why a MAC instead of PC ???

[delgers7]

Always been a pc man but now getting drawn towards the Mac and in particular the imac 24.
Can anyone tell me why i should swap and go with a mac...

[ebony]

I went for a mac ( purchased it 2 days ago ) because:

- its not windows
- its different
- reliability
- ease of use
- looks nice so keeps the wife happy ( honestly ! )
- comes pre loaded with all the software I am likeley to use in the near future
- its interesting to learn something new and understand a different ( non windows ) approach to computing.

[Unlocker]

Main thing for me is that it just doesn't seem to crash!

Also, if you are thinking about the iMac 24 inch model, it is an intel machine, so, if you dont like using OS X, you can always put Windows on it.

We have a 20 inch one on the wall in the kitchen, missus was sceptical, but absolutely loves it (keeps her in the kitchen too!)

[flugger]

a few more advantages

- usability there is no question that the OS X is more intuative than a windows machine... when you give it a chance... this is down to OS X's fairly strict Interface guidelines for developers

- stability some debate this, but my machines hardly ever crash, crashes are usually down to 3rd party software or hardware issues

- viruses why are there no major viruses I don't quite know, surely all those virus makers out there see how cocky Mac users are and wouldn't it be oh so sweet to shut them up... so go ahead! lol, err no don't

- Development A mac comes with a free set of development tools (XCode) which are amazing, nothing can really rival them, especially as they are free!

- Development part 2 This provides us with a huge development community so we have lots of cool apps, usually free!

[Rizza]

I recently switched to linux, OpenSUSE 10.2 just to experience something different, and i've not looked back since. It doesn't crash and it's just good to learn something different, however it's still a bit techie, but it's free and has much lower hardware requirements than windows.

I feel experiencing something different is good enough reason, so I'll recommend the Mac or Linux.

Rizza

[timmillwood]

They are great, you get iLife which is GREAT (although microsoft has kinda copied it in Vista), the do sometimes crash but seem to recover better than my old PCs did, NO VIRUSES or spyware or any of that crap that slow your system right down. Great design although there are some good designed PCs.

Still supports all good programs (photoshop, dreamweaver, word etc) loads of updates, loads of cool extras, widgets, software & other stuff.

main on though is just the ease of use, windows seems to hard now.

[jjhellis]

I got mine a week ago and while waiting to collect it I looked at what I could have instead and thought maybe I was making the wrong choice but then remembered all the times I have re-installed windows due to problems and then I saw what other systems were on display and they were better but it didn't matter that they were more powerful and had more hdd space and ram and games if the system keeps crashing it's not worth the extra stuff.

[rude-dog]

a few more advantages

- usability there is no question that the OS X is more intuative than a windows machine... when you give it a chance... this is down to OS X's fairly strict Interface guidelines for developers

- stability some debate this, but my machines hardly ever crash, crashes are usually down to 3rd party software or hardware issues

- viruses why are there no major viruses I don't quite know, surely all those virus makers out there see how cocky Mac users are and wouldn't it be oh so sweet to shut them up... so go ahead! lol, err no don't

- Development A mac comes with a free set of development tools (XCode) which are amazing, nothing can really rival them, especially as they are free!

- Development part 2 This provides us with a huge development community so we have lots of cool apps, usually free!



nicely said, but you forgot one major thing!


they look great!!!! and using them is just so enjoyable....

[glynhughes]

Every time I have to use a Windows PC I'm immediately reminded why I prefer OSX. It's the constant nagging - ballons, beeps and boxes warning me about potentially dangerous internet activity, so-and-so software may need an update and that bloody office paperclip thing. It's infuriating. And it's the main reason I'd never switch to Windows.

[Kieron]

It just seems to work so easily.

It's clean and functional.

It's intuitive.

They do everything a Windows machine will and much more.

Don't forget you can happily run XP or Vista on one using Parallels software (whilst you are running OSX) - so you have the best of both worlds...

[lex read]

I would add that the hardware is pretty reliable. I am using a five year old imac, which is still running perfectly!:thumbsup:

Also, it still looks better than the vast majority of pcs that you can buy nowadays.

[celtic13]

Because its actually not about the computer but what you want to use it for - thats why Macs seem life enhancing. Once you know your way around they rarely get in the way - I don't want to fiddle with drivers, I just want to make small films or edit photos or burn to dvd without hassle. My Mac allows me to do this!

P

[Scott_Mac]

Other advantages... if an application does crash, you can just "Force Quit" it and carry on as normal, re-opening it straight away after and it works fine.. in Windows, as i'm sure you know it's often curtains.

The Mac also doesn't have a registry so no central place to get screwed up, installing programs is often a case of drag the folder into your applications folder and off you go...

I also love the relatively resource light nature of OS X, Vista needs a huge spec to run, and i mean huge whereas my girlfriend has a 500Mhz Power PC iBook (about 4/5 years old) and it's running Tiger (OS 10.4.8) i.e. the very latest version, it runs absolutley everything in it, without problem.... try installing Vista on most brand new laptops!!!!

I changed nearly a year ago, and i'm the IT Manager in a 3 Server Windows environment... since moving 2 more Macs have joined the foray and another 2 are likely to join them!

In summary, they just work... buy one!!! (Oh and there was a very cheap 24" iMac in the refurb store earlier...)

[jian]

I think both systems have their pros and cons, but people get carried away with the fan boy crap as soon as they move system, especially when they move to a mac.

I move between mac and pc because I like variety but like macs at the moment because they are stylish, well built and designed. I am referring to the laptops though and not the desktops - they've never really appealed to me.

The beauty of a mac nowadays is that you can have the best of both worlds and run windows and osx.

[RockySpieler]

Congratulatins on the separate Mac forum.......or is it a Mini-Forum?!

I have a 64-bit processor in my PC, but I have XP-Home which only runs at 32-Bit.

The latest advice on the net about Vista is to use the 32-bit version (even if you have a 64-Bit processor) as software, and manily hardware drivers do not support (or have not been written) for 64-Bit. In fact one of the web-site I read suggested waiting a year before switching to 64-Bit OS.

So my question is......................do MAC's fully use 64-Bit processors, or do they like Windows PC's run better (at the moment) with 32-Bit?????

[starman0147]

With a Mac do you get more bang for the buck! How would a £1000 Macbook compare to the same priced PC notebook performances wise? as it seems from looking at specs you are paying £150 + just for the privilege of owning a mac

[Scott_Mac]

A common statement that people make, in some scenarios a Mac can seem more pricey, but you aren't comparing like for like in many instances, sure you can buy a cheaper laptop (i have several at work that were £550) but they won't match the spec... what you also won't get is the software, iLife has some great tools in it and they're free....

The £999 Macbook is not what i'd call a bad spec at all, the main thing i'm sure you'd see with a Windows PC at that price point is a dedicated graphics card, however the MB one is not the integrated of old, you can actually use it for games, it will render files in Photoshop very well, but it uses system RAM to do it. But a Dual Core 2Ghz Processor, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb Hard Drive, Dual Layer DVD-R, hi res, good quality screen and excellent build quality for £1k is not what i'd call pricey. It's about £100 more than the Dell XPS M1210 which has a nigh on identical spec, but i think iLife makes up for that, the efforts that Microsoft made in Vista are good, much better than XP, but they're not iLife... and as i said earlier the 2Ghz Processor, 1Gb RAM and 120Gb HDD will go a lot further on the far less resource hungry Mac. I heard that Vista takes 15Gb to install!?!?

Oh and to the guy asking about 32/64 Bit... only the Core 2 Duo processors (i.e. most recent) are 64 Bit and at present Tiger is not 64 Bit, when launched Leopard fully supports both 32 and 64 Bit processors, just the one edition, no need to buy a specific version.

[Sonic67]

I heard that Vista takes 15Gb to install!?!?


Yes to install but you get it back later:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=64

That’s an eye-popping requirement at first glance – 15GB of free disk space? Is Vista going to be a big, bloated OS upgrade after all?

In short, no.

That 15GB requirement is a reflection of how the new staged setup program for Windows Vista works. Vista’s predecessors, including Windows XP, perform a file-by-file setup. The staged installation copies a disk image containing a full, ready-to-run installation of Windows Vista, installs drivers for your hardware, migrates your data, and finally cleans up after itself.

I’ve installed Windows Vista Ultimate Edition on a few PCs in my office. The core installation takes up a little over 6GB of disk space, plus additional space for a paging file and hibernation file – the exact size of these two files varies depending on how much RAM is installed on your computer.

So, yes, you will need 15GB of free disk space. But the good news is, when you’re done you’ll still have plenty of room for data.

[Sonic67]

The £999 Macbook is not what i'd call a bad spec at all, the main thing i'm sure you'd see with a Windows PC at that price point is a dedicated graphics card, however the MB one is not the integrated of old, you can actually use it for games, it will render files in Photoshop very well, but it uses system RAM to do it. But a Dual Core 2Ghz Processor, 1Gb RAM, 120Gb Hard Drive, Dual Layer DVD-R, hi res, good quality screen and excellent build quality for £1k is not what i'd call pricey.


I've just bought (last week from the website) a Dell Inspiron 1501. AMD Turion 64X2 Dual Core, 1GB RAM, 120Gb Hard drive, Windows Vista Premium, 15.4" widescreen WXGA screen, 8xDVD+/-RW drive, Microsoft Works 8.5. £520 including VAT and shipping. That's actually a little more than I could have had but I wanted a better on-board battery. Graphics are integrated but then I'm not using it for games. With the change you could up the memory to 2Gb and get a load of software as well.

[SimP]

I recently got a 233MHz G3 iMac (one of the original tray loading ones) off freecycle for my son. It's circa 1998. I've maxed out the ram to an incredible 168mb, ditched the original 4gb hard drive and it's happily running OSX 10.3.9 . How many Windows machines from back then could run Vista?

[Sonic67]

I once had Windows 95 running on a 386 with 12Mb of RAM.

Interesting question though so I had a look.

To be Vista capable you need these requirements at least: a processor of 800 MHz, 512 MB RAM, Graphics card that is DirectX 9 capable, HDD capacity 20 GB, HDD free space 15 GB, Other drives: DVD-ROM

In 1998 a high end PC of £1800 would have got you PII at 450MHz, 128Mb of RAM, 2 SLI Graphics cards, a hard drive of 6.5Gb and a DVD ROM.

That would still be enough to run XP without upgrading. XP Home needs a 300MHz Processor and 128Mb of RAM. Vista is a graphical show off which is why system requirements are much higher.

