the arguments used for PC vs Mac

[BlaqueKatt]

I am so sick and tired of hearing the same arguments used to justify why one is better than the other-especially because they're usually wrong.

"Macs are better for graphics"
not if you get a PC designed for them

"Microsoft is a monopoly"
Wasn't aware microsoft was in the business of selling computers-just software that works on ANY computer.

"Macs have a better intuitive graphic user interface"
What does that even mean? Oh it's something spewed out by a marketing department.

"PCs have more games"
now that windows runs on Mac-this is no longer a valid argument

why is this even an argument with some people? I had someone call me a "sheep" in real life for not using a Mac. I got rid of my ipod almost a year ago, and my husband just got rid of his-we now both have mp3 players that have the same storage as our ipods did-but cost well over $100 less and have more features-yet people still claim the ipod is better due to not having done any research outside of watching commercials.

My MP3 player has:
Expandable memory(vis compact flash or SD cards)
Fm radio
Larger screen than an ipod touch
external battery-user changable
will play most formats
has a built-in speaker
has a wireless remote(for tv output-comes with cables to connect to tv)
has hearing protection settings
can make playlists on the player-not just on the computer
has buttons I can easily feel and operate while in a pocket
cost over $100 less than an ipod

the ipod has none of these-how is it a better player again? You pay more and get less-I have used all of these features, and these were the things I was complaining my ipod wouldn't do-do your research people-find what works for you and leave other people alone.

[Pedersen]

I am so sick and tired of hearing the same arguments used to justify why one is better than the other-especially because they're usually wrong.

Okay, time to refute at least some of your specific items. They're not as wrong as you think.

"Macs are better for graphics"
not if you get a PC designed for them

The color on the screen is not the same color you get when you print. This is due, in part, to the fact that the colors on your screen are produced by mixing varying levels of Red, Green, and Blue, while printing is done by mixing varying levels of Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black.

The tools built into the Mac OS assist with color matching between the print and screen color are better integrated into the operating system than they are on Windows.

That's the print tools. In addition, to that, the on screen tools are actually more responsive. Side by side comparisons of Apple hardware running the both Windows XP and Mac OSX showed OSX running up to 20% faster.

Font managers are more advanced on OSX as well, allowing for easier (and centralized, which is important for a team of graphics artists) management, distribution, and installation of fonts on individual work stations.

That translates to faster work, which means that OSX is better for graphics.

"Microsoft is a monopoly"
Wasn't aware microsoft was in the business of selling computers-just software that works on ANY computer.

Actually, no, they're not. They're interested in making software that works well on Windows, and that's it. Do a side by side comparison of their tools. Microsoft Office for OSX is not as good as Office for Windows. Entourage (the email client that they ship for OSX to be the "Outlook equivalent") is garbage. It requires frequent rebuilds of the identity database in order to keep downloading email. I've seen it lose mail. Furthermore, it's error messages are usually limited to "Error 101010" type stuff, and are highly undocumented, making actual troubleshooting difficult.

And that's just for starters. Internet Explorer 6, 7, and 8 (beta) only run on Windows. They do not run on OSX or Linux (well, not unless you violate license agreements and accept reduced functionality).

As for Windows itself, we are finally seeing some mild chinks in the monopoly. But they are very mild. The Windows operating system commands at least 85% of the marketplace right now.

The actions taken by the executives of Microsoft are very much in line with the actions of a monopoly. They specifically set out to remove the relevance of Netscape (and succeeded, destroying a company in the process). They made employment decisions for Intel, telling then CEO Andy Grove who they wanted Intel to fire. More recently, they refused to follow the law in the European Union. This resulted in them paying fines of $1,000,000/day before they finally acquiesced to follow the law, resulting in them paying a fine of over $357,000,000 (I think it was higher, but am not sure).

All of this is publicly documented, and easy to find. The first bit of that paragraph is documented in the Findings of Fact as issued by a Federal Court in the case that was tried in 1999.

Yes, they are a monopoly. And the governments of the world are working to correct the marketplace to remove that status, and force them to compete on a level playing field.

"Macs have a better intuitive graphic user interface"
What does that even mean? Oh it's something spewed out by a marketing department.

Actually, no, it's not. And that you would think so tells me you, very likely, have not used a Mac for any length of time. I did, at work, for a year. I much preferred it to Windows, because, unlike my Windows experiences, things just worked. I inserted a CD, and was able to burn an ISO image trivially. I had all of my tools up and running the way I expected within a day (compared to Windows, where it would be easy to spend a month tweaking it to get it all right).

The Mac focuses on trying to work the way a new user would expect it to work. Windows tries to make the user work for the computer. As a result, the Mac is easier and more intuitive to use.

"PCs have more games"
now that windows runs on Mac-this is no longer a valid argument

Actually, this is still true, though the word "PCs" needs to be changed to "Windows". Windows does have more games. On that count, Windows wins hands down.

why is this even an argument with some people? I had someone call me a "sheep" in real life for not using a Mac.

Different people get passionate about different things. If you are someone who makes a living writing (and you enjoy that career), you will be passionate about things that affect writing. Same for any other field.

In my case, I work with computers all day, every day. I take care of them, fix them, program them, network them. I enjoy my work. As a result, I will tend to be more passionate about them than people who do not do this. I don't often let it show, though, since I know that most other people don't care.

