# Article: Mac vs. PC cost comparison



## Durero (Jun 8, 2007)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9023959

Thought I'd post this to counter some of the persistent myths about Macs being more expensive than PCs. The article covers it quite well.

I'm not trying to boost/promote/fanboy Apple at all, just want to help folks here making hardware decisions know their options and avoid some old FUD.


On a side note, I'm not very impressed with the latest update to the MacBook Pro line in terms of price for such a miniscule speed bump & updated graphics card & drive. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has an opinion on this.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 8, 2007)

Durero said:


> On a side note, I'm not very impressed with the latest update to the MacBook Pro line in terms of price for such a miniscule speed bump & updated graphics card & drive. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has an opinion on this.



? They're priced in the same range that they have been. Intel announced a new chipset, and they updated the line to use it. Then again I've never updated with every revision. I'm about to buy a new one as my current is a Core Duo. Honestly the only thing I'm not thrilled with is that the RAM speed doesn't match FSB speed and that there aren't faster chips, but the memory issue is a chipset limitation and they're got the fastest chips available.


----------



## Toshiro (Jun 8, 2007)

Durero said:


> Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up?
> 
> Thought I'd post this to counter some of the persistent myths about Macs being more expensive than PCs. The article covers it quite well.
> 
> ...



Trouble is, I built my PC, and it rivals that $1800 Sony, and was under $1k. This is only accurate with brand name system comparisons, and those are always overpriced, IMO.

Until you can pop a Mac together from parts the way you can a PC, I will not look at them.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 8, 2007)

Toshiro said:


> Trouble is, I built my PC, and it rivals that $1800 Sony, and was under $1k. This is only accurate with brand name system comparisons, and those are always overpriced, IMO.
> 
> Until you can pop a Mac together from parts the way you can a PC, I will not look at them.



That's a valid argument if you're

1) tech savy enough to build your own pc
2) not talking about laptops

I am definitely savvy enough to build my own machines, I used to do it all the time. However I now use laptops as my primary systems. If you build your own machines, you're definitely not in Apple's target market.

There's also the OS issue. Windows is a buggy virus laiden mess, and Linux is just a pain in the ass to use as a desktop OS. I write code for a living, I have enough to do without needing to screw around with my OS/hardware. Macs/OS X give me all of the advantages of Windows and Linux without the headaches of either. I guess my time is just worth more to me than some people. Or maybe I outgrew spending my spare time messing around with my machines. Honestly the only thing Macs aren't better at is games, and that's what bootcamp is for


----------



## DSS3 (Jun 9, 2007)

I love Macs to all hell, and I'm ordering parts to build a recording dedicated PC as soon as my JSX sells.

Bottom line: if you build the PC yourself, it'll be cheaper than the Mac for the same power, and when tweaked/maintained properly, it'll perform just as well. That, and there's way more cracked software for PC than Mac.


That said, I still think OS X is the best operating system released to date.


----------



## Ancestor (Jun 9, 2007)

I like my Mac. It works really well. Next computer I buy will be a Mac. 

I have a PC with a bunch of software (all legal) on it, like SoundForge, ACID, Vegas and ProTools LE, but I can't take it online. The damn thing crashed after being online only a couple times - no weird sites, just normal stuff like email. I had to re-install Vegas (which can be a real pain in the ass, if you bought your version before Sony took over). Aargh!


----------



## Toshiro (Jun 9, 2007)

technomancer said:


> That's a valid argument if you're
> 
> 1) tech savy enough to build your own pc
> 2) not talking about laptops
> ...



Really, I don't have half as many problems with windows as others do, and Laptops are worthless to me, PC or otherwise. 

I admit Gates is a money-grubbing asshole.

#1 I don't take my PC anywhere.
#2 I don't go anywhere it would be safe to carry one.
#3 I'd like to see bootcamp run Vanguard. 

Personally, I see this whole thing as apples and oranges, and I wish the Mac people would leave it at that. We(PC users) do not care how much "better" macs are for you.

