flash is not good for the battery... yeah right!

As for iTunes store...also a neat concept but since it's apple's child it comes with fairplay. And I do not like it because of that.

The reason why apple succeeds is because they are the best choice for folks who do not understand that "T3h Ultimate screen saver collection volume 135" downlaoded from thepiratebay is probably full of viruses. The ppl. who do not care that their music is drm protected. And the ppl. who have trouble with networking it seems. Not all of them are like this. Mac is a productive machine it's just very expensive compared to the machine that can offer same productivity but is a pc.

I use Linux as a web developer for my job because I'm most productive under it. I play games from windows 7 on my desktop computer and I surf the internet without fear for viruses because I avoid the shit when I see it. And guess what!? I do not need to reinstall anything every 6 months like most ppl. would do. And I upgrade my pc on some 2-3 years average. when I invest some ~600 euros into new parts.

Shit! I'm nerdraging now...

bah I do not want to be part of this discussion anymore... I feel like we are worlds apart here. Whatever good you see in apple (to me) is overclouded by bad things apple does.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Ok, well you have your opinion and I have mine too. But understand that I am not some Anti-Windows PC guy, couldn't be furthest from the truth as I have built countless windows pcs going back 15+ years. I know all about the weaknesses of both platforms. But also what comes with being a Mac user is the constant criticism that I am used to over just owning one. I have worked in IT and software development and IT sales for nearly 2 decades and I have heard it all. Well I can say my experiences with the Mac too and they are definitely not as bad as people want you to believe. Have you used a Mac extensively and with an Open Mind? If you haven't then don't spread the hearsay...

+ The MacBook Pros Aluminum uni-body enclosure for durability and weight.
uni-body? It feels solid as it is. No really. you make it sound like it's a ugly looking and poor quality which it is not. It is durable.


I have worked on several Studios and while for a Dell they are decent they do not, in my opinion, feel or look as elegant and sturdy as the MBP. Sorry just my opinion.


+ No Firewire 800
-Srsly? You buy mac for firewire? Why do you need it? I never saw a pc laptop with firewire... it's a mac thing. Only practical use for this would be for old camcorders and external harddrives - made by apple. The newer camcorders (for few years now) all have USB interface.


I have a lot of digital equipment and devices that rely on FireWire. Yes it is not as popular as it once was but maybe you should have a look at the music and audio production and video industry, it is still widely used. My camcorders still have FireWire.


My personal opinion here is: Mac is overpriced.


Of course that is your opinion. But people could say the same about
BMW and Mercedes. Perhaps a better term is high priced. But for some it is worth the bit of extra, but not everyone wants the premium stuff. I Do which is why I use Apple and build my own Windows boxes.


They way they fuck things up for developers. Op said that developers get a neat percentage. But apple until recently did not allow ads inside of apps (unless you use their ads platform?). why not!? Because they are greedy. They fucked adobe over by not allowing 3rd party developers tools. Yeah I know since few days ago they do. But years have passed since the app store was started. They do not allow flash because they do not want to allow you to be able to play flash games from sites like kongregate and miniclip. They want you to buy them from their app store. And they make excuses like flash is not good for the battery... yeah right!


As a developer that has made both Mac and Windows software and used many tools like XCode, REALStudio and Visual Studio I can say that the free tools that Apple supplies to developers are complete, no need for Pro or Express or Team Editions. They also supply some amazing frameworks to go with them. Personally I don't like the model that XCode uses and prefer the more traditional VS model but it works and its FREE. The App store of course has had its flaws but it has changed the way people make money with their indie apps. I have known several people that literally became millionaires for a few weeks of work. Tough to beat that.

As for screwing over Adobe because of Flash? No, Adobe is screwing over everyone WITH flash. It is a kludgy piece of code that has lost its way since it first started and needed very little cpu time. Now it barely runs on P4 class systems.

I also didn't now that Apple didn't allow flash so people wouldn't play flash games. That is news to me. You can hardly prove that.


As for iTunes store...also a neat concept but since it's apple's child it comes with fairplay. And I do not like it because of that.


In case you missed it Apple announced DRM free music last year.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06itunes.html


The reason why apple succeeds is because they are the best choice for folks who do not understand that "T3h Ultimate screen saver collection volume 135" downlaoded from thepiratebay is probably full of viruses. The ppl. who do not care that their music is drm protected. And the ppl. who have trouble with networking it seems. Not all of them are like this. Mac is a productive machine it's just very expensive compared to the machine that can offer same productivity but is a pc.


Wow, a lot of stereotypes and non-sense in that paragraph. I have no trouble with networking, nor do I have trouble with PCs and malware.


bah I do not want to be part of this discussion anymore... I feel like we are worlds apart here. Whatever good you see in apple (to me) is overclouded by bad things apple does.


Maybe we are but I try to look at things with an open mind. I like Apple products, I also like Microsoft products. I am a fan of Open Source software and the various Linux distros. But I am realistic and know that not every solution fits for every person. I am glad you like what you like and I am not going to slam you for it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by mrstep on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Nice - an extra lb of weight right out of the gate, half the battery life (if you get the 9 cell, which probable adds even more weight?), and the benefit of leather.

But seriously, you better factor in the weight/cost of dragging a second 9 cell battery, upgrade the one you're looking at with one as well, apparently add a bluetooth module (??? non-standard, according to the Dell 'customizer' walkthrough I just tried), get the higher-end screen, get a better version of Win7 since Apple doesn't have gimped versions of the OS for users, and... now the 'starting price' is already over $1700 for a heavier machine with worse battery life, though it has some opaque 'total savings' that bring it to $1500 (and still doesn't include that extra battery), which while better than $1700+ is still not going to get you the same lighter, longer-lived, and Windows Free experience. Unless you're that into virus scans on top of it. But I'll concede, the Mac is still more expensive. And I didn't see a better trackpad option either. :/

On the Mac Pro comparison, are you really comparing a single-CPU setup to the dual Xeon 12-core Pro? What's the price comparison you want? Would you like to compare render times? Not to mention whatever that hideous lit case thing is... ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by aledujke on Fri 17th Sep 2010 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
aledujke Member since:
2010-01-02

I feel like I'm being trolled here.

are these the mac book pro laptops?:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro

Find the similarly specd' mac book there and compare it to the xps with internal blue tooth module 1220$ total. To me that looks like a 2200$ mac book pro that has 4Gb ram and core i7 cpu. 980$ difference.

xps has better screen than mac book pro. Why would you want to upgrade it? So that it's even better? And why a better version of win7?

Also the battery is already 9 cell one.

But yeah mac has uni body... for which I do not give a damn... why would I need it? So that it feels more solid!? Xps feels very solid as it is.

Only thing I really like about macbooks is their outstanding touchpad. The only thing! I do not need to +3h autonomy. I do not need the uni body. Most of us do not. And I will not pay 1k more for that. To those who do need it, take a look at timelinex series from acer. And I think both HP and Toshiba have series with dual graphics solutions that have very good autonomy and cpu power.

For mac pro... I compared the 2500$ PC to the 2500$ mac pro (it has no 12 cores the one that does is 5k$). The pc is far better but yeah... like I said I doubt you even looked. And hence the feeling of being trolled. It has neon lights and see trough side panel gamer type case. The thing is you can customize it whatever you like. You can remove the lights the crossfire graphics and change the case, since you are removing one of the VGA adapters you can change the PSU you do not need to 800watt one. The price will fall down a lot. Also you do not need the water cooling and touchscreen front panel for fan control ._. heck I just saw it also has a 128GB SDD.. you can easily get below the 2000$ mark and end up with far better solution than 2500$ mac. If you need two CPUs solution I doubt the site I posted sells those. But that does not mean you can not find them somewhere... and trust me they cost far less then mac pro.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I'm A Little Surprised...
by mrstep on Fri 17th Sep 2010 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I'm A Little Surprised..."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

I ran through the stupid Dell config tool to try to come up with something equivalent. The Dell screen didn't appear to be as nice, but sure, stick with their base one if you want - I had to choose the 9 cell which added $, apparently if I want to be able to use my bluetooth mouse I need to add something, if you want more hours on the road you'd need a second battery, it's heavier... the fact that YOU don't care about any of that doesn't mean others don't, so your comparison is just pointless. It's like if I spec'ed out what machine my parents would need and then complained that you're spending so much on that Dell laptop - WTF?

On the Mac Pro side, my point is that you're going to the _Pro_ lineup and looking for a gaming machine. Guess what? That's not what is being sold - last time I looked, OS X isn't really the ultimate gamers paradise to begin with, and if you really want to run games on a PC, get a PC. (I have a 360 since I'd rather play in the living room on a larger screen...) If you want an non-Xeon CPU, don't get the Mac, OK? If you want a machine for doing CPU intensive work that takes advantage of it, then I'd suggest getting more than 4 or 6 cores - which is going to put you into the $5K price range whether you want a Dell or Mac.

So no, it's not a troll comment, you're just comparing machines with different capabilities and purposes, ignoring features you decide you don't personally care about, and then complaining if there's a price difference. Please show me how the 12-core Xeon based machine from this manufacturer compares in price, OK, because that's what I'm using for 3D production work. I don't want or need a low-end game system myself - and I wouldn't suggest getting the Mac Pro if you don't need the high end. The Mac is a damned well built and integrated machine, but nobody is going to make you buy it - hell, it's not like it even comes with a leather option. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by DrRippStudwell on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:07 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
DrRippStudwell Member since:
2007-05-08

I can and have built my own computers and installed various Linux distros on them. It's fun to tinker around - if you have the time - but I don't have as much time for that now and prefer to buy Macs because of the quality of their products.

As for the price, well, I live in the U.S. so the price is not as high as it is for my friends who live in Europe. For you guys in Europe, I think it stinks that you are being charged more for the same thing... but I still like my Mac better than the PCs I have bought and built over the years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by mrstep on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:22 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

It's like woodworking - sure, I get that you can buy really nice lumber and build a cabinet that's made well and not pay a 'furniture tax' to get it all done for you, but there are actually people who just want a nice cabinet delivered. If you don't take that time for shopping around / assembling / troubleshooting into account, then what you're describing is a hobby, which is absolutely fine, but not a really valid comparison.

If you do just want to buy a pre-build machine, then I have to say most PCs are just not as nicely finished, you're choosing battery-life and size tradeoffs, noise, crappy trackpads, etc., and they take more work to keep them going too. And yes, I've built enough machines myself in the past, have done more development on them all than - I'm guessing - the vast majority of people claiming that Apple customers are all non-technical, and just think this 'tax' proposition is totally ridiculous.

6 years without having to do a reinstall / re-image / fight drivers / etc. is actually worth something, you know? Or not - if it's your hobby to fix PC problems. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by orfanum on Fri 17th Sep 2010 11:22 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I second that about the MacBook Pro. I know I have said it elsewhere but comparing Sony laptops to Apple's, there's no competition when you take everything into consideration. In 2005 a new, *education*-priced Sony Vaio cost the best part of £1200 (http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Sony_Vaio_S5XP-B_VGN-S5XP-B/version....). A year ago, an MBP 5,1 cost less than a grand under its education pricing scheme.

The Sony gave me heaps of problems

The MBP none.

With the Sony I was calling the IT helpdesk about once a fortnight with some software or hardware problem

With the MBP, just had to get the network connection arranged and off we went.

I have said before also, I may well install Linux Mint on this MBP but in terms of being a very durable and entirely serviceable, robust piece of kit, I would take this over a 'PC" laptop that might 'cost' me in £££'s half the price. Cost is not about what you shell out on purchase. It's the entire lifecycle maintenance investment you have to make while you own and use the equipment, as well as the opportunity cost/benefit of being unproductive/productive as the direct result of owning and employing a certain machine.

I am no fanboy, I am no hater. I am just pragmatic.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm A Little Surprised...
by r_a_trip on Fri 17th Sep 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "I'm A Little Surprised..."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

But let's be fair. The appearance, the materials and quality is worth something too and this is an area where few home-built systems can match Apple.

To which, as a techie, I say: Do you want to do computing or look at a pretty picture?

The design is nice, but doesn't enhance the running of the software one iota.

Milled aluminum chasis? Nice, but since playing football with a machine is not required, sturdy, "fugly" plastic is a preferable cheaper option. Never had any mishaps with it. Then again, my mother taught me to treat equipment of any kind well.

It's nice to see what Apple puts out there, but since my ideas of what constitutes a worthwile machine differ day and night from what Apple thinks that should be, they will forever be selling stuff that doesn't answer my needs and therefore they are not a competitive option.

Plus, the "It just Works" department is my department. I make it work, so I don't need Apple (with the associated costs) to do that for me. My free time is cheaper than the hourly wage of tech support. 2 Hours of my free time costs me EUR 0.00. 2 hours of tech support costs me EUR 120.00.