When I do let it show is when someone decides to claim that I'm wrong in thinking the things that I know and/or care about, especially when I already know (and can back) how that person is wrong. It's only then that I tend to explain my side.

[BlaqueKatt]

Side by side comparisons of Apple hardware running the both Windows XP and Mac OSX showed OSX running up to 20% faster.

yes and my pc cannot run OSX without violating license agreements(but I bet it would run slower than XP)-compare OSX running on a MAC compared to XP running on a PC with the same specs as the Mac.

What I'm saying is Mac does not build their computers to run XP it is optimized so you buy and run their software. That is like saying a jet fueled racecar runs faster with jet fuel than on premium gasoline.




The actions taken by the executives of Microsoft are very much in line with the actions of a monopoly.
Yes, they are a monopoly. And the governments of the world are working to correct the marketplace to remove that status, and force them to compete on a level playing field.

mo·nop·o·ly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Microsoft makes software that will run on any computer-even the one my husband built for me. Apple builds computers and writes software that will only work on an Apple computer. If I want to use any Mac software I am FORCED to buy a Mac(or violate license agreements which I won't do), I can't build my own out of parts. My husband's computer built to run Crysis cost under $600 to build-can I buy a Mac with the same specs for that, no because they are artificially inflating the price-see defiition #1 of monopoly.
Proof of price fixing
1GB DDR2 533MHZ NECC 2x512MB DIMMS MA246G/A
Apple store price $200.00 (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nclm=PowerMacG5DualCoreMemory)
Non-apple store price $36.00 (http://www.parts-quick.com/apple-memory-1gb-ddr2-533mhz-necc-2x512mb-dimms-ma246g-a.html)
$164.00 difference for the same product-and unless you want to void your warranty -and I just spent 20 minutes trying to price out a comparable mac to my pc and couldn't get anywhere within the apple store-it just kept taking me to the "learn more" about what you can and can't do-and nothing for actual pricing or ordering.




things just worked.

sorry but that line is used in Mac advertisements all the time

I had all of my tools up and running the way I expected within a day (compared to Windows, where it would be easy to spend a month tweaking it to get it all right).

Mine with XP were set up within 2 hours

and having computers that will work for people with no computer skills can be a very bad thing as they the have little desire to learn other more complicated systems. My sister managed to destroy 3 of my computers because she thought she was a "computer genius" due to only ever having touched a Mac-she deleted critical windows files, and over-loaded my computers with viruses because she never updated the anti-virus. One of my co-workers(incedntally the one who called me a "sheep) managed to take down our entire network due to his "I'm a computer genius" overconfidence due to only ever using a Mac-IT actually had to remove his computer from the network because he wouldn't stop messing with things he didn't understand.

[Pedersen]

yes and my pc cannot run OSX without violating license agreements(but I bet it would run slower than XP)-compare OSX running on a MAC compared to XP running on a PC with the same specs as the Mac.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are simply unaware of a couple of minor details about the Apple hardware after they switched to the Intel architecture. Failing to do so would mean that I have to believe that you are deliberately spreading misinformation, and I know you aren't doing that.

When Apple switched to the Intel architecture, the Mac became what you are calling a PC. There's a reason I stopped using the term Mac in my post, and started referring to the Windows operating system versus the OSX operating system. They run the same hardware, through and through.

Apple enabled the use of a TPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module) chip, and that is how they enforce that OSX only runs on Apple hardware.

That is the only difference. No other.

What I'm saying is Mac does not build their computers to run XP it is optimized so you buy and run their software. That is like saying a jet fueled racecar runs faster with jet fuel than on premium gasoline.

Actually, I have to retract some of what I've said. I would have sworn that I had read that OSX outperforms XP on the exact same hardware. I've just redone my Google searches, and can't find any report that suggests my memory was correct.

I hereby concede this point. XP will run faster than OSX on the same hardware.

That does not mean that graphics people will be able to get along with XP easier than OSX, and that is the major benchmark. I still stand by that statement, that for graphics work, OSX is better. For further reference, see my original post.

mo·nop·o·ly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.


Damn, beaten by the dictionary! Oh, wait a minute...


My husband's computer built to run Crysis cost under $600 to build-can I buy a Mac with the same specs for that, no because they are artificially inflating the price-see defiition #1 of monopoly.


Let's re-read that definition, shall we? Especially the second part:
a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Now, let's compare the price of various operating systems. Note: I will only compare the versions that provide full feature sets for workstations. No reduced functionality. Why? Compare apples to apples (pardon the pun). If I get a set of features that is only available in a higher end version in one but is included in all versions of another, well, we have to be fair and get the features as close as possible, right?