Ctrl+Alt+Del


----------



## technomancer (Jun 9, 2007)

Toshiro said:


> Really, I don't have half as many problems with windows as others do, and Laptops are worthless to me, PC or otherwise.
> 
> I admit Gates is a money-grubbing asshole.
> 
> ...



See that's a major difference. I own my own company and use my personal machine for everything. It travels back and forth to the office with me, to client sites, on vacation, etc. I also use it for gaming and music. When I'm at my desk I use an external display, but it's nice being able to sit in the living room watching TV and playing a game or surfing the web or whatever. If I had a desktop it would be in my office/music room and I wouldn't be online right now.

I don't see any reason Vanguard wouldn't run on Bootcamp, as it lets you dual boot Windows/OS X... unless Vanguard has problems on a 2.4GHz dual core with 4GB ram and a 256MB DX 10 compatible video card (my current laptop specs)... granted I could certainly build a desktop that would run it better, but my priority isn't strictly on having the fastest gaming machine on the planet.

And we don't leave it alone because there's always some idiot going "Oh Macs are more expensive, Macs are blah blah blah and can't do blah blah blah you should have a PC". You seem to be mainly a gamer who builds his own machines, so no a Mac is clearly not for you. But even in your response you've got #3 which clearly shows you're misinformed.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 9, 2007)

technomancer said:


> That's a valid argument if you're
> 
> 1) tech savy enough to build your own pc
> 2) not talking about laptops



For desktops... as long as you can walk out the door for five minutes, find the local nerd who will build a new box for $50, and get that settled, the first one isn't an issue. I could figure all of that out when I was nine, it can't be that bloody hard - that's also one of the first things I tell everyone who asks me about it, and the vast majority of them seem to pull it off. I don't think it's a 'tech savvy' thing so much as 'outright paranoia thanks to being told over and over that they need big Mr. Dell to put everything together for them' given what I've seen with others building their computers. 

You're also ignoring that many smaller computer stores (mom-and-pop shops known only to phone books and certified grade-A nerds) will charge hardly anything for assembly if you buy most of your parts with them, and when they do it's still much cheaper than the $1k to $1.8k markup we'll see with Sony and the like. Honestly, using overpriced stuff like Sony in a price comparison is just asking for trouble.



technomancer said:


> I am definitely savvy enough to build my own machines, I used to do it all the time. However I now use laptops as my primary systems. If you build your own machines, you're definitely not in Apple's target market.
> 
> There's also the OS issue. Windows is a buggy virus laiden mess, and linux is just a pain in the ass to use as a desktop OS. I write code for a living, I have enough to do without needing to screw around with my OS/hardware. Macs/OS X give me all of the advantages of Windows and Linux without the headaches of either. I guess my time is just worth more to me than some people. Or maybe I outgrew spending my spare time messing around with my machines. Honestly the only thing Macs aren't better at is games, and that's what bootcamp is for



I haven't found Linux to be a pain in the ass at all - it picks up literally 99% of the hardware it's exposed to (the remainder being some odd wireless cards, which are an NDISWrapper away anyway) and it's incredibly efficient. It also has much better help available for free (between the Internet, LUGs, and the local university's CS department, you can get anything going) than I've seen people pay for with Macs. As for 'the only thing Macs aren't better at'... let's see your computer algebra systems. I've tried both; if you're a science professional doing anything from cryptography to particle simulation you're just getting more for your money with Linux because you can strip it down to almost nothing and fine-tune it, and then go back to your favorite desktop environment with only a few keystrokes.

Jeff


----------



## Toshiro (Jun 9, 2007)

technomancer said:


> See that's a major difference. I own my own company and use my personal machine for everything. It travels back and forth to the office with me, to client sites, on vacation, etc. I also use it for gaming and music. When I'm at my desk I use an external display, but it's nice being able to sit in the living room watching TV and playing a game or surfing the web or whatever. If I had a desktop it would be in my office/music room and I wouldn't be online right now.
> 
> I don't see any reason Vanguard wouldn't run on Bootcamp, as it lets you dual boot Windows/OS X... unless Vanguard has problems on a 2.4GHz dual core with 4GB ram and a 256MB DX 10 compatible video card (my current laptop specs)... granted I could certainly build a desktop that would run it better, but my priority isn't strictly on having the fastest gaming machine on the planet.
> 
> And we don't leave it alone because there's always some idiot going "Oh Macs are more expensive, Macs are blah blah blah and can't do blah blah blah you should have a PC". You seem to be mainly a gamer who builds his own machines, so no a Mac is clearly not for you. But even in your response you've got #3 which clearly shows you're misinformed.



