Got my first mac!

[Skyve]

Why all the hate?

Cheer Up! It's all about the software
Well, you know.. Mac Vs PC lulz

Stop saying "lulz" in every thread

[*BlackFox]

lulz.. I can't help it. I Just had to say that. Sorry lulz

[Azilius]

Woah. Sounds like someone's feeling important here. I don't need your acceptance, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I just bought a VERY cheap second hand Mac (250$), found it to be very good and useful, and wanted to share some things about it with the people here. However, It feels like I'm getting bashed for joining some sort of weird cult or some religion or whatever. It's just a computer, FFS; a very good computer, but nevertheless, a computer. It's not like I'm moving to the Mac completely, I still like my PC's.

As for the point you raised concerning screen space organization, I'd just like to ask you if you've ever seriously used an OS different than Windows. I've used several Linux distributions, Solaris, FreeBSD - for almost an year -, every Windows version (from 3.1 to 7), and - now - Mac Os X. It's true that most of the Linux distributions and Solaris had a Gnome front end (I used KDE for FreeBSD), and I didn't get to know many interfaces, but I think I'm capable of relatively accurate evaluations of an OS, after extensive experience with multiple operating systems. Mac Os X can run all of the UNIX stuff, as well as some Windows, non - UNIX applications (such as Photoshop), it also runs things you can never have on Windows, such as Logic Studio, etc. In fact, I believe Macs have the greatest application pool available. Also, the Os X user interface is wonderful. It's the most ergonomic UI, far better than the Windows UI, or Gnome / KDE / other Linux front ends.

Hmm
Yes, I have ubuntu on my laptop which I use for school primarily. Though I admit I have very little knowledge of the command line and I could use a good lesson on it..

As for the programs, what you can do on one OS you can virtually do on Windows with few exceptions. Program for program it may not match up but there are always alternatives and betters for one or the other.

Ergonomics, well that's very...very opinion driven. Not only that but both OS's can be customized to no literal end so I don't see a point in even mentioning it other than a space filler for a reason why I should get a mac.

Here's a couple of facts. Let me start with a couple of examples. A Mac Pro can cost up to $10000 or more, if you have dual six-core processors and 24+ GB of RAM. If you try to buy other professional workstations (such as HP, Fujitsu-Siemens, Lenovo or even Dell) with similar specifications and quality, you won't really get them much cheaper than an equivalent Mac Pro.

I own a Lenovo ThinkPad T510, Core i7 @ 2,66 GHz, 8 GB of RAM, NVidia Quadro graphics. IMO, high-end ThinkPad's and the Fujitsu-Siemens Celsius H700 are the only laptops that can really match the performance and feel of the MacBook Pro. Now, check the prices. I payed ~$2000 for my ThinkPad (things are a little bit more expensive in Romania), and the only good replacement, for that money would have been a MacBook. Viceversa, if you own a MacBook Pro, the only real equivalent would be a ThinkPad, or other high-end laptops, which usually cost just as much.

$10,000 for a Mac Pro. The intel hexa cores run for what, 1000$ each? Why do I have to compare this with a another pre-built computer? I can build one instead for much less. Installing Mac on it brings fourth an innumerable amount of issues though..

Only the very high end windows based computers can match a MacBook Pro? Are we talking similar specs here because if not oh boy..

My ThinkPad battery lasts for 5-6 hours, the screen resolution is Full HD (yes, the laptop screen) and my graphics card can support (through the docking station) two 30" monitors, at high resolutions (two 2560 x 1600 monitors). Here's the difference. Standard, low-end laptops have a battery life of 2 hours, 1280 x 800 resolution, and nowhere near the versatility of a ThinkPad. But quite often, they can have, as far as raw processor performance, or the amount of RAM available, apparently - to the untrained eye - 'similar' performance to that of high-end laptops.

A lot of people told me, after I got my ThinkPad, that all my laptop had extra, compared to theirs is, for example, the i7 instead of an i5, 4 GB of extra RAM, and a slightly higher resolution. They also claimed they could always upgrade their laptops to match the performance of a ThinkPad, at half the price I payed for it. Oh, the ignorance and utter stupidity. It just takes a little bit of knowledge to recognize certain things. Most people don't, in fact.

No idea what you're ranting on about here, doesn't seem very relevant. Any built computer instantly trumps the cost of a Mac and there's no doubt about it. Whether or not it's "Professional" or not is of very little relevance as well. I'd also like to point out that Lenovo is another company that follows in Apples footsteps of adding a nice premium on everything they sell. But hey if it "feels" nicer...

