Apple Talk Thread

[Joe']

Glad to hear I can export files from iWeb. As for Dreamweaver, well, a part from the fact that it's a pain in the ass to edit, since I don't know much about web design, I find it hard to use.

I wanted something professional yet easy to use. Maybe not "drag-n-drop" easy like iWeb but something similar.

[cyanide]

As for other applications, there is Adobe Contribute. I never used it, but I think it's a simpler version of Dreamweaver.

If you want to get the basics of html and css programing, then I'd recommend HTML Dog. Great and easy to learn tutorial.

[Kremsku]

Dang, this is the first time I saw this thread. I guess I have to make it alive again

I was visiting a local elecronics shop and the salesman was telling a couple how you they can't install XP on mac, only Vista. I was gently testing iPod Touch there (mostly the Safari, it was SUH-WEET! Haven't had time to do it before), well anyway, I almost broke the darn Touch when I heard what the salesman was saying and I had to interfere.

Luckily I convinced the couple (and the salesman) that it is indeed very much possible to install XP via BootCamp. I didn't want to brag with my Apple knowledge so I walked away after saying what I said, but I do feel kinda high after that. It's always a pleasure to top a sales guy.

Hope I got the vocabulary right...

[cyanide]

Luckily I convinced the couple (and the salesman) that it is indeed very much possible to install XP via BootCamp. I didn't want to brag with my Apple knowledge so I walked away after saying what I said, but I do feel kinda high after that. It's always a pleasure to top a sales guy.

Hope I got the vocabulary right...

Your vocabulary is top notch!

It's very strange how I found so many Mac salespeople actually don't know anything about their product. There's a couple of stores here that I've been to, and I was just amazed at how wrong they were. I find it better to do research on the internet than ask a Mac salesperson for advice.

[Joe']

I've looked into Contribute before... turns out it's only for editing. You have to create the website with Dreamweaver then if you wanna edit it, you can do it with Contribute.

I've been looking more into RapidWeaver and I think I'm gonna go for that. It's template-based but I found out there's lots of third-party template developers so I'll be fine.

As for salespeople, I'm glad I haven't encountered this problem yet. They only sell Macs at Apple Authorized Stores (not exactly like US Apple Stores, more like stores with more than ten years of experience in the electronic field and willing to hire Mac Geniuses that applied for the job at apple.it) and at Fnac here, and both have Mac Geniuses (easily recognizable by the gray apple t-shirt) that usually know their stuff.

[cyanide]

Vista planning to launch massive advertising campaign to counter Apple's ads

Hehe, this is good. I'm looking forward to seeing what ads they'll put up.

As part of that compatibility message, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) will work to reverse the widely held belief, informed by early troubles upon the operating system's launch, that Vista isn't compatible with many applications and devices.

There's a lot of programs that's not Vista-ready and thus won't run on Vista.

Microsoft also intends to talk up Windows Vista's upgraded security, including features like BitLocker Encryption. According to Microsoft, Windows Vista had fewer than half the security vulnerabilities Windows XP had in its first year. Brooks even made a bold claim that Windows Vista was the most secure commercial operating system ever in its first year of release, and said "you don't hear Apple saying that," though he didn't lay out the evidence for that claim.

Hehe, he's ignoring where OS X is at now and how far behind Vista is. OS X was released like 7 years ago. The sad thing is, Windows 7 will be released in a year or two, and it's keeping the same design flaws of Vista. Hmm, maybe it's not too late to invest in Apple now.

the message Microsoft hopes to impart is that Windows Vista is ready

I'm using the latest version of Vista at work, and no, it's not ready. It's still buggy, it crashes, and the interface is worse than XP. I think a lot of people who used XP and switched to Vista would probably feel let down.

But this last quote sums it up well:

Even close partners like Intel (NSDQ: INTC) are resisting en masse upgrades to Vista, and analyst firms have found a large number of companies claiming they'll wait until Windows 7.

Vista is just another Windows ME.

[Joe']

I swear, some things are beyond me. Like how can someone say Vista is ready? It is barely early-beta quality, not even that.

Windows Vista had fewer than half the security vulnerabilities Windows XP had in its first year

Seems this guy is forgetting just how much security vulnerabilities XP had. Half of that is still a lot.

Brooks even made a bold claim that Windows Vista was the most secure commercial operating system ever in its first year of release, and said "you don't hear Apple saying that," though he didn't lay out the evidence for that claim.

Wrong. You don't hear Apple saying that because there's virtually no way to back up that statement. All sources have said this in the past, and will continue to say it until it stops being true: Mac OS X is a billion years ahead of any OS Microsoft has to offer in terms of security.

Vista is not a secure operating system. Microsoft built an awfully weak OS, installed a firewall and a system that prompts a warning message every time there might be a security threat on it and they claim it's secure?. That's not building a secure operative system, it's just a way of blaming the user for all the viruses and spyware that got into his/her computer. The OS should recognize the files that may harm the computer and delete the threat. That's what Mac OS X does, not Vista.

And I don't wanna hear you can tweak Vista to be (almost) secure and how people are so lazy to do that so they complain about the OS. The user shouldn't have to do anything to make the OS secure, the security of the OS should be a given.

Do you seriously think it's a coincidence viruses became widespread for the first time only after Windows became popular? I don't. Viruses exist because of the always-insecure and poorly written file system and kernel Windows has had over the years. How else do you explain the only OS that gets viruses is Windows?

Before the release of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, back when Apple computers dominated the industry, there were few viruses known, and they certainly weren't as fatal as they are now. Most were pranks, and they could be fixed in a few minutes. Then Windows becomes the most popular OS and boom, viruses become widespread. Most of the viruses that have spread to non-Windows machines back in the 90's were macro-viruses that infected the OS through Microsoft apps.

the message Microsoft hopes to impart is that Windows Vista is ready

Since Microsoft has never cared about design or functionality and I already talked about security. I'm going to leave that apart. But that's clearly not the only things that are wrong with Vista. As I said earlier, I believe Vista is one of the most worthless pieces of computer software ever known to mankind, and I think it's a crime to claim it's ready and safe for millions of users to use when it resembles an awfully created collage of stuff taken from other software.