[itsamac]

Lets not forget what VISTA stands for

Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware

Sure Windows Vista has UAC but Microsoft have decided to take a heavy handed approach with it's customers. UAC is so intrusive (you have to authorise Windows to access Computer Manager, Services panel, even to activate it, etc) that it is predicted that most users will switch off thereby negating the benefits of the new security measures.

[BenchyUK]

Lets not forget what VISTA stands for

Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware.

Brilliant :rotfl:

[Jaap74]

Lets not forget what VISTA stands for

Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware

Sure Windows Vista has UAC but Microsoft have decided to take a heavy handed approach with it's customers. UAC is so intrusive (you have to authorise Windows to access Computer Manager, Services panel, even to activate it, etc) that it is predicted that most users will switch off thereby negating the benefits of the new security measures.

and of course you are in now way biased ;)

[itsamac]

and of course you are in now way biased ;)

Oh God no :rotfl: The UAC bit is from ComputerWorld and ZDNet.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_partner_Vista_less_secure_than_XP/0,130061733,339274261,00.htm

User Access Control is now known as User Annoyance Control.

[nikyzf]

With a Mac do you get more bang for the buck! How would a £1000 Macbook compare to the same priced PC notebook performances wise? as it seems from looking at specs you are paying £150 + just for the privilege of owning a mac

Apple don't compete against bottom-end PCs, but when you compare like with like, they are not really overpriced at all. See
http://www.systemshootouts.com/
Sorry, those are US prices, but the comparison holds over here if you care to price a Dell at their site.

[Sonic67]

With UAC once you have set up the computer as an administrator you should then switch user and use it under a normal log in. Unless you want to alter some security bit of Windows you shouldn't need to be logged in as administrator all the time.

The following is from Micro Mart and was written by an Apple user:

Should your next computer be an Apple:

The Case For:

No viruses. There are no viruses for Mac OS-X other than a few 'proof of concept' ones which prove only that if you don't know what you are doing you should learn.

It runs Windows. Yes that's right - Macs can now run Windows and at full speed, not in emulation. Better still with Parallels Desktop it can run Windows alonside the Mac OS in a window. No need for re-booting.

It runs Linux. In the past Macs ran exotic flavours of Linux for PowerPC meaning some Linux software wasn't available.

They're no more expensive. Sort of. Some Apple machines, notably the Mac mini approach the low cost of the PC.

They're better designed. Why are computers immune to industrial design? Few of us would stand for ugly cars or televisions, yet Apple is virtually the only company to design computers properly. Even those PC manufacturers that do, do so only in high-end expensive models and tend to think of design as skin deep only.

The case against:

Less software. It's true, there is less software available for the Mac. For the vast majority of users this won't matter, but if you use a specialist application you will have to reboot into Windows or at least run parallels.

They're more expensive. Sort of. Although most Macs do represent decent value for money, they will never be as inexpensive as unbranded or home-built PCs.

They're not open source. Neither is Windows - in fact, Mac OS X's Unix core is open source and there is a ton of open source software for the Mac - but if you're a Linux user and appreciate the true benefits of free software beyond not paying for things, Mac OS X may seem something of a cold house. In an era of corporate snooping in the form of 'treacherous computing' and 'Windows Genuine Advantage', this is begining to matter quite a lot. At present Apple doesn't spy on its users (unlike Microsoft) but who's to say it won't start some day? At best all that can be said here is that right now Apple isn't as bad as Microsoft.

All operating systems are virtually the same anyway. Not a great arguement but almost true. As things stand any modern computer can do more or less whatever you ask of it regardless of what operating system it is running.

[pixelpixel]

I see the main ponts to the above but what about the games! Thats one of the reasons I switched from my g4 to a pc I wanted th play a few games.

Now I have a 360 I could always move back to a mac with the wonderful Parallels Desktop running!! :smashin:

[MKPatrick]

I switched to using Macs in 2001, starting with a 500mhz G3 iMac and running various machines up to my G4 iMac at 800mhz - to be replaced next week by a Core 2 Duo 2Ghz iMac. I don't think you can put the reasons why I prefer using a Mac to a Windows PC into a simple answer because, in all fairness, we're not really comparing like for like.

If you look at it to the exclusion of Vista (which I think has a different bearing on things and will discuss at the end of this post) Windows has been unable to compete with OS X in respect of the home user to date. This is simply because Apple are not entirely focused on enterprise, but see the home pc (I use the generic term to mean a personal computer of any flavour) as an appliance. An appliance needs to be easy to use, needs to provide a certain tier of functionality and probably needs to go no further. It's true, Macs can do everythng Windows machines can do and vice-versa, but all too often the Windows camp slate the Mac for lack of some obscure application that is used by a handul of users.

Home pcs tend to be used for email, internet chat, word processing, web surfing and games. Add in synching with handheld devices and music playback and you pretty much have the lion's share of home pc use. Yes there's video editing and movie ripping etc but even these tasks are in the minority for the majority of home pc users.

What Apple did was to make these issues fuss-free and simple. I'm not arguing that some of these activities are not simple under Windows, but some of the execution under Microsoft's OS has been horrendous. (Outlook Express and Internet Explorer are abominable applications and any sane Windows user will replace them withthe excellent Open Source offerings available. ) Macs come out of the box capable of giving even a relative computer novice the ability to do all of these activities withthe minimum of setup and bother.

Since switching to Macs I have become fairly proficient at movie editing, sound editing, photoshop and dvd creation. I produce movies with special effects on DVD with excellent menus that play on all DVD players. I keep all my music in a central location and stream it to other machines around the house. I've never had to reinstall an OS on a Mac, I've never had a major crash (I've had perhaps 1 kernel panic a year on my main machine) and I've not lost any data. The Macs work with the vast majority of pc related gear out there (usb2 dries, networking gear etc). They simply work. I don't doubt for a second that everything I can achieve on my Mac, I could do on a Windows based pc. I am adamant, however, that I wouldn't be able to do it as quickly and that the learning curve would be steeper.

Which brings me to Vista. 6 years ago when I was buying my first Mac, XP was appearing on the scene and was being lauded as a big improvement to Windows - which it was. The Mac was in decline. OS X was new, flaky and untried. Macs were percieved as expensive and suited only to designers and trendies. All these years later and Apple have a growing market share, have switched to Intel and have finally come full circle - Microsoft is again borrowing ideas from the Mac OS.

I've not really had much of a chance to look at Vista but what I've seen certainly *looks* nice. The 3d accelerated desktop is impressive and I'm sure improvements have ben made under the hood but for me, the OS X way of working is now second nature and using a Windows PC frustrates me.
It all comes down to personal choice. Macs are great, well built and have a cracking OS but they can't compete with a £299 PC deal from PC World on price. If all you want is web, mail and games, that Windows box could be the one for you. YMMV.

[Dazed87]

Above post very helpful indeed. Been considering making the switch from a custom desktop Windows PC to a MacBook Pro & think I'll definitely end up going for it.

Unsure whether to wait for the Leopard release or just go for it now. Anyone know how much an upgrade to Leopard later on down the line is likely to cost?

[Sonic67]

There's a comparison of OS-X to XP here:

http://www.xvsxp.com/

Which is worth a look. XP scores higher in some areas and OS-X in others. Overall OS-X finished scored higher. I haven't seen anything similar with Vista yet. Also I think from now on Microsoft won't leave such a long gap between OS launches again.

If games are really important to you the graphics card in an Apple isn't as good as if you built a PC and used the latest graphic card though you'd probably know that anyway if hard core gaming was your thing.

[springtide]

FYI

PC Pro July 2006 rated Vista better than OS-X in every single area they tested.

The Gadget Show rated the Mac over the PC as it was much easier to use for multimedia, although I would have thought that this was based on the applications rather than the OS. i.e. Maybe if they had used Picasa2 rather than Photoshop Elements for the photo editing they might have done this quicker. But does this mean Picasa2 is "better" than Elements?

I would say if you find a PC hard and don't play many games then a Mac maybe for you. Applications can be a bit limited, although the majority of the applications I use are now available for OS-X.

[MKPatrick]

Above post very helpful indeed. Been considering making the switch from a custom desktop Windows PC to a MacBook Pro & think I'll definitely end up going for it.

Unsure whether to wait for the Leopard release or just go for it now. Anyone know how much an upgrade to Leopard later on down the line is likely to cost?

I paid £89 for OS X 10.4 Tiger the week it came out, direct from Apple. eopard is lkely to be pretty much the same. There's no "Home", "Business" or "Premium" malarkey - OS X is OS X (there is a dedicated "Server" version but that's aimed at XServes).
I considered waiting for Leopard before ordering my Core 2 Duo iMac but in reality I couldn't sit about for perhaps 2 more months, I needed the speed and power now!
A Macbook Pro is a very capable machine - go buy it and see what you're missing.

[MKPatrick]

FYI

I would say if you find a PC hard and don't play many games then a Mac maybe for you. Applications can be a bit limited, although the majority of the applications I use are now available for OS-X.

Personally I find this statament to be a little uninformed. Firstly "find the pc hard" is an odd statement. Macs tend to be regarded as easier to use because they have well thought out interfaces - these are strictly controlled by the OS meaning that aps tend to qwork in the same logical way. It's not so much that pcs are "hard" to learn than that it is, in places, poorly designed.
As to applications being limited I'm not sure I understand this "fact". In the 6 - 7 years I have been using OS X I have not once found myself needing a pc to achieve something. It certainly is true that their are less apps around for the Mac but they cover all the bases and tend to be better designed. There's little point in having dozens and dozens of aplications if they are all difficult to use and unreliable.
I agree in respect of gaming - up to now this has been an issue, but with the Intel architecture this is set to change. Porting a game to OSX for x86 is much much simpler than to PPC.
It does irk me that Macs are regarded as compters for simple folk - I've achieved far more professional results using Macs than with PCs and in quicker time.

[Sonic67]

I think if you have used a PC all your life you might find using an Apple 'hard'.

Not because of the interface being hard but because there are a lot of new differences that you are going to have to learn. The http://www.xvsxp.com/ site covers a lot of the differences.

For instance when I drive an automatic car I find myself keep reaching for the gear lever. The automatic should be easier but I have to unlearn the manual car and relearn for an automatic. It doesn't mean one is easier than the other. Though in theory the automatic should be easier.

If you have been using a Mac for several years and switched to a PC you'd have a similar problem.

There are different versions of the OS available for PCs which you can view as being more confusing or as offering more choice.

This is interesting too:
http://www.xvsxp.com/introduction/bias.php

[MKPatrick]

I think if you have used a PC all your life you might find using an Apple 'hard'.

Not because of the interface being hard but because there are a lot of new differences that you are going to have to learn. The http://www.xvsxp.com/ site covers a lot of the differences.