Ubuntu Linux - Free (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download) to download, Free (https://shipit.ubuntu.com/) to get a CD sent to you
Apple OSX (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB427Z/A?mco=MTMyOTM) - $129
Windows XP Professional, Retail - $218 (http://www.pricewatch.com/public/info2.aspx?i=182&z=1750&ro=88&aid=30636649&a=4181)
Windows Vista Upgrade, 32 bit - $190 (http://www.pricewatch.com/public/info2.aspx?i=182&z=2661&ro=22&aid=30546134&a=991862)
Windows 2000 Professional (Not currently available, so old price) - $150
Windows 98SE (Not currently available, so old price) - $150
Windows 3.11 (Not currently available, so old price) - $100
MS-DOS 6.22 (Not currently available, so old price) - $50
FreeDOS - Free (http://www.freedos.org/freedos/files/)


Microsoft's prices for an operating system have jumped considerably. And yet, it's questionable (at best) whether you are getting that added value. Linux is still distributed for free. Apple's OSX is actually cheaper than any current version of Windows with the same featureset. And if you include features you get with OSX, but not with Windows, the cost jumps even higher. After all, OSX comes with a compiler supplied by the company. For Windows, you have to buy Visual Studio (or, admittedly, you can download the free/crippled version). And that's just the first feature that comes to mind.

Why is that? Maybe because Microsoft has such a dominating grip on the Intel based operating system industry that they have "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices"? Nah, that couldn't be it. Because that would mean they have and are a monopoly, which you've already said isn't true.

So, why is it that Microsoft's prices have climbed higher than any one else's, and are still higher than anyone else's, and the quality is (arguably) less?

sorry but that line is used in Mac advertisements all the time

How about that? I actually didn't realize I had typed that. Ah, well, since it got said in an ad, that makes me into a liar, doesn't it?

Mine with XP were set up within 2 hours

I'm impressed. Whenever I sit down to tweak a Windows machine, I have to download my text editor, download OpenOffice, download my instant messenger, download a couple hundred security updates, download firefox, download thunderbird, and probably a few others I'm forgetting. Then install them. Then I can work on configuring them. And for the next month, I'll find myself saying "Oh crap, I forgot tool *blah*", and then go to the install process.

Two days is a conservative estimate for me to get Windows working properly. With Linux, and with Mac, it's done within a day. Much less fuss. Oh, and before you say "Well, you have to download all that with the others too!", you are, to a point, correct. I do have to. And yet, with the others, it's still easier for some reason. It really does take me only a day. Whereas with Windows, two days is the bare minimum, and requires that I not be interrupted.

and having computers that will work for people with no computer skills can be a very bad thing as they the have little desire to learn other more complicated systems.

You're now arguing in favor of people using Windows because it's more complex and makes them learn more, and just earlier, you said that Mac was not any easier or harder than Windows. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

To answer this point more directly, though: Computers are a unique tool. I know of no other like them. They can be ridiculously easy, and ridiculously complex. The person using the tool makes the difference. If you're an idiot, computers won't make you smart, and vice versa.

People who will make a mess out of things with computers will do so without computers, too. They have to be watched and prevented from doing too much damage.

[ArenaBoy]

"Microsoft is a monopoly"
Wasn't aware microsoft was in the business of selling computers-just software that works on ANY computer.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Microsoft has been in trouble with the Justice Department for that sort of thing, quite a few times actually.


"Macs have a better intuitive graphic user interface"
What does that even mean? Oh it's something spewed out by a marketing department.

I've used Windows for the last 18 years of my life. For example, if I wanted to run a DVD I'd get several messages popping up telling me that it's not in the drive even if it was brand new disc. Whereas with Mac it'd actually you know, play it. Or if I wanted to record a song onto my computer I had to buy software for it and then there'd be some strange problem installing it. Garageband came pre-installed on my Mac and it's quite easy to use.


My MP3 player has:
Expandable memory(vis compact flash or SD cards)

How much GB does your MP3 carry? Standard 30 or 60? 6th generation of ipods have at best 160GB. Most flash drives though tend to be 1GB-4GB through fares and it gets expensive if you rely on flash drives to help keep track of files.

Fm radio

See, I find it pointless. I've got plenty of music and part of the reason I got an MP3 player was so I could avoid the dreck on FM.


Larger screen than an ipod touch

You do realize that the screens tend to be disjointed a bit more when they get bigger right? See Zune.


external battery-user changable

Only thing I agree with.


will play most formats

So can my ipod.

has a built-in speaker
has a wireless remote(for tv output-comes with cables to connect to tv)[/quote]

Do not see the point in those functions. Unless you lose TV remotes easily.


has hearing protection settings

You mean volume settings?


can make playlists on the player-not just on the computer

Can be done on the ipod. Called on-the-go.



the ipod has none of these-how is it a better player again?

:rolleyes:

For one, it's simpler to use. Do you honestly think that everybody is a technology fanatic?

do your research people-find what works for you and leave other people alone.

Strangely enough, I did and still chose the ipod. No no, I did not fall for the cool hipster edgy ad (Seriously, I learned of ipods through a comic strip.) but thing is I don't need those features. You need them, cool.

[BlaqueKatt]

They run the same hardware, through and through.

Apple enabled the use of a TPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module) chip, and that is how they enforce that OSX only runs on Apple hardware.

That is the only difference. No other.

you just contradicted yourself-either they have the same hardware or they don't and does that chip affect XP?



Now, let's compare the price of various operating systems.