As for retaining value. For me Apple kit doesn't have the value others perceive in it in the first place. For me a valuable machine is one that does its work for as long as it can (which is looong for most stuff I assembled). I don't need high resale value for my old machine just to be able to buy the next slightly improved itteration of it. My machines grow "organically" into what I need them to be.

Reply Score: 5

Technically speaking
by ebasconp on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:19 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I like a lot all Apple products, hardware and software, technically speaking.

The thing starts to smell to onions when licensing and policies put their noses there (dunno how can I say this in English but I think you get the idea ;) ).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Technically speaking
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:58 UTC in reply to "Technically speaking"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You said it very well. I've never been a fan of Apple's treatment of the press (especially of publications that support the company) and of their users who wish to get "under the hood" of their mobile OS.

Reply Score: 2

Apple is premium and hence expensive PERIOD
by kragil on Thu 16th Sep 2010 23:09 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

There are no cheap i5 laptops from apple. If you just want to surf the web on a 15 inch laptop you have to buy a MacBook Pro. Dell will give you a fairly nice and cheap Studio.
If just need a phone that does phone calls, text and the web then you can buy a Android handset for two or three hundred bucks without a contract.
If you just want to listen to your MP3s while jogging every cheap MP3 player for 20 bucks will do.

Apple will always give you the bare minimum. How long had Macbooks CD burners instead of DVD burners? How long did they have only 1 GB Ram when all Vista Machines had (needed) 2 or 4.
Apple products will never have free cases, bumpers, adapters etc (For example my 240 Euro EeePC had a very nice bag included)

And btw not all songs on Itunes are 99 cents anymore.

Edith says: And all extras in the Apple store are way way more expensive then in Dells or HPs store. (Extra RAM, harddrive, SSD, etc)

Edited 2010-09-16 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

"Edith says: And all extras in the Apple store are way way more expensive then in Dells or HPs store. (Extra RAM, harddrive, SSD, etc) "

Indeed, I found the same make, model and revision sodimms in the apple store at an extra 200 euros than buying directly from the manufacturer.

Please don't tell me that I'm paying for apple quality, because I'm clearly not..

Reply Score: 4

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

There are no cheap i5 laptops from apple. If you just want to surf the web on a 15 inch laptop you have to buy a MacBook Pro. Dell will give you a fairly nice and cheap Studio.


Cheap being the right word.


Apple will always give you the bare minimum. How long had Macbooks CD burners instead of DVD burners? How long did they have only 1 GB Ram when all Vista Machines had (needed) 2 or 4.


Not to be picky, but I have a First Generation MacBook, which was the first MacBook intel model. It came with a "SuperDrive" to burn CDs and DVDs. My previous model PowerBook from 3 years earlier (2003) also came with a DVD burner standard.

As to RAM I would never want to run Vista with 1GB RAM, it is a disaster. But the fact that MacBooks were sold with 1GB RAM when 10.4 and 10.5 were out is a testament to the OS. You could get along with 1GB RAM just fine for many tasks. My MacBook is maxed at 2GB, it is a Core Duo and I am running the latest 10.6 snow leopard without a glitch. It is plenty fast for most things, except games, and I use it daily to help me remove malware from my Client's Windows PC's.
[/q]

Reply Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Only the more expensive model came with a super drive.

The base model had only CD recording until frickin' late 2008!!!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook )
PC laptops in that price range had DVD burning only since 2004.

And 10.5 loves RAM nearly as much as Vista. My friend had a 2008 model with just 1 GB and browsing with Firefox was unbearable. He immediately upgraded to 4 GB (which in Apples store would have been a few hundred euros at the time. He bought bulk and paid only 100)

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

The base model had only CD recording until frickin' late 2008!!!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook )
PC laptops in that price range had DVD burning only since 2004.

Even sooner than that: I have an Acer Aspire 1350 that I'm still using today. Bought because I was starting my phd studies, in August 2003. It has a TOshiba 2x DVD/RW drive, which has been failing for years now, from failing to burn DVDs, to failing to read them, to the point where now it can't even boot from CDs anymore. Probably a lens problem. Anyway, Windows XP, 512MB, Athlon XP-M (an incredible CPU which is just half as fast as my other Core2 Duo 2Ghz CPU when encoding x264 videos using StaxRip; it evens beats the Core2 at the BOINC benchmarks, but we know how reliable benchmarks are, don't we?). Anyway, my point is: that Acer laptop cost me 1499 EUR back then, which was quite a dent in my skinny student savings but it still works today after a two year hiatus. So it's also durable. Eclipse C++ ran fine on it in last June with no sense of lags or slowness to it, along with BOINC, tor, various utilities, and the memory happy consumer that Opera is.

Reply Score: 1

Nice Article
by NeoX on Thu 16th Sep 2010 23:43 UTC
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

I really liked your article, it was a good read. I agree that there are a lot of overly critical people here and on other such tech sites.

The "Apple Tax" will always be a fallacy that people cling too and it is simply ridicules to this day. My first Power Mac was 15 years ago and it was a Power Mac 7200/75 that I picked up for $500 brand new on a clearance sale to make room for the newer models. It was a great Mac that lasted several years until I finally sold it, long after the G3 and G4 came out. For classic applications it ran awesome. I could not by a similar PC for that money in 1996.

I have helped literally 100's of people buy computers of all types. Anytime a Mac was in the equation it was usually chosen, especially PowerBooks, iMacs, MacBooks, Performas, you name it. And prices were always competitive in the class of computer that they wanted to purchase.

Sure you can build a high-performance PC for cheaper then a Mac, but not by much when you factor everything in.

The $1500 Mac Pro Clone mentioned above, did it really have all the specs of the Mac Pro? Did it have the workstation class CPU, the server like drive bays, the heavy aluminum expandable case and high-end power supply? Did it have the same quality error correcting server class RAM and expandability? I seriously doubt it and if you added all those things that $1500 would go far closer to the cost of a Mac Pro.

Has no one heard the expression you get what you pay for? Sure I can buy a Hyundai Sonata, but it cannot compare to a similar model Lexus. I can by a Mitsubishi Eclipse but it cannot compare to a BMW Z3 or Mercedes SLK, from a quality and performance standpoint. Apple computers have a degree of Fit and Finish that you just cannot get with any other computer maker. It is evident from the time you open up your Mac package.

Also the software Apple creates is on a level of its own. People sometimes take for granted just how good the iLife suite is, not to mention OS X itself, until they have tried to find alternatives like it on Windows. Save your search there is nothing quite as elegant as these tools.

I am a die hard Computer user, going back to the days of Commodore Vic-20. I have seen, used, built and owned just about every computer you can have. I was an Amiga user in the early Mac days but the last 10 years have shown me that there is nothing quite like an Apple computer. Don't get me wrong, I have often sold people on a good Windows system too, depending on their needs. But give an Apple Mac a try and I don't think you will be disappointed. Well unless you are a hardcore gamer! ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice Article
by WorknMan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:02 UTC in reply to "Nice Article"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Also the software Apple creates is on a level of its own. People sometimes take for granted just how good the iLife suite is, not to mention OS X itself, until they have tried to find alternatives like it on Windows. Save your search there is nothing quite as elegant as these tools.


Surely, you're joking, right? I've never played with iTunes much on OSX, but it must be something REALLY special, because the Windows version is the biggest piece of shit known to man. (Well, maybe not quite as bad as the Zune software, but pretty close.) I had to set up iTunes on my parents' computer to manually sync an iPod/iPad, because they didn't want the same content going to both devices. And well... let's just say I would rather tongue the sweaty asshole of a Kenyan marathon runner than to do that again. The first thing I had to do was to convince iTunes to NOT delete everything on the iPad, which it wanted to do simply because I had made the mistake of syncing it on my computer before I did it on theirs. Actually, I pretty much had to because I set the iPad up at my house, and it wouldn't f**king operate out of the box until it talked to iTunes first. To me, iTunes is like an airplane. It does fine if you let it do its thing, but the minute you need to take it off 'auto pilot' and assume control, it crashes and burns.

That's what I love about my Droid Incredible - I plug it in to my PC, and it's a drive letter. No Apple bloatware is required. Why the concept of mass storage is so goddamn complicated to so many people is beyond me.

BTW: Bought a Dell in Feb of 2002, and it's still running 8 and a half years later, with the same mobo, hard drive, CPU, and PSU.

Edited 2010-09-17 00:08 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Nice Article
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice Article"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


Surely, you're joking, right? I've never played with iTunes much on OSX, but it must be something REALLY special, because the Windows version is the biggest piece of shit known to man. (Well, maybe not quite as bad as the Zune software, but pretty close.) I had to set up iTunes on my parents' computer to manually sync an iPod/iPad, because they didn't want the same content going to both devices. And well... let's just say I would rather tongue the sweaty asshole of a Kenyan marathon runner than to do that again. The first thing I had to do was to convince iTunes to NOT delete everything on the iPad, which it wanted to do simply because I had made the mistake of syncing it on my computer before I did it on theirs. Actually, I pretty much had to because I set the iPad up at my house, and it wouldn't f**king operate out of the box until it talked to iTunes first. To me, iTunes is like an airplane. It does fine if you let it do its thing, but the minute you need to take it off 'auto pilot' and assume control, it crashes and burns.

That's what I love about my Droid Incredible - I plug it in to my PC, and it's a drive letter. No Apple bloatware is required. Why the concept of mass storage is so goddamn complicated to so many people is beyond me.


iTunes is not really part of iLife any longer. It is standalone and on Windows it definitely is a dog. But on Mac it is decent.

No I am referring to the iLife suite with iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb and Garageband. If you have used these at all you would know that there is not much to compare it to in the Windows world. There are a few imitators but no duplicators... Windows Photo manager that came with Vista was a step in the right direction, but even the Live version that you get with Windows 7 or Windows Live cannot compete with iPhoto. Just try the face detection in the Windows Live version and then try the Face detection in iPhoto to see what i mean. The MS version is very inaccurate and no where near as intuitive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nice Article
by _txf_ on Fri 17th Sep 2010 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice Article"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

iTunes is not really part of iLife any longer. It is standalone and on Windows it definitely is a dog. But on Mac it is decent.


I call BS. It isn't as bad on osx as it is on windows but it still is pretty bad, barely better than on windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Nice Article
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice Article"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


I call BS. It isn't as bad on osx as it is on windows but it still is pretty bad, barely better than on windows.


How can you call BS on an opinion? It runs much better on a Mac then it does on a Windows PC, that is a fact not an opinion. I have it on my Built PC with 2.66 Core 2 Duo and 4GB RAM and decent nVidia PCIe card and it still does not run as well as my older MacBook with POS GMA950 integrated graphics. It is obviously programmed better on the Mac side or the frameworks are better that they are using for cross platform development. But at any rate iTunes runs decent on any intel Mac, with the exception of perhaps the first Core solo MacMini and perhaps with 1GB RAM. If it doesn't run well on yours, then you should either look at your system hardware or your OS X installation as I have it running on many, many macs and have heard of no complaints about performance...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nice Article
by _txf_ on Fri 17th Sep 2010 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice Article"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Ever since version 4 Itunes has been dog slow, a resource hog and ugly. The latest version remedied the slowness somewhat but generally it is pretty crappy. The only thing going for it is the online store, I would gladly use a different program if I could. Seeing as most things run pretty well on my mac I can only blame itunes.

I dare say that the common consensus would agree with me... Feel free to flame if I'm wrong

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Nice Article
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Nice Article"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Ever since version 4 Itunes has been dog slow, a resource hog and ugly. The latest version remedied the slowness somewhat but generally it is pretty crappy. The only thing going for it is the online store, I would gladly use a different program if I could. Seeing as most things run pretty well on my mac I can only blame itunes.

I dare say that the common consensus would agree with me... Feel free to flame if I'm wrong


No I actually agree with you that it does not run as well as it used to in the older versions. But it isn't completely unusable as all the complainers claim. Actually it has suffered from bloat from all the device support and other features that make it run slow on older hardware. That is the key, if you have a PowerPC anything it is going to run slow. I am using intel and it is acceptable.

The quibbles beside, it is still a decent application and I use it regularly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice Article
by henrikmk on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice Article"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

iTunes isn't part of iLife, but I agree that the iTunes strategy of piping everything through iTunes must be a business decision, because it doesn't make technical sense.

iLife is a different story however. These apps are really well made and are a big showcase of the technologies that OSX use, such as CoreVideo, CoreAudio and CoreAnimation.
This is where Apple shines for the personal user. You can't use them all that well for professional use, but watch a casual user with these apps.

This isn't crapware, but well-engineered software that is built not to be thrown aside after giving up on how to use them and the target audience is quite specific.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice Article
by sithlord2 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice Article"
sithlord2 Member since:
2009-04-02

"Also the software Apple creates is on a level of its own. People sometimes take for granted just how good the iLife suite is, not to mention OS X itself, until they have tried to find alternatives like it on Windows. Save your search there is nothing quite as elegant as these tools.