I guess in some cases this could indeed be the fact. My only point of reference is my girlfriend and another (also female) friend, both of whom I switched at about the same time. In my girlfriend's case it was due to being fed up with a horrible Fujitsu laptop she had and her lusting after a Blue iMac in John Lewis. In the other friend's case it was due to her winning a Blue iMac in a raffle!
Neither of these girls are even remotely techie. They are both the shoes, handbags and dresses kinda girls but neither of them had any trouble with OS X (10.1.5 as it was then) Ever since, they've pretty much not needed me as their "computer man" except when it comes to point upgrades (even so - I reckon they could both do a full point upgrade without help). They meticulously carry out their security updates etc and the only time they call on me for help is if they want some software or there's a problem which almost invariably relates to a router or isp issue.
So whilst I agree that the perception of switching puts folk off, I think the reality is that it is much much easier than one presumes.

[nikyzf]

They're better designed. Why are computers immune to industrial design? Few of us would stand for ugly cars or televisions, yet Apple is virtually the only company to design computers properly. Even those PC manufacturers that do, do so only in high-end expensive models and tend to think of design as skin deep only.


That's weird. I posted the following yesterday in another forum:-
That's without factoring in style. Some say that style doesn't matter, but I don't want an ugly PC in my house, and no one can convince me that style doesn't matter with most other products.

[nikyzf]

There's a comparison of OS-X to XP here:

http://www.xvsxp.com/

Which is worth a look. XP scores higher in some areas and OS-X in others. Overall OS-X finished scored higher. I haven't seen anything similar with Vista yet. Also I think from now on Microsoft won't leave such a long gap between OS launches again.

If games are really important to you the graphics card in an Apple isn't as good as if you built a PC and used the latest graphic card though you'd probably know that anyway if hard core gaming was your thing.

Along with the more basic
http://www.apple.com/uk/support/mac101/ and
http://www.apple.com/uk/support/switch101/
xvsxp is where I send most Mac newbies. It's particularly good for keyboard shortcuts.

[MKPatrick]

Apropos: Industrial design and computers

What's particularly interesting - and this is where I think Sonic67 hits the nail on the head, is that pc manufacturers think design is about using aluminium or a streamlined case. Ultimately it is the same box with the same components inside. Some of the better laptop manufacturers are starting to realise that the packaging of componentry is what it's all about - witness some of the latest Sony Vaio's. The design is as much to do with the internals as it is the externals. The iMac, in all its G3, G4, G5 and Intel incarnations, is a wonderful piece of design. All the components in a single package that sits above the desk, ports placed where they are easily accessed (though the G4 falls down a little in this respect). I love the way these items use every ounce of available space - they are computing appliances, designed to be used rather than tinkered with. For those of us who spent years building and rebuilding pcs, for whom the challenge of making the computer has been replaced by the challenge of doing something useful with it, this is the pinnacle of achievement.

[nikyzf]

FYI

PC Pro July 2006 rated Vista better than OS-X in every single area they tested.


That is a joke, right? Vista has virtually nothing that isn't simply catching up with OS X.


The Gadget Show rated the Mac over the PC as it was much easier to use for multimedia, although I would have thought that this was based on the applications rather than the OS. i.e. Maybe if they had used Picasa2 rather than Photoshop Elements for the photo editing they might have done this quicker. But does this mean Picasa2 is "better" than Elements?

PS Elements is hopeless as a photo library app. Picasa would be the obvious iPhoto equivalent. Of course, you can always buy PSE for OS X, or get it bundled with a scanner, if you really want it.

[nikyzf]

They're no more expensive. Sort of. Some Apple machines, notably the Mac mini approach the low cost of the PC.


It's not fair to compare the Mini with "full-size" bargain PCs. The Mini uses laptop components, which are always more expensive.

It's interesting that all Mini-format PCs (AFAIK) cost more than the Mac. Try this one
http://www.trustedreviews.com/pcs/review/2005/12/21/Evesham-Mini-PC-Plus/p1

[MKPatrick]

FYI

PC Pro July 2006 rated Vista better than OS-X in every single area they tested.


A PC magazine voted Vista better than OS X? My word what next, a Mac magazine voting OS X better than Vista?

[CMcK]

PC Pro managed to review Vista before it was finished? Impressive. They must have access to the same time machine that Apple used to copy all the features that Tiger stole from Vista!!

I think the name PC Pro might just give clues to where their loyalties lie.

To the original poster: I use Windows at work and a Mac at home. I've been using MS operating systems since the DOS days. Right up to 2000 at home and XP at work.
Moving to a Mac was a revelation. The OS is so much easier to use and far better thought out. No messing about with drivers, anti-virus, anti-spyware and no installing programs.
You learn to work around Windows quirks but on a Mac it does as you tell it to do.

[Pbryanw]

All operating systems are virtually the same anyway. Not a great arguement but almost true. As things stand any modern computer can do more or less whatever you ask of it regardless of what operating system it is running.
I think someone's already mentioned how most OS's nowadays are very similar (found and quoted), that's why it's the small things about the Mac that stand-out for me: Spring-loaded folders, Expose, the Dock, 26 seconds to boot up, (not minutes), no Norton to slow me down, no viruses, no malware.

Add them all up and they amount to some of the reasons I changed to OS X and some of the reasons why I now prefer it over XP or Vista. No Bluescreens too. That's another reason (I've even had them in Vista).

Macs to me mean ease of use and simplicity, so when I want to get something done I don't have to mess about with the registry or services or compatibility mode (okay maybe sometimes I use the Terminal on my Mac).

Like the slogan goes - and maybe it's onto something - it just works.

[Sonic67]

It's not fair to compare the Mini with "full-size" bargain PCs. The Mini uses laptop components, which are always more expensive.

It's interesting that all Mini-format PCs (AFAIK) cost more than the Mac. Try this one
http://www.trustedreviews.com/pcs/review/2005/12/21/Evesham-Mini-PC-Plus/p1

That Evesham Micro has now been replaced with this one:

http://www.shop-com.co.uk/op/~Desktops_Mini_PC-prod-38747293-55141170?sourceid=57

Typical price of the basic Mac mini is £400 for combo drive (burns single layer DVD), ½ a Gig of memory, 60GB hard drive, 1.66GHz Processor.

For the better one it’s £529 for super drive (burns dual layer DVD), ½ a Gig of memory, 80GB hard drive, 1.83GHz Intel Processor.

The current Evesham Micro is £700 which seems a lot more than the basic Apple at £400. Though for that you get a dual layer DVD writer (as in the Super drive) 1GB of memory, 100GB hard drive, a built in double TV tuner (watch one channel, record another), 2GHz Intel Core duo processor.

If you were to add a TV tuner, a bit more memory, (another £50 to go to the same 1Ghz) a slightly larger hard drive (if adding a 100GHz hard drive was possible, - Apple will charge £70 to go to a 120GHz hard drive) and a slightly faster processor to the Mac Mini Super Drive the price starts to look the same.

In this case it seems that Apple has done a lot to get the headline price down to £400 but a lot of the specs are very basic and also difficult to upgrade unless you are good with a pair of palette knifes.

[Stuart Kirby]

Essentially you could spend £2000 on a PC and still be crippled by it. If you put Windows on there you're at the mercy of everything that goes with it. I fail to see in which -key- areas Vista is better than OS X. I really do.

Macs can be as easy or as technical to use as you want. Once you get into the depths of OS X there's a hell of a lot more there than there is to Windows.

I have a lovely vaio which I'm sure could pull the chicks, but it's still at the mercy of Windows. One day I will get around to putting Linux on there probably, but it's nice to have for work so Windows is a mainstay for me for now.

[nikyzf]

That Evesham Micro has now been replaced with this one:

http://www.shop-com.co.uk/op/~Desktops_Mini_PC-prod-38747293-55141170?sourceid=57

Typical price of the basic Mac mini is £400 for combo drive (burns single layer DVD), ½ a Gig of memory, 60GB hard drive, 1.66GHz Processor.

For the better one it’s £529 for super drive (burns dual layer DVD), ½ a Gig of memory, 80GB hard drive, 1.83GHz Intel Processor.

The current Evesham Micro is £700 which seems a lot more than the basic Apple at £400. Though for that you get a dual layer DVD writer (as in the Super drive) 1GB of memory, 100GB hard drive, a built in double TV tuner (watch one channel, record another), 2GHz Intel Core duo processor.

If you were to add a TV tuner, a bit more memory, (another £50 to go to the same 1Ghz) a slightly larger hard drive (if adding a 100GHz hard drive was possible, - Apple will charge £70 to go to a 120GHz hard drive) and a slightly faster processor to the Mac Mini Super Drive the price starts to look the same.

In this case it seems that Apple has done a lot to get the headline price down to £400 but a lot of the specs are very basic and also difficult to upgrade unless you are good with a pair of palette knifes.

Thanks for the update. I thought there would be a newer one by now. :)

Interesting that they've moved the styling away from white/silver.

The earlier Mini clones (not just the Evesham) were clearly more expensive, spec for spec, than the Mac. With this Evesham, it is no longer the case (maybe), but the fact remains that the PC is not cheaper.

BTW I think Apple, or Elgato, are missing a huge opportunity in not making a PVR add-on to the Mini.

[nikyzf]

Essentially you could spend £2000 on a PC and still be crippled by it. If you put Windows on there you're at the mercy of everything that goes with it. I fail to see in which -key- areas Vista is better than OS X. I really do.

Macs can be as easy or as technical to use as you want. Once you get into the depths of OS X there's a hell of a lot more there than there is to Windows.

I have a lovely vaio which I'm sure could pull the chicks, but it's still at the mercy of Windows. One day I will get around to putting Linux on there probably, but it's nice to have for work so Windows is a mainstay for me for now.

I've heard that Ubuntu is a very nice way of doing that.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ :grin:

[Stuart Kirby]

I've heard that Ubuntu is a very nice way of doing that.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ :grin:

Yep, Ubuntu is cool, I like it. We use it at work for some stuff :)

[springtide]

PC Pro managed to review Vista before it was finished? Impressive. They must have access to the same time machine that Apple used to copy all the features that Tiger stole from Vista!!

I think the name PC Pro might just give clues to where their loyalties lie.

...
>> To the original poster: I use Windows at work and a Mac at home.
...


Vista has been around "fully functional" for a ages in Beta. As for loyalties, the poster statement is hardly unbiased!

The point I was making regarding applications...

Adobe PhotoShop CS2 is hardly the easiest application to use, but would I use this over Picasa2? Well actually just for digital photography I use DXO to process my RAW files, CS2 to edit my images and Picasa2 as a replacement for Adobe Bridge to browse the images. Why? Because I like using the best tool for the job. I don't care that I have to learn three tools for one task, I want the additional functionality.

