Another useless Apple vs PC thread

[doady]

I think for the average user, the intimidation and hassle involved in buying and assembling a computer outweighs the $100 or so you might save. Additionally, I'm not completely convinced that you always save money. I bought a machine from a specialty maker, and what they were charging for components was less than any price I could find them for individually, never mind individual shipping costs, etc.

I think specialty makers are okay. But I talking more about pre-built computers from Best Buy and Future Shop. I think those are overpriced, and they have very weird specs as well. I have been ripped off by them badly in the past, but that's just my personal experience. You can see the price for even the individual components separately are usually around 50% higher than the smaller stores.

 

[cacruden]

If you're going to splash out that kinda dough on a computer, buy yourself a decent desk, man!

I have looked - I have not been able to find any that I like. I prefer a minimalist style of desk - tempered glass, but no-one makes them the way I want. My place is too small and a big wood desk would block out the entertainment system speakers

 

[cacruden]

I probably used my Windows-based computer 2 years before the hard drive died. And probably 4 years before that with an older hard drive before it died. And 2 years before that with an even older hard drive... before it died. So that 8 years total life span for the computer.

No not really 8 years, because if I bought another hard drive I could still use the computer. But it is just too old, so I didn't bother. But that didn't mean I threw the computer away! Goodness no, throwing entire computers away because of the failure of one component is such a waste. I think of all the components, other than the fans, only the hard drive has ever failed me. But they are cheap, and easy to replace, so why throw the computer away?

BTW, I am about to upgrade my new comp to Windows 7, and I can get both the 32-bit and 64-bit version for free thanks to my brother being an IT student. Which version should I use?

Really depends on your hardware and software that you use. If your hardware is 64 bit capable - then I would seriously consider going that route - especially if your computer can handle more than 4GB of memory.

There are some older applications that may not run on a 64 bit computer. If they are free, I would backup everything - install the 64 bit version and test it out. If it does not work fall back to 32 bit version.

Yes, I have had incredibly bad luck with hard drives recently - I am totally avoiding Western Digital hard drives - which I use to like.... but they have failed too often, too regularly now. Seagate seems to work fine - but those hard drives are loud. My preference now is the Samsung HD103UJ 1TB drives - at least they are quieter than Seagate - but the oldest of those drives is still fairly young (but at least they seem to run cooler than WD drives).

 

[cacruden]

No matter what Apple does, it gets a thumbs up from Mac fans.

I have to admit that a lot of mac users are much more enthusiastic about their products - and microsoft is partially responsible for it.

It is similar in effect to the difference between a person that has been strangled and that is all he has known in recent times - when he is no longer strangled - there is a sense of euphoria that sets in because the baseline that he is comparing it to is very low. Now a person that has never had to deal with being strangled - they won't generally be as happy - because they are comparing it to a higher base line.

 

[syn]

No matter what Apple does, it gets a thumbs down from Mac haters.

This has nothing to do with hating the Mac and everything to do with completely contradicting one of the #1 things Mac users (and Apple) love to hype.

I have an half year old MacBook Pro, and a 6 year old PowerBook. The machine has taken quite the licking over the years, but keeps on ticking... It arrived with 10.2 installed, and when 10.3 came out a month later, I got a free upgrade. 10.4 was another improvement, but 10.5 - Leopard - is both the zippiest and most feature laden OS it has ever run. I can't see a need for a new operating system on it, and neither do I expect it.

I have an 11 year old AMD K6-2 machine with 300 MB of RAM that still runs Windows XP. I can't see the need for a new operating system on it, and neither do I expect it.

Apple has successfully addressed backwards compatibility for 32 bit Power PC G4 and 64 bit Power PC G5 based machines since the Intel machines appeared in January 2006... but no-one expects to be able to indefinitely upgrade their older computers, do they? You just want your older machine to perform well until it's time to retire it, and Leopard certainly has my 6 year old machine performing well.

Three years isn't long at all. Microsoft is expected to release OSes that continue to breath new life into old PCs, no matter what. Apple releases an OS that won't even work on 3-year old systems and it's all of a sudden an unrealistic expectation?

Can the same be said of Vista for the average 6 year old PC laptop? Not if this paragraph from Wikipedia's Vista article is any indication:



So while Apple has had two entirely different families of processors to take into account when designing its OSes, (which it has managed it very well), with Vista, Microsoft bungled the launch of its first new operating upgrade in 5 years, for its single family of processors.

With its legacy machines running (the very good) Leopard just fine, I have no trouble accepting that Snow Leopard will be the first Mac OS to only run on Intel machines. Apple has moved on from PowerPC compatibility because they can, without leaving PowerPC owners in a lurch.

42

This is what I don't understand. You're completely contradicting yourself. On the one hand it's wrong for MS to release an OS that doesn't run on older systems, but if Apple does the same thing it becomes an issue of unrealistic consumer expectations.

Microsoft also has to factor in two different processor families when creating it's OSes. It also has to take into account any video card from any video card manufacturer, hundreds of motherboard/chipset configurations, etc. Why is none of this factored into an evaluation of Windows?

As I stated before, my 5 year old system runs even better with Windows 7. It has also been reported to improve performance on systems even older than mine (and in some cases, much older - http://ittrainingtips.iu.edu/windows-7/windows-7-a-new-chance-for-old-computers/08/2009).