Also, if you're saying you can buy four extra monitors with the money you save from not buying a Mac, you obviously don't seem to realize that the TN monitors you probably own are actually junk, compared to IPS or even PVA panel Monitors. Compared to an IPS, a TN looks hallucinogenic, dirty and poor. FYI, all of the Apple displays are IPS panel; they look vibrant and clear, have a great color spectrum, and have 178 / 178 viewing angles, something you can never get out of your ordinary Twisted Nematic Monitor. If you *really* hate Apple, look for alternative professional monitors, such as Eizo, NEC, or others, and don't be surprised if you find similar prices.

This kind of makes me lol. It seems you're ignorant of the company Dell and their pricing on IPS panels these days. A 23" can go for the same price as a 24" TN panel. That being said, a gamer like me would ignore IPS panels due to the greater input times. Why does the panel type matter when we are comparing desk space? If you want to add some context and say you need the IPS panel then fine, allow me to rephrase.

With the money I save from making a PC I can afford to buy 4 23" IPS panel monitors.

edit:
excuse my poor paragraph structure..It's tough to pick apart arguments and keep track of everything =|

[inky]

I would say that it's definitely a good buy for $250. The only thing I disagree with is this:

The point I'm trying to make is that the Mac - compared to Windows - feels like a whole new world, much more organized, much more logical, much more functional, and with a little bit of practice and time spent with it, significantly more useful and helpful.

It's incompatible with a lot of things some people use (talking about programs like study guides, emulators, etc) and it's a freakin computer - you can pretty much do the same shit we mainly use them for anyway. Word documents, web browsing, photoshop, music, and movies.

[strangelove]

I'll interject a little here just to clear a few things:

$10,000 for a Mac Pro. The intel hexa cores run for what, 1000$ each? Why do I have to compare this with a another pre-built computer? I can build one instead for much less. Installing Mac on it brings fourth an innumerable amount of issues though..

Only the very high end windows based computers can match a MacBook Pro? Are we talking similar specs here because if not oh boy..

I feel that obsessing over specifications usually leads to completely ignore the fact that the sum of all parts matters a whole lot more than parts individually. It's common sense that if you build something yourself instead of paying retail for it, it's going to be cheaper. I understand why you'd assume that the logical choice would be to build a workstation instead of purchasing one at retail value, but what you're failing to understand is that the Mac Pro workstation is not aimed at your average Joe Consumer, but at professionals with very specific goals in mind who have no interest in building their own machines or just lack the knowledge to doing so. It's not that they're ignorant either, but most would rather just begin using a computer right away than to deal with the little quirks that come with learning to build a computer or the possible repercussions that would come with doing so improperly. Having a machine running an OS specifically designed to function on it is a very attractive choice for someone looking for a stable working environment from the get-go. Before the inevitable misinterpretation happens, I'm not saying Windows 7 does not provide a stable working environment– it does. However, when you also include other variables into the installation process (computer parts of varying quality, depending on where you bought them from) it's more probable that you'll run into a snag than on a Mac setup. It may seem nit-picky and petty, but it can mean a world of a difference to someone who wants to begin working than more spend time servicing their machine.

I made a video to show you a couple basic things. It was 12 seconds too long to upload on youtube, so I added it to my vimeo.

http://vimeo.com/17041489

lol nice video

@stress
Grats! I'm guessing it's the previous gen Mac Mini based on the specs, right? They make pretty neat little secondary machines and they're really good for handling your media stuff.

[EvGa]

Mac OS is based on unix, that's why it is so damn efficient.

I run different linux distro's on rigs I build myself... sweet baby jesus, they are fast.

[Gaigemasta]

Mac OS is based on unix, that's why it is so damn efficient.

I run different linux distro's on rigs I build myself... sweet baby jesus, they are fast.

not true, this is what OSX is

[Azilius]

I'll interject a little here just to clear a few things:

$10,000 for a Mac Pro. The intel hexa cores run for what, 1000$ each? Why do I have to compare this with a another pre-built computer? I can build one instead for much less. Installing Mac on it brings fourth an innumerable amount of issues though..

Only the very high end windows based computers can match a MacBook Pro? Are we talking similar specs here because if not oh boy..