Surely, you're joking, right? I've never played with iTunes much on OSX, but it must be something REALLY special, because the Windows version is the biggest piece of shit known to man. (Well, maybe not quite as bad as the Zune software, but pretty close.) I had to set up iTunes on my parents' computer to manually sync an iPod/iPad, because they didn't want the same content going to both devices. And well... let's just say I would rather tongue the sweaty asshole of a Kenyan marathon runner than to do that again. The first thing I had to do was to convince iTunes to NOT delete everything on the iPad, which it wanted to do simply because I had made the mistake of syncing it on my computer before I did it on theirs. Actually, I pretty much had to because I set the iPad up at my house, and it wouldn't f**king operate out of the box until it talked to iTunes first. To me, iTunes is like an airplane. It does fine if you let it do its thing, but the minute you need to take it off 'auto pilot' and assume control, it crashes and burns.
"

Uhum... He is not talking about iTunes, he is talking about iLife Suite. iLife suite contains a complete audio-recording solution (GarageBand), a html-editor (iWeb), a DVD authoring package (iDVD), and a good movie-editor (iMovie).

Next time you go into a rant, make sure you talk about about the same thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice Article
by apoclypse on Fri 17th Sep 2010 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice Article"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

He said iLiife not iTunes. iTune sis not part of iLife.

iLife includes Garageband, iMovie, iWeb (I think), iPhoto, and some other stuff. For the price nothing comes close to it. Though I think MS is trying their own take on the bundle. Garageband by itself is worth is the price of iLife. Its a full fledged DAW, that is simple and easy to use, but is based off of a pro-grade audio engine (Logic). It allows for full access to you plugins unlike other much more expensive artists versions of similar software, and Apple usually tests newer plugins, and concepts there before they make it to the big bro.

iTunes is shit, wherever you install it. its not as bad on OSX as it is on Windows in certain instances, but its still slow, clunky and downright awfully designed due to its patchwork nature. My biggest gripe with it is that the iTunes store takes longer to load on the stupid thing than my Library, which is over 400GBs (I buy a lot of shows).

Reply Score: 2

App store pricing
by woegjiub on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:36 UTC
woegjiub
Member since:
2008-11-25

I do not know about you, but I have never paid a cent for desktop apps.

OPEN SOURCE, people.

The applications are generally superior (web browsers, transcoders, media players, operating systems), and cost nothing at all, legally.


iTunes was *not* the first online music store, just the first *major* one.
iTunes also brought with it huge amounts of DRM, which is disgusting.
I am hanging out for Google's music store, but alternatives like buying from smaller labels which allow downloads is great for now.
Plus, all the big-name acts produce horrible music; the top40 is saturated with cheap, mass-market shite.
Stores like 7digital work for now, anyway.

If you want to use multiple copies of the one OS, you are forced to buy multiple macs.
Apple do not even allow you to install software *you own* on any hardware you like.
Again, open source is the superior choice, here.

Apple's computers really are disgustingly overpriced.
They charge a few hundred bucks for hard drives, and when customising, everything is 2-5x its retail value.
Their laptops are actually also hideously overpriced, as I can grab a *similarly* specced HP or dell for half the price, typically.
I can then ask for the OS refund, too; even cheaper, and I then get to install Ubuntu on it ;)

Networking is not all that hard, and their names are stupid as anything.
"airport", really?
Give me a solid cheap netgear router, any day of the week.


Everything Apple sell is overpriced, underpowered and overhyped.
They make cheap garbage with a hideous operating system, and market it to idiots who will pay their premium.

Suffice to say, I vehemently loathe Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE: App store pricing
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 15:29 UTC in reply to "App store pricing"
mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

Fact is, while there are many decent open source applications...I use several myself, commercial software is quite often superior in many product categories. That's just a fact.

2D and 3D CAD - There really isn't a reliable, dependable open source CAD system that can compete with AutoCAD, SolidWorks, Pro/E, etc. right now.

CRM & PIM - Customer relationship management and personal information management is another area where open source lags significantly capabilities and features available in such applications as GoldMine, Outlook, SalesLogix, ACT!, Chaos Intellect Salesforce.com, NetSuite.com and others. Granted, Thunderbird gets better every day but each of these applications (in my opinion of course) are superior (maybe excluding Outlook...ugh) but it's focus is very narrow, no forecasting, no reports, limited mail merge, etc.

WYSIWG Web Editing - As much as I hate to admit it (as it's my primary example of spending hundreds of dollars on a commercial application and being disappointed with it) there isn't a superior WYSIWG web design solution to DreamWeaver (but my go-to tool for quick and dirty...and I do mean dirty is FrontPage which ironically started out on the Mac before Microsoft acquired it). Nvu and KompoZer are all but abandoned, Amaya is a mess, Bluefish isn't much better.

As I mention in my article, my goal is to use the best, or more often, the most efficient tool to get the job done.

It's not always about "cost". What I find interesting is in debates like this the cost of TIME always seems to be ignored.

For example, my billable rate for services is $200 per hour. If we assume just half of that for internal projects, it doesn't take too many hours to close any gap between free and paid applications.

If I can complete a project in half the time with a paid application versus struggling with a less feature rich open source application for example, then doesn't it make sense to use the commercial application.

Same with building a computer versus purchasing a pre-built system from Apple, Dell, HP or others. Once you figure in the cost of time and productivity, recognizing that it may take a few weeks to build your own system versus opening the box, plugging the system in and installing a few applications getting productive immediately, there's value in an off-the-shelf system for many who don't want to become "geeks" like us.

Truth is price is relative, particularly when you figure in the cost of time, labor and productivity.

Of course I'm technical enough to build my own computer (in fact I'm currently repurposing a couple of old desktops, using FreeNAS and other open source tools to serve as proxy servers, file servers, for our company even as we speak), but clearly many in business and home users as well see significant value in purchasing a system off-the-shelf, plugging it in, installing and few applications and getting on with their business as they've made the decision that its a better use of their time to be computer users, instead of computer builders.

That's what's awesome about computing today...regardless of your experience, your goals and objectives, etc. there's a system out there, there's an operating system out there, there's an application out there for you. It's an exciting time for everyone including Apple customers.

Reply Score: 1

totally agree on the iphone app front
by google_ninja on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:57 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I probably spend a good 200$/year on iphone apps. The combination of how solid the platform is, with how easy it is to buy and install them, and how cheap they are, means I buy iphone for reasons I never would on other platforms. I mean, at 2$, if it entertains you for an hour or so, it was totally worth it.

Reply Score: 3

The Apple railroad is the problem
by bundybear on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:13 UTC
bundybear
Member since:
2010-09-17

Until Apple changes its philsophy to the owner of the piece of equipment they have purchased, they will stay below 20% marketshare. The Apple way or the highway is major stumbling block for the vast majority of computer and phone users who want to be able to use their equipment the way they want to. While Apple has maintained a "fad wave" with their products, they are yet to truly dominate any market.

There is simply too much business model in their product line up. Too many restrictions in usability rules, too many value-chains (for them) built into the processes surrounding iTunes or the AppStore, too much "do as we say" mentality. Ironically, the Superbowl commercial introducing the Macintosh way back in the 1980's showed a Big Brother and eluded to IBM being that big brother (a play on big blue), but, as with most cult-like behaviours, Apple puts that sort of imagery right in your face, say they aren't like that, then turn around and railroad you into their world, and then say its your fault for not liking their way.

No Apple products for me, thank you.

Reply Score: 2

On the contrary
by ferrels on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:00 UTC
ferrels
Member since:
2006-08-15

I've found OSNews to be quite the Apple fanboys....

Reply Score: 3

RE: On the contrary
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:39 UTC in reply to "On the contrary"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

I've found OSNews to be quite the Apple fanboys....


Really? I have seen just the opposite here. More like a lot of Anti-Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE: On the contrary
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:10 UTC in reply to "On the contrary"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Depends on how you look t it. If you look at our Apple product reviews - we're always quite positive. If you look at or articles about Apple as a company, we're less positive.

It's not rocket science.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: On the contrary
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE: On the contrary"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Depends on how you look t it. If you look at our Apple product reviews - we're always quite positive. If you look at or articles about Apple as a company, we're less positive.

It's not rocket science.


It's not rocket science? Do people really still use such an old outdated grossly over used statement to imply that you don't have to be smart to figure it out? ;-)

Can you list some of these Positive Apple Product reviews? I can't seem to get anything to come up via the search...

Reply Score: 1

Phone apps
by coreyography on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:39 UTC
coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

I guess I do owe Apple some gratitude for changing smartphone app pricing. On WinMo apps seemed to be either free, or $10 and up. I remember when one of my friends got an iPhone and loaded it up with apps. I asked how he could afford them all. "They are only a buck or two each", he replied, to my amazement.

As for their computers, I do advise people who aren't brainwashed by^W^W needing Windows to have a look at them. I stop short of recommending them, as I don't use one myself; I like more choice in hardware, though Apple's more limited approach probably pays some dividends in system stability.

iTunes, well...I can do without it ;)

Reply Score: 2

used to love osnews
by adicahya on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:48 UTC
adicahya
Member since:
2009-05-19

Like the tittle above.

Once upon a time, i really like to try different kind of PC OSes, and that habbit bring me to met you Osnews.

But look at you now..
Instead writing original article about OS (the design, architecture, UI, new feature and development ect) i see this Apple thing article.

Okay, i know..Operating System buzz is moving from PC to mobile space. But still, there are a lot of things you can write about it. Can can write about Symbian^3 in mobile OS perspective(not that US centric costumer point of view we see alot) for example.
Or make original review of Android 2.2

And you know, even the PC OSes world is still interesting. Linux Mint Debian, Ubuntu reworked netbook remix and so on..

Yes, you can still write about Apple to. But please write about the OS. iOS 4.2 for example.

I hope you get my points..

just my 2 cent from old osnews reader.

Reply Score: 1

RE: used to love osnews
by Kroc on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "used to love osnews"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

This article was written by a reader and submitted to us. We published it.

Want articles about something else? Please write one ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: used to love osnews
by aledujke on Fri 17th Sep 2010 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE: used to love osnews"
RE[3]: used to love osnews
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 17th Sep 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: used to love osnews"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Symbian^3 article would be great! And no we (like 99% od us) can not write them ourselves... we come here to read articles instead! Do you not want that from us?


I'll gladly supply you with my address so you can send me a Symbian^3 device for us to review.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: used to love osnews
by aledujke on Fri 17th Sep 2010 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: used to love osnews"
RE: used to love osnews
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC in reply to "used to love osnews"
mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

Adicahya, I definitely need to jump in here and re-iterate that there's been no change in the OSNews.com mission or editorial content.

The good folks at OSNews.com were kind enough to publish a fan/reader submission and I felt motivated to point out a few of the benefits and positives Apple has brought to the technology table and to balance (in my opinion) some of the negative commentary about Apple's policies, technology, etc. that shows up in posts by the regular authors here at OSNews.com and the comments area.

To your point, OSNews.com was also kind enough to publish an article that may be a little more to your liking. Several weeks ago I submitted an article about running Breadbox Ensemble (formerly known as PC/GEOS and GeoWorks and ironically an OS that was popular on several PDAs many years ago and an OS that positioned itself later as a phone based OS like Symbian in the early days of smart phones, though it received little traction). In fact we get two for the price of one as my mission was to get Breadbox Ensemble (PC/GEOS) to run on the latest release of eComStation (formerly OS/2)!

http://www.osnews.com/story/23595/eComStation_and_Breadbox_Ensemble

With that said, often there are discussions here about trends in the industry, debates about open source versus commercial software, hardware, software and occasionally even games.

I am surprised that the majority of comments have hinged on only one of the points I raised, the so-called "Apple Tax". Even though I wrote the article and I stand by my conclusions, there's plenty of room for debate. Here are just a few points that I'd like to see debated...

Apple Store Pricing - Apple's pressuring developers to "underprice" their applications so Apple's not out anything, it's the poor developer who's really making the sacrifice.

Music Pricing - Apple pushed for this price point not because they care for their customers, and they're not concerned at all whether the music industry is profitable, they only want to sell iPods which is where the real money is.

Family Pricing - This whopper can really get the debate going between whether customers "own" the software (first purchase) or whether it's licensed. And you could point out that with free open source software paying even $150 for 3 licenses it too much.

Proprietary Lock In - Some have touched on this issue but I'm somewhat surprised this topic hasn't been debated in more depth as well as good points can be made on both sides of the issue, giving up a little freedom for convenience or ease of use, versus open standards which long term are better for consumers as that insures interoperability.

I do appreciate your comments, and I don't believe the regular authors here were being "catty" with their reply. On the contrary, they've been more than generous and open to competing opinions and eager to post reader submissions to counter a prior article, encourage debate, or better inform their readership.