So, why is it that Microsoft's prices have climbed higher than any one else's, and are still higher than anyone else's, and the quality is (arguably) less?

because they can't subsidize via the equipment-see above apple ram vs third party RAM $200(apple)-$36(third party)=$164 price gouge-only $68 dollar difference between XP and OSX





How about that? I actually didn't realize I had typed that. Ah, well, since it got said in an ad, that makes me into a liar, doesn't it?

actually it's a mild form of brainwashing(the phrase is trademarked/copyrighted by Apple as an advertising slogan)-kinda like if I type "it's finger lickin' good"-(if you're old enough) you think of KFC, or "just one calorie"(diet coke)



I'm impressed. Whenever I sit down to tweak a Windows machine, I have to download (bunch of programs). Then install them. Then I can work on configuring them. And for the next month, I'll find myself saying "Oh crap, I forgot tool *blah*", and then go to the install process.

Two days is a conservative estimate for me to get Windows working properly. With Linux, and with Mac, it's done within a day. Much less fuss. Oh, and before you say "Well, you have to download all that with the others too!",

I didn't have to redownload anything, or reinstall-made a shared folder, and networked the computers and transfered the files over. Kinda like IT does for business computers.



You're now arguing in favor of people using Windows because it's more complex and makes them learn more, and just earlier, you said that Mac was not any easier or harder than Windows. Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

just reread my posts and didn't see me saying that anyway-just Questioning what "intuitive graphic user interface" means-other than advertising buzzwords that sound good.(read any apple ad or review-they all use that exact phrase-I have asked people what that means and most that say it have no idea, they're just parroting what the ads say.-normally their answer to it is to look at me and tell me "it just works"-another advertising phrase-there is a definite cult-like thought process going with some people)



The person using the tool makes the difference. If you're an idiot, computers won't make you smart, and vice versa.

yes but an easy computer can make an idiot think they're smarter than they are, and that is where problems arise.(how easy is it to get a 300 game when bumper bowling?)


For example, if I wanted to run a DVD I'd get several messages popping up telling me that it's not in the drive even if it was brand new disc.

My stand-alone connected to the TV does that too, for some dvds-must be windows on that too :rolleyes:(pssst some dvds are not compatable with certain dvd players)


How much GB does your MP3 carry? Standard 30 or 60? 6th generation of ipods have at best 160GB. Most flash drives though tend to be 1GB-4GB through fares and it gets expensive if you rely on flash drives to help keep track of files.

Compact flash cards run 69.99 for 16GB (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3119532&CatId=3447)
SD cards run 29.99 for 4GB (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2844046&CatId=2412)

It's 30GB-at the time I bought it the 160GB was not even announced(I owned 2 30GB ipods-Apple software update bricked one of them-I bought a new one and the battery died within 3 months-and I was not paying $60 to replace it)

and all of the MP3 players made by the company that makes mine have this feature-the simple ability to expand the memory without having to buy a whole new unit(their 8 GB model is $129 you buy 2 4GB SD cards that's $189 total and double the memory of the largest nano-and almost $100 cheaper and the nano is stuck at 8GB you want more space you have to buy a different one at a higher price that the $60 to double the memory of the other companies)




You do realize that the screens tend to be disjointed a bit more when they get bigger right?

Mine is crystal clear


Do not see the point in those functions. Unless you lose TV remotes easily.
that is two seperate features
TV out cables-to run a slideshow of pictures(with the remote), or to play the movies stored on it(dvd conversion software included), so instead of bringing 6 DVDs to a friend's house-I just bring a small cable and my MP3 player.



You mean volume settings?

Volume block(to keep it from going above a certain level)
Volume reduction(gradually reduces the volume to protect your hearing without you noticing the reduction)-I know Apple was talking about doing this on their next gen ipods, but the company that made my player has made it standard since 1998(ipods did not come out until 2001)




For one, it's simpler to use. Do you honestly think that everybody is a technology fanatic?

all I will say to this is mine was easier to set up than an ipod-plug and play did not need any kind of software to "organize the music" if I didn't want to use it. And I can operate mine in my pocket while wearing gloves-try that with an ipod touch.(I live in a very cold state-got frostbite once trying to find a song on my ipod once because I had to take my gloves off to operate it)

[Pedersen]

you just contradicted yourself-either they have the same hardware or they don't and does that chip affect XP?

Wow. From that question, I can tell you didn't bother to read the link. Shame, really, since it would have answered your questions in their entirety. Then again, from what I'm seeing, reading that info does seem to go against you.

The TPM chip is a hardware signing key. It is an optional component. If the OS chooses to ignore it, then it does nothing. On the other hand, the OS can choose to read it, and verify that it sees what it expects, and use that to determine whether or not to run the OS itself, or any number of programs.

Does it affect XP? Nope. MS didn't build that support into any version of XP. I'm not sure if they've added it for Vista, though.

because they can't subsidize via the equipment-see above apple ram vs third party RAM $200(apple)-$36(third party)=$164 price gouge-only $68 dollar difference between XP and OSX

So, your contention is that Microsoft is unable to subsidize the development costs of their OS, and Apple is, and that's why Apple charges less?

Why, then, does Ubuntu charge less? What about Freedos?

Also, what about the $11,000,000,000 dollars in liquid assets that Microsoft has and maintains? And the fact that they don't pay out dividends to their shareholders?