And security...

Also, I don't buy into Macs are more secure by design. That's what those the Poster Campaign would have you believe - "Macs have no security issues". More secure due to lack of interest in writing Virus or Malaware for OS-X YES, but NOT by design. The last OS-X patch had forty-six vulnerabilities, including local and remote unprivileged users to gain unauthorized access on the system and execute arbitrary commands. I would hardly call this "secure by design".

Before there are a string of replies, Vista is also full of holes, Linux has it's fair share of security issues and so does Solaris (i.e. latest "telnet" issue with Solaris 10).

[Sonic67]

Yes if you like Linux you could try 'Beryl'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYgV2GlsufI

I wonder if that would pull the chicks?

I remember the PCPro article and I'm sure OS-X won on a few things. If I still have the article I'll try and find it. Yes I did wonder how neutral it might be.

Maybe as neutral as MacFormat would be or something.

The new Evesham Mini looks better in black than previous I think but I'm not sure about the size anyway. It looks small but then you have to add on the size of the power brick as well. Then with all the cabling coming out the back it looks like a squid. In this case the PC and an Apple are about the same cost spec for spec.

PCs tend to go cheaper but you can see where the corners have been cut.

[Stuart Kirby]

Vista has been around "fully functional" for a ages in Beta. As for loyalties, the poster statement is hardly unbiased!

The point I was making regarding applications...

Adobe PhotoShop CS2 is hardly the easiest application to use, but would I use this over Picasa2? Well actually just for digital photography I use DXO to process my RAW files, CS2 to edit my images and Picasa2 as a replacement for Adobe Bridge to browse the images. Why? Because I like using the best tool for the job. I don't care that I have to learn three tools for one task, I want the additional functionality.

And security...

Also, I don't buy into Macs are more secure by design. That's what those the Poster Campaign would have you believe - "Macs have no security issues". More secure due to lack of interest in writing Virus or Malaware for OS-X YES, but NOT by design. The last OS-X patch had forty-six vulnerabilities, including local and remote unprivileged users to gain unauthorized access on the system and execute arbitrary commands. I would hardly call this "secure by design".

Before there are a string of replies, Vista is also full of holes, Linux has it's fair share of security issues and so does Solaris (i.e. latest "telnet" issue with Solaris 10).

Although lack of interest is part of it, writing a virus for the Mac or Linux or a UNIX server *is* harder to do than it is with Windows. Alas security is one thing, stability is also another where XP certainly lags behind. My exposure to Vista hasn't been massive thus far but I've managed to crash it 3 or 4 times in only a few cumulative hours. Poor form.

Of course Mac OS X has vulnerabilities just like Linux and Unix. But of course it's more secure by design, coupled with seeming lack of interest. By design if there's something that needs protecting then it'll have a all sorts of nice tricks standing in front of it. Get a powerful enough shotgun and you'll blow down any wall you come across. Unfortunately it's easier to access these flaws in Windows than it is other systems.

If all the other systems were as bad then hey, we might as well use Windows so we can play Doom 7 on release day. Dismissing Mac/Linux security purely due to marketshare is reckless.

[springtide]

... My exposure to Vista hasn't been massive thus far but I've managed to crash it 3 or 4 times in only a few cumulative hours. Poor form.
...



Quick question, was the crash due to Microsoft of a driver issue from a vendor? Maybe MS should stop people installing Vista on anything other than MS Branded PC's. A good thing?



Although lack of interest is part of it, writing a virus for the Mac or Linux or a UNIX server *is* harder to do than it is with Windows ..
...
Of course Mac OS X has vulnerabilities just like Linux and Unix. But of course it's more secure by design ...


Would you like to expand on this? I'm really interested why you believe this to be true? Exactly which part is more secure? Does UNIX/Linux block the execution of non-digitally signed binaries? The good old UNIX sticky bit, is this is a good security design? Sendmail & Samba - any exploited vulnerabilities in these packages? I spent many hours patching Sendmail on various UNIX platforms after an exploitation, which took down the company I word for. One of the biggest problems with UNIX is that the underlying security model hasn't moved on for the last 10 years, OK there have been BIG improvements with using SSL and NFS v4, but the majority of large corporation’s implementations of UNIX hasn't really changed, so it's a good job that UNIX boxes aren't generally targeted. One vendor has made some major changes to the UNIX security model, Sun with Solaris10. Unfortunately for Sun (I must admit, I do like Sun and Solaris) they had a "telnet" vulnerability that allowed remote users to login as "root" without any credentials! Oops! Yes you can really lock down a UNIX box and make it very, very secure; problem is none of our users would be happy.

Do you know many companies that do NOT allow Admin access on their Windows desktops? That's the main reason why Windows is insecure. It's not necessary "insecure by design", but by implementation. How secure would a UNIX box be if everyone knew the "root" password and logged in using that account? At least on Windows it's only the local admin account, on UNIX "root" is almost the same as "Domain Admin" in Windows. There's a slight diference between "local admin" and "domain admin" :)

[The Dude]

Do you know many companies that do NOT allow Admin access on their Windows desktops? That's the main reason why Windows is insecure. It's not necessary "insecure by design", but by implementation. How secure would a UNIX box be if everyone knew the "root" password and logged in using that account?...:)

Well, in over ten years I've never worked anywhere that gave users admin priveleges on their desktops by default..?
You need to be an Autocad user, or a board member, if you want elevated access in any of my domains. :grin:

As for how 'secure' a *nix box would be if the users new the root password....

I'd wager that you could give 99% of Linux users the root password to their PC, and you wouldn't see any increase in spyware/malware/virus infections. ;)

Whereas even though 99% of Windows users I've ever supported don't know their local Admin password, I've still made a long and lucrative career out of fixing, cleaning, and rebuilding their infested Windows handhelds, laptops, PCs, Servers, and Domains.
If you've ever seen a W32 Virus breakout at Forest level, you'll never take Windows security seriously ever again. :clap:


Anyway, lets get back on topic... :)

'Why a MAC instead of a PC'


Quick question, was the crash due to Microsoft of a driver issue from a vendor? Maybe MS should stop people installing Vista on anything other than MS Branded PC's. A good thing?

see....... you're getting the hang of it now.... :smashin:

:grin:

[springtide]

..
If you've ever seen a W32 Virus breakout at Forest level, you'll never take Windows security seriously ever again. :clap:
..
Anyway, lets get back on topic... :)

'Why a MAC instead of a PC'

see....... you're getting the hang of it now.... :smashin:

:grin:

Actually I have, and I've also seen a Sendmail outbreak that had us turning of Cisco 6509's in our computer rooms, and bringing 100's (I think it was in the 400's range) of UNIX boxes up single user to disable Sendmail! Linux is UNIX, either can be BSD or System5 :)
Both can be very big impact - Sendmail brought down our company for a day worldwide, and I spent hours helping compiling up and source for each of our ~10 different flavours of UNIX, and configurating and packaging them all for installation. Luckly, Mac has an auto update feature just like Windows!
A UNIX box is not any more secure for standard implementations, there are just less exploits of vulnerabilities. Firebox is a good example of this. There are probably more vulnerabilities in Firefox, but Firefox is less exploited which means it is safer to use, but lets not forget one thing here, WHILE is it less popular than IE. Same goes for OS-X, you are less lightly to get a Virus or Malaware while OS-X remains less popular. So today, running OS-X is the safer option, but I do dislike Apples marketing which “implies” the OS is more secure. It’s not, just less exploited due to its lack of popularity.

Sorry, off topic again.. Why would I buy a Mac..

You are right, the biggest issues with PC's are usually the drivers. Vista driver support is terrible presently, with even the likes of Nvidia lacking decent drivers.

Stability would be one of the reasons for moving to OS-X. And Macs are very easy to use. One of the best ways to increase the stability of a system is to actually buy quality products rather than buying the cheapest which is what mostly happens in the PC industry but generally not for Macs. You can however buy quality products for PC’s, but these are the minority rather than majority and this does (generally) improve "stability". Most of the PC industry now seems to employ the tactics of being first to market with the aim of either “fixing the drivers later”, or that the product was as “cheap as chips” will be obsolete in a few months time and replaced by version x, and MS will probably get the blame for any instability anyway. I’m not necessary Pro MS, but Pro pointing the finger at the right person.

[kdog]

There's only only one thing I tell my mates when they ask me "Why did you buy a Mac"

"Once you've tried Mac there's no going back" :rotfl:

[jenic]

Ten reason why you should buy a mac. (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/21/ten_reasons_to_buy_a_mac/)

[nikyzf]

This is a few years old now, but it gives a good idea of just how little MS used to understand about security.
http://www.grc.com/dos/xpconference.htm

[springtide]

This is a few years old now, but it gives a good idea of just how little MS used to understand about security.
http://www.grc.com/dos/xpconference.htm

As you stated, this is now a few years old (2001). Thats like a 100 years in UNIX development land :)

In them days, we had "NT Domains with Trusts" and "NIS".

Now we have a "LDAP Domains" and "NIS".

Also note, the final comment.....

"Sadly, I have also failed to convince them that they are making a huge mistake with this aspect of the design of the Home Edition of Windows XP"

So I assume this is related to "XP Home", and not "XP Pro" like most companies/people would use. Plus, there is no "Home" addition of "Vista", so I guess things have moved on!

[satinder]

I'd say a few people have summed up what a MAC is good for, its main success is allowing ordinary people to make art (video, images, music etc.) in a simple and none threatening way. Also its simplicity suits the "common man" who like Apple ads say "want to get the job done" or "it just works".

Now Microsoft and its various OS's are built for business and adapted for home users, they are not designed to work straight out the box.

You need to figure out what you want do on your PC and then build your PC and buy all the software that you need to do the stuff you want.

I always here about people saying Windows is a virus/spyware magnet but you all know that Windows is by far the most popular OS so that to be expected. Now before someone says "if it was designed right then it wouldn't get viruses" i can say that all software has flaws and will never be totally safe.

I should also point out that if you have any knowledge about computers then you would never have a virus or spyware attack at all, i use a simple Netgear router as my firewall and have no "Internet Security Suite" on any of my PC's (Xp, Vista and tweaked Server 2003 OS's). Yet for some reason i never have had a crash or virus attack etc. You need to learn how to protect you PC and not complain on how its all Microsoft's fault.

In short Mac's are for the "average joe" and PC's are for computer geeks (like me :grin:)

Sat

[nikyzf]

As you stated, this is now a few years old (2001). Thats like a 100 years in UNIX development land :)

In them days, we had "NT Domains with Trusts" and "NIS".