Vanguard is the biggest resource hog game of all time. Top of the line gaming systems with SLI 8xxx series nvidia cards aren't guaranteed to run it perfect. I chose that game for a reason.

Besides which, you're basically running windows at that point, and a dual-core intel CPU is basically a PC with Mac written on it.

So what would the differences be if you could install OS-X on a PC? Would it murder Apple? No more premium for their OS? This has become an entirely operating system issue. Face it, you have to use Windows to play games, even on a Mac. You better get used to some firewall/antivirus/etc programs if you do, you're in the real world now. 

IMO, this makes them no better than Gates. 

If Micro$oft didn't have such a strangle-hold on the PC software market, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because the Mac's hardware is not superior.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 9, 2007)

As usual in any of these conversations this has swerved all over the place. The article stated Macs and name-brand Windows machines are equivalent in price. This is true. People bitched that you can build a white-box machine cheaper. This is also true. That's it, end of story.

Nobody argued either of these. Nobody argued Macs had superior hardware. I did say I use Macs now because I spend less time screwing with the machine/software and more time actually doing useful things with it.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 9, 2007)

Anyone who has spent more than five minutes shopping for a computer knows that the brands they picked generally aren't praised for their low prices. There was a good chunk on that earlier. You yourself brought on the OS debate, and it doesn't look like you have an answer to the people who have figured out a way to get their computer cheaper than Sony can.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff (Jun 9, 2007)

technomancer said:


> There's also the OS issue. Windows is a buggy virus laiden mess,



No, it's not. Not if you're not an idiot. If you practice proper maintenance (yes, I admit it does require it more than OSX) then you won't have a problem. 



> and Linux is just a pain in the ass to use as a desktop OS.



No, it's not. Try Ubuntu. It's very easy to use as a desktop OS. I realize that you're highly biased for the Mac, and I like them too; but let's not be ridiculous.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Anyone who has spent more than five minutes shopping for a computer knows that the brands they picked generally aren't praised for their low prices. There was a good chunk on that earlier. You yourself brought on the OS debate, and it doesn't look like you have an answer to the people who have figured out a way to get their computer cheaper than Sony can.
> 
> Jeff



No I just have better things to do than debate this shit ad nauseum when it's like arguing religion 

If you want to build your own machine go for it. The fact is you are a minority, and if you think you're not you're dreaming. Bottom line you go this route and you need to support yourself. If you help other people go this route you're THEIR support. Fuck that. I did it for fifteen years and don't have the time or energy for it anymore as I have too much real work to do.



Jeff said:


> No, it's not. Not if you're not an idiot. If you practice proper maintenance (yes, I admit it does require it more than OSX) then you won't have a problem.



Sorry I have yet to ever use any Windows machine that didn't crash at least once per week, and I run software update on a regular basis, have a firewall, etc etc etc etc. To me that defines buggy. And I have used home-built machines as well as Dell, Sony, IBM, etc etc etc.



Jeff said:


> No, it's not. Try Ubuntu. It's very easy to use as a desktop OS. I realize that you're highly biased for the Mac, and I like them too; but let's not be ridiculous.



I'm sorry but if I need to worry about what chipset my wireless card is going to be using to make sure it will work it is a pain in the ass. I have too many real issues to worry about to deal with that crap. My personal machine works, period. When I buy a faster one next week it will take me less than a half hour to be back up and running and doing work on the new machine. Without installing an OS. Without worrying about any chipset issues, and without needing to manually transfer all my data between the two or needing to install any apps. Linux was my desktop OS of choice for years, but it really has nothing to offer compared to OS X.