I guess it's safe to say that Windows 7 will have a leg up on Snow Leopard in that regard? Or is it all of a sudden unrealistic to expect Apple's new OS to run on an entire group of systems more than 3 years old ?

 

[syn]

I probably used my Windows-based computer 2 years before the hard drive died. And probably 4 years before that with an older hard drive before it died. And 2 years before that with an even older hard drive... before it died. So that 8 years total life span for the computer.

No not really 8 years, because if I bought another hard drive I could still use the computer. But it is just too old, so I didn't bother. But that didn't mean I threw the computer away! Goodness no, throwing entire computers away because of the failure of one component is such a waste. I think of all the components, other than the fans, only the hard drive has ever failed me. But they are cheap, and easy to replace, so why throw the computer away?

BTW, I am about to upgrade my new comp to Windows 7, and I can get both the 32-bit and 64-bit version for free thanks to my brother being an IT student. Which version should I use?

Go with the 64-bit version for sure. Your new system should really be able to take advantage of it.

 

[syn]

I have to admit that a lot of mac users are much more enthusiastic about their products - and microsoft is partially responsible for it.

It is similar in effect to the difference between a person that has been strangled and that is all he has known in recent times - when he is no longer strangled - there is a sense of euphoria that sets in because the baseline that he is comparing it to is very low. Now a person that has never had to deal with being strangled - they won't generally be as happy - because they are comparing it to a higher base line.

I give you full credit for being able to at least admit there are some issues with Apple products.

MS and Windows issues are partially responsible for it, but it also has a lot to do with Apple's excellent (for the most part) marketing.

 

[gristle]

This has nothing to do with hating the Mac and everything to do with completely contradicting one of the #1 things Mac users (and Apple) love to hype.

The passion and persistence you express in your negativity towards Apple clearly indicates that you hate the products. Clearly, you are the last one to see this.

 

[cacruden]

^ Na, more like a spurned lover - where after years of a close relationship - they turn around and tell you that they don't really like you anymore and it will now cost you $$$$/hr

 

[syn]

The passion and persistence you express in your negativity towards Apple clearly indicates that you hate the products. Clearly, you are the last one to see this.

Can you actually address the facts presented or are you just going to attack me?

The only reason I'm bringing this up because it is routinely mentioned by Mac fans (and very often by one Mac fan in particular on this site) and Apple too. Now when they release an OS that won't work on an older platform, we get responses like:

'Well, you don't expect them to support it forever do you?'
'It doesn't really matter since they told us it won't work.'

and so on. This is the double standard I was referring to. Microsoft does it and it's terrible...Apple does the same thing and it makes perfect sense.

Microsoft makes a lot of mistakes, and so does Apple...the difference is anyone who uses a MS OS, whether they like it or not, can admit its faults pretty easily.

 

[interchange42]

This is what I don't understand. You're completely contradicting yourself. On the one hand it's wrong for MS to release an OS that doesn't run on older systems, but if Apple does the same thing it becomes an issue of unrealistic consumer expectations.

You're having a difficult time counting. While Apple may now be bringing in an operating system that can't be installed on hardware that it stopped selling over three and a half years ago, Microsoft released a system that wouldn't run on systems selling concurrently that were labelled "Vista Capable". That's the distinction I am making. No one expects their existing computers to be indefinitely upgradeable, no matter what platform you're on, but people do expect to be able to update for a while, and people expect a new purchase to run the system that it promises on the box, which was not the case for a lot of what was on sale when Vista hit the market.

42

 

[afransen]

Would those be $329 computers?

How many Macs does apple have in its lineup at that pricepoint?

 

[cacruden]

Would those be $329 computers?

How many Macs does apple have in its lineup at that pricepoint?

No they were not at that price point (that price point did not exist at that time). Vista was delayed, but it was getting near that final date when Vista was about to be released. The specifications to run Vista well were quite a bit higher than that of XP. The hardware did not want to sell "premium" hardware now with XP, but wanted to market it for Vista (free upgrade to Vista). They went back to Microsoft and asked that the specifications for Vista be lowered, because they wanted to market it for Vista now - but did not want to have to only market the highest end computers when the hardware was not currently needed by XP. Microsoft agreed, even though they knew the hardware was completely insufficient. The price of the systems were not netbook range (that came afterwards). A class action lawsuit was started, emails subpoenaed, and Microsoft hauled into court. The emails were very embarrassing - because there was ongoing conversations which indicate Microsoft knew full well that what they were allowing to happen was fraudulent in nature.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Oh man, look at all the angry Apple users in this thread who are so mad about Snow Leopard not running on PPC Macs! Slow down, guys - you're crashing the forum server!

 

[gristle]

Can you actually address the facts presented or are you just going to attack me?

I am addressing a fact: your passion and persistence in expressing what comes off as hate for Apple products (dislike, disgust, snobbish rejection - or whatever). It's not an attack on you, but an observation on how you opt to express your opinion. The fact that you feel attacked suggests some acute sensitivity on your part. It all comes off sounding terribly defensive.

Frankly, I could not care less what people use. They should use what they want, or like. It's their money and their experience, not yours. That you need to continually express your negative attitude over what people opt to buy or use in terms of technology says something. If someone likes the products, you insinuate stupidity or ignorance on their part. It's really silly. Why do you even care what other people like or use? Are you offended that others have different likes, interests or preferences other than yours? No one is stopping you from buying or using whatever you happen to be a fanboy of, are they?