Microsoft is screwing people once again, and I can't believe people still spend money on their products just because they're familiar with the interface, because they despise change. Microsoft takes advantage of that, and that's what's wrong the most about using Vista: by using it, people are supporting a company who's screwed them for as long as they've used their products. And they will continue to do that.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Vista is as bad as Windows ME, but history is certainly repeating itself, just like any other time Microsoft's released a new OS. And people, once again, refuse to open their eyes and see reality. Just because it's the most popular operating system and you've used it for years doesn't mean you should use it. Microsoft is lazy, they think their market share is a given, but if their market share is goes down, say, 10%, they will finally get people aren't satisfied with their products, and I can assure they'll do anything they can to get that 10% back, including offering more secure and efficient operating systems. That way we all win.

On a side note, iPhone's rates are fricking expensive here. Freaking Vodafone even claims 59€/month for 600 MB data and 150 minutes is "a good deal". I don't know other countries' rates but with those offered in Italy I'm thinking of buying the unlocked iPhone in Switzerland (no VAT there ) and then using my current SIM card with it.

[benji]

Nobody gives a polemic over software like a Mac militant.

There's a lot of programs that's not Vista-ready and thus won't run on Vista.

And even more that won't run on a Mac!

That's not building a secure operative system, it's just a way of blaming the user for all the viruses and spyware that got into his/her computer.

It isn't the users fault for installing viruses and spyware on their computer?

You have to remember that because Windows holds the dominant market share, many of its users are the people who text to a five digit number to see if their loved one is cheating on them. Somehow I don't think "you're so fucking stupid, you need a Mac" is the way to sell them.

How else do you explain the only OS that gets viruses is Windows?

Absolute market share dominance?

Before the release of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, back when Apple computers dominated the industry and most people only had them at work if that, there were few viruses known, and they certainly weren't as fatal as they are now. Most were pranks, and they could be fixed in a few minutes. Then computers become common household items and boom, viruses become widespread

See wut I did thar.

Brooks even made a bold claim that Windows Vista was the most secure commercial operating system ever in its first year of release, and said "you don't hear Apple saying that," though he didn't lay out the evidence for that claim.

Wrong.

I assume some sort of definition of "commercial operating system" that would restrict it to Windows releases and Jake's Operuting Sisteem.

Microsoft is screwing people once again, and I can't believe people still spend money on their products just because they're familiar with the interface, because they despise change.

Change for changes sake isn't good. Something the Obama Cult also needs to learn.

Microsoft takes advantage of that, and that's what's wrong the most about using Vista: by using it, people are supporting a company who's screwed them for as long as they've used their products. And they will continue to do that.
...
And people, once again, refuse to open their eyes and see reality. Just because it's the most popular operating system and you've used it for years doesn't mean you should use it.

It continues to be closing in on a decade since I have had a Windows OS crash unrelated to that former hatecrime from Aegia known as PhysX or hardware failure. XP and Vista both. (Even farther if I include 98.)

Some of us don't wish to switch to a product we find inferior. We're fine with Windows and/or Linux. Doesn't mean we're closeminded and refuse reality.

[Joe']

This is suicide, but whatever, I'll give it a shot.

And even more that won't run on a Mac!

I'm just an average user, and I speak for myself. I don't know what apps you use, but I seriously haven't come across a single application I used in Windows that wasn't available for Mac OS X. Again, the few applications available on the Windows platform that are not available for Mac have very valid alternatives. I found excellent and extremely useful applications available only for the Mac platform, though.

It isn't the users fault for installing viruses and spyware on their computer?

Of course it is. My point is, the user shouldn't have to worry about viruses or spyware in the first place. If the OS was minimally secure, viruses wouldn't be a problem, but it isn't.

You have to remember that because Windows holds the dominant market share

Absolute market share dominance?

See wut I did thar.

Apart from the fact that in the early 90's, the personal computer was a household item, I don't think you're taking into consideration the fact that it's much easier to write viruses in the Windows-only .exe format, and the fact that UNIX-based operative systems have a much more secure file system and kernel (you use Linux, you should know that). The very few viruses known for UNIX-based OS's are either trojans or harmless. That's because, diversely from what happens in Windows, users rarely login as administrator, thus viruses don't have the necessary authorizations to infect the system.

Change for changes sake isn't good.

Look, you have your reasons for using Windows, but a lot of people don't. From my personal experience, most Windows users don't even know there are other operative systems, and those who do know don't switch because they're familiar with the interface or similar things. I don't think that's a good reason to NOT CHANGE.

Change for change's sake isn't good, but not changing for the sake of not changing isn't either.

It continues to be closing in on a decade since I have had a Windows OS crash unrelated to that former hatecrime from Aegia known as PhysX or hardware failure. XP and Vista both. (Even farther if I include 98.)

That's great. But it doesn't necessarily mean Windows is a secure system, just that you're more careful than the average user, since, as far as I know, there are just shy of half million viruses out there, and they sure infected a very high amount of computers.

Some of us don't wish to switch to a product we find inferior. We're fine with Windows and/or Linux. Doesn't mean we're closeminded and refuse reality.

Explain why you find Mac OS X inferior. Please leave aside the whole "fewer applications" claims and the compatibility issues which just don't exist.

I'm glad you're fine with Windows and/or Linux. My point is, though, while you, after your experiences with all the alternatives, have settled for Windows (and Linux), most Windows users don't actually know the alternatives or just settle for Windows because that's what they've used for years and they're familiar with it. The latter are what I consider to be close-minded, and from what I know, that's a big portion of users.

[JaoSming]

MACS SUCK!

huh, what did you say about close-minded?



My sister wanted a Mac Laptop, because "They are cool". She is not a smart person and loosing a mouse button is not something I wanted to put a family member through. So my girlfriend ended up talking her out of buying a 2000+ laptop, and getting an 800 dollar HP with comparable specs. The Mac she wanted to get had only 1 gig more of ram than my 2004 laptop and that was the only difference between the two.