I also don't think my opinion is a rarity in my field, as everyone I know that's not locked in to a platform because of their employers have moved to Mac as well.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 9, 2007)

The bottom line is, you CAN get cheaper Desktop PC's than macs. but the people who are buying macs arent even worried about that. 

Most of the people i know have built their own machines or had a friend do it for them. We might be a minority but not nearly as small as you'd think.


----------



## Vince (Jun 9, 2007)

technomancer said:


> Sorry I have yet to ever use any Windows machine that didn't crash at least once per week, and I run software update on a regular basis, have a firewall, etc etc etc etc. To me that defines buggy. And I have used home-built machines as well as Dell, Sony, IBM, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but if I need to worry about what chipset my wireless card is going to be using to make sure it will work it is a pain in the ass. I have too many real issues to worry about to deal with that crap.



I'm not trying to stir the pot any further, but if you're going to attempt to make points that are this absolutely ridiculous, you're going to lose even more credibility in this discussion. Please, continue.


----------



## Durero (Jun 9, 2007)

My intention in starting this thread was to try to *reduce* the amount of misinformation that circulates on this topic, especially considering the number of folks who post here asking for advice on hardware purchases for computer-based recording setups.

It's great when people make informative statements based on their experience with hardware & operating systems 

But it's disappointing when people get all emotional about it and start throwing around more of their miss-impressions of systems that they don't use 


Has anyone actually learned anything in this discussion? Or has it become just another chance to vent at people who have different experiences & priorities from us? 





And totally off-topic - Vince your avatar rocks


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 9, 2007)

Durero said:


> But it's disappointing when people get all emotional about it and start throwing around more of their miss-impressions of systems that they don't use



Yep.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 9, 2007)

Like I said, it's like arguing religion, a complete waste of time. The article is correct, Macs are on par price-wise with brand name pcs. You can still get generic PCs/build yourself cheaper, which nobody has argued against.

Everything else, including my experiences and opinions, mean nothing. For my needs, a single machine that lets me do Linux and web development, play games, and make music, the Mac is the best thing I've found. Your milage may vary.


----------



## Samer (Jun 9, 2007)

Hardware wise Mac's are not cheaper. If i wanted to upgrade my PC and say keep all the same hardware except the cpu, i could. As long as my mobo supported that type of cpu. 

My brother for example went from a AMD 64 3000+ to AMD x2 with out replacing any hard ware other than the cpu it self. 

You could not do that on a mac.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 9, 2007)

Samer said:


> Hardware wise Mac's are not cheaper. If i wanted to upgrade my PC and say keep all the same hardware except the cpu, i could. As long as my mobo supported that type of cpu.
> 
> My brother for example went from a AMD 64 3000+ to AMD x2 with out replacing any hard ware other than the cpu it self.
> 
> You could not do that on a mac.



1) Nobody anywhere said they're cheaper
2) cpu upgrades most certainly have been possible on Macs towers all along, and now since they're using intel socketed cpus they're still possible


----------



## Alpo (Jun 10, 2007)

Durero said:


> But it's disappointing when people get all emotional about it and start throwing around more of their miss-impressions of systems that they don't use



It's the same as people who play a certain brand of guitar, and feel like they have to hang out on an internet forum and constantly badmouth other brands. It's stupid and childish and it accomplishes nothing.

I use Windows XP, and I'm not about to change. Over the past two years, it has proven to be a very stable OS. Not a single virus, no BSOD. Recently it crashed a few times, but that was because of some dodgy Samsung software, which I uninstalled. It's been running smoothly since.

I wouldn't mind having a Mac, I'm sure it's a good OS. I just have no reason to change.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jun 10, 2007)

technomancer said:


> Like I said, it's like arguing religion, a complete waste of time. The article is correct, Macs are on par price-wise with brand name pcs. You can still get generic PCs/build yourself cheaper, which nobody has argued against.



Thats the thing though, you can get off brand PC's. You can't get offbrand macs. 

It seems to me a lot of the marketing that Mac does is the people who computer n00bs. And those people arent going to be looking to spend...1.5-2 grand on a computer? 

Wouldnt a E-Machines work great just for granny who wants to send her emails and upload her pictures? 