Microsoft is a monopoly. It is one in effect. It is one in practice. They have been found to be one by multiple courts (both in the United States and in the European Union). Trying to claim anything else is disingenuous at best.

actually it's a mild form of brainwashing(the phrase is trademarked/copyrighted by Apple as an advertising slogan)-kinda like if I type "it's finger lickin' good"-(if you're old enough) you think of KFC, or "just one calorie"(diet coke)

Okay, so you need examples of how it just works?

How about these:

I power on OSX in my house for the first time. It finds my wireless network, joins it (after I give the proper password), gets on the internet, and I can get to surfing as I see fit. Furthermore, I can take that same OSX system to any other place, and hop on wireless without problem. With Windows XP, determining which wireless driver and which wireless connection manager to use is a royal pain in the ass. At my previous job, it took one person, on average, fifteen minutes to figure out how to make it connect (trying various combinations of settings within Windows and the proprietary wireless connection managers that come with each card). No matter how much experience the guy had, he had to keep trying various combinations to get a single set of settings that would work. And the mobile laptops would go home, and then the user would fight that wireless, sometimes requiring a complete breakage of previous settings to make it work.

Need to burn an ISO image? With XP, download/install a special program, since XP doesn't know how to do it by default. Built into OSX.

Need to configure things for mass imaging? i.e.: You have 100 computers, all of which are to get the same software load. On Windows, you have to have another program (Ghost is common). Or a specialized automated installation setup. With OSX, it's built in.

Need to configure people to have the same common set of shared network drives? Again, built into OSX. With Windows, either install a third party product or write login scripts.

Same for printers, too.

How about a useable help system? Windows help sucks, bluntly put. I've tried, on numerous occasions, to use it to solve something. Google is much better than Windows Help. The help system on OSX, though, actually has helped me figure things out.

Drives in Windows are clunky. Who named the drives C:, D:, etc? And why? Why, with all of the other updates, hasn't that gone away? On OSX, they're given useful names, like "Blank CD-ROM", "Mike's OSX Drive", etc. And they are always in plain view on the desktop, which is always very easy to get to.

How to turn off a computer? On windows, click Start->Shutdown. Wait, I have to start to shutdown my computer? On OSX, click the Apple System menu in the upper left, Shut Down.

Windows menu bars can be anywhere, and that's if the application uses them. OSX, the menu is always across the top of the screen.

Windows: Need to end a task for some reason? Who knows if Windows will actually kill it. I've seen any number of tasks that Windows is unable to end, even when requested by the Administrator account. On OSX? No problem. That task can be forcibly killed without a system reboot.
Oh, and for another example of how it just works: Need to copy an OSX application between computers? Drag the program's icon to a portable drive or network drive. On the receiving computer, drag that icon to the desktop or applications folder. Install is now complete.

Need to uninstall? Drag the icon to the trashcan. Uninstall is now complete.

The only things that I have seen which are any different from those rules are VPN clients, which would be something dealt with by IT anyway.

Do I need to continue? Windows is much more difficult to use, period. OSX, on the other hand, just works, and gets out of my way as much as possible.

I didn't have to redownload anything, or reinstall-made a shared folder, and networked the computers and transfered the files over. Kinda like IT does for business computers.

So, you had to transfer them over the network from one computer to another. Out of curiousity, what, exactly, do you call downloading? Because that sounds an awful lot like downloading to me. Now, from what you're saying, you also managed to get something working again without copying registry settings, or running the install program to reinstate those registry settings. Either you're very lucky, or you use programs that are meant to be cross platform (and so don't use the registry), or your system is broken in ways which you do not know. Since you specifically stated that you copied the files, but did not mention the registry, I'm going to guess that it's the last. And that will be doubly true if you use programs like Microsoft Office.

You see, IT doesn't just copy the files for business computers. The computer is set up using either imaging software or automated installation software. That's how the program registry changes all get put in correctly. After that, they copy over the user profiles between computers.

just reread my posts and didn't see me saying that anyway-just Questioning what "intuitive graphic user interface" means-other than advertising buzzwords that sound good.(read any apple ad or review-they all use that exact phrase-I have asked people what that means and most that say it have no idea, they're just parroting what the ads say.-normally their answer to it is to look at me and tell me "it just works"-another advertising phrase-there is a definite cult-like thought process going with some people)

Somehow, I thought you might. Here, let me quote for you (quotes taken out of order, to be sure, but done so to fully illustrate what is being said):

My sister managed to destroy 3 of my computers because she thought she was a "computer genius" due to only ever having touched a Mac
due to his "I'm a computer genius" overconfidence due to only ever using a Mac
and having computers that will work for people with no computer skills can be a very bad thing
"Macs have a better intuitive graphic user interface"
What does that even mean? Oh it's something spewed out by a marketing department.

Yes, you did say that Mac's don't have a better intuitive graphic interface, since that's just something spewed out by a marketing department. And then you turned right around and showed how Windows has a more complex one, and then defended it as being better for being more complex.

yes but an easy computer can make an idiot think they're smarter than they are, and that is where problems arise.(how easy is it to get a 300 game when bumper bowling?)

Oh, and another quote to show that OSX is easy. Had to point that out first.

And a hammer can make a non-carpenter think he can build a bookcase. It's still the same point. And now, you're changing your argument into something else: You're tired of hearing how easy OSX is, and wish people would stop saying it. I won't stop saying it, for one. I'm a Linux user right now, but that's because the only time I've ever been able to be a Mac user was at my last job, and that's because they bought it. And I won't say Windows is good, either. I got fed up with fighting it 6 years ago, and I haven't looked back since.