So yea, compatibility issues might be a thing of a past, but acting like a douche thinking your overpriced horse is never going to get a virus and therefore never dragged into a back alley and shot, or that everything about Macs and Mr Job's balls is better than a Windows machine, well basically, I think you people who just consistently brag about Macs and how awesome they are and how you can run windows too and shit, I dunno, I think you are worse than the close minded dicks like myself.

/closemindedwindowsvistaismysaviorrant


oh and
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/h ... sucks.html

[benji]

Look, I don't have a problem if you want to use a Mac, or despise PC's. The problem I have with Mac users is they tend to demand others agree with them and switch to a Mac or they're "close-minded" or "not seeing reality"!

I'm not defending PC's, let alone Windows, but Mac rants are too fun to poke holes in.

But it doesn't necessarily mean Windows is a secure system, just that you're more careful than the average user

I'm hardly careful, as I've said before I'll install/uninstall programs and drivers with wreckless abandon on top of each other. I turned off all of the Windows security center and only ran a firewall when I was on a insecure network at one apartment. I hadn't updated my virus database in a year at one point because they never find anything. I only update Spybot and SpywareBlaster because I love their progress bars.

Explain why you find Mac OS X inferior. Please leave aside the whole "fewer applications" claims and the compatibility issues which just don't exist.

First of all, I don't think you're allowed to take away issues from me. I'm pretty sure there are millions of applications that aren't for Mac's that are for Windows. Maybe not the "big ones", but those aren't the only ones that count.

I can't run Steam, or uTorrent. There's probably an Opera, since even the Wii has one. I know there's Stata and an Excel. If I switched, I would have to buy the new Excel and Word again.

I didn't say I found "Mac OS X" inferior as well. I said I find Mac's inferior.

Cost/Design. I can't drop $1000 on a Mac and get a E8400, 2GB of 1066, and 8800GT in it. (Nor whatever case I want.) I can't run Crysis on that Mac, let alone TF2. I want to play games on my computer. If it can handle recent generation games, it can do all the rest of my tasks fine. I want to run Windows programs I have to buy a Windows install anyway? And some other program? Hoo-ray! Why can't I have a right mouse button and scroll wheel by default?

Apple. They're the only company. I don't like this. With PC, I can choose Asus/Gigabyte/Abit/etc. I can choose AMD/Intel/etc. I can choose MSI/eVGA/ATI/etc. If I don't want Windows, I can go with a near unlimited amount of other OSes. I know some people don't care for choices and want an all powerful lunatic to look over them, that's why most people are fascists. I, however, am democratic and prefer choices.

Mac OS X. It offers me no advantages over Windows Vista. It doesn't "improve my productivity" by itself because I am what controls my productivity not an UI with minute differences. It doesn't improve my security because I don't need MommyOS to watch over me. It does not run everything I want to use.

That is why I do not go with Mac, no advantages for the increased expenses.

. My point is, though, while you, after your experiences with all the alternatives, have settled for Windows (and Linux), most Windows users don't actually know the alternatives or just settle for Windows because that's what they've used for years and they're familiar with it. The latter are what I consider to be close-minded, and from what I know, that's a big portion of users.

Or, perhaps, they simply want a laptop or computer, don't see the differences and go with cheaper options or whatever Best Buy sells them. Just look at all the people who want "lightning" because they have an integrated Intel GPU. Doesn't mean they're close-minded.

Apple should stop running the commercials about "security" which is just fear-mongering. They should change from the elitist campaign (the PC in the commercials is the more sympathetic character for most people...who feel they are being left behind by the tech-saavy young...represented by Mac in the commercials) to one that says "Apple, it's idiot proof and you're an idiot!"

[cyanide]

Holes?

And even more that won't run on a Mac!

As Joe said, there are lots of fantastic programs for the Mac, many of which are free. As a designer, programmer and web surfer (yes, I can run Opera and Firefox, ditto with Camino, Netscape, iCab, but who needs all these programs?) there are no programs that I need on OS X that Windows has. I have an XBox 360, and as far as I'm concerned, there's less and less PC games these days and more for consoles.

It isn't the users fault for installing viruses and spyware on their computer?

An OS should be secure regardless. Nobody wants to run a virus/spyware scanner every single time they log in, or everyday at 2pm. It's annoying as hell. It's not the user's fault if he clicks on a link thinking it's something else, but gets a trojan. It's not the user's fault if an .exe file is supposed to do what it claims. Do you think the user would have second thoughts if Windows asks the user if a Microsoft program he just opened is unsafe? There's more than just security issues with Windows, but lots of user experience design flaws. Users shouldn't have to worry about whether he could get a virus, spyware, or a hacker when the user just wants the OS to perform. Absolute market share dominance is a poor excuse when Unix is the reason behind OS X's security.

Change for changes sake isn't good.

I agree. I was close minded about OS X, sticking with Windows throughout virtually all of my university life as a designer until I tried it out. I find the product and operating system to be superior.

My sister wanted a Mac Laptop, because "They are cool".

That's a stupid reason to get a Mac. As for price, I'd say the RAM is overpriced, but everything else, it's high quality and you pay for what you get. Personally, I wouldn't get an $800 laptop knowing that the "comparable" specs differ between cheap and quality.

Oh, and thanks for posting that old article. Macs did suck 6 years ago.

The problem I have with Mac users is they tend to demand others agree with them and switch to a Mac or they're "close-minded" or "not seeing reality"!

No pressure. I'm just saying Macs are superior based on my experience working with them the past 2 years and the frustrations with Windows over many years prior and now with Vista at work. That's all.

I can't run Steam, or uTorrent. There's probably an Opera, since even the Wii has one. I know there's Stata and an Excel. If I switched, I would have to buy the new Excel and Word again.

I don't use Steam, but Transmission is a lovely piece of torrent software. Too bad you can't switch Office licenses from Windows to Mac like Adobe could. Competitor hostility? *shrugs*

Cost/Design. I can't drop $1000 on a Mac and get a E8400, 2GB of 1066, and 8800GT in it. (Nor whatever case I want.) I can't run Crysis on that Mac, let alone TF2. I want to play games on my computer. If it can handle recent generation games, it can do all the rest of my tasks fine. I want to run Windows programs I have to buy a Windows install anyway? And some other program? Hoo-ray! Why can't I have a right mouse button and scroll wheel by default?