Now we have a "LDAP Domains" and "NIS".

Also note, the final comment.....

"Sadly, I have also failed to convince them that they are making a huge mistake with this aspect of the design of the Home Edition of Windows XP"

So I assume this is related to "XP Home", and not "XP Pro" like most companies/people would use. Plus, there is no "Home" addition of "Vista", so I guess things have moved on!

Sure, businesses use Pro because Home is not made for that, but I'd say most home PCs run Home, not Pro. Are there any figures for this?

No Vista Home? So what are:-
Vista Home Basic,
Vista Home Premium?
:grin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions_and_pricing

[springtide]

Sure, businesses use Pro because Home is not made for that, but I'd say most home PCs run Home, not Pro. Are there any figures for this?

No Vista Home? So what are:-
Vista Home Basic,
Vista Home Premium?
:grin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions_and_pricing

XP Home was basically based on Windows ME, where as XP Pro was based on Windows 2000 Pro. "XP Home" was VERY different from "XP Pro", since the underlaying OS was very, very different. They may have had similar names, but you could tell the difference in a few hours. XP Home is terrible compared to XP Pro. Shame on you MS. Processes being able to "lock up" the system (OK, its not perfect on XP Pro, but thats why we got 2 CPU systems!). Yes, I know you may think I'm an MS fan, but "XP Home" was crap.

The underlaying OS in Vista "Home" is the same as Vista "Business" or "Premuim".

[nikyzf]

XP Home was basically based on Windows ME, where as XP Pro was based on Windows 2000 Pro. "XP Home" was VERY different from "XP Pro", since the underlaying OS was very, very different. They may have had similar names, but you could tell the difference in a few hours. XP Home is terrible compared to XP Pro. Shame on you MS. Processes being able to "lock up" the system (OK, its not perfect on XP Pro, but thats why we got 2 CPU systems!). Yes, I know you may think I'm an MS fan, but "XP Home" was crap.

The underlaying OS in Vista "Home" is the same as Vista "Business" or "Premuim".

I'm sorry, but your Windows history is not quite right. Pre-XP, there were 2 Windows lines: the consumer line and the pro NT line. The consumer line was 95, 98, 98SE, with ME being the last.

NT became W2k (NT 5.0), then XP (NT 5.1), and Vista (NT 6.0). XP Home is a crippled XP Pro, not a development of ME (which is widely held to be the worst of the whole lot). Vista follows the XP pattern of the Home version being a crippled version of the Pro one, but with more variants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt

[Sonic67]

XP Home was basically based on Windows ME, where as XP Pro was based on Windows 2000 Pro. "XP Home" was VERY different from "XP Pro", since the underlaying OS was very, very different. They may have had similar names, but you could tell the difference in a few hours. XP Home is terrible compared to XP Pro. Shame on you MS. Processes being able to "lock up" the system (OK, its not perfect on XP Pro, but thats why we got 2 CPU systems!). Yes, I know you may think I'm an MS fan, but "XP Home" was crap.

The underlaying OS in Vista "Home" is the same as Vista "Business" or "Premuim".

Not even close. XP Home is XP Pro with a lot of the networking stuff removed. Both versions of XP came from Windows 2000 which came from NT.

Windows ME was Windows 98 with a few additions and pretty poor.

[QuietRiot1983]

Apple is a company I really would like to see dissolved and bankrupted.

For example, this latest piece of propaganda they have written;


1. It just works.
How much time have you spent troubleshooting your PC? Imagine a computer designed by people who hate to waste time as much as you do. Where all the hardware and software just works, and works well together. Get a Mac and get your life back

PC's take more time to 'troubleshoot' because they can do more then iTunes iDVD and i"APPLE SOFTWARE", and every hardware manufacturer makes WindowsXP compatible devices, some manufacturers are even supplying WindowsVista drivers, despite the fact that Vista hasn't even been released yet.


2. You can make amazing stuff.
Every Mac comes with iLife ’06, a suite of software that transforms your photos, music, and video into all kinds of projects. Make high-quality websites, photo books, DVDs, songs, slideshows, music CDs, calendars, cards, prints, podcasts, music videos, documentaries, and more.


And you can't do that on a PC? For f**ks sake, you can download FREE software to do all of that which runs on a PC, and much much much more. You don't see programmers using macs.


3. Design that turns heads.
You won’t want to hide your Mac in a corner of the den. You’ll want it front and center in your life. The Apple style shows in every detail, from its sculpted surfaces to its gorgeous Mac OS X graphics. More


No-one wants a computer to be "front and centre in your life". All apple do is make computers that match your curtains, hardly important compared to a computers functionality.


4. 114,000 Viruses? Not on a Mac.
Mac OS X was designed with security in mind. Windows just wasn’t built to bear the onslaught of attacks it suffers every day. A Mac offers a built-in firewall, doesn’t advertise its existence on the Net, and isn’t compromised within an hour of being turned on.


firstly, windows has a built in firewall, secondly, type in OSX or whatever and sure enough, you see "apple mac", ergo advertised on 'the net' and thirdly there are fever viruses for mac's because there are fewer macs in the world. And as a consequence, there are fewer companies writing Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software for the mac. Apple also fail to recognise cross platform viruses for some reason, but hey, if there are fewer viruses because your product isn't as successful, it must be a good marketing strategy. "we don't sell enough computers to get the hackers attention", hmm.

=iWaffle]
5. Next year’s OS today.
Since Mac OS X engineers aren’t busy damming a flood of viruses, they have the time to think up amazing new technology. Like Dashboard widgets, mini-applications offering a world of capabilities just a keystroke away. Or a built-in RSS news reader.

in other words, time to waste creating new gimmicks in the hope one will pay off, what's next? iServer? Maybe they can replace all the Cisco 'junk' out there with stuff that looks pretty and has a smiley face on it, forget functionality. The philosophy is "if it sounds different, people will buy it, because they are stupid and will tend to go for something they don't understand, especially if it's shiny"


6. The latest Intel chips.
Intel Core Duo processors put you on the cutting edge. In fact, a Mac with an Intel chip is so fast it surprises even longtime Windows pundits, who keep running benchmarks again and again. Results? Fast. Fast. Yup, still fast.


I love this. This is just brilliant. Apple are so crap they have to resort to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and start using Intel chips, but instead of admitting their failure to compete with their G5 sh**, all of a sudden they are the first to use intel dual core cpu's. Well, lets just brush AMD's AM2's 64bit cpu's under the carpet and let Apple skip off into the sunset in blissful ignorance. I mean, if you're going to defect to the 'darkside' at least do it properly.


Oh and let's not forget Apple's idea of benchmark tests, which consist of a highly optimised Mac running a highly optimised OS, verses a PC with the bios set to 'failsafe' settings and running windows98 with every yahoo and google toolbar known to man installed. They had adverts banned before due to inaccurate data.


7. Instant video chats.
Setting up a video chat with the people next door — or across the globe — should be as simple as picking up the phone. On a Mac, you just click an icon to have a four-way video chat in a full-screen window with amazing clarity and special effects.

wow, never heard of that before. I just love Apple's ability to take a well known product or service and claim credit for it by sticking an 'i' in front of it. This must be iConference, or iVIDEO, maybe iOSX (iMSN?).

Well it's i something. i i i


13. No hunting for drivers.
Just plug in your stuff. A Mac includes USB drivers for mass storage, digital cameras, input devices, iPod, and more. It can see Bluetooth cell phones and headsets, as well as FireWire cameras. No rebooting

I love this, Microsoft did the USB plug and play with win98, so Apple are 9 years behind here.

I could go on, but my blood pressure is getting too high.
To quote Hunter Cressel, "Mac killed my inner child."
:censored:

From someone who works with PC's and macs everyday..and has very few problems with my PC's. ;)

[springtide]

Not even close. XP Home is XP Pro with a lot of the networking stuff removed. Both versions of XP came from Windows 2000 which came from NT.

Windows ME was Windows 98 with a few additions and pretty poor.

I disagree mainly from using both products. It's not just networking thats missing, but the whole authentication/domain/user account is removed. You can create user accounts on XP Home, but these mean nothing to the OS, from what I remember every account is admin - as per the article mentioned in the earlier post (http://www.grc.com/dos/xpconference.htm)

I'm also not confinced that hardware abstraction layer exists "in the same form" within XP Home, as hardware related "processes" that go awol and hog the CPU and cripple the box on XP Home, XP Pro seems to handle these in a much more controlled way - more like NT4 and W2K Pro. Maybe this is related to the "account" issues rather than the HAL, but seems to have the same effect.

If you've used both "XP Pro" and "XP Home" this must be fairly obvious within hours of use. Anyway, regardless of what "OS Version" the "MS OS would like you think it is", Home and Pro are very different products. If you are using "XP Home" - then I'm not surprised you want to swap to OS-X. Thats not a "dig" at OS-X btw. I'd swap to Linux over XP Home, but that's also an insult to Linux.

[MKPatrick]

XP Home was basically based on Windows ME, where as XP Pro was based on Windows 2000 Pro. "XP Home" was VERY different from "XP Pro", since the underlaying OS was very, very different. They may have had similar names, but you could tell the difference in a few hours. XP Home is terrible compared to XP Pro. Shame on you MS. Processes being able to "lock up" the system (OK, its not perfect on XP Pro, but thats why we got 2 CPU systems!). Yes, I know you may think I'm an MS fan, but "XP Home" was crap.
.

Utter drivel. The code base of XP Home and Pro is the same Enhanced Windows 2000 base. The primary differences are that Pro contains Multi Processor Support, Remote Desktop, ASR, Dynamic Disk Support and IIS Web Server. Additionally a whole raft of corporate networking solutions and management stuff is in Pro which is not in Home
XP Home bears no relation to ME whatsoever. ME is still based on the old Win 95 layer over DOS, XP is based on the NT OS model.

[nikyzf]

I disagree mainly from using both products. It's not just networking thats missing, but the whole authentication/domain/user account is removed. You can create user accounts on XP Home, but these mean nothing to the OS, from what I remember every account is admin - as per the article mentioned in the earlier post (http://www.grc.com/dos/xpconference.htm)

I'm also not confinced that hardware abstraction layer exists "in the same form" within XP Home, as hardware related "processes" that go awol and hog the CPU and cripple the box on XP Home, XP Pro seems to handle these in a much more controlled way - more like NT4 and W2K Pro. Maybe this is related to the "account" issues rather than the HAL, but seems to have the same effect.

If you've used both "XP Pro" and "XP Home" this must be fairly obvious within hours of use. Anyway, regardless of what "OS Version" the "MS OS would like you think it is", Home and Pro are very different products. If you are using "XP Home" - then I'm not surprised you want to swap to OS-X. Thats not a "dig" at OS-X btw. I'd swap to Linux over XP Home, but that's also an insult to Linux.