I feel that obsessing over specifications usually leads to completely ignore the fact that the sum of all parts matters a whole lot more than parts individually. It's common sense that if you build something yourself instead of paying retail for it, it's going to be cheaper. I understand why you'd assume that the logical choice would be to build a workstation instead of purchasing one at retail value, but what you're failing to understand is that the Mac Pro workstation is not aimed at your average Joe Consumer, but at professionals with very specific goals in mind who have no interest in building their own machines or just lack the knowledge to doing so. It's not that they're ignorant either, but most would rather just begin using a computer right away than to deal with the little quirks that come with learning to build a computer or the possible repercussions that would come with doing so improperly. Having a machine running an OS specifically designed to function on it is a very attractive choice for someone looking for a stable working environment from the get-go. Before the inevitable misinterpretation happens, I'm not saying Windows 7 does not provide a stable working environment– it does. However, when you also include other variables into the installation process (computer parts of varying quality, depending on where you bought them from) it's more probable that you'll run into a snag than on a Mac setup. It may seem nit-picky and petty, but it can mean a world of a difference to someone who wants to begin working than more spend time servicing their machine.

I find this to be an even worse argument. Laziness hardly justifies the cost of a Mac. If you can use google you can build a computer that should have as many problems as any store bought computer. Or you can just buy a pre-built computer that still demolishes any Mac equivalent in price. Unless you need to work with some Mac only software and you know there is 100% no way to match it in any other operating system then yes, I can see where you're coming from. In any other case, why the hell would you spend more money for something lesser?

[EvGa]

not true, this is what OSX is

Nope, its true.

Mac OS is not brownies covered in icing that is swirled to look like poo.

[Gaigemasta]

how do u know its icing, could be ur moms shit for all you know, don't be an ass, you know what I meant

[dom]

I'll interject a little here just to clear a few things:

$10,000 for a Mac Pro. The intel hexa cores run for what, 1000$ each? Why do I have to compare this with a another pre-built computer? I can build one instead for much less. Installing Mac on it brings fourth an innumerable amount of issues though..

Only the very high end windows based computers can match a MacBook Pro? Are we talking similar specs here because if not oh boy..

I feel that obsessing over specifications usually leads to completely ignore the fact that the sum of all parts matters a whole lot more than parts individually. It's common sense that if you build something yourself instead of paying retail for it, it's going to be cheaper. I understand why you'd assume that the logical choice would be to build a workstation instead of purchasing one at retail value, but what you're failing to understand is that the Mac Pro workstation is not aimed at your average Joe Consumer, but at professionals with very specific goals in mind who have no interest in building their own machines or just lack the knowledge to doing so. It's not that they're ignorant either, but most would rather just begin using a computer right away than to deal with the little quirks that come with learning to build a computer or the possible repercussions that would come with doing so improperly. Having a machine running an OS specifically designed to function on it is a very attractive choice for someone looking for a stable working environment from the get-go. Before the inevitable misinterpretation happens, I'm not saying Windows 7 does not provide a stable working environment– it does. However, when you also include other variables into the installation process (computer parts of varying quality, depending on where you bought them from) it's more probable that you'll run into a snag than on a Mac setup. It may seem nit-picky and petty, but it can mean a world of a difference to someone who wants to begin working than more spend time servicing their machine.

I find this to be an even worse argument. Laziness hardly justifies the cost of a Mac. If you can use google you can build a computer that should have as many problems as any store bought computer. Or you can just buy a pre-built computer that still demolishes any Mac equivalent in price. Unless you need to work with some Mac only software and you know there is 100% no way to match it in any other operating system then yes, I can see where you're coming from. In any other case, why the hell would you spend more money for something lesser?

The biggest thing that has marked me throughout this thread from your posts, as well as others, is the focus on specifications.

Yes, you can build a PC that will terrorize a Mac in terms of numbers. The problem is that you are ignorant of the actual experience - normally a sign that you have minimal experience on a mac.

This is like comparing a car's performance to a boat's outboard motor. They are built differently, run in different environments, and serve different purposes.

My PC, by way of numbers, tears my macbook pro to pieces. But, the "quality of experience" is not properly represented by these numbers. My PC acts like a spoiled child: always whining and crying; begging for my attention and crashing when it doesn't get its way.

If I boot up SCII on my mac and my PC, my PC wins in terms of performance and I paid less to build my PC than buy my mac. It's just too bad that I don't spend most of my time playing games.