Just food for thought.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 10, 2007)

You can also get brand-name PCs cheaper than Sony. Calling Gateway up the last time I saw an article making a claim like that, I was able to get for $1200 what the writer thought should cost me over $1500, and I'm sure I could do the same now. Can someone say... 'statistical outlier'?

Jeff


----------



## Jeff (Jun 11, 2007)

technomancer said:


> Sorry I have yet to ever use any Windows machine that didn't crash at least once per week, and I run software update on a regular basis, have a firewall, etc etc etc etc. To me that defines buggy. And I have used home-built machines as well as Dell, Sony, IBM, etc etc etc.



With all due respect, I highly, highly doubt that if you're a competent Windows user you're PC crashed weekly. 

My 65 year old mother-in-law who doesn't know a damn thing about computers doesn't have that much trouble. 

Her PC has an uptime of over a month at least, and it never, ever crashes. My PC, running various audio and video editing apps, in addition to being my gaming computer, never crashes. 

I am a Windows admin. PCs here don't crash, outside of a rogue Windows patch every once in a great while, and that's with people running AutoCAD, Office, etc. all at once. 



Durero said:


> But it's disappointing when people get all emotional about it and start throwing around more of their miss-impressions of systems that they don't use



It's unfortunate, but when people start talking about unique occurrences and refer to them as the norm, something has to be said. 

I'm not meaning to sound condescending or insulting, it's just quite frustrating to see stuff get bagged on needlessly.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 11, 2007)

My Sony T250 has never crashed and runs XP, I bought it over 2 years ago.

*I like to use my computer, not bitch about why my OS is better.* I hate the interface apple uses on Mac OS, that's why I'll never use it, as far as an OS goes, it's a good one. I'd rather set up linux with windowmaker or fluxbox, though. Looks good and uses no resources.


----------



## Drew (Jun 11, 2007)

Durero said:


> Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up?
> 
> Thought I'd post this to counter some of the persistent myths about Macs being more expensive than PCs. The article covers it quite well.
> 
> I'm not trying to boost/promote/fanboy Apple at all, just want to help folks here making hardware decisions know their options and avoid some old FUD.




Actually, the article makes the opposite point, that odds are an Apple WILL cost you more than a PC - 



> But first, let me say to all those people who have ever bought a Packard Bell or eMachines PC and believe that great value in a computer means any model that sells for $600 or less: I agree -- Apple doesn't have an answer for you. In fact, I suggest that you skip this article entirely. You're not going to find anything of interest in it.



In essence, that if you want a PC, you have viable options starting arounf $4-500, but if you want a Mac, you're looking at least a grand, probably closer to two. 

The article makes a misleadingly different point - that Apples may be _better buys_ than PC's, when you're talking about high-performance systems. And maybe that's true. However, if you want an affordable computer, Apple is out of the picture completely. I got my desktop for around $800, complete with an 17" LCD screen and all hardware. This is a, while not top-of-the-line, robust enough system that I can record without worrying about hardware. I looked at Apples when I was in the market, but there was nothing I could have gotten for even _close_ to that. 

For someone dropping $2k or more on a computer, this is a worthwhile read, if he or she isn't tied to any particular operating system. However, taken across the board, it's flat-out wrong, in that PC's ARE cheaper, because Apple offers nothing in the entry level market. 

In other words, knock off with the Apple fanboi-ism.


----------



## darren (Jun 11, 2007)

The way i look at the latest Intel-Based Macs (IBMs) is that you're actually getting _two_ machines for the price of one Mac. I have mine set up to dual-boot into Windows XP, or in a pinch, i can run Windows simultaneously with Mac OS X using Parallels. Fucking brilliant.

The Core2Duo is a pretty snappy little chip.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 11, 2007)

Using IBM to refer to Intel Based Mac computers may result in some confusion among people who have heard of another, admittedly slightly obscure, company going by that name.

Moving to Intel processors was an excellent move on their part - they only hurt themselves by sticking to PPC for so long. I don't see all of the hype around Mac OS (if I wanted a crippled and oversimplified UNIX, I'd put it together myself and drop all of that white-and-blue hipster shit) but if it works, fun.