See it as a good thing...you too can have a forum here to share your experiences in computing, with a particular OS or to inform other OSNews.com readers!

Reply Score: 3

Uh?
by stereotype on Fri 17th Sep 2010 03:27 UTC
stereotype
Member since:
2007-04-06

I thought OSNews loved Apple... I mean, seriously...

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

I like the iphone but I really think OSX is overrated.

I use a pretty recent iMac for testing and I usually can't wait to get back to Windows after using it for 10 minutes. Program installation needs work, the dock gets annoying if you have a lot of programs open, and the entire system was built with a needless aversion towards right clicking.

I suppose the Macbooks at least have the advantage of battery life but 3 hours is enough for me.

Reply Score: 4

ngnr Member since:
2008-01-16

Program installation needs work


Dragging the application icon to the apps folder is not difficult at all, in fact is the easiest method to install a program imho.

The dock gets annoying if you have a lot of programs open


Totally agree, and after trying win 7 taskbar I hate the dock even more.

Entire system was built with a needless aversion towards right clicking


System preferences > mouse ... problem solved.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Dragging the application icon to the apps folder is not difficult at all, in fact is the easiest method to install a program imho.


Disk images cause more problems for people than exes. Images should auto-mount upon download and then prompt for confirmation to install to the applications folder. It might not seem like a big deal to us but I have seen people thrown off by it. Part of the problem is that Apple does not encourage a standard method of installation.


System preferences > mouse ... problem solved.


Right click works but that is not what I am talking about. The system itself is designed around a single button mouse. There are many cases where right click should bring up a properties menu.

Reply Score: 2

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

My we're getting a little picky aren't we? But since we're there...

Apple's drag and drop a single file (which behind the scenes is really a self-contained folder) is a rather "pure" way of installing a program and I'd love to be able to do the same thing on the PC. In fact, there's a whole niche on the PC side of things regarding portable applications (intended for thumb and external drives but incredibly convenient for PC installs too) that seek to overcome the dreadful registry that Windows is dependent upon.

With that said, when a Mac program ships with its own installer, I'm less than enthusiastic as I know that it'll probably spread files all over my OS X installation and thus make uninstalling a mess.

Back almost 20 years ago, when HD space was at a premium, having a registry and the DLL model was clever as it reduced dependencies upon duplicate files shipping with multiple applications, but conversely, because of the registry we should have never had to deal with incompatible DLLs between programs and I've spent many an hour over the last 20 years or so dealing with DLL issues, incompatible DLLs, registry corruption, the ever-growing registry/performance issue, etc.

As for single button mice, can we not accept that while this may have been true almost 30 years ago, the Mac has supported right button mice for at least a couple of decades now? I know because I used a two button trackball with my first Mac SE roughly 20 years ago. And one could argue that the latest Magic Mouse, which supports multi-touch gestures, it completely leapfrogs anything on the PC side if you're so excited about multiple inputs using your mouse.

For example, as I've drafted this reply I've left single clicked to position the cursor, double left clicked to select a word, tripple left clicked to select a sentence, I've swiped up to scroll up and down the page, I've left and right scrolled to view content laterally, I've used 3 fingers to switch between Spaces between the VNC client running in space 3, Windows 7 Aero running full screen in a VMWare Fusion virtual machine running in space 2 and then back to this reply in space 1. I've right clicked multiple times to pull up a contextual menu in OS X, Windows and the Linux machine I'm currently connected to through VNC.

After adjusting to it for a few days I personally would never go back to a scroll-wheel mouse with physical buttons and a scroll wheel.

While not everyone is as satisfied with the Magic Mouse as I am, it does get a little tiring arguing against supposed Mac limitations that haven't existed for decades, and that have in fact progressed beyond the current state-of-the-art when it comes to PC technology.

And don't even get me started on the touch pad. Hate them with a passion but the second I try to "double finger scroll" on my son's PC Netbook and nothing happens, I'm ready to throw it out the window!

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Apple's drag and drop a single file (which behind the scenes is really a self-contained folder) is a rather "pure" way of installing a program and I'd love to be able to do the same thing on the PC.


It is pure at its core but the implementation is insufficient. This because there is no standard method of getting that self-contained folder to the applications folder. I have seen ISVs implement some weird installation methods that caused confusion for typical users.


Back almost 20 years ago, when HD space was at a premium, having a registry and the DLL model was clever as it reduced dependencies upon duplicate files shipping with multiple applications


I could give a 2 hour lecture on problems with the registry and where they come from. Without notes and while drinking beer.

They have fixed some of the worst aspects through the virtual registry in Vista/7 but as you know they have to keep it around for compatibility reasons. The primary problem with the registry is application dependence and they have at least discouraged using it for program settings with .net. So the situation is drastically improved unless you are running XP which has a registry that I would describe as a dirty whore.


As for single button mice, can we not accept that while this may have been true almost 30 years ago, the Mac has supported right button mice for at least a couple of decades now?

Supporting a two-button mouse and designing an interface around one are two different things. OSX is built around the one button mouse because that is what Macs ship with.

Reply Score: 2

s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Images should auto-mount upon download and then prompt for confirmation to install to the applications folder.


This is exactly what disk images used to do, but due to security issues surrounding this (relatively easy) way of 'smuggling' in unwanted or insecure code, Apple advised people not to allow this when downloading disk images form the internet using Safari.

Reply Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Program installation needs work


Really? As was mentioned, drag and drop installation is easy enough and without all the DLL and system files scattered all over like many Windows apps do. If a Mac app comes with an installer it is usually with the built-in system installer that gives you some cool flexibility like using the Show Files.. menu item to see exactly what is being installed and where. I only wish Windows installers were so transparent.


the dock gets annoying if you have a lot of programs open


It can be annoying if you have a ton of junk in there. I keep mine pretty lean.


and the entire system was built with a needless aversion towards right clicking.


Since the first version of OS X I have been using the right mouse button. You only need to enable it in the prefs for some mice. Other HID compliant mice it just works. I use a logitech.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Really? As was mentioned, drag and drop installation is easy enough and without all the DLL and system files scattered all over like many Windows apps do.


DLL hell is no longer an issue and OSX is certainly good for encouraging application portability. The actual storage of the program is not the problem. The problem is with the multiple installation methods that can throw off novice users, especially if they are used to just double clicking an exe.


It can be annoying if you have a ton of junk in there. I keep mine pretty lean.

I find it annoying that clicking a red button in the corner doesn't actually close the program. I shouldn't have to specify exit or quit if there is no file loaded within that program. It's a system that would make more sense if all programs had long loading times. But more often you just want to open and close a program quickly and not have it marked in the dock. Yes I know about keyboard shortcuts but I shouldn't have to touch the keyboard or move the mouse through a menu to kill a window. It also isn't as good as Win7 at previewing what you have open especially if you have multiple files opened by the same program.

Dock and quartz were certainly slick looking compared to XP but there is still room for improvement.


Since the first version of OS X I have been using the right mouse button. You only need to enable it in the prefs for some mice. Other HID compliant mice it just works. I use a logitech.


I use a logitech mouse as well but that isn't the problem. As I said earlier the problem is that the system is designed around a one button mouse. There are too many cases where right-click does nothing.

Now there are aspects of OSX that I like such as the config menu, Unix services, program isolation and better integration with idevices.

But for raw productivity I believe Win7 has the edge for users who work with lots of programs and files. However I think OSX is good for problem users who are prone to picking up malware.

Reply Score: 2

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

I'm totally with you on the red close button though...I hate when I close out the last window of a program the application still stays running. On the other hand when I recognize it a quick right mouse click (oops), Quit on the dock icon gets rid of the offending application. And the green button drives me batty as I'm never for sure how the window is going to resize between semi-full screen (another annoyance) and supposed full screen (which is anything but).

With Spaces, Apple really missed an opportunity to allow true, single application FULL SCREEN mode. Its awesome in Fusion that I can set Windows 7 Aero to launch and run full screen and never know I'm even running OS X, until I use the "Magic" 3 finger click to switch spaces, but then I'd love to get a little more screen real estate to run a true full screen Screen Sharing/VNC client in the third space and save a little on my next Lasik procedure!

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

On the other hand when I recognize it a quick right mouse click (oops), Quit on the dock icon gets rid of the offending application.


Yea I recognize that too but I shouldn't have to make a trip to the dock to close a program. When working on an iMac this becomes very annoying because you end up covering a lot of screen. I realize I can set a shortcut but I still find the behavior annoying. Red should mean close, programs do not need to be kept hot on a modern system. I use Chrome the most in OSX and it loads instantly along with any tabs I had open.


And the green button drives me batty as I'm never for sure how the window is going to resize between semi-full screen (another annoyance) and supposed full screen (which is anything but).

Ah yes the green button that is not consistent across applications. The best description I have seen for it is Apple's "I'm feeling lucky" button.

Reply Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

I use a logitech mouse as well but that isn't the problem. As I said earlier the problem is that the system is designed around a one button mouse. There are too many cases where right-click does nothing.


I gotcha. I guess I have not run into this. All the apps I use that have context menus work with right click as expected.

As to the Red close box not actually quitting the application, IIRC this is a carryover from the classic OS days. I believe it also the expected way an app is to function on a Mac and again, IIRC part of Apple's guidelines for developers. Of course if an app has a single window and us utility in nature there is no reason a developer can't allow the app to quit when the red close is clicked in the last window.

Reply Score: 1

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

I do have a solution to the Dock issue, organize your applications in related folders. Then, drag the Mac Applications folder to the Dock. Pretty much an instant "Start Menu". And since I run both Windows 7 Aero and OS X in real-time on my Mac using VMWare Fusion using the multiple screen Spaces utility which allows me to quickly switch between environments (with a tripple click of my Mighty Mouse!).

So I have both on my Mac and my PC an Accessories folder which includes the calculator, calendar, address book, Write/Text Edit, and other "desk accessory" type tools that ship with both OSs, a Business folder with business applications, a Tools menu for utilities, a Multimedia folder for media applications and a Web Design folder for my web development programs, tools and utilities.

As for the 5 or so most important applications I use daily, they go on the dock in OS X and I pin them to the Task Bar in Windows.

Navigating my programs, though different between platforms, is equally efficient whether I'm using OS X or Windows...Start, All programs, program folder, program. And in OS X, applications icon on the dock, application folder, application.

Reply Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

... And since I run both Windows 7 Aero and OS X in real-time on my Mac using VMWare Fusion using the multiple screen Spaces utility which allows me to quickly switch between environments (with a tripple click of my Mighty Mouse!)...


This is the second time you are mentioning this as if you are trying to impress or infer that you are some sort of "ubergeek" or something. Couldn't care less for your configuration. Once upon a time (early '80) I used to be impressed, like when we installed disc units on IBM mainframe they were 1MB and the size of a fridge.

Apple is rotten. No way around this fact. It starts with a paranoid schizophrenic maniac that runs his business like a dictatorship, conveniently choosing to forget "1984" add they used not so long ago. Reneging on warranties (Applecare, external iphone water indicators ...), senseless license agreements (iphone eula, developers agreements, application rules ...), pushing faulty equipment for sale (iphone 4), attempt to control content on the internet (DRM, appstore, .h264, etc) and list goes on ... and on...

While they were sitting on the margins they couldn't afford such liberties, but now thanks to users who subscribe to preachings of mr. jobs and who can't see the forest because of a tree they've outdone microsoft in terms of being evil.

Reply Score: 2

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

Oops, guess you're really not going to like the video I just posted then. Guess one guy's evil is another guy's tool to efficiently get the job done.

Sorry I don't have the time, luxury or interest in fighting the free software versus paid application game, open source versus proprietary software battle, Windows versus OS X, versus Linux, versus BSD, etc. madness.

I have a job to do and the flexibility, performance, dependability and reliability that Apple's products have provided me simply let me get done more easily and more quickly than other solutions.

Feel free to exercise your right to wage whatever religious war you want...fight the "evil" Jobs if you want, but who's next on your list?

Gates? Ellison? Narayen? Schmidt? Hope you have time to occasionally finish a project or two while you're slaying dragons, there's a bunch of evil capitalists, control freaks and downright mean guys and girls in technology. Me, I've finished the days work thanks to these industry leaders so I might as well go for a soda.

Reply Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Well, without trying to be to dismissive or arrogant, I honestly think you would have to work 24/7 for a number of years to get close to the number of projects that I've finished. And no, I am still not impressed. You sound like you just discovered something that was there for a number of years?!

I can do more with my phone, then you can with your mac, and to top it, I do not have to say thank you to anyone of them. None of them gave me anything for free. But I do get royally pissed off when someone tries to tell me what I can and can't do with the things that I OWN, or what tools I can use, and such.

Reply Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Well, without trying to be to dismissive or arrogant, I honestly think you would have to work 24/7 for a number of years to get close to the number of projects that I've finished. And no, I am still not impressed. You sound like you just discovered something that was there for a number of years?!