When I am working with media, organizing my photos, watching movies, or browsing the internet my Mac wins. I prefer the experience.

You may not prefer that experience, you may also not be able to afford a mac. Most of the complaints I see are always related to price:

- I could build a PC that can play games with nicer graphics for half the price!
- I could buy a pc and an iPod for that price!

I spent $1400+ for my macbook pro. It's my money and I worked to pay for it. Because of the focus on the cost and gaming performance of macs, I highly suspect that most of the people that rage about macs on this forum are in school and unemployed. Consequently, I don't think you understand that it's my decision as a consumer to spend this money.

You could argue that a $50,000 luxury car is not much quicker than a $30,000 car; and even if it were, it's limited to the speed limits on our roads. The guy will still buy the $50,000 car, not because it's faster, but because he enjoys driving it.

[EvGa]

how do u know its icing, could be ur moms shit for all you know, don't be an ass, you know what I meant

You mad?

You said "no" to me saying Mac OS is based on UNIX and then called it shit.

I'm being the ass? Ok.

[Gaigemasta]

I was disagreeing with you, I didn't rephrase your post into the opposite meaning

[Azilius]

-

Yes I know I've been heavily ignoring the "feel of it" factor and the enjoyment factor. I've used a Mac many times before and I still use Ubuntu on my laptop. I can afford a Mac or a few if I felt like it but just because I have the money doesn't mean I would spend it.

more to add later..class time >_>

--

When I am working with media, organizing my photos, watching movies, or browsing the internet my Mac wins. I prefer the experience.

You may not prefer that experience, you may also not be able to afford a mac.

When I work with my media..I do just that =\ I can do the same things I can on a Mac that I can on Windows. I focus on a movie when I watch it, not what OS I'm using. The experience to me is based on the movie/media, not my OS.

[Dbett5]

people can't even make a thread without you guys being assholes about it.

Great point.(no sarcasm)

[strangelove]

When I work with my media..I do just that =\ I can do the same things I can on a Mac that I can on Windows. I focus on a movie when I watch it, not what OS I'm using. The experience to me is based on the movie/media, not my OS.

Except that's not the case at all. The whole idea of (for example) Windows 7 is that it provides a more user-friendly experience. "I'm a PC and X-Feature was my idea" and so forth. The OS is constantly controlling how you experience what you do at almost every turn.

Just taking your example, the OS controls how you view your video files in the Explorer window to how it should alert you should the OS need your attention while you're watching a video. You could be watching a full-screen video and the OS can abruptly prompt you with a balloon tip, or it can wait until you're out of full-screen mode to alert you.

There's so many little things that normally go ignored or unnoticed by most users even though it's exactly this intuitiveness of the OS that directly impacts how you do everyday tasks. It can range from the shape of a prompt to the animation used for a minimizing window. This is designed to deliver a certain experience to the user based on how the user interacts with the OS and how the OS responds to those actions. This consistency throughout the OS will then make the user "expect" things to work a certain way or react in a certain manner no matter what they're doing. This is how Apple's "just works" mantra is made– a user begins adapting to the new environment and the OS responds just as the user "expects" it to even when doing other non-related tasks. Is it magical and revolutionary? Yes No, but Apple have gotten user experience down to a science. Anyway, I could go on forever on the importance of an OS' look and feel but that should address your comment.

[Shomari]

It's all about personal preference.
Chocolate ice-cream is best.

[Azilius]

When I work with my media..I do just that =\ I can do the same things I can on a Mac that I can on Windows. I focus on a movie when I watch it, not what OS I'm using. The experience to me is based on the movie/media, not my OS.

Except that's not the case at all. The whole idea of (for example) Windows 7 is that it provides a more user-friendly experience. "I'm a PC and X-Feature was my idea" and so forth. The OS is constantly controlling how you experience what you do at almost every turn.

Just taking your example, the OS controls how you view your video files in the Explorer window to how it should alert you should the OS need your attention while you're watching a video. You could be watching a full-screen video and the OS can abruptly prompt you with a balloon tip, or it can wait until you're out of full-screen mode to alert you.

There's so many little things that normally go ignored or unnoticed by most users even though it's exactly this intuitiveness of the OS that directly impacts how you do everyday tasks. It can range from the shape of a prompt to the animation used for a minimizing window. This is designed to deliver a certain experience to the user based on how the user interacts with the OS and how the OS responds to those actions. This consistency throughout the OS will then make the user "expect" things to work a certain way or react in a certain manner no matter what they're doing. This is how Apple's "just works" mantra is made– a user begins adapting to the new environment and the OS responds just as the user "expects" it to even when doing other non-related tasks. Is it magical and revolutionary? Yes No, but Apple have gotten user experience down to a science. Anyway, I could go on forever on the importance of an OS' look and feel but that should address your comment.