Jeff


----------



## Clydefrog (Jun 11, 2007)

Just to pop in:

Intel is planning on dropping the price on their Quad-core processors to $266 on July 22nd as a measure to cut AMD's throat.

If you're planning on upgrading, wait until July 22nd. Quad core > dual core, and at $266 (right now, quad cores are about $800some), you'd be guaranteed a steal.


----------



## Naren (Jun 12, 2007)

Toshiro said:


> Ctrl+Alt+Del



 That pretty much sums it up.

Anyway, my last 3 PCs have all been under $1000. I bought a desktop in 1997-1998 for about $900. I bought one in 2001 for about $1000 and I bought one in 2004 for about $600-700.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 12, 2007)

Clydefrog said:


> Just to pop in:
> 
> Intel is planning on dropping the price on their Quad-core processors to $266 on July 22nd as a measure to cut AMD's throat.
> 
> If you're planning on upgrading, wait until July 22nd. Quad core > dual core, and at $266 (right now, quad cores are about $800some), you'd be guaranteed a steal.



Fuck are you serious? Damnit I need to build a computer NOW!!!! It's going to be tough making it that long without a workstation, because my current main one is going upstairs to be installed as a media server. Fuckity fuck. 

Eh, I guess I can wait.


----------



## darren (Jun 12, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Using IBM to refer to Intel Based Mac computers may result in some confusion among people who have heard of another, admittedly slightly obscure, company going by that name.



I only do that to point out the irony that the "IBM PC" used to be based around Intel processors, then IBM started making their own PowerPC series of RISC processors in cooperation with Apple and Motorola. Apple used them for years in their Power Macs, but IBM couldn't keep up. Subsequently, IBM left the PC business altogether, and Apple switched to Intel chips.


----------



## jswiderski (Jun 12, 2007)

I like PC's better because the options you have.. This is my creation from last August. Here is what it has; Asus M2N32 Sli-Delux, AMD 64 Dual CoreX2 4400+ *But its over clocked and my MOB reads it as a 4600+* It has 2GB of Corsair Ram (DDR2 800). Two Segate 300GB SATA II HD running in Raid 0 formation. Nvidia BFG 7900 GT OC (250mb of ram). And to cool it off i bought a Swift-tech H20-220 Apex Ultra water cooling system. *Uses 7/16 ID and 5/8OD tubing . Of course i have a DVD/R/RW and a Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Sound card with 1/4 inch imputs so i can run my Pod XTL line direct. All this stuff cost me around 2200$ and if i were to have DEll or Alienwear Make it it would be Double and Some... You all should look into building your own Pc's Its really simple *Accept setting up a Raid Formation with your HD's  hehe* Enjoy !! 
<center>
<img src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n226/scootgiversomegas/computercopy.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>
</center>

Ok this should work..  








Oh i forgot ... Its all powered by an Enermax 600watt Psu *SLI Compatable* capable of supplying 22amps to a two twelve volt Leads.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jun 12, 2007)

yawn. i'm getting a bit bored of the whole mac vs PC thing. I know i don't like them, other people do like them. Untill they make em in black and they glow green my interest won't be huge...

I think the article does have a fair amount of bias to be honest. Disregarding certain models, not looking for the best value machines from other companies and limiting the competition, AND not reviewing desktops.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jun 13, 2007)