I thought the same way, but really, I don't give a shit about brand as long as my machine performs what it's supposed to do with quality parts and an excellent warranty that I may never need to use. I can still upgrade my GPU, but since I don't think I'll be playing games on my computer now that Civilization Revolution is out, it's probably not worth the expense. If you want to run Windows, all you need is a copy of Windows, just like if you built a new PC and need an OS. You don't need any other programs. OS X comes with Boot Camp to allow you to partition your drive to run Windows natively. It's not like Windows XP, where you have to buy antivirus/spyware software. And... a right mouse button and scroll wheel? Every Mac you buy comes with the standard mouse that has a second mouse button and a 360 scroll wheel that allows you to scroll horizontally. If you want a better mouse, there are plenty of options.

Mac OS X. It offers me no advantages over Windows Vista. It doesn't "improve my productivity" by itself because I am what controls my productivity not an UI with minute differences. It doesn't improve my security because I don't need MommyOS to watch over me. It does not run everything I want to use.

Don't underestimate the power of usability and user experience design. If you did a lot of research in information architecture and related subjects, you'd see how minute UI differences can make a big difference in overall productivity.

Improve your security? Why worry about security if it's secure in the first place without annoying dialog boxes telling you that this might be unsafe, are you sure you want to install this, oh, it's time for your computer clean up! Seriously, it sounds more like MommyVista doing all the nagging about security while DaddyOSX is never around. If it doesn't run everything you want to use, then just stick with Windows.

Apple should stop running the commercials about "security" which is just fear-mongering.

Pfft. I don't even have to think or worry about security, while the majority of Windows users are concerned about security, especially that Windows is more vulnerable to viruses, hackers and spyware than OS X.

"Apple, it's idiot proof and you're an idiot!"

While I enjoy the ads, I don't particularly like the message it sends, but this shouldn't be representative of all Mac users, just as you're not a victim of Windows crashes and malware.

[Joe']

My sister wanted a Mac Laptop, because "They are cool". She is not a smart person and loosing a mouse button is not something I wanted to put a family member through. So my girlfriend ended up talking her out of buying a 2000+ laptop, and getting an 800 dollar HP with comparable specs. The Mac she wanted to get had only 1 gig more of ram than my 2004 laptop and that was the only difference between the two.

Jao, Apple has offered the Mighty Mouse, which has four buttons and a scroll wheel, for over three years now. You don't lose a mouse button when you buy a Mac.

And because your sister wants a Mac just because it's cool doesn't mean every other Mac user switched to Mac because they're cool.

Macs are expensive, that's true, but I think it's worth the money. Fuck, Sony VAIOs are as expensive and much more of a piece of crap than Macs and nobody ever said a thing about that.

The reason Macs have less RAM than Windows PC's is because Mac OS X is less of a resource hog than Windows. It's the same reason why Linux runs seamlessly on ten-year-old computers.

acting like a douche thinking your overpriced horse is never going to get a virus and therefore never dragged into a back alley and shot, or that everything about Macs and Mr Job's balls is better than a Windows machine, well basically, I think you people who just consistently brag about Macs and how awesome they are and how you can run windows too and shit, I dunno, I think you are worse than the close minded dicks like myself.

When did I, or any other member that has a Mac acted like a douche?

I think the "overpriced horse" comment is a little stereotypical and just completely random, since it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You're entitled to your opinion just as everyone else, including me, and my opinion is that Macs don't get viruses. What I've been trying to discuss is that, while there are sources that back up my statement, there are none which prove yours, which would be "Windows is better than Mac OS X" or something along those lines.

Also, I never said you personally were close-minded. You seem like a guy who knows his stuff and I wouldn't consider you someone who uses Windows just because that's what you've always used. Those are the people I find to be close-minded, those who prefer something even though they've never given a chance to the alternatives.

I'm sure you have your reasons for preferring Windows over Mac OS X, just like I have mine for using a Mac. You think Macs are "overpriced horses", I think Windows is a horrible and insecure operative system. We have different opinions, it happens all the time, let's just leave it to that.

The problem I have with Mac users is they tend to demand others agree with them and switch to a Mac or they're "close-minded" or "not seeing reality"!

I don't demand you agree with me or that you switch to Mac, I'm just expressing my opinion just the way you are doing, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm pretty sure there are millions of applications that aren't for Mac's that are for Windows. Maybe not the "big ones", but those aren't the only ones that count.

I can't run Steam, or uTorrent. There's probably an Opera, since even the Wii has one. I know there's Stata and an Excel. If I switched, I would have to buy the new Excel and Word again.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here. It's not millions of applications, and as I've already said, most of them have extremely valid alternatives. uTorrent isn't available on Mac, that's true, but there's Azureus, xTorrent, and my personal favorite, Transmission, which is probably 10x lighter than any other torrent client and just as effective.

Plus, I prefer to have useful applications like Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Studio, etc. than little apps like SopCast, Steam or the NBC Video Player.

I didn't say I found "Mac OS X" inferior as well. I said I find Mac's inferior.

I didn't say I found "Mac OS X" inferior as well. I said I find Mac's inferior.

I disagree on certain levels, although I understand your reasons. However, in my post I never talked about hardware. I specified "Microsoft" and "Windows", I never said "PC".

Why can't I have a right mouse button and scroll wheel by default?

I've already said it, but the Mighty Mouse comes with four buttons and a scroll wheel.

Apple. They're the only company. I don't like this. With PC, I can choose Asus/Gigabyte/Abit/etc. I can choose AMD/Intel/etc. I can choose MSI/eVGA/ATI/etc. If I don't want Windows, I can go with a near unlimited amount of other OSes. I know some people don't care for choices and want an all powerful lunatic to look over them, that's why most people are fascists. I, however, am democratic and prefer choices.

Again, I specified I was talking about software, not hardware. While it's not much, though, Psystar is currently offering more affordable and customizable machines with OS X pre-installed.