And this, in your opinion, is worth spending considerably more money on and getting lesser hardware?

I feel we're arguing down to the bare minimum here. Also do note that the whole idea of Windows 7 isn't user friendliness, that's just the commercials. The massive amounts of other related updates just aren't things to be said to the general public to make a sale. But like I said before, an OS is customizable to and endless extent. All these issues or perks can be taken away or added depending on how lazy a person is.

It's all about personal preference.
Chocolate ice-cream is best.

but when I order a chocolate ice-cream cone as opposed to a vanilla one, I don't have to pay extra and I don't get a cone that's of worse quality..

[strangelove]

And this, in your opinion, is worth spending considerably more money on and getting lesser hardware?

I feel we're arguing down to the bare minimum here. Also do note that the whole idea of Windows 7 isn't user friendliness, that's just the commercials. The massive amounts of other related updates just aren't things to be said to the general public to make a sale. But like I said before, an OS is customizable to and endless extent. All these issues or perks can be taken away or added depending on how lazy a person is.

You must have missed dom's entire post if that's your opening question.

I should've have said "one of the main goals" in my post, but I wasn't aware at the time of the pedantic route this exchange would be taking. You seem to be holding an unrealistic standard to regular computer users that is just not even close to reality. The whole computer repair industry is based on the fact that people lack computer skills or even the ability to Google their issues and solve their problems. Over time, I've enjoyed the product quality Apple has provided me and I do not mind paying a premium because of it. If you become a computer junkie, it doesn't mean you must then give up convenience. If you have the money and convenience is something you like, buy your favorite iProduct. If you feel your funds are better spent elsewhere with a DIY project where you'll get more raw power for your money, that's fine too. If you personally have an issue with the Apple brand for whatever reason, then that's your business and none of my concern (nor would I wish to make it my concern). This exchange could have been more productive, but for some reason you've felt the need to use rehashed and reductionist arguments with very little substance if that's even possible. Needless to say, I am disappoint.

Also, Stress has disappeared!

[Azilius]

And this, in your opinion, is worth spending considerably more money on and getting lesser hardware?

I feel we're arguing down to the bare minimum here. Also do note that the whole idea of Windows 7 isn't user friendliness, that's just the commercials. The massive amounts of other related updates just aren't things to be said to the general public to make a sale. But like I said before, an OS is customizable to and endless extent. All these issues or perks can be taken away or added depending on how lazy a person is.

You must have missed dom's entire post if that's your opening question.

I should've have said "one of the main goals" in my post, but I wasn't aware at the time of the pedantic route this exchange would be taking. You seem to be holding an unrealistic standard to regular computer users that is just not even close to reality. The whole computer repair industry is based on the fact that people lack computer skills or even the ability to Google their issues and solve their problems. Over time, I've enjoyed the product quality Apple has provided me and I do not mind paying a premium because of it. If you become a computer junkie, it doesn't mean you must then give up convenience. If you have the money and convenience is something you like, buy your favorite iProduct. If you feel your funds are better spent elsewhere with a DIY project where you'll get more raw power for your money, that's fine too. If you personally have an issue with the Apple brand for whatever reason, then that's your business and none of my concern (nor would I wish to make it my concern). This exchange could have been more productive, but for some reason you've felt the need to use rehashed and reductionist arguments with very little substance if that's even possible. Needless to say, I am disappoint.

Don't get me wrong I don't have some weird Apple distaste, I have an iTouch and I used to have a Mac a long time ago. I guess I just can't get my head wrapped around the "feel of it" factor and that's why my opening question was still that. I don't even believe that's the reason most people buy a Mac in the first place, to me it still sounds like a bullshit reason...I mean to a general crowd I'd say the reason people buy Mac's is ignorance such as the "no virus" belief, and the "no crashing" belief..The 'just works' line is bullshit as well because I've seen Macs crash, errors happen and the like. I believe it's great marketing to blame for the purchases of Macs but that's just my opinion. I can't really take something like the "feel of it" as seriously as you do. But I guess that's just my thought process, to match up the pros and cons of each and consider them. While one side has superior hardware and price, the other has a better feel to it..To some it may be worth it to switch, but to me it isn't and seems trivial.=\

And hey if you thought this argument could be productive at all I think you should realize this is a mac vs windows debate. They're never productive and disappointment would sprout in any case.