You are looking at the surface, not the underlying OS. Please do read the refs posted or some of us will get ****** off with you. If you don't trust Wiki, try the horse's mouth.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx (and countless others).
And you need to understand what "networking" means.

[springtide]

Apple is a company I really would like to see dissolved and bankrupted.



That's a little harsh, but that Apple advert is really just to much. It's what my wife would call, an "anti advert". i.e. Its actually wants you to remove everything "Apple" from your possession.

I saw it for the first time while stick in traffic, and I sat there staring at my iPOD, looking at the poster - looking at my iPOD.
I think if I'd had my DigiCam in the boot, I would have pulled over and thrown my iPOD at the poster and posted the video on YouTube. I've not seen such propaganda since, well a long time.

I like my iPOD, its simple to use, but very dumb. It still makes me cry every time I play any Dance compilations and it puts a nice gap between the songs. Thanks Apple, nice one. BTW Apple, I do not want to join all the songs together to fix “your issue”.
I know I’m picky, but I would have thought that with those trendy adverts they might at least by the 3rd Gen iPOD known that “DJ Mixed Compilations” exist. BTW, I bought an iPOD Shuffle for my wife and I must admit I wanted one. Ehrrhh, thats why I dislike Apple so much. I still want one even though I know simple tasks like starting the playlist from the begining isn't possible, is it? I mean, I know Apple probably thinks I wouldn't want to do this, but my wife does. I said "skip the track until you find one you like?" She said, "I'd like to start from the begining". I said "Apple didn't want you to use it like that." She said, "if you think I'm skipping through upto 250 songs to get to the begining think again". I said "it's shinny silver", she said "oh, yes so it is" :grin:

[springtide]

You are looking at the surface, not the underlying OS. Please do read the refs posted or some of us will get ****** off with you. If you don't trust Wiki, try the horse's mouth.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx (and countless others).
And you need to understand what "networking" means.

Re: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx

Why is there a line from "Windows ME" to "Windows XP Home" ??? :clap:

I'd say the diagram shows that "XP Home" is a combination of "ME" and "W2K Pro", but "XP Pro" is related to "W2K Pro Only" and that "XP Home" and "XP Pro" are distinctly two separate products. Thanks for the research, you saved me some time! And I thought I was getting old and my mind weak.

As for "networking", I think YOU need to understand what "networking" means. Try looking in Wikipedia - look at the definitions and differences between "multi-user" and "networking". Also look up "HAL" while you're at it.

[nikyzf]

Re: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx

Why is there a line from "Windows ME" to "Windows XP Home?" :clap:

I'd say the diagram shows that "XP Home" is a combination of "ME" and "W2K Pro", but "XP Pro" is related to "W2K Pro Only" and that "XP Home" and "XP Pro" are distinctly two separate products. Thanks for the research, you saved me some time!

Those are horizontal time-lines. (Full marks for MS clarity, as IF!)

This doesn't have the problem of poor design and ambiguity
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
2001: Windows XP

With the release of Windows XP in October 2001, Microsoft merged its two Windows operating system lines for consumers and businesses, uniting them around the Windows 2000 code base.

[nikyzf]

That's a little harsh, but that Apple advert is really just to much. It's what my wife would call, an "anti advert". i.e. Its actually wants you to remove everything "Apple" from your possession.

I saw it for the first time while stick in traffic, and I sat there staring at my iPOD, looking at the poster - looking at my iPOD.
I think if I'd had my DigiCam in the boot, I would have pulled over and thrown my iPOD at the poster and posted the video on YouTube. I've not seen such propaganda since, well a long time.

I like my iPOD, its simple to use, but very dumb. It still makes me cry every time I play any Dance compilations and it puts a nice gap between the songs. Thanks Apple, nice one. BTW Apple, I do not want to join all the songs together to fix “your issue”.
I know I’m picky, but I would have thought that with those trendy adverts they might at least by the 3rd Gen iPOD known that “DJ Mixed Compilations” exist. BTW, I bought an iPOD Shuffle for my wife and I must admit I wanted one. Ehrrhh, thats why I dislike Apple so much. I still want one even though I know simple tasks like starting the playlist from the begining isn't possible, is it? I mean, I know Apple probably thinks I wouldn't want to do this, but my wife does. I said "skip the track until you find one you like?" She said, "I'd like to start from the begining". I said "Apple didn't want you to use it like that." She said, "if you think I'm skipping through upto 250 songs to get to the begining think again". I said "it's shinny silver", she said "oh, yes so it is" :grin:

What? You can't go back to the start of any playlist? The Shuffle is simple, but you need to learn some basics!

[Sonic67]

Re: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx

Why is there a line from "Windows ME" to "Windows XP Home" ??? :clap:


The line is the timeline. If you look there's a line from every single one of the years. In the year 2000 both Windows ME and Windows 2000 was launched. Hence they are both on the year 2000 timeline.

The left hand column is the development of Wibndows from DOS. The right hand column is the development of Windows from Windows NT. NT stands for New Technology and was from Microsoft starting again. If you look at the timeline it shows when each version of Windows was launched.

In 2001 on the left the development stopped with Windows ME. On the right XP split into Windows XP Home and Pro.

[The Dude]

XP Home was basically based on Windows ME, where as XP Pro was based on Windows 2000 Pro. "XP Home" was VERY different from "XP Pro", since the underlaying OS was very, very different. They may have had similar names, but you could tell the difference in a few hours. XP Home is terrible compared to XP Pro. Shame on you MS. Processes being able to "lock up" the system (OK, its not perfect on XP Pro, but thats why we got 2 CPU systems!). Yes, I know you may think I'm an MS fan, but "XP Home" was crap.

The underlaying OS in Vista "Home" is the same as Vista "Business" or "Premuim".


Nope, Sorry, that's complete bollards mate. Almost fantasy to be honest. :rotfl:

You've quite literally just made all that up, haven't you? :thumbsup:

[Pbryanw]

and thirdly there are fever viruses for mac's because there are fewer macs in the world. And as a consequence, there are fewer companies writing Anti-virus and Anti-Spyware software for the mac.
It's funny you don't see Apple users on the PC forums here venting their spleen about Windows. Maybe because we're not so stressed out by our Operating System ;). Anyway I keep on seeing this line about OS X having less viruses because it's less popular, not because it's more securely designed. I read somewhere that back in the late 80's/early 90's Apple computers had a much worse virus problem then Windows at the time, even though Macs had fewer users. And if there are 1200 viruses released each month on Windows (taken from Sophos) then, if the Mac is equally as secure as Windows, there should be around 4-5% of that number released on the Mac each month. There isn't, and there must be more of a reason then simply saying - well Macs have a smaller share of the market :confused: Who knows, maybe OS X is a more secure Operating system ;)

[springtide]

Nope, Sorry, that's complete bollards mate. Almost fantasy to be honest. :rotfl:

You've quite literally just made all that up, haven't you? :thumbsup:

The diagram is not just a timeline but the product streams. The fact that "Home" is not "multi-user" may give you a clue, but I don't really care in you believe this or not.

[Sonic67]

The diagram is not just a timeline but the product streams. The fact that "Home" is not "multi-user" may give you a clue, but I don't really care in you believe this or not.

Why do the lines extend from every year?

Also not multi-user?

:lesson:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

Windows XP Home Edition includes a number of enhancements over Windows 2000 Professional. These include:

Improved software (application) and hardware compatibility
Simplified security
Simplified log-on featuring new "welcome" screen
Fast user switching
A new user interface featuring context-sensitive, task-oriented Web views
Enhanced support for digital media (movies, pictures, music)
DirectX 8.1 multimedia libraries for gaming

Do you mean not multi-processor???? 'Home' only supports one.

:lesson:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp.asp

And finally, Windows XP is important because it signals the end of the old DOS/Windows product line. Windows XP is based on a new version of the NT/2000 kernel, dubbed the Windows Engine, which brings the reliability of Microsoft's industrial strength business platform to home users for the first time.

Windows XP Home Edition and Professional are essentially the same 32-bit operating system. Both feature the same kernel and basic capabilities, and unless otherwise noted, everything in this review applies to both versions. The Home Edition, as you might expect, is targeted at home users, or the majority of people who were previously using Windows 98 and Windows Me.

But remember one key fact: Professional is a true superset of Home Edition, so if it's in Home Edition, it's in Pro as well.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

At its most basic level, XP Professional is a business- and power-user oriented superset of Home Edition.

"Professional Edition is a strict superset of Home Edition," confirmed Chris Jones, Vice President of the Windows Client Group. "Everything you can do in Home Edition, you can do in Pro. So we do think there are home users who will buy Pro." Jones' distinction is a good one: With Windows XP, the Professional Edition is finally a superset of all the desktop clients that came before (Windows Me and Windows 2000 Professional) as well as of its new sibling. So when discussing the differences between the editions, it's best to simply describe those features in Pro that you can't get in Home Edition.

etc. etc. In fact work through the whole links. I think you need to.

Can you provide a link to back up your claims?

[nikyzf]

The diagram is not just a timeline but the product streams. The fact that "Home" is not "multi-user" may give you a clue, but I don't really care in you believe this or not.

IOW you don't care about the truth! :nono:

[springtide]

It’s been a while since I’ve seen XP Home, but I was sure that if you went to: Task Manager > Processes

There was no option to “Show processes from all users” and that the “User Name” was missing from the process list.

Is this true or not? If the “User Name” exists, then I take everything back about XP Home and Multi-User!

[delgers7]

Now that windows has Vista does that make it better than the Mac OS??

[breadbun]

Now that windows has Vista does that make it better than the Mac OS??

In a word. No. Not better. Not by a long chalk. However, it may well be better than Windows XP. I'm still making my mind up though!

[Sonic67]

It's cheaper. OEM Vista sells for about £74. £15 cheaper than the latest Mac OS.

Since 2001 when XP was launched you have only needed to buy one OS if you wanted - Vista. All the updates and service packs in the meantime were free.

Since 2001 Apple has launched four new versions of their OS. - Puma, Jaguar, Panther and Tiger with Leopard about to launch. That's almost one a year at £90 - £100 a time or £500 if you've bought all of them.

And they say Windows is expensive. If Microsoft had done the same imagine the fuss. Mac owners will claim each one is an entirely new OS and not a service pack. Hmmmm.

[breadbun]

It's cheaper. OEM Vista sells for about £74. £15 cheaper than the latest Mac OS.

Since 2001 when XP was launched you have only needed to buy one OS if you wanted - Vista. All the updates and service packs in the meantime were free.