I can do more with my phone, then you can with your mac, and to top it, I do not have to say thank you to anyone of them. None of them gave me anything for free. But I do get royally pissed off when someone tries to tell me what I can and can't do with the things that I OWN, or what tools I can use, and such.


But you do sound arrogant, whether or not you were trying!

So you must pretty much hate the cell phone industry as they are constantly enforcing their rules and telling us how we can use the device we paid for. You must also hate Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for making video game consoles that can only play the games they say you can play.

Hey don't get me wrong, I agree with you to some extent, but I am not going to get all angry and make comments about how many more projects I can complete then you and try to make you feel stupid for what you happen to enjoy or how you happen to feel productive.

There is not much you can do about the leashes that the corporations put on the products they make. At least not if you want to actually use the product.

Reply Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

So you must pretty much hate the cell phone industry as they are constantly enforcing their rules and telling us how we can use the device we paid for. You must also hate Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for making video game consoles that can only play the games they say you can play.


Unlike most fanboys who see the world in black and white, I see shades of grey. I don't have an issue with purchasing commercial software or hardware, or even paying for service. I don't hate any commercial entity. I do have an opinion about all of them. Some are neutral, some flattering and some not so flattering. It is called democracy. And you are entitled to have them, too. I do consider Apple to be VERY unethical for reasons I've listed in my previous posts which you've, obviously, chosen to ignore. Like I said it is a democracy (unless Jobs has it his way). Bottom line is that all corporations adjust their position depending on the mood of the consumers, and Apple will do the same. I think they are starting to feel the heat a little bit and reacting accordingly (giving bumpers for free, relaxing developer agreement). Apple's inherent weakness is that release cycle that they have, does not adhere well with improvement cycle in hardware. They are too long. As for the other issues, well, market will provide plenty lessons for them to learn.

but I am not going to get all angry and make comments about how many more projects I can complete then you and try to make you feel stupid for what you happen to enjoy or how you happen to feel productive.


This part does not deserve a reply as you are completely wrong in assuming that I got angry and dissed a kid. I was merely annoyed a little bit by frequent flaunting of "hey look at my setup..." when there is not much to look at. Virtualization has been around for quite a while now, multibooting even longer. I'm glad for the kid, as he doesn't have to punch cards in order to load his program in a computer as I had to do back in the day, but that doesn't mean I have to share his enthusiasm about not so new technology

Reply Score: 2

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

Fair enough, but I wasn't trying to impress, I'm a mental midget compared to many of the folks here, just trying to point out that my article was no advertisement, the points I raise aren't "theory" and I'm no Apple fanboy who's just out to stir things up.

My computer is just a tool but the combination of light weight, performance, specs, durability, ease of use and the combination of OS X, Fusion, Windows 7, Linux and both paid and free or open source software have left me more satisfied and more productive than any other time in my 30 years of computers.

Admittedly, that means that I sometimes have to compromise and give up a little flexibility for ease of use, or pay for a commercial application because a free or open source application can do only 85% of the job, or I need better documentation or faster support.

As I've told others here, it's an awesome time for technology, 20 years ago open source wasn't even much of an option, it was public domain, shareware or commercial applications. The wall between Macs and PCs was so tall that one wouldn't talk to the other. And we can't forget that the first Mac and PC were $10,000 each!

Today we have more choices than ever in history. Expensive PCs, cheap PCs, free OSs, paid OSs, free apps, commercial apps, open standards and proprietary technologies. If one wants play exclusively in the open, non-proprietary world it's practical now but probably wasn't five years ago. But quite a few others are willing to compromise some freedom for convenience and ease of use. Me, I guess I'm a pragmatist, use the most efficient tool for the job.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Organizing common programs isn't the problem, it's managing large amounts of files and programs and previewing what you have open.

I would go over in detail how Win7 is better in this area for productivity but Gizmondo already did a pretty good job:
http://gizmodo.com/5131933/giz-explains-why-the-windows-7-taskbar-b...

Edited 2010-09-17 23:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

I think you make a good point, there are a few very nice new features in Windows 7 that do in fact make not only managing files, but also managing open windows (love the drag left, drag right, 2 equally sized Windows trick.

Fortunately a clever Mac programmer has provided this functionality for Mac now too (admittedly a year later or so) combined with tools to really maximize the multi-touch mouse capabilities in the new Magic Mouse and touch pads (I really do hate typing that, Mighty Mouse was kinda fun and silly but Magic Mouse just seems stupid!). I can't recommend this utility enough...Better Touch Tool.

http://boastr.net/

With that said, I'm rather impressed with the adoption of the "pop up" functionality and application task bar views that developers are adding to their applications in Windows 7...I use those shortcuts frequently.

On the other hand Expose is pretty nice if you aren't running too many applications, and there's one tweak that I'm not for sure when it came into OS X, probably with Snow Leopard that I turned on and I think I like (I just discovered it a few weeks ago) and that's the "minimize windows into application icon" setting which makes a little more sense than finding open windows to the right of the dock and is a little more consistent with the Windows 7 strategy (but still miles behind).

And one could argue that OS X's Spotlight functionality and Quick Look are both pretty powerful tools for file management, reducing the need to stick to the file based hierarchy of years ago (which I don't take too much advantage of anyway as I'm an old "folders" guy anyway).

But clearly Microsoft has made some pretty impressive advances in Windows 7. You won't find me criticizing it much. I think it's the best OS Microsoft has kicked out in years. The performance on relatively modest machines is very good, the stability has been excellent (compounded by the fact that I run it in emulation which is an even further testament to Windows 7) and compatibility great as well.

On the other hand, Vista was a mess and because of my experiences with it, I started looking more and more at Mac applications that could replace my Windows based applications and ended up spending more time in OS X side of my MacBook Pro over the last couple of years and unfortunately spend less time in Windows 7 than I probably should.

But as I've said time and again, I'll use whatever tool is best for the job. I do quite a bit of web design and find SnagIt on Windows invaluable (despite the Beta they've released on the Mac) yet on the Mac side a somewhat similar program but not so much tool called Skitch has saved me hundreds of hours speeding the graphics manipulation process, particularly when it comes to blogging.

Guess I'm copping out but I really do appreciate both platforms and because I can run both OSs and their applications on a single machine (and painlessly access files within either environment), I really do have as our friends Sammy Hagar and Van Halen say I've got "The Best Of Both Worlds".

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So you are suggesting that I get a small and narrow mouse that doesn't allow hand resting and learn how to frig it to get the most out of OSX.

Thanks but I think I'll just stick with Windows instead.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

The problem with Apple has nothing to do with its products, which is why Cupertino focusses its spin on products. It is perfectly true that as several have said, if you start from buying what you need, you can always get it cheaper and better than from Apple, and if you look at the Apple line, the configurations are really weirdly unbalanced, huge processors and crap commodity graphics, terrible cooling most of the time, the works.

But this is not the real point,the real point is Apple has a vision of the world in which it sells you a machine and then tells you what you can do with it. Some things are relatively open still, the legacy things, you can actually load whatever software you want, whatever books you want, and buy them wherever you want. But look at the wretched iPad, and the equally wretched iTunes, because that is the future according to Cupertino, where no-one can even use a programming language on the thing that they do not approve of.

Matlab my friends, we are talking a company that thinks it has the right to stop you using Matlab on a machine you bought and paid for, because it is an interpreted language package! It thinks it can stop you accessing an app because that app might let you download a copy of the Kama Sutra! These people are dangerously mad. They think its OK to ban, from a device you have bought, cartoons which might offend public figures! Their aim in life is to sell you stuff, and then make you use it as if the world was Walt Disney 1955.

Don't read the wrong things, don't ask the wrong questions, and everything will be sweet as candy.

The thing that is wrong with Apple is that it is the determined enemy of the intellectual freedoms our ancestors in the West died for. You actually find the Apple propagandists arguing that choice is bad, it makes you unhappy. Sick!

That is the problem, not whether its hardware is pretty or not.

Reply Score: 10

Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Fri 17th Sep 2010 04:47 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm sorry but that just hasn't held true in the last decade. Time and time again you'll find head-to-head comparisons between the price of an Apple system versus the main PC manufacturers (usually Dell) and in most cases Apple is competitive, or often less expensive than a similarly configured PC.


ON WHAT PLANET!?! Between the anemic RAM and drive sizes, outright extortion for upgrades at point of sale, and non-upgradeable built in video that lags a three years behind modern middle-of-road even on their triple-thousand dollar alleged "pro" machine...

Especially with that mythical Apple quality figured in... Which is to say nonexistent rinky poorly engineered garbage that makes decade old Packard Bells look good. (which is like saying a new auto design makes the 1984 Yugo GV look like a quality automobile)

Mind you, many of the other points are correct -- but when it comes to their hardware? I see the RDF is in full swing.

Edited 2010-09-17 04:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by NeoX on Fri 17th Sep 2010 15:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

"I'm sorry but that just hasn't held true in the last decade. Time and time again you'll find head-to-head comparisons between the price of an Apple system versus the main PC manufacturers (usually Dell) and in most cases Apple is competitive, or often less expensive than a similarly configured PC.


ON WHAT PLANET!?! Between the anemic RAM and drive sizes, outright extortion for upgrades at point of sale, and non-upgradeable built in video that lags a three years behind modern middle-of-road even on their triple-thousand dollar alleged "pro" machine...

Especially with that mythical Apple quality figured in... Which is to say nonexistent rinky poorly engineered garbage that makes decade old Packard Bells look good. (which is like saying a new auto design makes the 1984 Yugo GV look like a quality automobile)

Mind you, many of the other points are correct -- but when it comes to their hardware? I see the RDF is in full swing.
"

HAHAHA! That was a great post. That part about less quality then a Packard Bell? LOL! that is a good one. That was some funny stuff!

Umm, wait, You were joking right?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kasi
by Kasi on Fri 17th Sep 2010 05:00 UTC
Kasi
Member since:
2008-07-12

"An awesome side-effect of Apple's efforts is now many artists (for example, Imogen Heap) can release self-produced albums on iTunes and heap, er reap virtually all of the profits which is where music lovers have always wished the majority of record profits would go."

I've not seen this reported anywhere before. Where did you find this? This is actually very nice news and something that should be spread if true.

"Fact is, I've been a life-long PC user, and over the last 10 years or so, a closet Mac user, usually at home until the last few years when I introduced my Mac to my company, and in each case, the Mac I purchased was within roughly $100 of the PCs I purchased for work, and more important, I've been able to get three or four years of use out of each Mac before I felt the itch to upgrade to something newer, better or faster."

This, while a nice story of personal satisfaction, it doesn't really tell a great deal.
What is your normal criteria for upgrading? Do you upgrade on hardware specific issues? Is that there is some killer software that forces an upgrade? How do you usually do upgrades; piecemeal or the whole box at once?
Without some of this information all that can be extracted from this is your upgrade habits are different for an Apple - can't tell if its for better or worse.
An example would be "Person X upgrades his PC often, in piecemeal by getting new video cards every 8months for the latest games coming out, now that he owns a mac its 2k to upgrade the box but the pacing of high end game releases is slower so he don't have upgrade as often". People might no see that kind of story as an advantage.
The point is without specifics the picture you paint doesn't mean much.

"I wondered whether Apple would become just another PC clone. I'm pleased to report, not only did Apple not become another PC clone, but they've also made integrating my Mac into my company's network painless and more important, technology such as Boot Camp, Parallels, VMware Fusion and VirtualBox has for the first time given me the ability to use the best tool for the job, regardless of platform, Mac, Windows (even 7 with Aero) and Linux."

I take issue with this comment. Yes, the transition to Intel processors is good thing for apple computers, it was time for Apple customers to get a processor from a vendor who was interested in the desktop. However, Parallels, VMware, Virtual Box, BootCamp (ie dual booting) have very little to do with Apple. It basically comes down to having a x86 instruction set based computer and being able to run x86 complied software. This absolutely should be an expected behavior not extra to be praised! Otherwise everyone should praise Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, etc that their PC can run Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, Haiku, BeOS, AtheOS, Syllable, etc.

"And now, I can not only stream music, but also photos, video and metadata across the network. Never before has networking been so easy."

There is an opposite side to this in that never before has networking been so restricted. Yes it is convenient between Apple devices, however the keyword is Apple devices. This ease of streaming is due to DAAP from iTunes, which is not a standard and is not interoperable with many devices. DLNA, surprisingly, is a decent standard where most local network media sharing is converging at the moment between many vendors including Sony, Samsung, Logitec, Western Digital, HP, Dell, MS, with over 8000 certified devices. Within this ecosystem there is much broader range of support for devices, and formats. The Apple method of easy through limited device and format functionality/choice - is not a panacea.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Kasi
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 16:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kasi"
mjhi11 Member since:
2009-08-15

"An awesome side-effect of Apple's efforts is now many artists can release self-produced albums on iTunes"

Imogen Heap (highly recommended) is just one example. Kevin Arnold, founder and CEO of digital distributor Independent Online Distributor Alliance (IODA), said that legal online music has removed geographic and genre boundaries for music buyers.