[Stress]

I decided to wait a bit, to see how things would progress.

Certain arguments appear to be useless if directed at people who seem to be obsessed with their own sense of pragmatism, and who fail to see anything beyond what they consider to be 'pragmatic'. In their essence, all of Azilius' arguments simmer down to the 'money' factor, which is quite sad, to be honest.

Here's a question of 'pragmatism', if we're really at it.
I've got $2000 dollars to spend on my new computer.

Let's say I buy the following Mac:
27" iMac, 2,8 GHz Quad Core i5 processor, 4 GB of RAM, 2560-by-1440 resolution, 1 TB HDD, Radeon HD 5750.
This is going to cost me $2000. I get all of the mac services and customer support, a very large, clear display, and, most importantly of all, perhaps, Mac OS.

Now, let's say you build a $2000 PC, you're definitely going to have an i7, maybe 2 extra GB of RAM, two displays and maybe two video cards in SLI.

Macs are not for gaming; the PC wins in gaming anyways. Let's talk about all the OTHER things you can do with a PC.

Now, here's the pragmatic questions:
How often are you going to use precisely that extra computing power the i7 has over the i5?
How often do you need the 2 extra GB of RAM? By the way, the iMac can be upgraded to 16 GB with no problems, RAM is relatively cheap. I bought 8 GB of SODIMM DDR3 for $200.
How often do you need more space than a 2560 x 1440 screen can give you?
When are you going to need the extra video card?

See my point?
Here's a hypothetical situation. You have spent $2000 on a high-end PC, which you only use for gaming. In six months time, you get a demanding job, and you no longer have time for gaming. You need to work ~10 hours a day, and you need to be comfortable doing this.
It is then you realize, that:
- your TN monitors hurt your eyes, and are unpleasant to use.
- you never run your PC at more than 50% CPU load, you might as well have gotten an i5.
- same goes for the RAM, you never use more than 3 GB of it.
- you never game, so your SLI video cards are pretty much useless.

Now, of course, you can say you could have gotten a PC with the same performance as the mac I've proposed, for $1000, and that it would have been enough. Oh well, bottom line is, you've wasted $1000.

You've wasted $1000, because performance is all - from your perspective - PC's are all about. It's not unreasonable to try and squeeze maximum satisfaction out of your money, but when you - implicitly - declare that performance is the only thing that really matters, you have to be wrong. My ThinkPad argument on the previous page was exactly about that.

BLUE = evaluation of a computer: more than just numbers.
RED = performance: numbers.

How you see things:


How I see things:


That's enough for now, I guess. Off to class.

[McLovin1t]

Dont you just feel a huge weight lifted off your chest when you come out of the closet? How did your parents take the news?

lol'd

& @ Stress, the money factor is still incredibly important to a lot of people. Let's say you have 2000$, you can't buy the Mac you listed above, yet I digress.
1. If you are going to get a job in 6 months or w/e why are you buying a 2000$ PC if you don't have a job
2. Who doesn't have time for gaming?
3. What's the problem with downloading Windows 7 or the Mac interface on a stronger PC?
4. What's wrong with having a stronger processor, and why can't you turn down the brightness on your monitor?! What if you get fired for flirting with your boss? Back to gaming! But WAIT, you have the Mac, so you can't game!

Jeez I didn't even see the arguments in this thread
Tl;wr.

[Stress]

@ McLovin1t: you obviously don't understand what I was talking about.

1. I was just presenting a hypothetical situation. The example itself is not as relevant as the points I was trying to make.
2. I don't. Many others don't. I need to work more than 6 hours a day at the PC, and I've got classes to attend. that pretty much rules out gaming. I've got better things to do than game.
3. Mac OS is not an interface, it's an operating system. It seems that your idea of Operating System automatically equates any OS to Windows, and what's different about them is just the interface.
4. Nothing wrong with having a stronger processor. No one said that. Read my post attentively. If you can not comprehend what I'm trying to say, refrain from posting. Also, you don't seem to understand that TN monitors are bad, however bright you set them.

Back to gaming! But WAIT, you have the Mac, so you can't game!

So what if I can't game?