Since 2001 Apple has launched four new versions of their OS. - Puma, Jaguar, Panther and Tiger with Leopard about to launch. That's almost one a year at £90 - £100 a time or £500 if you've bought all of them.

And they say Windows is expensive. If Microsoft had done the same imagine the fuss. Mac owners will claim each one is an entirely new OS and not a service pack. Hmmmm.

Although you can't hide from the facts and you are entirely correct about the new versions of Mac OS X that have come out... they are certainly far more significant than Service Packs in the Windows world. Whether that is enough to justify the costs involved, I don't know, but one thing that is often conveniently forgotten in this well-worn argument, is that there is no obligation to upgrade to the latest Mac OS. All essential security patches, etc are still provided for free and always have been, regardless of what version of Mac OS X you are using. I have machines here running 10.2 Jaguar that I have no intention of upgrading.

[jont]

And don't forget that contained within OSX is a number of Apple's applications that you don't get with XP - eg mail, ichat, addressbook, ical, safari, etc that get improved within each version of OSX ...

Jon

[Uridium]

And don't forget that contained within OSX is a number of Apple's applications that you don't get with XP - eg mail, ichat, addressbook, ical, safari, etc that get improved within each version of OSX ...

Jon

Outlook Express, IE, MSN etc...:rolleyes:

[jont]

Yes ... what I meant was that they are improved with (and between) each OSX .... the MS apps are more standalone and upgraded as and when are they not ?

Jon

[Uridium]

with the MS apps being upgraded both between and with service packs for free :smashin:

[jont]

OK ... I surrender ;-)

[ahin4114]

Yes, but becuase they are designed first and foremost and standalone applications, they're very loosely coupled. There is very little inter-application interaction between basic software on Windows, most of the apple provided software leverages functionality in other applications within the suite. This not only makes the user experience more seamless, but it's also one of the factors that keeps the size and stability of the Apple codebase in such good form.

[py6km]

Don't forget iLife -- that suite of software comes with OSX and is far superior to anything that is bundled with Windows.

I do not have an axe to grind - I've used Windows boxes for 15 odd years, and bought a Mac about 8 months ago becuase I was curious. To be honest, apart from Gaming, I find it superior in every way (and my 'old' PC was no slouch). I fiddled with Vista Ultimate via Parallels recently, and it just seems like a backwards step to be honest.

In fact, I like my Mac so much , that I've just bought a Mac Book Pro.

It's all swings and roundabouts really, but I would really encourage anyone who has not yet done so to try a Mac out. Everything (s/w and h/w) just 'feels' better and seems to work in complete harmony with everything else (be that Apple or 3rd party h/w or s/w).

[ahin4114]

You don't see programmers using macs.

I guess that depends on the circles you mix in. Just becuase you can't run visual studio on it doesn't mean nobody develops on it. I can guarantee if you take a wander around Adobe you'll see more than a couple of Mac development boxes scattered around.

Objective-C is actually quite an elegant language, hindered only by the fact that Apple are the only people that favoured it over the later (greater?) version of C++. And the Apple frameworks are getting better with each passing release.

[ahin4114]

I love this. This is just brilliant. Apple are so crap they have to resort to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and start using Intel chips, but instead of admitting their failure to compete with their G5 sh**, all of a sudden they are the first to use intel dual core cpu's. Well, lets just brush AMD's AM2's 64bit cpu's under the carpet and let Apple skip off into the sunset in blissful ignorance. I mean, if you're going to defect to the 'darkside' at least do it properly.

Oh lord, if IBM can't make chips fast enough, should Apple just roll over and admit defeat, hell no! They did what anybody would have done, they found a new supplier. And I think you'll find that the OSX transition to a new processor platform has been a much happier one than the various forays into 64bit that Microsoft made at first (and still is on some counts).

Why go with Intel over AMD? Who knows, probably a couple of reasons, a roadmap that went in the right direction to meet Apple's future plans, and the huge support from chipset manufacturers for intel components. Remember Apple are in a different situation to MS, they have to support both the hardware and the software, finding a partnership that enabled them to do this across desktop, laptop and server platforms would put AMD right out of the picture (for now at least). Now we have a common processor architecture, a consistent codebase across three different platforms (four if you include the AppleTV), and a pretty rosey future as far as Intels roadmap is concerned.

MS have to support as many different processor architectures as they can to maximise their audience, I'm sure they'd have supported the PowerPC (G5's processor) if there'd been a big enough consumer base, but Apple had that cornered pretty much.

[jont]

I didn't mention iLife for fear of being shot down over the price of 'upgrading' to the latest version if you don't happen to buy a new mac and get it for free ... but you are right in the quality, functionality and inter-operability of programs like iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb and Garageband ...

Jon

[breadbun]

In fact, I like my Mac so much , that I've just bought a Mac Book Pro.

Weren't you supposed to be waiting for the new ones coming out!? :)

Or have I got you mixed up with someone else? :oops:

[py6km]

No, you're right, I was supposed to be waiting, but I cracked under the pressure !

It's not quite delivered yet (and I got a good deal), so it should be ok as I'm pretty confident about I'll see in the MB Pro refresh (whenever that is).

However, if I have made a booboo, I have 14 days from delivery to send it back for a refund no questions asked, and I think there will be an announcement in that period.

Anything other than inclusion of the Santa Rosa platform may make me think about changing it (not sure that the 17 inchers (which is what I'm getting)will see LED displays just yet to be honest).

[breadbun]

I'd just be a bit disappointed if they put a much improved graphics card in the newly announced ones, as the X1600 is showing its age a bit by todays standards... but if thats not important to you, then thats OK! Id assume if a full refresh of the MBP range occurs then they will all have LED displays... not sure they would have half the range with and half without.

By the way.... in response to this thread title, in order to stay on topic... why have a mac instead of a PC... get yourself a new Intel Mac and run both the Mac OS and Windows as you require. If everyone did that, there's be no need for this thread!

[py6km]

Yes I'll have to keep a close eye on it in the next week or two. If there is i) Santa Rosa (a given probably), ii) significantly upgraded graphics card, and iii) LED display then I'll change it (providing it costs the same, which I think it probably will).

[Lyris]

I can only give my own opinions of Mac stuff, and I'd honestly say that I think the best option is to buy a good PC instead.

I tried switching to Mac OS in February 2005 and eventually went back to Windows for reasons relating to performance and software. The software part may not be an issue for most people, but I found that there were a lot of free/niche Windows programs that I discovered I really missed when I couldn't use them anymore (VirtualDub and Avisynth were the biggest ones). The iMac was also if anything less reliable than my stable Windows XP PC.

The switch was a poorly planned move on my part, if I'm going to be totally honest, but a lot of my Mac-owning friends can be seen running Windows on their machines when they find something they can't do on Mac OS which does make me wonder what the point really is.

One of the "Apple arguments" is that their operating system comes with everything you'll need which I don't really think is a worthwhile argument for most people. You can easily find really good, or better quality programs for Windows, many of them free. The time it takes to download and install them really isn't significant so I don't view this as a compelling argument.

When I did buy a new computer later, I bought a Shuttle small form factor PC which for me comes close to replicating the convenience and nice looks of the iMac (most PCs look hideous, in my opinion). I found the iMac G5 I owned in early 2005 to be overpriced and slow for what I needed it to do. Just my opinion.

[ahin4114]

I promise this will be my last time quoting QuietRiot's post, don't want it to look like victimisation, 'cos it's not.

in other words, time to waste creating new gimmicks in the hope one will pay off, what's next? iServer? Maybe they can replace all the Cisco 'junk' out there with stuff that looks pretty and has a smiley face on it, forget functionality.

Firstly, there's already OSX Server, guess the missing i is a typo, ho-hum. You may not be too far off the mark with replacing Cisco junk though, we'll have to see how sales of the Apple iPhone go compared to the Cisco iPhone (cue legal battle). :devil:

The philosophy is "if it sounds different, people will buy it, because they are stupid and will tend to go for something they don't understand, especially if it's shiny"

Have you actually looked at the list of "shiny gimmicks" in Windows Vista? Have you perhaps read the numerous articles where people compare them to last years "gimmicks" in OSX. You may not think that they're worth the effort, but things like RSS readers, and dashboard widgets are really useful little tools. Maybe that's why MS put RSS support into IE7 and Outlook? Perhaps those new Gadgets in Vista aren't any use to you, but there's plenty of people out there buying and using them (oh and Widget's in OSX, don't look them up, they're the same).

wow, never heard of that before. I just love Apple's ability to take a well known product or service and claim credit for it by sticking an 'i' in front of it. This must be iConference, or iVIDEO, maybe iOSX (iMSN?).

Yes, thank god for Microsoft, inventor of instant messenging software... err no, that was a rebadge. If we ignore the really old UNIX IM apps, and go for the early AIM implementations then MS were very late to the party. And as for multi-way video conferencing, can you please show me how to do this in MSN...?

[Lyris]

Yes, thank god for Microsoft, inventor of instant messenging software... err no, that was a rebadge.That's interesting, I never knew that MSN Messenger wasn't 100% Microsoft-based. What did they base it on?

You could just as easily say that iTunes is based on a third-party Mac application, though (I can't remember the name).

[ahin4114]

As opposed to some of Redmonds offerings, Messenger wasn't a ready developed product which was rebadged, sorry if that was what I implied. Messenger, along with AIM, Yahoo, etc. all based their concept on ICQ. They simply added their own flavour to existing technology, which is what QuietRiot was insinuating Apple did. Just becuase the actual protocol differed (which it had to to avoid patent infringement), the actual end result was the same.

[Lyris]

Yeah, I remember using ICQ before any of the others and all the annoying random chatters that contacted me :grin:

[Sonic67]

You could just as easily say that iTunes is based on a third-party Mac application, though (I can't remember the name).

iTunes - based on SoundJam MP which Apple bought out by making it’s developer an offer it couldn’t refuse. According to president Terry Kunysz, Apples approach could be summarised as, “Sell us the rights or we’ll develop a competitive product and put you out of business.” This is exactly the thing the computing community is quick to decry but Apple gets away with it.

Dashboard - introduced to OS-X with 10.4 Tiger.
Dashboard is very similar to the already existing third part add-on Konfabulator, killing the latter’s commercial viability.

[ahin4114]

I think Yahoo bought konfabulator, so I guess there's still amarket out there. I think the beauty of konfabulator from a developer point of view is that you can write it once and it works on Windows or Mac. And not just Vista (in fact not sure if it runs on Vista), but those older systems that haven't got an OS native way of implementing Widgets.