However, I like having a company build software for a specific hardware. Things just work better IMO, they're more compatible this way.

Mac OS X. It offers me no advantages over Windows Vista. It doesn't "improve my productivity" by itself because I am what controls my productivity not an UI with minute differences. It doesn't improve my security because I don't need MommyOS to watch over me. It does not run everything I want to use.

It may not offer advantages to you, but I'm sure it offers advantages to lots of people, me being one of them. I'm sorry if I'm not getting the joke, but I don't know what you mean exactly by "MommyOS to watch over me". And, I'm sure if you look around for a bit you'll find every application you need on Mac OS.

Apple should stop running the commercials about "security" which is just fear-mongering. They should change from the elitist campaign (the PC in the commercials is the more sympathetic character for most people...who feel they are being left behind by the tech-saavy young...represented by Mac in the commercials) to one that says "Apple, it's idiot proof and you're an idiot!"

[b][color=brown]So you're calling every designer in the world, not to mention photographers, audio and video professionals and all the other people who use Macs "idiots"? I think that's a bit harsh, don't you?

[el badman]

Improve your security? Why worry about security if it's secure in the first place without annoying dialog boxes telling you that this might be unsafe, are you sure you want to install this, oh, it's time for your computer clean up!

Again, it just takes 5 minutes to install a proper antivirus like AVG and configure your Vista security settings to your liking so that they are less intrusive (those "annoying" messages couldn't be simpler to disable), then you're all set. Everything will update itself automatically and it's not like like you'll have to keep an eye on it everyday. 5 minutes of light research and installation definitely justifies not spending a fortune on a Mac as far as I'm concerned.

[Oznogrd]

My switch to mac was not due to it being cool or to look like a fanboy. I needed a new laptop, i've had trouble with PC in the past (especially toshiba), and have no need to game constantly (ever since WoW its the only game i need). I can still get windows and office if need be and not have to learn new programs. is it impossible to accept both have their downfalls and advantages?
PC
Pros: Compatibility, familiar interface, cheaper
Cons: security issues, vista's still working out the kinks, the majority of hackers hack windows due to its widely known programming language
Mac
Pros: Security, relatively stable OS, Video capabilities tend to be higher.
cons: compatibility, cost, learning a new UI.

[magius]

I can't speak for anyone but me, but as a professional designer, film maker, and editor, switching to mac has increased my productivity tremendously. Sure the differences may be, in many cases, minute, but they add up. I no longer need to spend as much valuable time looking for solutions to make things work....I am sure I can customize a windows machine to run as efficiently, but I don't want to spend the time learning how to configure things, and then making sure my configurations are compatible with past or future changes. Furthermore, if I compare my customized mac os, as opposed to a vanilla os, to a customized windows pc (which I also have), still, I work faster and with more ease. I must also admit that I just simply like how my mac looks... I don't consider that fact a negative. For me, it works better and it looks better, I don't mind paying a premium.

the fact that apple is one company is, admittedly, both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing, because, when testing software for a mac, companies know exactly what hardware they are dealing with. Obviously problems still occur, but, at least in my experience, not to the extent they do running a pc. It is a curse, because, yes, macs are overpriced... although, in my opinion, the lower end macs are pretty fair market value.

That said, if the purpose of one's computer is gaming, or internet, I'd consider a pc a better buy. Even for occupations such as law, medicine, engineering, perhaps animation, if you owned a mac, you'd probably have to use vmware/parallels or boot camp often to use occupation-related software. For gaming, you can get superior hardware.... though I have played crysis well on my macbook pro, as well as assassin's creed (i finished crysis, but assassin's creed bored me after an hour). A mac pro will be able to handle any game thrown at it.

All I know is this - whenever I revert back to windows, I find the interface clunky, and am aware of the o.s.. When working on a mac, I forget about the os and concentrate on work... is this simply me becoming comfortable with a mac? perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that after years of working on a pc, within hours of buying my first mac, I was already experiencing such ease. a year in, my mac has not slowed down, and still works as well the day I bought it, I didn't need to format, defrag, nada, what more can I ask? In my mind, I have more than earned back whatever money I could've saved buying an equally spec'ed pc; as a professional, i would consider my purchase of a mac a profitable investment.

[cyanide]

Also, I got to mention, there's only 1 version of OS X Leopard, and it's $110 fully loaded. There's 4 versions of Windows Vista, and the fully loaded one is $280.

Again, it just takes 5 minutes to install a proper antivirus like AVG and configure your Vista security settings to your liking so that they are less intrusive (those "annoying" messages couldn't be simpler to disable), then you're all set. Everything will update itself automatically and it's not like like you'll have to keep an eye on it everyday.

The searching for viruses takes up resources and time, and you still have to pay for the software (unless you have Vista), and you will eventually have to upgrade to a newer version. Maybe micromanaging anti-virus software is your thing, but I find it annoying to even have anti-virus software.

I can't speak for anyone but me, but as a professional designer, film maker, and editor, switching to mac has increased my productivity tremendously. Sure the differences may be, in many cases, minute, but they add up.

Exactly. They add up. 2 clicks vs 6 clicks = 2 seconds vs 6 seconds + reading time. Knowing where a program is in the dock vs searching for a program in the taskbar = 1 second vs 1-8+ seconds. Ten large Photoshop windows open, searching for the right one = 1-3 seconds with Expose vs 1-10 seconds + accidentally skipping the right window with window tabbing. I can hide all windows and view my desktop by flicking my mouse to a hot corner or activate Expose in another hot corner. Little things like that add up over time, and it would be a difference of a 3 hour job vs a 6 hour job.

Not to mention how standardized and meticulous every application is to ensure that learnability is fast so users know where exactly everything is instead of having to learn a new GUI that is inconsistent from program to program. Another example is having a smaller vertical height in Safari for menu options save screen real estate vs IE's bloated bar. Looking at screenshots between Vista's tabbed browsing and OS X's Expose, dissecting which one is more useful reveals how much time can be saved over the long run.

a year in, my mac has not slowed down, and still works as well the day I bought it, I didn't need to format, defrag, nada, what more can I ask? In my mind, I have more than earned back whatever money I could've saved buying an equally spec'ed pc; as a professional, i would consider my purchase of a mac a profitable investment.

