|
|
|
|
Thread title: Should I buy a MAC? |
|
|
Page 3 of 12 |
< |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
> |
|
|
|
Thread tools
Search this thread
Display Modes
|
|
07-03-2008, 06:44 PM
|
#21
|
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,246
|
if you take a mac and a pc running the same kind of processes, they should run pretty much equally. the intel chip in the mac is the same as the one in the pc. it's the 5 anti-virus/firewalls, individual calendar widgets, live desktops and other kinds of "perks" people constantly download that bogs windows machines down.
|
|
07-03-2008, 07:06 PM
|
#22
|
Status: Member
Join date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 166
|
Want a simple answer?
A resounding yes, if you can afford it.
|
|
07-03-2008, 07:40 PM
|
#23
|
Status: R'tard
Join date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,959
|
I think I am going to buy an iMac :P
|
|
07-03-2008, 07:53 PM
|
#24
|
Status: Taiyab (6creations.com)
Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Expertise: UI Design
Software: Photoshop, Firefox, Notepad++
Posts: 2,170
|
If your PC is doing the job it's meant to I would see no reason to switch.
|
|
07-03-2008, 08:02 PM
|
#25
|
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Apr 2006
Location: US
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,802
|
I made the switch. Took a day to get use too. I haven't turned on my PC since. And mind you, my PC was near top-of-the-line too. I'm using a Macbook Pro.
|
|
07-03-2008, 08:41 PM
|
#26
|
Status: Resident Epistemologist
Join date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Expertise: Investment, SEO, Marketing
Software: After Effects, Photoshop, Maya
Posts: 1,275
|
Originally Posted by derek lapp
are you using osx? calling osx bloated is the joke of the decade.
specs are specs, you will never get the same bang for your buck that you can get with pc, because apple is a boutique/brand computer. it's like buying no-name cola vs cocacola. there are subtle differences, but only if you really care, or if you're a brand nazi, will paying the premium for the brand be worth it.
windows treats me like i'm stupid, it's dissected into 1400 different versions so i can never get the full feature set i want, it's bloated, and it gets worse with every release. windows has to accommodate the lowest common denominator of user, which makes using it as a semi-advanced user a pain in the ass because you have to do so much work to make it behave like a reasonable piece of software.
osx is pretty bare bones. as a boutique computer brand, they don't need to accommodate to the lowest level user. the majority of people who use it are intelligent people who have chosen it for specific reason. the rest are either rich people, or trend hoppers who just want it for brand association and don't do anything complicated so osx doesn't have to do anything for them.
|
While i agree with some of the points you've made, i'll have to disagree on some things.
I fear even justifying my point with facts is largely a moot cause, given that almost everyone here seems to be a strong proponent of Mac's, despite the fact the large majority of them lack any real knowledge on the subject of computer hardware and/or software (this wasn't aimed at you Derek).
I would not by any means call Mac's logical (and i was brought up using them at school), nor would i say they offer any benefit in functionality over a PC whatsoever.
Quite honestly, it would be hard to argue that a PC is less functional than a Mac in any respect. I'm not interested in seeing my windows glide about and bounce all over the place; it's just a waste of time and an even more egregious waste of resources and computational power.
I would agree that Mac's are fine for simpletons, but if you would like any real usability out of a computer, they're not for you. There is almost nothing a PC cannot do faster or better, for less money. To argue otherwise would just be patently incorrect.
For argumentations sake, Vista is not included in this debate due to the fact that it is a steaming pile of ****.
I expect this post will garner quite a few abusive replies from the more vociferous Mac supporters, but i'm going to politely disregard anyone who doesn't respond in a decorous manner (just so you know )
|
|
07-03-2008, 09:00 PM
|
#27
|
Status: Pastafarian
Join date: May 2006
Location: Duct Taped to your Ceiling
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 3,440
|
Originally Posted by Village Idiot
Before buying anything, you should ask yourself these two questions:
Why am I buying it?
What will it improve?
|
+1
|
|
07-03-2008, 09:05 PM
|
#28
|
Status: Watermelon Man
Join date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 3,312
|
Originally Posted by Oliver
Quite honestly, it would be hard to argue that a PC is less functional than a Mac in any respect. I'm not interested in seeing my windows glide about and bounce all over the place; it's just a waste of time and an even more egregious waste of resources and computational power.
|
I disagree with most of what you said in your last post Oliver, but I cannot be bothered to address it all - because what for?
But the paragraph I have picked out I find absurd, and quite laughable. Firstly, when you get used to the window "gliding" about, and I assume you are referring to OSX's "Expose" feature, it is quite the opposite of a waste of time. It saves a great deal of time when you add it all up. When using multiple windows (as I do a lot), it is much quicker to move your mouse into the top screen, and see all the windows open laid out in order, ready for you to click on, rather than minimizing each window till you find the one you're looking for.
The bit I find hilarious is how it is "wasting resources". What resources, lol? And do you really think that is wasting any noticeable "computational power"?
|
|
07-03-2008, 09:20 PM
|
#29
|
Status: Resident Epistemologist
Join date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Expertise: Investment, SEO, Marketing
Software: After Effects, Photoshop, Maya
Posts: 1,275
|
It's not really a point of contention that Mac's waste resources, any hardware or software engineer can tell you that.
With regard to the ‘windows gliding’, it was a candid reference to the fundamentally flawed functionality of the aesthetics that Mac OS’s offer. It's not remotely necessary to waste time (and CPU/RAM) having windows slide about (and other effects) just so that it looks pretty.
|
|
07-03-2008, 10:16 PM
|
#30
|
Status: Waving
Join date: Aug 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,694
|
Originally Posted by Oliver
It's not really a point of contention that Mac's waste resources, any hardware or software engineer can tell you that.
With regard to the ‘windows gliding’, it was a candid reference to the fundamentally flawed functionality of the aesthetics that Mac OS’s offer. It's not remotely necessary to waste time (and CPU/RAM) having windows slide about (and other effects) just so that it looks pretty.
|
The Expose might use system resources, but it doesn't effect anything. It doesn't slow down any applications (unless you have all your applications open).
You might think that it's "fundamentally flawed functionality of the aesthetics", but don't you think the developers of Mac OS X made it so it used all your ram? They optimized it and everything isn't noticeable to any other applications. I don't see how its a waste of time having all the windows infront of you rather than closing each one until you find it.
Also, if you haven't noticed in Mac OS X, if it doesn't have enough memory or power to do the effects, it won't, it will show you the final state and the state you wanted to get to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 3 of 12 |
< |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
> |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
|
|
|
|