What I was trying to say is that most modern PC's are - for what they're used for - overkill, as far as performance goes. Well, maybe not for some games such as Crysis or whatever, that really NEED a lot of resources; but for everything else, the performances are overkill.

I'm not a gamer, and I don't have time for that. Here's the trade I was tying to explain in the previous post:

For the same money I pay for extra PC performance I almost never need, I buy a Mac with the performance I really need it to have, and I get all the extra things Macs have to offer as well.

IMO, for a someone who isn't interested in gaming, this trade is a great thing to do.

[Azilius]

I've got $2000 dollars to spend on my new computer.

Flawed logic starts here. Why do you have to spend all $2000? I can buy your Mac equivalent for $1000, and save that other $1000 which I obviously need since I have to work 10 hours a day in 6 months..

Let's say I buy the following Mac:
27" iMac, 2,8 GHz Quad Core i5 processor, 4 GB of RAM, 2560-by-1440 resolution, 1 TB HDD, Radeon HD 5750.
This is going to cost me $2000. I get all of the mac services and customer support, a very large, clear display, and, most importantly of all, perhaps, Mac OS.

Looking at apple.ca that's $2100 for me, and it comes without any of their available pre-installed software and none of their 'service and support'..cool.

Now, let's say you build a $2000 PC, you're definitely going to have an i7, maybe 2 extra GB of RAM, two displays and maybe two video cards in SLI.

Actually 2gb ddr3 ram gets as cheap as $20 these days, 4gb for 40$ OR $220 at Apple.
Also to be fair, 27" IPS monitors are quite expensive ($950 for one at Dell, not sure where else), but on the other hand I could get 2 24" IPS for $600, so it's all preference here.

Macs are not for gaming; the PC wins in gaming anyways. Let's talk about all the OTHER things you can do with a PC.

Now, here's the pragmatic questions:
How often are you going to use precisely that extra computing power the i7 has over the i5?
How often do you need the 2 extra GB of RAM? By the way, the iMac can be upgraded to 16 GB with no problems, RAM is relatively cheap. I bought 8 GB of SODIMM DDR3 for $200.
How often do you need more space than a 2560 x 1440 screen can give you?
When are you going to need the extra video card?

See my point?

I don't see your point..I can't comment on the i5 to i7 difference, but I find myself maxing out CPU usage on my Q6600 (running @ 3.6) often enough. Currently with chrome, MATLAB and Windows live messenger open, I'm using 2.95 GB ram. With certain games open I've hit higher than 4-5gb usage, I like to multitask..

With my two 24" monitors I get 1920x1080 on each, and I'm using all that space right now. One monitor for chrome + music, the other for MSN + MatLab. Quite often I put a movie on one monitor and do everything else on the other, or some other variation..needless to say I use way more than 2560x1440.

Here's a hypothetical situation. You have spent $2000 on a high-end PC, which you only use for gaming. In six months time, you get a demanding job, and you no longer have time for gaming. You need to work ~10 hours a day, and you need to be comfortable doing this.
It is then you realize, that:
- your TN monitors hurt your eyes, and are unpleasant to use.
- you never run your PC at more than 50% CPU load, you might as well have gotten an i5.
- same goes for the RAM, you never use more than 3 GB of it.
- you never game, so your SLI video cards are pretty much useless.

Now, of course, you can say you could have gotten a PC with the same performance as the mac I've proposed, for $1000, and that it would have been enough. Oh well, bottom line is, you've wasted $1000.

Here's a hypothetical situation, you spend $8000 on a new Macbook for work as everyone else has one and you want to be as cool as them. You get fired the next day and now have a job at McDonald's. Your only release from all the stress built up from making fries and servicing fat people is to relax while playing some awesome new generation computer games.

You just wasted $8000.

You can make up any hypothetical situation to try and prove any point..

also if a TN monitor is hurting your eyes getting an IPS won't fix that issue. A monitor shouldn't hurt your eyes unless you have some kind of issue, and in most cases...people do not. But if I'm spending $2000 why the hell don't I just buy an IPS monitor, as mentioned before they are expensive but not out of the price range in any way. You know companies other than Apple sell IPS monitors right?

You've wasted $1000, because performance is all - from your perspective - PC's are all about. It's not unreasonable to try and squeeze maximum satisfaction out of your money, but when you - implicitly - declare that performance is the only thing that really matters, you have to be wrong. My ThinkPad argument on the previous page was exactly about that.