I agree. There's no need to defrag or reformat at all. I rarely restart my machine (when there's new updates) and putting it on sleep/wake up saves me a lot of time. It's just very efficient with resources. I love how uninstalling is simply moving an application icon into the trash. It's that simple.

[el badman]

The searching for viruses takes up resources and time, and you still have to pay for the software (unless you have Vista)

Uhh nope. I had AVG under XP and you better believe that I wouldn't pay a dime for an antivirus. Just like with Vista, it would automatically search and download any update each day and you'd never have to worry about it.

I don't really care about who chooses what, as Joe said, everyone has their own preferences as far as hardware and software. I know Macs are particularly well crafted for graphic desginers, video editors, journalists,...and that's fine. What really annoys the hell outta me is the complete ignorance behind statements like "PCs are just inherently unsafe and unsecured", when it's clearly proven that a few minutes to tweak your security settings and to install a free antivirus (which is really not needed under Vista) do the trick, and you pretty much never have to mess with it afterwards. I haven't had any issue in several years with any of my PCs.

[cyanide]

^ My parents use a PC and AVG loads every time they start their computer with a new update to download every time. It's just that I'd like to get into programs immediately after the OS loads instead of perform maintenance frequently just to keep it safe. Vista is better with being more obscure about security, but still, frequent security updates means more rebooting. I never had an issue with viruses or malware when I had a PC for all those years, but it can get annoying to see those popups or dialog boxes, even for several seconds or a scan being performed in the background that takes up resources.

[benji]

Suicide?

Fuck, Sony VAIOs are as expensive and much more of a piece of crap than Macs and nobody ever said a thing about that.

Because Sony VAIOs aren't the lone option to have a PC?

putting it on sleep/wake up saves me a lot of time.

XP does this just fine, so I don't see what makes Macs special in this regard.

It's not millions of applications

Yeah, it is. There are literally millions upon millions of Windows applications. Just because they are "little" and not "useful" doesn't mean they don't exist.

Plus, I prefer to have useful applications like Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Studio, etc. than little apps like SopCast, Steam or the NBC Video Player.

I'm not sure you understand what Steam is...lest ye call it "little"

If it doesn't run everything you want to use, then just stick with Windows.

I am. But I was asked why I prefer PC over Mac which is why I outlined it.

Nobody wants to run a virus/spyware scanner every single time they log in, or everyday at 2pm. It's annoying as hell.

I don't. Still never find anything when I get bored and check.

It's not like Windows XP, where you have to buy antivirus/spyware software

You do?

I thought the same way, but really, I don't give a shit about brand as long as my machine performs what it's supposed to do with quality parts and an excellent warranty that I may never need to use. I can still upgrade my GPU, but since I don't think I'll be playing games on my computer now that Civilization Revolution is out, it's probably not worth the expense. If you want to run Windows, all you need is a copy of Windows, just like if you built a new PC and need an OS. You don't need any other programs. OS X comes with Boot Camp to allow you to partition your drive to run Windows natively. It

Wait, wait, wait. So not only do I have to spend twice as much on a Mac, I also still have to buy Windows and a new GPU. My $1000 rig I can dual-boot between Windows and fifty free OS builds just became a $3000 Mac.

Don't underestimate the power of usability and user experience design. If you did a lot of research in information architecture and related subjects, you'd see how minute UI differences can make a big difference in overall productivity.

I like how it's my lack of understanding and that I need to do research because the MacOS doesn't improve my productivity over GNOME/KDE or Windows.

Improve your security? Why worry about security if it's secure in the first place without annoying dialog boxes telling you that this might be unsafe, are you sure you want to install this, oh, it's time for your computer clean up! Seriously, it sounds more like MommyVista doing all the nagging about security while DaddyOSX is never around.

Hmm. I don't have any of that. Windows doesn't ask me anything. Just had to change one option.

I don't demand you agree with me or that you switch to Mac, I'm just expressing my opinion just the way you are doing, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

The original post ranting about the close-minded reality refusing rubes who refuse to switch?

However, in my post I never talked about hardware. I specified "Microsoft" and "Windows", I never said "PC".

I don't consider them seperate. On a Mac I automatically get MacOS and whatever Apple wants, on a PC, I get choices.

And, I'm sure if you look around for a bit you'll find every application you need on Mac OS.

Except for Steam. Or GameTap. Or...

So you're calling every designer in the world, not to mention photographers, audio and video professionals and all the other people who use Macs "idiots"? I think that's a bit harsh, don't you?

No, because I didn't call them that.

That said, if the purpose of one's computer is gaming, or internet, I'd consider a pc a better buy. Even for occupations such as law, medicine, engineering, perhaps animation, if you owned a mac, you'd probably have to use vmware/parallels or boot camp often to use occupation-related software.

All of which applies to me.

For gaming, you can get superior hardware.... though I have played crysis well on my macbook pro, as well as assassin's creed (i finished crysis, but assassin's creed bored me after an hour). A mac pro will be able to handle any game thrown at it.

Yeah, but at three times the cost. Which is my entire point. (And you didn't like jumping into strawcarts over and over?)

Exactly. They add up. 2 clicks vs 6 clicks = 2 seconds vs 6 seconds + reading time. Knowing where a program is in the dock vs searching for a program in the taskbar = 1 second vs 1-8+ seconds. Ten large Photoshop windows open, searching for the right one = 1-3 seconds with Expose vs 1-10 seconds + accidentally skipping the right window with window tabbing. I can hide all windows and view my desktop by flicking my mouse to a hot corner or activate Expose in another hot corner. Little things like that add up over time, and it would be a difference of a 3 hour job vs a 6 hour job.

We've already done this before Cryanide. If I wanted to I could do all of that without a Mac (not that I do, the less I see of a desktop the better, means I'm accomplishing something), and I still think the "Windows claims" are incredibly exaggerated. (More than one second to ever find a program on the taskbar? Really?) Again, another of my central points, users still matter most.