[Greenday]

I don't really agree with anybody's statements in general. Maybe Arenaboy's but that's it.

I've used Windows since I was 7 years old. I'm now 20 and I still use it. Windows is extremely simple to use. When I got my laptop, it came with a free CD for XP should I need to wipe my computer (which I've done, now I have the option to use XP Pro or XP Home, cost me nothing). It arrived at my mom's office at work so I went there to pick it up. Within half an hour, I had pretty much anything I'd need on it. I had AIM, firefox, MSN messenger, etc. I have yet to find Windows hard to work with.

I was never and iPod fanatic, nor did I ever bother with mp3 players. But my mom got me an iPod for Christmas one year and I've loved it ever since. It's simple to use, iTunes is nice as you can use it to do plenty of things, like rip CDs, manage music if I'm already spending time on my laptop, buy new songs if I can't find them elsewhere, use music I've already downloaded elsewhere. I can't think of one thing to complain about.

Overall, I just find Microsoft's products to be extremely easy to use. Even if I didn't know how to do something immediately, it wasn't hard by any means to figure it out. I don't know, maybe it's just because I have a talent for working with technology, but I don't see how anyone could call Windows or the iPod hard to use and take them seriously.

[DesignFox]

I own both a Mac and a Window's machine. I don't have much trouble using either of them, but I have to say...the Mac is much more intuitive.

You can do everything from the desktop, there are no confusing "drive names" like A: C: or D:

If you insert a disc, the image of the cd and the name of it pops up right on your desktop...no guess work. And the image of the CD doesn't disappear if you decide not to "do" anything with the disc in the drive...so you never forget what you have in there.

Any other external devices appear as icons on your desktop as well. So, the zip drive shows up as "zip drive" etc. (Remember Zip drives? WOW...haha)

Anyway...I can't really argue with anyone else's opinion over what they prefer...it is just that- opinion.

But if I had someone who knew nothing of computers and they just needed something simple to type on or browse the web, I'd plop them in front of a Mac.

*shrug*

Oh- there is one more thing I noticed about my Mac, that no Windows machine ever did (in my experience). My Mac could recognize ANY image file. If for some reason it didn't have a file extension (like .jpg or .bmp or .tif) the Windows machine wouldn't open it because it didn't "recognize" it. But the Mac would open it no problem.

Just my experience.

[BlaqueKatt]

Yes, you did say that Mac's don't have a better intuitive graphic interface, since that's just something spewed out by a marketing department. And then you turned right around and showed how Windows has a more complex one, and then defended it as being better for being more complex.


How is asking what something means when around 90% of the people I've had tell me this exact phrase cannot tell me what it means-they read it somewhere and "it sounded cool"-so they parrot it----I NEVER SAID EITHER ONE WAS BETTER!

Show me exactly where I said windows is better than mac or mac is better than windows. I didn't and I won't-Because I don't care either way-they're a tool to do a job-(though I will argue on handguns vs rifles)-I'm just tired of people argueing about it with the same "talking points" all the damn time.


Edited to add:

I personally would love to try OSX-but I cannot justify buying an entire computer to try out an OS-why won't Apple allow it's use on computers they don't build? If they want people to be able to use it why force them to also buy the hardware from the same company?

[Boozy]

Some things I realized after spending a day learning to use a Mac with a few other people with varying degrees of experience:

- Macs do indeed seem to be very intuitive for people with no previous computer experience.

- If you were raised with PCs and Windows, it can be difficult to grasp Mac OS, because you first need to "unlearn" all that PC stuff

Also, why does anyone care what kind of MP3 player BlaqueKatt uses? I have an iPod and I like it. She has a different brand, and prefers that, and has told us why. I'm not taking it personally. I am not my MP3 player.

[Pedersen]

How is asking what something means when around 90% of the people I've had tell me this exact phrase cannot tell me what it means-they read it somewhere and "it sounded cool"-so they parrot it----I NEVER SAID EITHER ONE WAS BETTER!

Show me exactly where I said windows is better than mac or mac is better than windows. I didn't and I won't-Because I don't care either way-they're a tool to do a job-(though I will argue on handguns vs rifles)-I'm just tired of people argueing about it with the same "talking points" all the damn time.

Okay. You're right, it's impossible to quote you saying either of those statements. Instead, I'll just quote your very first post in this thread in which you state, quite unequivocally:

I am so sick and tired of hearing the same arguments used to justify why one is better than the other-especially because they're usually wrong.

And you then list several statements which you proceed to either contradict (which provides a strong indication that you believe the statement is wrong) or ridicule (which also provides that same strong indication). Here, I'll even re-copy them for your benefit:

"Macs are better for graphics"
not if you get a PC designed for them

"Microsoft is a monopoly"
Wasn't aware microsoft was in the business of selling computers-just software that works on ANY computer.

"Macs have a better intuitive graphic user interface"
What does that even mean? Oh it's something spewed out by a marketing department.