BLUE = evaluation of a computer: more than just numbers.
RED = performance: numbers.

How you see things:


How I see things:


That's enough for now, I guess. Off to class.

While I've mostly stated my liking for specifications, who's to say I don't prefer the Windows experience? It really does sound like bullshit doesn't it? Well it really does go both ways... I love Windows and I can't live without seeing that little paperclip fucker from msword every single day.

[Stress]

I can't be bothered to answer anything to that. Your post is almost completely irrelevant to the topic. You either don't understand what I was trying to say, or you do, and choose to ignore it altogether, and not to respond to the actual relevant points of my posts. In any case, my participation in this discussion is over.

[Azilius]

Well the problem with what you said is..everything about it was wrong/flawed.

It's hard to respond to that in general...I don't know what you expect me to say when you think the sky is orange with green stripes.

[dom]

They have hundreds of these on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/ ... hit_steve/

In regards to game QQage:

Just would like to point out that the blizzard games (WoW, Starcraft 2, eventually Diablo 3), valve steam games (TF2/CSS/Portal/etc.), in addition to other games, work absolutely fine on OSX. I just finished downloading CIV5 from steam and will play it on my mac.

[Stress]

Well the problem with what you said is..everything about it was wrong / flawed.

It's hard to respond to that in general... I don't know what you expect me to say when you think the sky is orange with green stripes.

[strangelove]

Don't get me wrong I don't have some weird Apple distaste, I have an iTouch and I used to have a Mac a long time ago. I guess I just can't get my head wrapped around the "feel of it" factor and that's why my opening question was still that. I don't even believe that's the reason most people buy a Mac in the first place, to me it still sounds like a bullshit reason...I mean to a general crowd I'd say the reason people buy Mac's is ignorance such as the "no virus" belief, and the "no crashing" belief..The 'just works' line is bullshit as well because I've seen Macs crash, errors happen and the like. I believe it's great marketing to blame for the purchases of Macs but that's just my opinion. I can't really take something like the "feel of it" as seriously as you do. But I guess that's just my thought process, to match up the pros and cons of each and consider them. While one side has superior hardware and price, the other has a better feel to it..To some it may be worth it to switch, but to me it isn't and seems trivial.=\

And hey if you thought this argument could be productive at all I think you should realize this is a mac vs windows debate. They're never productive and disappointment would sprout in any case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel

^ That's what I mean by 'look and feel'. It's a somewhat basic UI term so I assumed you were familiar with it. I'm only mentioning this again because I think you might be under the impression that I'm trying to romanticize UI usage or something; its an actual thing. What I can't wrap my head around is why you believe ignorance to be the only reason people buy Macs (well, I actually do understand why, but your reasoning is petty to say the least). More specifically, it sounds like you're implying that people who buy computers from other manufacturers do so based on reasoned logic outweighing the pros and cons of their purchase. Basically, I think you're projecting your own standards a little too strongly to the general public and that is very unrealistic. People in general don't care what hardware they have, or what score they'll get in 3DMark. Cost is equally unimportant unless they're on a budget. To the average user, these contrivances are irrelevant. As long as they're able to do things they like, they'll be happy, and the computer will have been worth every cent no matter how cheap or expensive it may have been.

The 'just works' line is bullshit as well because I've seen Macs crash, errors happen and the like.

Unfortunately, 'just works' doesn't mean what you think it does. Also, the iPhone 4's 'Retina Display' won't make blind people see and the iPad is not actually 'Magical', lol. This is the sort of statement I would expect from a technology layman. I mean, you sound like a pretty reasonable guy and you show interest in tech stuff so I can only assume you're familiar with tech marketing talk and you're able to distinguish that from what it actually means, so it's a little surprising to me that this is the sort of flawed logic you've been applying here. I gave you an example in a previous reply of how that specific talking point gets propagated, so I'm guessing you either ignored it or dismissed it.

Turkey Day tomorrow and Black Friday after that (or Boxing Day for you Canucks) so I won't be here for a while, but I'll respond when I get back if this thread is still alive.

[Stress]

Also, someone who has only seriously used Windows Operating systems can only have a biased point of view. If you've never gotten into UNIX-based systems (e.g FreeBSD), maybe it's time you should. This obviously isn't about buying Macs, because you're never going to do that, of course; it's about broadening your horizon and understanding. And if you just don't care about anything, as long as you have your good-old Windows PC, you deserve pity.