And the greatest productivity increase to me (by far and of more importance to minor UI alterations ever could be) is having a second screen, or third or...the $2000 savings on the system itself makes getting those easier on the bank account.

Another example is having a smaller vertical height in Safari for menu options save screen real estate vs IE's bloated bar

Yeah, well back in MacOS 6, the folders didn't work right if two had the same name. "Bloated bar"? Not on any of my browsers. (I also hate Safari, and most Apple replacements.)

Since it seems like I need to restate:
I only use Windows because of Steam and other games. I continue to use Windows versions of Opera, uTorrent, Excel, etc. because I don't feel like rebooting to swap to another OS as there's nothing I can't do in Windows and I leave my computer up 99.8% of the time.

And as I said, I couldn't care less what you use. You can fire up an old Altair for all I care. My problem was with statements like "close-minded" and refusing "reality" to describe those who have not chosen the enlightened Mac path. As well as Indy's claim in the other thread that there is no reason to go with PC. I'm not even seriously defending/attacking anyone, as this is completely silly and unserious discussion, just poking fun.

If Macs are so great, why are Mac users always so defensive? (Better watch how this is responded to...it might be a trap!)

[magius]

although some mac users are, of course overly defensive, I'd say that it is more the case that non-mac users are overly "offensive." Obviously, theirs no point to get "defensive" over something so trivial, but the majority of arguments I have seen arise sprout from non-mac users basically calling mac users shallow, obnoxious sheep. Then mac users explain why they prefer using macs, and non-mac users laugh serenely, "why are you getting so defensive?" I believe such tact would irritate most people.

Yeah, but at three times the cost. Which is my entire point. (And you didn't like jumping into strawcarts over and over?)

While a mac may be triple the cost of a similarly spec'ed pc (i'm assuming custom built, or lesser known brand name), I know for a fact that, in my case, it at least doubles my productivity, which in turn dwarfs any short term savings. That's all their is to it, you can keep repeating double/triple/quadruple the cost, and I'll keep replying half the time. Money I can always earn, time not so much. Another monitor on a mac is almost unfair.

I've customized my pc to work as efficiently I can, but, in the end, the difference is that, in my experience, mac os customizations seem to integrate into the os and with each other more seamlessly than windows' addons (no i'm not comparing vanilla mac os to souped up windows... yes i'm sure you can make a civic run as fast as a ferrari if you really want to). Furthermore the customizations for the mac os need less tweaking/research.... I don't have to make sure I have the right drivers, or if this addon is going to screw up another addon,, or if I need to do something to my firewall, security options, bios, whatever. This is because apple is "one company," which supplies its own drivers to specific hardware, allowing software companies, freeware or for profit, to code to known variables. If apple released it's os to be usable (legally) with any hardware configuration, THAT would be a legitimate reason to call it's product overpriced... the fact that it doesn't, to me, in part justifies the price.... not because I'm some sort of elitist, but because it allows the company to control it's product to a superior degree.

assassin's creed = bashing head continuously against wall for hours. It's a game, not a chore!!

[Joe']

Because Sony VAIOs aren't the lone option to have a PC?

If you really wanted to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine, you could. Plus, as I've said, Psystar is (legally as far as I know, in case you were wondering) offering 900$ fully-customizable computers with Mac OS X pre-loaded.

XP does this just fine, so I don't see what makes Macs special in this regard.

No, it does not. From my personal experience I can say on XP, it takes 5x the time it takes on Mac OS X for the computer to wake.

Yeah, it is. There are literally millions upon millions of Windows applications. Just because they are "little" and not "useful" doesn't mean they don't exist.

That's not what I meant. I meant there aren't millions of applications for Windows that aren't available on Mac. And, yes, in my opinion, if they're not useful, there's no use for them, therefore they don't count shit.

I'm not sure you understand what Steam is...lest ye call it "little"

I know what Steam is, I like the idea. But, in my opinion, as a non-gamer, it is a little application. If I was a gamer, I wouldn't want to purchase my videogames online anyway.

And, while you can actually run this app on a Mac (not Mac OS X, Mac as in hardware), you can't run all the amazing and, again in my opinion, much more useful applications on a PC (legally anyway).

You do?

Every Windows user has installed some kind of anti-virus software sometime. And that's because, even if it's unlikely your computer gets infected if you know what you're doing, it doesn't change the fact that viruses exist, and they exist only on the Windows platform.

Wait, wait, wait. So not only do I have to spend twice as much on a Mac, I also still have to buy Windows and a new GPU. My $1000 rig I can dual-boot between Windows and fifty free OS builds just became a $3000 Mac.

You certainly have Windows on your computer, there you go, no need to buy it. 85% of Mac users are switchers and have a Windows CD, problem solved.

I like how it's my lack of understanding and that I need to do research because the MacOS doesn't improve my productivity over GNOME/KDE or Windows.

How much time did you actually spend working on Mac OS X? If you used itfor at least a year, by now you would know it actually improves productivity, since most professionals use it.

Hmm. I don't have any of that. Windows doesn't ask me anything. Just had to change one option.

You still had to do something you weren't supposed to. A computer should be ready right out of the box, it shouldn't rely on users changing options and sliders in order for the OS to be less annoying... It shouldn't be annoying in the first place, that's what you don't understand.

The original post ranting about the close-minded reality refusing rubes who refuse to switch?

Oh, I get it. So you're allowed to think I'm an "idiot" for having a Mac and yet I can't think people who use Windows just because that's what they've always used are close-minded?

I don't consider them seperate. On a Mac I automatically get MacOS and whatever Apple wants, on a PC, I get choices.

I do consider them separate. On a PC, you don't get choices, Windows come pre-installed in 99% of PCs you buy in every retail store. The only alternatives are Linux, BSD, BeOS, Solaris, etc. which, guess what, you can still install on a Mac, as well as Windows.

So, while on a Mac you can natively (again, legally. There are ways to install OS X on PCs) have OS X, XP, Vista, any Linux distribution, Solaris, BSD, BeOS AND all the other open-source OSes, and choose which one you want to boot at startup, on a PC you only get one version of Windows (unless you hack something, which is not a valid option since we are talking natively), any Linux distro OR any other open-source OS, and you still can't install OS X, which, again in my opinion, is the best OS.