"PCs have more games"
now that windows runs on Mac-this is no longer a valid argument

Every single one of those statements you expressed disagreement with. Even the weakest disagreement was because "Oh, it's something spewed out by a marketing department", and that strongly implies you believe it's (at best) a marketing ploy, and to be inherently distrusted because of the source. An attack on the credibility by attacking the original source. Some one will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's an ad hominem attack.

Did you come right out and state that one is better than the other? No. But you sure as hell showed your belief that those statements are, at best, wrong and, at worst, outright lies. If you show that you believe that the best those statements can be is wrong, then is it at all wrong for those of us who read your statements to believe that you feel that way?

You've stated your case. You've had your arguments systematically dissected. And now your sole response amounts to "You can't quote me saying what I've expressly implied, so therefore I didn't say it and didn't mean it"? I certainly hope there's more to your final response than that, I really do.

Also, why does anyone care what kind of MP3 player BlaqueKatt uses? I have an iPod and I like it. She has a different brand, and prefers that, and has told us why. I'm not taking it personally. I am not my MP3 player.

Actually, I don't care what MP3 player she uses. Nor what computer, nor what operating system. For all I care, she could use BlaqueKattOS v1.1 on BlaqueKattPC with a BlaqueKattCPU processor. Makes no difference to me whatsoever. Use whatever system suits your needs best. After all, these are just tools. And not a one of them is perfect for everybody. That's also why you will rarely see me telling people how to use their computers, unless they ask me.

What I do care about is the message that was being conveyed: The specific arguments she hears about which one is better are false. And her responses to those statements are demonstrably incorrect.

As she herself has noted: She will argue about the merits of rifles vs handguns. That is something she cares about. To me, they would be little more than a tool. I wouldn't care about them one way or the other. But if I were to start spouting off my own misconceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of each one, I would expect my own arguments to be systematically taken apart either by her or someone like her.

And, quite frankly, she should expect no less.

[Boozy]

What I do care about is the message that was being conveyed: The specific arguments she hears about which one is better are false. And her responses to those statements are demonstrably incorrect.

But if she's happy with her product, why does it matter if you agree or disagree with her reasons? Right or wrong, how does her MP3 player affect your life?

I tend to post the most in threads where I believe there could be societal change as a result of changing people's minds. This is not one of those topics.

Now, I'm not saying that only things of great importance should be discussed. I like a fun and lively debate on relatively insignificant matters as much as the next person. What I am genuinely trying to understand is why people (not necessarily here, just in general) get so vehemently passionate about this issue.

I mean, we're talking about consumer electronics here.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps the passion does not come from the topic so much as from the debate itself? I'll admit that after a few heavy threads dealing with issues such as racism and child abuse, this one is rather refreshing.

[Pedersen]

But if she's happy with her product, why does it matter if you agree or disagree with her reasons? Right or wrong, how does her MP3 player affect your life?

Man, do I ever feel like I'm saying "Well, she started it!" :)

Basically, she put up a statement how she can't stand people who give such bogus reasons for why one is better than the other. You'll also note that I did not speak to her iPod statements at all. I simply spoke to her gripes with Windows vs Mac OSX.

Why does it matter to me? Computers are my career. I've been doing something with them nearly every single day since I was 12. For the record, I'm now 37.

Personal opinion? I hate Windows. Windows does not work for me the way I want it to work. And I can't make it work. Not for lack of trying, I can tell you. And everybody around me (including my ex-wife) would tell me that I was, basically, an idiot for thinking that Windows sucks. After all, with so many people using it, how can it be bad?

It's bad in the same way that a Black & Decker drill (http://steve-parker.org/articles/others/stephenson/holehawg.shtml) is bad. Please, go read that. I'll still be here.

Anyway, I read comments such as the ones she made to start. Comments that I already know are wrong. Comments that are, at best, factually misleading. And these comments are about one of the all too few things I am passionate about.

Hence why I responded. And no, not to the iPod bit, mainly because there was nothing factual to dispute there, not in my opinion.

[BlaqueKatt]

the last thing I'm going to say on this is WHY do I have to buy a whole new system if I want to use OSX-I actually would like to try it-but I can't-because it's locked to a specific computer. I can't use it on the month old system I have and I'm not buying a whole new system-in case I don't like I'm out around $1000. If I bought Vista and didn't like it I'm out a couple hundred-not two month's rent.

[Depot Denizen]

I sell and service Apples and the high-end Dell laptops. I use Mac and Windows on a daily basis at work. I have my own custom built desktop at home.

Mac hardware is proprietary and you would be hard-pressed to get a third party replacement that worked. While you can install 3P memory into an Apple, if something happens to it Apple usually blames the memory. The MacBooks are all about aesthetics - there are precious few user replaceable parts, and even the techs have a hard time getting at some parts. Also, you cannot run OSX on any other hardware unless you break the license agreement. They did however allow their hardware (only *after* they changed to an Intel chip) to run Windows natively. When are we going to see OSX on a PC? Never.

I like Macs, they are indeed easy to use and generally don't fuss much. When they break, however, the results tend to be catastrophic, and replacement can get expensive. Spill water on the MacBook? $800 to get it fixed through Apple. Apple does not offer accidental damage protection, which is how they make a fair bit of money. With repair costs (and granted, I went with their Tier 4 repair, which is the worst) nearly equating to the cost of replacement, it sucks for the consumer.