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35012.html?wlc=1284737471

"This, while a nice story of personal satisfaction, it doesn't really tell a great deal. What is your normal criteria for upgrading?"

I have no hard and fast rule, if anything it's based on the "frustration factor". My work requires travel so my system is a laptop.

It's really frustrating that despite treating a laptop carefully and investing in proper cases, the last two $2100+ PC laptops have developed a variety of anomalies. One keyboard failed requiring a swap out. Another required a wireless adapter swap out.

The closing latch broke on one of them and the screen hinge on the other became loose so I was constantly re-adjusting the screen throughout the day. Additional frustration having to constantly update Windows, then update anti-virus, then update anti-malware, then update system utilities was another source of frustration and the need to defragment the drive occasionally also became a chore.

It's also absurd the size of the power supplies that this particular PC laptop manufacturer ships with the laptops. They're almost as heavy as the laptop itself and half the size of the laptop, and the strain relief for the wires always seems to fail so we're often replacing power supplies.

To maintain peak performance I'd reinstall Windows from scratch and reinstall my applications, then copy data over approximately once a year.

I've just overhauled a few other laptops for my company and the wear and tear on them was much greater than any Apple I've ever owned. Scratches, broken plastic parts, broken strain reliefs on the power supplies, etc.

On the other hand, take my current MacBook Pro for example. It's almost 2 years old now and looks brand new. No broken plastic, no scratches, no chance of the the latch lid breaking as it's magnetic instead of plastic. Screen quality compared to the PC laptops is superior. The power supply is smaller than a bar of soap and includes a wire-wrap. The magnetic connector minimizes the chances that your laptop will fall to the floor if you trip over the power cable (something that happens pretty regular in business). I've not been compelled to reformat and reinstall OS X and my applications as there has been no noticeable degradation in performance from when it was new.

Fact is, my MacBook Pro is serving me so well that I don't anticipate replacing it for at least another couple of years. So while my associates are getting 2 years of life out of their systems, I'm getting three or four.

"I take issue with this comment. Yes, the transition to Intel processors is good thing for apple computers, it was time for Apple customers to get a processor from a vendor who was interested in the desktop."

Well, I take issue with the statement that Apple's prior choice of processors demonstrates a lack of interest in the desktop. The PowerPC was an exceptional processor for many years, superior to Intel processors for some of those years, comparable in performance for most of those years and like Apple products it's RISC based architecture was rather elegant in design.

"However, Parallels, VMware, Virtual Box, BootCamp (ie dual booting) have very little to do with Apple."

Well, Boot Camp has everything to do with Apple. They very well could have continued to "ignore" Windows and in fact, many feared that when Boot Camp was announced that Apple might lose developers once customers had the ability to run Windows applications so easily on a Mac.

But they did the "right thing" recognizing that it was in the best interests of their customers to take advantage of the Intel platform and allow their customers to run both Windows and OS X, a rather enlightened position in my view. And yes, while Fusion, Parallels and VirtualBox are independent programs from other companies, the fact that Apple customers have the "best of all worlds", PC, Linux, Unix, BSD OS X and other operating systems is a competitive advantage.

"Never before has networking been so restricted."

Let's be fair here, if any company can be accused of forcing proprietary technologies upon their customers, it's Microsoft. Every couple of years I'm tempted by the "low price" of a PC to set one up as a media server. Each time I've abandoned those efforts, either because of dissatisfaction with the complexity of getting Windows Media Center up and running, or DNLA issues getting my systems to recognize media on other machines, poorly written PVR software, video capture drivers and cheaply built hardware. And talk about the frustration factor, try going a day using your Media Center PC without a popup notifying you of a critical security update, a critical virus update, or the maintenance that you have to do regularly to keep the system performing well enough to serve up media.

While Linux addresses some of the "openness" concerns, let's face it, because of the content publishers much of the content you want to watch or listen to is wrapped up in proprietary DRM and you can't blame Apple or Microsoft for this fact. It was the content publishers that drove these decisions. So the fact is, if you have a pure, "open" system without proprietary technologies such as Flash, you won't be able to view or listen to much of the digital content that's available today.

I'm a proud "geek" and of course I could probably get a lot of this to work acceptably with some effort, but when I go home and turn on the tube after spending the day repurposing an older desktop, or setting up a new system for sales staff, or fielding technical support calls, the last thing I want to do is reboot routers, troubleshoot DNLA problems and interrupt my viewing to install the latest virus update.

Fact is, the general public far out number we geeks, and they just what things to work. For those who believe in open standards, etc. the beauty is we have options here too. 20 years ago we didn't. That's why it's great to see commercial companies and open source succeeding in parallel. We truly have the best of both worlds today and that hasn't always been the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kasi
by Kasi on Fri 17th Sep 2010 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kasi"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

"It's really frustrating that despite treating a laptop carefully and investing in proper cases, the last two $2100+ PC laptops have developed a variety of anomalies. One keyboard failed requiring a swap out. Another required a wireless adapter swap out.

The closing latch broke on one of them and the screen hinge on the other became loose so I was constantly re-adjusting the screen throughout the day."


Okay, this I can understand and agree with. It is frustrating to have extensive things break. In that regard yeah Apple build quality is very much ahead. Admittedly though thats not anything to do with the longevity of core functionality - ie utility as a computer.

I had an old G4 PowerBook that I kept around for 7 years. It still looked good so I never tossed it but it was far from useful for 5 of those years. In the first 2 years what was considered everyday computer changed and totally passed the system by. With 8mb of VRAM - youtube was a nonstarter, the upgraded 512mb of system RAM meant that by OS 10.3 iWork/iLife or Office were a lesson is pain for the hard drive. In the end I had a pretty looking machine that couldn't view youtube, or any other flash enabled site easily, was slow for productivity, and in general was only tolerable for web browsing. So my impression would be the functional life of powerbook was really 2 years with 5 years extra of looking nice but not doing much.


"Screen quality compared to the PC laptops is superior."


I would be careful with this one. Referring to resolution or backlighting it is very common for Dell, Vaio, HP, etc to offer a larger range of resolutions per size laptop in both CCFL or LED. On Dell's site presently 1920x1080 is available on 15" and 17", and 1600x1400 on 13" - if you look at the business notebooks, then 1920x1080 is available on 13" as well. This is not the case with Apple's offerings the size defines the resolution. When it comes to "picture quality" Apple and everyone else uses TN panels (there are a few sites to google showing the actual LG/Samsung panels each has) so viewing angle, color parallax, are all basically crap compared to both an SPVA HD TV or an IPS monitor.


"Well, I take issue with the statement that Apple's prior choice of processors demonstrates a lack of interest in the desktop."

Actually thats not what I said, I meant that the vendor producing Apple's processors had little-to-no interest in advancing performance for the desktop market. This is not to say that PPC is bad processor, its a very nice architecture. However optimizations for the desktop market were never focused on by IBM or Motorola and that hampered performance starting with introduction of the P3 and continued to get worse. At the end of the day, a nice architecture with a disinterested manufacturer is not as useful (and arguable was becoming more and more visibly detrimental to Apple) than an inelegant architecture that has a manufacturer that wants that market.

"Well, Boot Camp has everything to do with Apple. They very well could have continued to "ignore" Windows..."

We may be discussing different points here, but as far as I can tell BootCamp is no more than tool for dual booting. Furthermore, if BootCamp did not exist - Apple would be unable to "ignore" windows as dual booting is trivial to do through EFI itself for windows or with any modern boot manager like grub/lilo for linux. The ability to run other operating systems on Apple's Intel hardware did not take any extra effort on Apple's part to allow. However it would have taken effort to prevent - and thats why I feel its a bit silly to praise Apple for letting the machine hardware do what its designed to do.


"But they did the "right thing" recognizing that it was in the best interests of their customers to take advantage of the Intel platform and allow their customers to run both Windows and OS X, a rather enlightened position in my view."

I'm a bit surprised you have this view coming from a PC background. One of the basic tenets that the IBM clone industry embraced very early was the idea of open hardware is which any software could be written to use a piece of hardware. The notion that only certain software should be allowed to run on a specific machine irrespective of technical feasibility was part of the driving force for IBM clones to become successful. So hearing a PC person say it was an enlightened position for the vendor to let me use the hardware I purchased/own to run any software I want is very scary.

What is worse is that this mentality is being engendered in the nascent smart phone market. Where locked down operating systems that don't allow you to control a device that you supposedly bought and own (rather than licensed) are becoming the rule.


"Let's be fair here, if any company can be accused of forcing proprietary technologies upon their customers, it's Microsoft."

I'm inclined to say two wrongs don't make a right. However Apple limits choice as well. A clear example is in the device world. Zune vs iPad/iPod. The Zune sync's with windows media player. However it is also possible to sync both windows media player or the Zune with other third party products. Apple's iPad/iPod they sync with iTunes anything else is not easy to do and certainly not encouraged or condoned. More specific,(and abstract) to OS X would be the blatant ignoring of BSD configuration files for binary proprietary files that are not user accessible.


"Each time I've abandoned those efforts, either because of dissatisfaction with the complexity of getting Windows Media Center up and running, or DNLA issues getting my systems to recognize media on other machines, poorly written PVR software, video capture drivers and cheaply built hardware. And talk about the frustration factor, try going a day using your Media Center PC without a popup notifying you of a critical security update, a critical virus update, or the maintenance that you have to do regularly to keep the system performing well enough to serve up media."

I have a great suggestion for you, Netgear Stora. Its a NAS that includes a DLNA server. There is no setup as its a turnkey device (unless you want to play with it over SSH but that is totally optional), it shares your media that place/link into a particular folder across the network to any DLNA client. There are no pop-ups mid-movie, there are issues about underlying operating system software or having to use certain programs. This is the strength of having a large and open standard to build around. Not all the advancements have to trickle slowly from one source and you are not tied to a specific product. If the NAS isn't for you then there are DLNA devices from HP, Western Digital for clients and about 4 different DNLA servers for windows, linux and the BSDs and Apple. The idea is that there is a lot of choice out there by trying to force the one Apple vision.

Reply Score: 1

The Apple Tax
by Drumhellar on Fri 17th Sep 2010 06:27 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I just compared the standard 12-core Xeon Mac Pro with an equally equipped system from Lenovo, and was surprised to find the Lenovo system cost about $600 extra. The systems were configured as close to identical as possible.

A caveat is that with the Lenovo system, only nVidia Quadro or ATI FirePro cards are available, while the MacPro offers only Radeon graphics.

While the hardware differences between gaming and workstation graphics are minimal these days, driver design is much different, and is optimized for workstation tasks, and for specific apps. It is known that graphics performance under MacOS X is less than that of Windows.

Workstation graphics also offer other features not found on desktop graphics, such as GenLock (Standard on most nVidia hardware, optional on AMD). They also tend to offer greater display connectivity.

Of course, the Mac Pro line has been recently updated. Apple tends to have very long product cycles, and rarely drop their prices. A year from now, the same hardware will cost the same price from Apple, while competitors will offer newer hardware, and lower prices on older, comparable goods.

This is where the Apple tax begins to show up.

Reply Score: 4

Are you spec'ng computers for Pixar?
by nt_jerkface on Sat 18th Sep 2010 00:32 UTC in reply to "The Apple Tax"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Going past 4 cores is just dick waving in 99.9% of cases.

The fact that the $5k 12 core Mac only comes with 1gb of video ram shows that they are not targeting professionals with it. If any desktop user could max out a desktop with 12 cores it would be a 3D designer who at that level would expect to have a 2gb gpu.

That computer exists to milk the guy who thinks that 12 cores = a bazillion times faster even though his programs already load instantly and he rarely maxes 2 cores when using Photoshop.

Mac Pros are just plain overpriced and this is especially true if you build your own. A freaking phenom 6 core is only 200 dollars at newegg and you can put it in a case that comes in more than one color.

But Apple knows how to milk their customers, I really have to hand it to them.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I spec'd such high end machines because I figured that, as in the past, the higher end machines would show a greater price disparity.

As for getting Phenoms, Xeons outperform them by a healthy margine, though their cost is much, much higher than the performance disparity would normally suggest. If I remember right, Phenoms also don't support ECC, which is desirable (though not necesary) in a workstation.

Reply Score: 2

Not convincing article
by vezhlys on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:44 UTC
vezhlys
Member since:
2005-08-19

It is quite strange to read about revolutionized networking. I can do everything mentioned in any Windows box easily too and I guess not to much later or even earlier than Mac offered that. Maybe I just don't understand something (yes, I've used Mac but I didn't see anything radically different in network usage)?

Move to Intel processors was wise by business point of view. Still I feel quite disappointed that PowerPC failed in desktop. However, Intel Mac has much more restrictions than any PC if you want to try other OS natively.