[ahin4114]

iTunes - based on SoundJam MP which Apple bought out by making it’s developer an offer it couldn’t refuse. According to president Terry Kunysz, Apples approach could be summarised as, “Sell us the rights or we’ll develop a competitive product and put you out of business.” This is exactly the thing the computing community is quick to decry but Apple gets away with it.

I knew iTunes was written by one of the developers that worked on SoundJam, but SoundJam was kicking around after iTunes launched. I didn't think it was a buyout, just a developer getting a chance to put right the mistakes he made first time around...

No source to back that up, just the rambling of a mind that's been in front of a monitor too many hours today.

EDIT: Found this link, looks like it started amicable, then Apple got a bit shirty:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Next/The-god-of-iPod/2005/05/23/1116700623748.html

[tomson]

I found the iMac G5 I owned in early 2005 to be overpriced and slow for what I needed it to do. Just my opinion.

Can i ask what you used it for?
We do everything from video production, editing and hi-res artworking through to flash and web development on our imacs and have never had any problems.

[Lyris]

My plan was to use the iMac for general web surfing, web design (Photoshop) and video processing. The latter was the biggest problem. I found that Mac OS had its Non Linear Editing facilities provided by the likes of Final Cut, but the more "niche" Windows programs like VirtualDub and AVISynth - which can provide some seriously useful video cleanup facilities - had no Mac equivalents.

[marcstang]

I have to admit I don't use a mac on a professional basis, so I can only give you my opinions about casual use. Last week I replaced my wive's 4 year old laptop with a macbook. I myself am running a vista pc which is turning out to be the bane of my life due to it's instability.

I am very pleased with the mac and osx. It is very straight forward and the included package (including the media centre capabilities which cost extra on vista) are excellent. Granted, it'll propably take me another couple of weeks to learn how to use it properly but I am seriously considering to replace my pc with an imac when the time comes.

I am currently also considering to get a 2nd hand mac mini and use it as a media centre in my AV set-up.

[teejay38]

Yeah, I remember using ICQ before any of the others and all the annoying random chatters that contacted me :grin:

Re Lyris warning about Blue Ray Association allegedly infiltrating high-profile fora , the same could be said of Microsoft fans infiltrating a forum that is supposed to be for Mac users. The words pot, kettle and black come to mind.....:grin:

[Lyris]

Sorry, what? Did Microsoft ever go into a Mac-based forum to spread propaganda, or something?

[Sonic67]

I am very pleased with the mac and osx. It is very straight forward and the included package (including the media centre capabilities which cost extra on vista) are excellent.

Huh? Media Centre is built in on mine or are you comparing OS-X with Vista Basic? The OEM version of Home Premium is still cheaper than OS-X.

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

Windows Media Center, which was previously exclusively bundled as a separate version of Windows XP, known as Windows XP Media Center Edition, has been incorporated into the Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista.

[marcstang]

Huh? Media Centre is built in on mine or are you comparing OS-X with Vista Basic? The OEM version of Home Premium is still cheaper than OS-X.

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

Windows Media Center, which was previously exclusively bundled as a separate version of Windows XP, known as Windows XP Media Center Edition, has been incorporated into the Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista.

I also have Vista home premium but you are talking oem version. Joe Bloggs will go to HMV or game and pay 140 notes for the re-sale version whereas osx is £89 across the board. Maybe you should compare like for like and not oem with resale. The whole basic, premium, professional cr@p ms are pushing is just another reason for me to go for a mac next time I'm upgrading my PC.

[Sonic67]

So because MS lets you choose what OS to get you think you should get a Mac that charges you for a new OS every time they bring out a new one every year?

You must be the only person who thinks buying a Mac is cheaper.

Regarding Joe Bloggs he probably buys a new PC every three years that has the latest OS free. Those that have the savvy to install the latest might well now about OEM.

[breadbun]

I am almost 100% sure that the average man/woman on the street who owns a PC running Windows has no idea that there are other options when it comes to owning and using a computer... all they see and hear about is Windows Windows Windows... and fair enough, a Windows PC might be perfect for the average user... however, if these people were exposed to the other options and given a choice, then at least that would be something!! I have no faith in the Linux desktop EVER being ready for primetime (but thats another story!) but I DO have a strong belief that Mac OS X is a viable alternative to Windows particularly for this average user we are talking about. Over the last year two members of my family have switched to a Mac, and believe me they haven't looked back. I would describe them as the average user we are talking about.

[Arcam_boy]

I've always been a windows fan the computer basically runs ok for a while, only crashes every so often, takes up an average amount of space and is sometimes a little noisy. I know I could get a custom built pc to sort some of these things out but I like to convenience of walking into my local pc world seeing a computer I like with what looks to have a decent spec for what I need and buy it.

A few years ago I went into PC World and they had a G4 powerbook Ti for sale which was an 800mhz g4 with cd-rw drive etc. I didn't have a clue about macs but decided to buy one just because I fell in love with the looks.

Whilst being the proud owner of the laptop for two years it never crashed, failed to boot there was no noisy fans it was gorgeous to look at easy to update and worked with all the software and hardware I needed it to work with and even though we still have a windows pc in the house for gaming. Since then I've had 4 further Macs and is now the preferred choice for me and my girlfriend to use :thumbsup:

[bibamus]

I have used PC`s for years, and since win 3.1 I have built them myself.
Last year, I bought my first Mac ( lime green iMac G3), quickly followed by a Mac Mini then at Christmas a 20" iMac.
I am always impressed at how good OSX is, it lets you do what you want. Set up of both the Mini and iMac was a doddle and I was using it with fully up to date software within minutes.

Yesterday, my daughters PC expired. She is just about to do her GCSE`s next year and wanted a Windows laptop, so, we went out and bought a mid range lappy with Vista Home Premium installed.

Well, what a pain Vista is, everything you do is like going through a third party first. I opened a programme, got a box saying " you just opened a programme, is that what you wanted to do?" What the ****! of course it was!!!!!

So, we bought the laptop at about 1 pm. I had it running as we wanted it at 9pm. But there is still a programme that wont work. Windows Defender. Part of Vistas new security measures. It wont update and gives an error message ( havent seen any of those for over a year with OSX) When I went to MS website, I am told it is a known problem and I have to start up in safe mode to fix it.
You shouldnt have to do this to a new computer and operating system. If I didnt know how to fix it, ( but I wont cos Defender is pants) I would have been on the phone to tech support or taken the laptop back to the retailer for them to fix, and maybe wait a week for it to come back! :boring:

Anyway what was the question again, why a Mac instead of a PC?

Read all the above!

Allan

[Sonic67]

PC Pro June 2007 lists 32 reasons why a PC is better than a Mac.

In the same issue Nik Rawlinson of Macuser lists 10 reasons why a Mac is better.

[Sonic67]

Well, what a pain Vista is, everything you do is like going through a third party first. I opened a programme, got a box saying " you just opened a programme, is that what you wanted to do?" What the ****! of course it was!!!!!


No you don't get that for opening a program. Slight exaggeration? When you first use Vista you use it at administrator level. As you (or dodgy software) can make changes to Vista at this level if you are doing anything to security then the OS jumps in to make sure you are making the changes and not dodgy software.

For example if you want to alter the settings on Windows firewall then Vista recognises that this is a program there for security and wants to be sure it's you making the changes.

What you should do is either:

a. Set up your computer as Administrator. Make sure you are happy with settings. Log in under a standard user account.

b. If you are going to use Vista at administrator level accept that if you alter security settings the window will pop up as part of Vistas security. One day it might be a rogue program doing it and then you will be grateful.

c. Turn off User Account Controls. Accept that you are using the computer at administrator level with user account control turned off and that you know what you are doing.

:lesson:

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

Tasks that trigger a UAC prompt
Tasks that will trigger a UAC prompt, if UAC is enabled, include:[3].

Changes to files in %SystemRoot% or %ProgramFiles%
Installing and uninstalling applications
Installing device drivers
Installing ActiveX controls
Installing Windows Updates
Changing settings for Windows Firewall
Changing UAC settings
Configuring Windows Update
Adding or removing user accounts
Changing a user’s account type
Configuring Parental Controls
Running Task Scheduler
Restoring backed-up system files
Viewing or changing another user’s folders and files

Can't see opening a program listed.

Mac owners want it both ways. They attack PCs for having a lot of viruses and then when the security is beefed up they attack it again. What is it? Full of viruses or too secure?

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1602

I’ve been using the final release of Windows Vista every day for nearly three months. I rarely see a UAC prompt, and when I do, it takes one click to deal with it. On at least two occasions, I have decided against installing something as a direct result of seeing a UAC prompt. It made me stop and think about whether I really trusted the program I was installing. In both cases I went and did more research, found some bad reviews, and decided against installing the program in question. That’s worth the price of admission for UAC, in my book.

[The Dude]

:spam:

[Lyris]

Sonic67, all helpful stuff and although I'm on the Windows side myself, that's only furthered the argument that some of the "Mac people" are making. They're right, it's insane that it should take that much setting up.

I still stand by my opinion that the best possible deal is to get a nicely-running Windows setup though.

[Sonic67]

I think a bigger problem is ignorance. You might actually get Mac users thinking user account control jumped in for opening a program.

And how hard is to click on a dialogue box anyway?

As said above User Account Control only comes in if you making changes to Windows. How often does an ordinary person do it?

My mom was in the habit of clicking on pop up boxes on dodgy websites that said "Your computer is insecure click me etc" I was forever sorting out her computer again. Now I set it up as an administrator, set up her account and that's it. No more reinstalls or removing whatever was put on there.

[niceguy235uk]

My mom was in the habit of clicking on pop up boxes on dodgy websites that said "Your computer is insecure click me etc" I was forever sorting out her computer again. Now I set it up as an administrator, set up her account and that's it. No more reinstalls or removing whatever was put on there.

Another reason for not owning a PC.

[apolloa]

I advised a female freind of mine to get a Mac Book. She got the mid range one with 1GB ram and uses it writing essay's on but she's a fine artist too so uses it put photos of paintings etc. I did build her a nice XP PC before and she was for ever asking how do I do this, the computer has done that, basically getting worried cause of the constant 'you need to be a computer geek to understand me' messages.
Since the Mac not a peep, and I even put on that free open office stuff (She's waiting till Office 2007 home or the new IWorks, want's a thesaurus) and I haven't showed her anything and she uses it quite happily.

Ease of use if I did ever hear it, and yes Vista looks pretty I even had it on Beta and loved it but it is still based on the geeky messages and I also straight of deleted all accounts and used the built in admin one due to the total lack of access you get as MS think your an incapable idiot!!
Also the fact a 5 year old Mac can run the latest OS with NO options turned off is fantastic, plus the fact you just put the OS update dis