Except for Steam. Or GameTap. Or...

[b][color=brown]This whole time you haven't listed a non-videogame-related application not available for Mac OS X.

Still, I repeat, if I really wanted to have Steam on my Mac, I could, while if you wanted Final Cut Pro, Logic Express, Comic Life, Aperture, Transmission or any other Mac-only application on Windows, there's nothing you can do.

No, because I didn't call them that.

"Apple, it's idiot proof and you're an idiot!"

I'm pretty sure by this you meant every Mac user is an idiot. At least it seemed like you did.

And as I said, I couldn't care less what you use. You can fire up an old Altair for all I care. My problem was with statements like "close-minded" and refusing "reality" to describe those who have not chosen the enlightened Mac path. As well as Indy's claim in the other thread that there is no reason to go with PC.

Just because I don't type "in my opinion" it doesn't mean what I type isn't just and only my opinion. As I said, you think Macs are inferior and people who use them are idiots, I think people who use Windows just because that's what they've always used are close-minded.

If Indy thinks there is no reason to go with PC, why is his opinion less valid than yours?

If Macs are so great, why are Mac users always so defensive? (Better watch how this is responded to...it might be a trap!)

If Windows is so great, why is it always the people who have PCs that complain and have issues with their computers and not people who have Macs?

[cyanide]

Attempted suicide?

XP does this just fine, so I don't see what makes Macs special in this regard.

Interesting. When I had XP, 50% of the time, the computer never wakes up from sleep mode, hence, the reason why I stopped using sleep mode because I had to reboot anyway.

You do?

I'll rephrase that. You have to either buy or download anti-virus software, unless you're ok with viruses and malware.

Wait, wait, wait. So not only do I have to spend twice as much on a Mac, I also still have to buy Windows and a new GPU. My $1000 rig I can dual-boot between Windows and fifty free OS builds just became a $3000 Mac.

I'm not sure if Macs are that much more pricey, really. If you consider the quality of the hardware of the Mac Pros and the software that comes with OS X, it would be pretty comparable to buying a Dell machine of equivalent value.

I like how it's my lack of understanding and that I need to do research because the MacOS doesn't improve my productivity over GNOME/KDE or Windows.

Hmmm... who are you calling close-minded again? I might only have a few years of usability and user experience design research, but little things that add up could make a huge difference in productivity. This is where Mac engineers excelled when designing OS X.

Hmm. I don't have any of that. Windows doesn't ask me anything. Just had to change one option.

Interesting. I believe most XP users have to put up with running anti-virus in the background or installing new AVG updates every few days. Or get a pop-up warning that they have a virus because they surf too much porn. Mac = porn without borders.

If I wanted to I could do all of that without a Mac (not that I do, the less I see of a desktop the better, means I'm accomplishing something), and I still think the "Windows claims" are incredibly exaggerated. (More than one second to ever find a program on the taskbar? Really?) Again, another of my central points, users still matter most.

Using logic here. If you have a crowded taskbar and the only visual cue is a small icon and a title, you have to scan the taskbar to find which program you need, unless you have memorized which sequence of windows that you have opened in order from left to right, and that sequence is ruined once you close a program in the first to middle of the sequence (it amazes me that organizing programs in the taskbar like in tabbed browsing isn't default). This requires learnability, and this becomes more difficult as the sequence keeps changing or becomes more crowded. On the dock, every program is represented by a clear icon that you can make small or large and a visual cue of an arrow below the icon incidates an open program. In addition, users have the option of changing the sequence of the icons, or adding, or removing icons. Learnability and memorability is significantly increased when a sequence is unchanged, especially if users have the ability to group applications by type (ie: Adobe applications close together, internet applications in another group, etc.) There is no way that productivity is the same if users have to spend time searching for an open program over knowing where exactly the program is. This becomes apparent if you spend a lot of time with a Mac.

Sure, having a second screen or a larger display will increase productivity, but as magius said, that is unfair. I'm talking about identical monitors with OS X and Windows.

I'll give another example. Taking Fitt's Law into consideration, "the time it takes to reach a target is a function of the distance and size of the target." For instance, it requires a distance to move your mouse cursor to the top right, and requires selecting the right target (minimize for instance) so you can perform a function. This is faster on a Mac with keyboard shortcuts: cmd-h to hide the window or cmd-w to close the window. For the love of god, I don't understand why there is no keyboard shortcut in Windows to minimize a single damn window.

More than anything, I'm defensive about the lack of time put into user experience and UI design in Windows that are clearly superior in OS X.

[el badman]

Interesting. I believe most XP users have to put up with running anti-virus in the background or installing new AVG updates every few days.

Again, you don't have to do shit, it automatically downloads any available update, period. Nothing is required from the user, whether it's on XP or Vista. And it does it every single day, not every few days.

There is no way that productivity is the same if users have to spend time searching for an open program over knowing where exactly the program is.

There's zillions of free programs on XP that create something similar to the Vista sidebar on your desktop, and allow you to gather all your regularly used icons in one place. If you're not too keen on the quicklaunch bar, I guess that's another possibility. Of course, it doesn't even apply to Vista, where you can customize the sidebar as needed.

[cyanide]

Again, you don't have to do shit, it automatically downloads any available update, period. Nothing is required from the user, whether it's on XP or Vista. And it does it every single day, not every few days.

That's even worse. I'd get sick of seeing AVG pop up on my screen with a loading bar that does everything automatically, but taking up 10 seconds of my life times 365, which is about an hour every year staring at an AVG loading bar.

There's zillions of free programs on XP that create something similar to the Vista sidebar on your desktop, and allow you to gather all your regularly used icons in one place. If you're not too keen on the quicklaunch bar, I guess that's another possibility. Of course, it doesn't even apply to Vista, where you can customize the sidebar as needed.

That's my point. There's zillions of free programs that are used to improve Window's flawed UI design. I don't want to install a zillion programs to bloat my programs list, take up RAM, take up hard drive space, and waste my time. Especially when there's re-formatting involved when zillions of free programs make the computer go clunky.