Now, Windows. In order to be compatible with endless combinations of hardware, it has to have a gargantuan driver database. If you have a home-built desktop like myself, this means that if the disk doesn't have the drivers you need, you'd better hope that you have your driver CDs. This makes a reformat take several hours: driver installation, program downloading, general tweaking of the system. But it's fun, I have control over the behavior of my computer.

Pre-built machines tend to have less problems because the software is geared to work with the machine. At college we have disk images for the comps that we sell. Virus or OS FUBAR'd? No problem. Hook it up to the network and BAM image is downloaded. Works with Mac and Windows, too!

[protege]

Here's one argument I'm surprised hasn't showed up. That the Mac is better because it's less susceptible to viruses and hacking. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What I do know, is that more people use Windoze-based computers than Macs. If someone was going to cause some havoc, wouldn't they attempt to infect as many people as possible? I sure as hell would. *That* is why nobody is writing viruses and attempting to infiltrate OSX. Simple numbers :)

I too would like to try out OSX. However, I'm not about to spend money on *another* computer for the privilege. Also, I like being able to upgrade or repair my own computer, without a trip to the Apple store and getting hit with expensive repair bills.

[Greenday]

Here's one argument I'm surprised hasn't showed up. That the Mac is better because it's less susceptible to viruses and hacking. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What I do know, is that more people use Windoze-based computers than Macs. If someone was going to cause some havoc, wouldn't they attempt to infect as many people as possible? I sure as hell would. *That* is why nobody is writing viruses and attempting to infiltrate OSX. Simple numbers :)

That's something I've talked about with friends. It's simple numbers. Hackers like to cause havoc. Less people use Macs so there is less reason to create viruses for them.

[Pedersen]

Less people use Macs so there is less reason to create viruses for them.

Now that can get into a whole other discussion. First, note I didn't argue the money cost of an Apple. That's because Apple is the most expensive personal computer on the market.

However, what goes into making an operating system secure relies on a number of things:

Strength of the code. Properly written code will be harder to attack than improperly written code.

General computer knowledge level. If the users of the computer system are properly educated in computer security practices, and implement them correctly, the system will be harder to attack.

Total number of users. Yes, there's a reason I listed this last. If the above two are true, then it doesn't matter how much attackers want to create havoc, they will find themselves unable to do so. There will be more reason for them to attempt to do so with higher numbers of targets, but that does not give them any guarantee of success.

There are other factors I've missed, I'm sure (and I expect I will be informed of them). But the total number of users argument is the weakest argument as to which operating system is more secure than which other one.

[Depot Denizen]

However, it is true. People write viruses and malware for Windows because it has by far the largest market share. Viruses exist for Mac - granted, it is based on Unix, but code is code.

Computer viruses spread because of bad habits that users have, and general lack of concern for safety. Since Windows has roughly 91% of the market share for consumer OSs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux) it is much more economical for virus writers to write code that is going to infect a large chunk of the computers out there.

[Dreamstalker]

Windows does not work for me the way I want it to work. And I can't make it work. Not for lack of trying, I can tell you. And everybody around me (including my ex-wife) would tell me that I was, basically, an idiot for thinking that Windows sucks. After all, with so many people using it, how can it be bad?

It's bad in the same way that a Black & Decker drill (http://steve-parker.org/articles/others/stephenson/holehawg.shtml) is bad. Please, go read that. I'll still be here.

Precisely.

I screwed up my first Knoppix install, I blamed only myself and read man pages and books until I figured out how to get it right. A lot of users prefer having a safe, handholding machine over something they actually have to read books/do research/pay attention to to use.

I'm tutoring a friend of my mom's who recently got a MacBook and knows almost nothing about computers. Yes, I had to "unlearn" a lot of stuff because I primarily use Windows (not totally by choice), but the tutoring has been a lot of fun. Things that would take me a few hours to explain on a Windows machine, she can grasp in a few minutes and she loves it.

[protege]

*is trying to figure out why the B&D drill is bad*
Mainly because mine does exactly what I need it to do--poke a hole in something. No more, no less. Oh, and it's built similar to the Hole Hawg--side handle, not as heavy though.

I see Windows as roughly the same. Sure it has its annoying quirks, but it does pretty much what I need it to do. Also, it doesn't really matter if it takes hours to do a reformat--there are TV shows to watch, kitties to play with...and my other computers to play GTA on.

[Difdi]

When a member of my family asks for my advice on whether to buy a PC vs a Mac, I tell them this:

Owning a PC is like owning a minivan. You can go just about anywhere, but adding fancy wheels to a minivan just results in a minivan with fancy wheels.

Owning a Mac is like owning a really HOT speedboat. Trouble is, you live in Kansas.

:D

[Slytovhand]

My turn...:D

I gotta agree with Boozy (I think...) - once you're used to Windoze, Mac's look really weird. Though I haven't had much time with them...

Which is partly because of popularity (lot easier to get PC's than Macs around here - but that's merely marketing and all..), and the fact that I like to do my upgrading myself. I don't buy names, so I go generic (well - mostly...). But either way, I like having some control as to what hardware is in the thing (esp when it fails... like my DVD drives atm). Pull out, put in... done. Don't need to buy a new system.

But, from what I've heard, I'm much prefer if I could do that with a Mac....


Slyt (in green :p)