Fair pricing? It just nonsense. I agree that they assemble a good quality PCs (you maybe have lower chances to run into problems with software or hardware, though that is questionable) and their design is beautiful however if you encounter some problems with hardware for example in mac mini what can you do? You need special tools to dismount it or need to go to support... You'll never have such problem with your assembled PC. They are cheaper to build too. Finally, my all PCs works without problems still too, even Pentium I from 1998. I had very little hardware problems in more than 10 years. If you are a normal user you don't need to reinstall Windows or Linux every year. They work ok as long as you use them.

I can't say much about App store or music as I don't buy much apps and music. However, I agree that idea to offer separate song in internet for fair price instead of whole albums is a very good idea (if it was Apple idea).

So in conclusion, I still don't see what they brought new and useful to IT industry in past 10 or more years except some interesting usability features in Mac OS X. They have modern OS but they must to have it if they want to stay in this business. And still you often can find some dump restrictions and usage policies because Steve Jobs wants so...

Edited 2010-09-17 07:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Price competition
by ddc_ on Fri 17th Sep 2010 07:47 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Here in Russia Apple products' prices are from twice as high as competitors (desktop offerings excluding iMac) and to three times as high (laptops). That is specially nice when facing the fact that client bank software and most other business software is Windows only with some (usually also overpriced) Linux options.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Price competition
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 02:29 UTC in reply to "Price competition"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Here in Russia Apple products' prices are from twice as high as competitors (desktop offerings excluding iMac) and to three times as high (laptops). That is specially nice when facing the fact that client bank software and most other business software is Windows only with some (usually also overpriced) Linux options.


But how much of that is due to tariffs and other duties? I know for example that many countries there is no duty on individual components so what happen is local assemblers bring in the components, they assemble it in their own country and thus are able to undercut the cost of complete computers being imported in which are subjected to tariffs and duties. New Zealand used to do the same thing with tv sets; there were no duties on imported components, the tvs were assembled locally but due to the duties it was more expensive to buy a complete assembled tv from outside of NZ than it was to purchase an assembled one in NZ. In real terms is one cheaper than the other? its only that way because of government interference and putting up barriers to trade. I have a feeling that'll be the same situation in Russia to encourage local assembly even if it screws over the consumer in the process.

Reply Score: 2

I think the author forgot two major points
by siraf72 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 14:29 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

1. Mac OS X . - The operating system re-invogorated competition in the OS market. Certainly it kicked MS into action.

2 - The Freking iPhone. Apple single handedly bitch-slapped the entire mobile phone industry over night and again re-invogarated competition.

On the pricing of apps on the app store, wasn't it Koi Pond that started this? sold it for 99c (and it doesn't really do anything) and made a fortune. This set the tone for everything that followed. Also showed that apps are very price elastic.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

1. Mac OS X . - The operating system re-invogorated competition in the OS market. Certainly it kicked MS into action.


While I sorta agree with you on the iPhone, I have to disagree with you with MacOS X kicking MS into action.

All they inspired Microsoft to do was candy-up XP and glassify Vista/7. All the other goodies that came with Vista and 7 came from within Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

Fair enough. Though I would say that OS X raised the bar and became the gold standard. One of the main reasons Vista got such a bad reception was that OS X was seen to be better ( by many internet tech sites at any rate).

MS *had* to pull off something good. And by all accounts they did with Windows 7.

MS has a history of resting on its laurels when not pushed. Look at the release cycles of their browsers. It seems they only pushed out good software when they felt the heat from Netscape, Firefox, or Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

Refuting The Apple Tax
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 14:53 UTC
mjhi11
Member since:
2009-08-15

It's clear that few have taken my challenge of attempting to configure a similar Dell PC as there hasn't been a single complaint about what a painful process it is! I've configured 4 different machines within the last 24 hours and in each case it was difficult to configure a similar system for less than a similarly configured Mac. With that said, here's another test…

Using Amazon.com I entered "13" Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop" as my search criteria. Here are just a few of the results…

Sony VAIO VGN-Z520N/B 13.1" Laptop (2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 Processor, 3 GB of RAM, 250 GB Hard Drive, Vista Business) Black by Sony 1 new from $1,199.95.

HP ENVY 13 Series with Magnesium Alloy Casing, Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo SL9300 processor (1.6GHz, 6MB L2 Cache) w/512MB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 4330 Graphics, Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, 13.1" High Definition LED HP Radiance Infinity Widescreen Display (1366x768), 3GB DDR3 System Memory (1 Dimm), 250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive, 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 4330 Graphics, Wifi-N, Gigabit LAN 10/100/1000, HDMI port, Webcam with microphone, 4 Cell Li-Ion Battery, Beats stereo speakers, Corel VideoStudio Pro X2, Corel Paintshop Pro X2, Stardock My Colors
1 new from $1,149.95.

Dell Studio XPS 13 (1340) Laptop - Obsidian Black Color, Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 (3MB cache/2.4GHz/1066Mhz FSB), 2 GB DDR2 , 160GB Sata Hard Drive, 8X DVD +/- RW w/dbl layer write capability, 13.3 inch HD WXGA Edge-to-Edge Laptop screen with 2.0 Megapixel Camera, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, Wireless 802.11g Mini Card, Wireless Bluetooth, Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium by Dell Buy new: $1,499.99 to $1,199.99.

Apple Macbook Pro from the Apple Online Store. 13-inch: 2.4GHz, Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB Memory, 250GB hard drive1, SD card slot, Built in Camera, Built-in battery (10 hours), NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics, Free Shipping $1,199.00.

Of course if you dig the specs will be a little different for each machine but overall these machines are targeted at a similar market and in just about every case, the PC's specs trailed the MacBook's either with less memory, or a slower processor, or bundling Windows "Home" versus "Business", etc. Clearly none of this is "scientific" but it's pretty strong evidence against the so-called "Apple Tax".

Reply Score: 1

RE: Refuting The Apple Tax
by _txf_ on Fri 17th Sep 2010 18:53 UTC in reply to "Refuting The Apple Tax"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Of those, the most recently refreshed have been the macbooks. Yes, definitely unscientific...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Refuting The Apple Tax
by nt_jerkface on Sat 18th Sep 2010 02:12 UTC in reply to "Refuting The Apple Tax"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

13" pc laptops aren't very common and tend to be older and have low speed cpus for battery life. 14" is the new 13" since netbooks are taking over anything smaller. The entry level 13" macbooks aren't that far from the pc market.

It's at 15-17" and desktops where the Mac markup really kicks in. $1800 for a 15"? That's funny. Keep your aluminum case, I'll take a 15.6" notebook pc with Blu-ray and a 3 year unlimited warranty and have enough left over to buy another one in 3 years.

Reply Score: 2

Apple tax
by gfx1 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 18:42 UTC
gfx1
Member since:
2006-01-20

Apple tax does still exist, the 13" macbook pro seems reasonable but you can get a slighty slower hp with an aluminium body and bigger disk for half the price.
It's not fully aluminium though, it has a plastic strip were the wifi and bluetooth antennas live. (function over form perhaps)

The 15" line is seriously expensive considering the competition. 1750 euro for an i5? that's mental.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple tax
by kaiwai on Mon 20th Sep 2010 03:02 UTC in reply to "Apple tax"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple tax does still exist, the 13" macbook pro seems reasonable but you can get a slighty slower hp with an aluminium body and bigger disk for half the price.

It's not fully aluminium though, it has a plastic strip were the wifi and bluetooth antennas live. (function over form perhaps)

The 15" line is seriously expensive considering the competition. 1750 euro for an i5? that's mental.


How is it expensive given that almost every 15 inch laptop on the market is over two inches thick, have horrible battery life and are extremely heavy? what is being marketed as '15 inch laptops' aren't laptops, they're desktop replacements if one were to be generous when describing them. The Apple MacBook's are laptops first and foremost, designed for portability from the outset rather than the sad attempt by vendors to retrofit desktop hardware into a confine space resulting in having to carry around a tank.

Reply Score: 2

suits me
by wanker90210 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 19:06 UTC
wanker90210
Member since:
2007-10-26

My MBP 2009 is the first laptop ever whose hardware I don't mind working with. That is, decent battery time, the first usable trackpad ever (before I always had external mouse to a laptop), silent(!), backlit keys etc.

I'm also fortunate enough to have all programs I need for work to MacOS so I have a choice here and I really prefer MacOSX.

This waffle said, to me with my 60+h in front of the computer each week I think it's worth the extra money to have a computer I like.

As a developer, I like Microsoft as a company better. They lock you in, oh yes, but they see the value in having the programmers happy. (I also have a few windows and linux machines)

Reply Score: 1

Pining for a Mac but...
by mfaudzinr on Fri 17th Sep 2010 20:07 UTC
mfaudzinr
Member since:
2008-02-13

I bought a PC in 1997, still running well. It has a socket 7 ASUS mainboard (Built in graphics) and an Intel 233MHz CPU. Robust machine. Installed Windows XP on it. A bit overkill, slow on a machine with just 256MB RAM. What I'm trying to say is a PC can last long time if you take care of it. And I do have a quad core AMD phenom II machine running on Windows 7. Perfection. Runs like a dream. Yet I pine for an iMac. Ah... sleek machine. Beautifully made, glossy and my goodness OSX is so seemingly glorious. But it is way off my budget. I keep on pining for the day I have enough money to buy one. For now I am happy with my PC. I built it, proud of that accomplishment and I do not have to bleed to own one. Yet I still pine for all things MAC. iPhone, iPad, iMac...

Reply Score: 1

My MacBook Pro 13" Environment
by mjhi11 on Fri 17th Sep 2010 22:25 UTC
mjhi11
Member since:
2009-08-15

Folks, thought it might be interesting to somewhat put my money where my mouth is regarding some of the replies I've posted here as we discuss Windows, versus OS X, Intel versus PowerPC, etc. Here's a quick and dirty (I apologize for the "uh's") video of my system/environment. I'm running a MacBook Pro 13" with 4GB RAM and a 250 GB hard drive.

My point with the video is to simply demonstrate that the combination of Apple hardware, OS X, cool tools like VMWare Fusion, Parallels, VirtualBox, DOSBox, etc. you really can have the best of all worlds-focused for the first time on the right application for the job instead of being limited to a particular platform. I also provide a few tips and tricks for those who might wonder how to balance switching between platforms easily without getting confused. Hope this is interesting so some at least.

http://www.screencast.com/users/mjhi11/folders/Jing/media/09d18630-...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 02:13 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I love about reading the comments on OSNews.com are the number of people jerking off over specifications whilst ignoring that specifications aren't the be-all and end-all of qualifiers when it comes to evaluating a new kit. What use is it to have a high specced machine if it is a complete clusterf-ck when it comes to reliability and stability? Do people here actually think about more than just benchmarks and how fast their machine is? I sometimes wonder whether most people here just run benchmarks all day and trolling on OSNews.com about how their computer is 'so much better than Apple' because of higher performance numbers.

For me I couldn't give a rats ass about performance; I want a fast, reliable and functional computer that allows me to do what I want without all the rigmarole that the Windows world puts me through. Windows 7 is marginally better than Windows Vista but all the problems (I have listed in the past - so don't ask me to f-cking repeat them again) still remain. Its all very nice crowing about specifications but it is the operating system that makes or breaks the computer and quite frankly I couldn't give a brass wazoo about the ability to build my own if I am saddled with Windows being the only viable desktop operating system.

Edited 2010-09-18 02:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Shkaba on Sat 18th Sep 2010 02:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Windows 7 is marginally better than Windows Vista but all the problems (I have listed in the past - so don't ask me to f-cking repeat them again) still remain.


You are marginally wrong here


Its all very nice crowing about specifications but it is the operating system that makes or breaks the computer and quite frankly I couldn't give a brass wazoo about the ability to build my own if I am saddled with Windows being the only viable desktop operating system.


And here you are completely wrong (or in other words not marginally but significantly). Both the hardware and the software (OS) are important for the overall performance. Last but not least Windows is not the only viable OS (neither is OS X)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sun 19th Sep 2010 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You are marginally wrong here


So you make a statement and provide no evidence to back it up. How am I wrong - on what basis am I wrong?

And here you are completely wrong (or in other words not marginally but significantly). Both the hardware and the software (OS) are important for the overall performance. Last but not least Windows is not the only viable OS (neither is OS X)


Yes but performance is not the be-all and end-all decider when it comes to ones experience using a computer - if you actually read my post instead of scanning it quickly whilst pulling suff out of your ass you might actually realise that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Kasi on Sat 18th Sep 2010 03:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

Double

Edited 2010-09-18 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

News
by Elv13 on Sat 18th Sep 2010 02:42 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

I went to an Apple store today, my 3.5 years old Mac Book Pro had an broken GPU (overheated then cracked). They say the motherboard was 1400USD and then they gave me one with the installation included. 0$, and no, I never had an Apple Care in the first place and it would be over anyway. I don't really know why they did that, they were no recall of anything, but that's cool.

I am a Linux user, I have this laptop because I like full metal laptop, they last longer and are thinner. I never really liked Apple, but today I think I have to post a positive comment. Even if the motherboard have probably a 40% Apple tax on it, it would have still cost me 800-900USD to fix it if it was a Lenevo or high en Dell, so 0$ is a really good deal. Love them or hate them, Apple take care of there customers better than any other big corps. Many of my friend had free iPod Classic and iPod Nano 1G long after the warranty was over too (back in 2005 or so), so it is not an isolated event.

Today, I like Apple

Reply Score: 2

RE: News
by Shkaba on Sat 18th Sep 2010 03:22 UTC in reply to "News"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

I, too, like full metal notebooks. But I went the other way, got myself a panasonic toughbook. It was a bit pricy, but for me it was well worth it, if only for daylight viewable screen, not to mention ruggedness.

I am happy for your positive experience, but there are documented cases of voiding warranties, intimidating consumers, arrogant behaviour when pointing to a faulty product, etc. As I said earlier, market will force them to revisit their behaviour and make adjustments. At the end of the day, if they want to be profitable they'll have to cater to consumers.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by dvhh
by dvhh on Sat 18th Sep 2010 04:37 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

The article was a very nice view of Apple, well written.
For the challenge I would like an article as nice for microsoft.

But to put it again, Apple product have very little to do with computer enthusiast that like to tinker their software and computer, so considering the current trend of computer being more and more widespread, they are adapted to most of the people. I would say that price is not really the issue, sure apple device are expensive, but considering the effort they put into marketing and user friendly-ness, I think the price is right. Plus the Mac culture almost push commercial software dev to publish very polished software.

Windows & linux falls into the less user friendly part, as they mostly target developers,and people who are less afraid of tinkering their system,software. With that regard, windows user could often accept sub standard stability as long as it get the job done. And most linux user are happy with continuously developed software ( the concept of installing nightly builds became very popular with linux ).

Apple OS targeted softwares might seem cramped in functionalities (very little options), but they usually do their things right for the intended result.
Microsoft OS targeted softwares are usually overwhelming with (unused and buggy) features (which are here for the 5% case of what if).
Linux OS targeted software is still a mixed bag of usability, but it is not unusual to use 'man' or hand edit some files in /etc/.

So Apple product are not that bad, and are indeed very good ( if not best ) for computer illiterates.
As a linux/windows user using a Mac, frustrates me to no end, but I would 75% of the time advise people to buy a mac (yes I consider that 25% of my friend are computer literate enough to use windows at home).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by dvhh
by NeoX on Sat 18th Sep 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by dvhh"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


So Apple product are not that bad, and are indeed very good ( if not best ) for computer illiterates.
As a linux/windows user using a Mac, frustrates me to no end, but I would 75% of the time advise people to buy a mac (yes I consider that 25% of my friend are computer literate enough to use windows at home).


If you don't understand and know how to really get under the hood of the Unix side of OSX then I can understand how you would feel like OS X can't be for geeks that like to tinker. I feel there is far more tinkering one can do with OS X then can be done on Windows. Think about all the open source software, servers etc available to the Unix part of OS X. It is amazing how many things you can install and do from the command line. Plus all the built-in tools, such as Curl for FTP on the command line and for scripting, CUPS, and on and on. I have quite a few apps that I wrote to automate some of the powerful command line apps that are installed as part of OS X. Fun stuff for a tweaker!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by dvhh
by _txf_ on Sat 18th Sep 2010 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvhh"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Indeed. There is no reason somebody who claims to be a linux user could complain about osx. A lot of the time linux apps can be ported to osx fairly easily, doubly so if they are command line apps.

Even if they don't use the command line a lot, one can clearly see the resemblance between gnome and aqua.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvhh
by nt_jerkface on Sun 19th Sep 2010 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvhh"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Here's a reason:

OSX requires buying at minimum a $700 computer from one company that comes in one color just to run it.

I'm pretty critical of Linux when it comes to usability but the loon crowd can certainly claim the high crowd when it comes to being milked.

Oh and I find it quite funny that people who paid over a grand and a half for those G4 macs didn't get corporate support for nearly as long as Windows and now don't have even close the community support as Linux.

People who use Windows or Linux also don't have to pay for OS updates.

So yea I can think of a few reasons actually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by dvhh
by NeoX on Sun 19th Sep 2010 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvhh"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


OSX requires buying at minimum a $700 computer from one company that comes in one color just to run it.


Well, I bought a barely used MacMini for $100 recently and upgraded the HD and RAM with spares and it is a speedy little system. You can find used intel minis for pretty cheap. You can also get refurbed units from Apple starting at $500.


I'm pretty critical of Linux when it comes to usability but the loon crowd can certainly claim the high crowd when it comes to being milked.


I don't feel like I have been milked just because I wanted an Apple. I got what I wanted. Ok if it was $100 or $200 cheaper that would have been great but for what I got, when I got it I could only have saved a coupe hundred and bought an HP that was bulkier louder and no OS X. No thanks, it is worth the $200 more I paid.


People who use Windows or Linux also don't have to pay for OS updates.


Since when are Windows OS updates FREE? Oh if you mean bug fixes and service packs then that is free but Windows 7 was certainly not a FREE or discounted update from Vista and there are many windows users that believe that MS should have done the OS X Snow Leopard deal and charged a nominal fee to upgrade from Vista to Win 7. Nope, Full price.

If you are talking about major updates then that is what 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc.. are. Why shouldn't they cost money?
Apple does not charge for service pack type updates. There have been 4 service pack type updates since 10.6 came out and a few security updates.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by dvhh
by dvhh on Sun 19th Sep 2010 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by dvhh"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20


I don't feel like I have been milked just because I wanted an Apple. I got what I wanted. Ok if it was $100 or $200 cheaper that would have been great but for what I got, when I got it I could only have saved a coupe hundred and bought an HP that was bulkier louder and no OS X. No thanks, it is worth the $200 more I paid.


I think you entirely made your point there

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by dvhh
by nt_jerkface on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by dvhh"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


If you are talking about major updates then that is what 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc.. are. Why shouldn't they cost money?


Sorry but I don't consider a small list of additions and a few new programs to be a major update. XP SP2 was a bigger update than 10.2 and 10.3 combined.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by dvhh
by NeoX on Mon 20th Sep 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by dvhh"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


Sorry but I don't consider a small list of additions and a few new programs to be a major update. XP SP2 was a bigger update than 10.2 and 10.3 combined.


Then you better do a little more research as that is just plain crazy or you have not used or followed OS X enough. 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 were major updates that brought many, many new features. XP SP2 was a service pack that did bring a few new features, like the security center, but most were around updates to security and networking. You could hardly charge for those types of updates.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by dvhh
by dvhh on Sun 19th Sep 2010 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvhh"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Let me clarify my frustration when using mac apple computers, as nice as they are and as close as they are from any unix based system, they are designed for mac user which expect some behavior from mouse and keyboard (especially the home/end keys ) , I understand that there is some tweaks available, but I won't force my habits on someone I'm suppose to help.

And note that I'm complaining equally about every OS, they all have their flaws, they are designed to sacrifice something in order to acheive the targeted user goal, and I'm somewhat ok with that.

Applications weren't the issue ( but you can admit that Apple developed software are way more used than opensource/third party one on apple hardware ).

But the thing that I'm complaining the most is very good engineering company shooting themselves in the foot for the sake of marketing (sony and apple are among the top culprit here).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvhh
by dvhh on Sun 19th Sep 2010 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvhh"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20


If you don't understand and know how to really get under the hood of the Unix side of OSX then I can understand how you would feel like OS X can't be for geeks that like to tinker. I feel there is far more tinkering one can do with OS X then can be done on Windows. Think about all the open source software, servers etc available to the Unix part of OS X. It is amazing how many things you can install and do from the command line. Plus all the built-in tools, such as Curl for FTP on the command line and for scripting, CUPS, and on and on. I have quite a few apps that I wrote to automate some of the powerful command line apps that are installed as part of OS X. Fun stuff for a tweaker!


the point is that 99% of macOSX user don't bother at all, because that is far from the mac user culture (as much a writing a virus/trojan for a mac )

Reply Score: 2

Dude..
by Brunis on Sat 18th Sep 2010 08:26 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

You might feel, you're getting your money's worth and that's really all that matters, but comparing pc and mac prices is like comparing an Apple to an Orange (pun intended) ..obviously Oranges are alot cheaper!!

Reply Score: 1

It's about your taste
by vodoomoth on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:44 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

I think it's all about your taste or impression. Whatever your take on this, you'll always have good and valid reasons. Some die for Chrome and hate Opera, I mainly use Opera, resign to use Firefox, and can't use Chrome as it feels like there's so little UI-wise that there's nothing to handle.

I've used a MBP in my previous job. Good machine. Time machine is just the best piece of software in my eyes. As I wrote elsewhere, I think Mac OS X is overestimated... at least until the boot time falls down around the 20s mark. It's still better than the other OSes I've tried though (Linux, XP, and my dearly hated Vista).

I would buy an MBP if there were more possibilities of configuration (colors, shortcuts, etc.). Making the system font larger and choosing what columns of information are displayed in the Finder are two absolute prerequistes for me. They can do that, what stops them from doing it? Some freedom is needed there. I've listened to several of the podcasts today, with Thom and Kroc discussing a point (in podcast #8 or #9) that I remembered having raved against while in that previous job: you can't even have the total size of selected items in the Finder unless you open the stupid Info dialog... wtf?

The problem with Macs is that the software is superb, but Apple (purposely?) managed to insert some incredibly irksome limitations in it or forget some truly useful features. Finder: the multiple panes when in spatial mode where you select a folder and a pane is added to the right? Just brilliant. BUT, the very useful information like the size of selected items is missing. Time Machine: everything there is a marvel except: when you have a Finder window open and you click the TM button in the dock, it knows what window you were in and it opens in that window: clicking a date in the timeline shows an older view of that same window/folder (until you navigate of course). Just fine and I love it. Then why on Earth do I have to select what folder I want to restore the old files in, all the way from my home folder all the way down to the same folder that was open? Why not offer me the option of dropping them in that folder I launched TM in? Same with the dock: I remember having looked for an option to lock icons in the dock, just like I've been used to on Windows using RocketDock (which is a fine but less smooth clone of Mac OS X's dock) but I had to use Onyx in order to lock items because I was constantly dragging and dropping icons -especially Eclipse ones- from the dock due to problems linked to the mouse and the OS' slow responsiveness at times. God! At least, RocketDock copied the Dock from top to bottom but it added a "lock items" in the menu. Kudos to them. The worst is that there's a preference for it (otherwise, obviously, Onyx wouldn't be able to activate the feature). So what cost would having a UI element that changes the preference incur?

The OS shouldn't get in the way of my work or usage of the computer. It's true for Windowses, even more for Linuxes, but it's also true for Mac OS X.

I remember my operating system course, back in 1996 or 1997, the teacher said the OS has three primary responsibilities: manage the machine components, manage the resources for processes and offer them services, and make using the machine easier and transparent to the human user. Hum, seems like the gang of three has failed somewhere. They all suck, but in different departments, as Thom says.

Anyway, my favor goes to Macs and Mac OS X, but I'm a full "configurability" zealot, which is probably why I'm a devout Opera follower. Not that I'm always fumbling with it and customizing for the pleasure of customizing, but it's good to know the possibility of it is there. Can't change the system font on a 27 inches screen... that's ludicrous.

I'm not getting a Mac for the price tag either, although this is a secondary consideration. Even less now that the prices have gone up again in a way I see no justifications to.

Oh, and thanks to Michael for the article, which I see as a very valuable contribution.

Reply Score: 1

Pricing
by Paradroid on Mon 20th Sep 2010 14:49 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

Interesting how a lot of the plus points in this article relate to pricing - especially software. Apple seems to have a grasp of the idea that if they set a price low enough people will pay rather than pirate. If only other greedy businesses would work this way.

I used to defend Mac pricing as being reasonably competitive until around 2008-2009 - the days when you could get a Mac Mini for 399UKP, Macbooks for 599 and so on. But in the last year or two the prices have gone silly, certainly in the UK.

However, it is important bear in mind that Apple often use top-quality components. For example the iMac and Pro monitors use IPS panels. Look for an IPS panel for your PC and they are expensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pricing
by nt_jerkface on Tue 21st Sep 2010 20:30 UTC in reply to "Pricing"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Interesting how a lot of the plus points in this article relate to pricing - especially software. Apple seems to have a grasp of the idea that if they set a price low enough people will pay rather than pirate. If only other greedy businesses would work this way.


So the $1 android apps that get pirated should have a lower price? All those indy developers that already have full time jobs and code part time must be greedy.

People pirate because they don't want to pay. It really is that simple.

Reply Score: 2