What I don't get is why are Mac users like salesmen? I mean, they're so adamant about Mac's being better. It even extends now to MP3 players. It's so fucking irritating. I work as an IT tech in a law firm (supporting PC's). One of our Video conferencing girls (an uber lesbian) is fuck all gung-ho on Macs and iPods. She always tells me Macs are so superior. And to be honest I don't even get into it with her. Why? Cause there's no swaying the uber faithful fucktards. Now, I will never say Mac is a bad machine/company/whatever. I only know what *I* need and what *I* want. For me I like to build my own PC's for the fact that I can choose all the best components, not built in shit, and I like complete control. I've used Linux for years and I love it. I've used OSX and didn't like it anywhere near as much as Linux even though it's based on a BSD variant. Everytime she has a problem with the ***Intel*** dual core Mac our company purchased what does she do? She calls me and asks for help and I'm not even a Mac user. I bought a new MP3 player recently and got chastised as to why I didn't simply buy an iPod Nano (which for the same storage and less features would've cost an extra $80). I don't wanna hear it. It's irritating as fuck when the fanboy shit hits you right in the face. It even worse having to sit through those bullshit deceptive Apple commericals. What about that one with the webcam... they tout that all iBooks come with built in cameras. Well guess what?... laptops such as those by Sony have had models with built in video cameras for *years* before Apple even thought to do it. They act like they invented so many things they didn't... things like an MP3 player  

Look, if you want to buy Apple go right ahead, there is NOTHING wrong with that. However, acting like one is far superior is plain BS. People have been saying for years that Macs are better for creative arts. Well, I can do 3D Graphics with 3D Studio Max, Maya, Lightwave, etc... I can record with Cubase, Sonar, Protools, etc. I can do web design, do publishing, photo editing, video editing, etc etc etc all just as well as I could do on a Mac. I choose PC cause I have a multiverse of options not available on a Mac, that is why *I* choose a PC. Oh, and I'm a tech so I don't stupidly download viruses and malware but if I were to I know very well how to get it all out without having to reformat 




Rev.


----------



## darren (Jun 13, 2007)

Let's look at what you just said in a different frame of context:


Rev2010 said:


> What I don't get is why are [seven string players] like salesmen? I mean, they're so adamant about [sevens] being better. It even extends now to [Mesa/Boogies]. It's so fucking irritating. I work as [a guitar] tech in a [music store] (supporting [six strings]). One of our [shredtastic guitar teachers] (an uber lesbian) is fuck all gung-ho on [seven strings] and [Mesa/Boogies]. She always tells me [seven strings] are so superior. And to be honest I don't even get into it with her. Why? Cause there's no swaying the uber faithful fucktards.


People in minority groups do tend to evangelize their own group. Most people are "uber faithful fucktards" about something.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 13, 2007)

My C1 from 98-99 has a webcam built-in  It even swivels so you can have other people be seen.

Funny thing is, an old Apple powerbook (forgot the model) was co-designed by and completely built by IBM


----------



## darren (Jun 13, 2007)

D-EJ915 said:


> Funny thing is, an old Apple powerbook (forgot the model) was co-designed by and completely built by IBM



I think you may be thinking of the old PowerBook 100, which was miniaturized and maufactured for Apple by Sony. IBM has never designed or built a laptop with/for Apple.

And the PowerBook series really did revolutionize laptop computer design. There was nothing like them in terms of features, power and ergonomics back in the day, and they were copied years later by *everyone*.

PowerBook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 13, 2007)

here it is PowerBook 2400c - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thadood (Jun 13, 2007)

darren said:


> Let's look at what you just said in a different frame of context:
> 
> People in minority groups do tend to evangelize their own group. Most people are "uber faithful fucktards" about something.



Haha, nice.

The reason Mac/iPod owners go on and on about Apple's products is that the shit just works. A lot of people don't see to realize the extra pricing on Apple's products is going directly to software. Take a look at the upcoming Leopard release. It's amazing. They've added so many new features while keeping the same stability and usability that it's absolutely worth the cost to get it.

Not only are you paying for a good, solid OS, you're also getting a lot of applications that run superbly. the entire iLife suite, for instance. Garageband can really be a great tool not only as a scratch pad for ideas, but as a full DAW. I doubt you'd be getting software like that if you built the computer yourself or bought one from Gateway, Dell, etc. You really are getting a good bang for your buck when it comes to what you have at your finger tips as soon as you turn your Mac on for the first time. And it's nothing like some of the shit that PC vendors give you. Trail this, demo that. Please register!

To me, paying an addition $200-500 on a Mac is worth it. It's made my life easier. I don't have to format on a bi-yearly interval (or at all). I don't have to defrag bi-monthly (or at all). I don't have to find a good piece of software to categorize photos off of my digital camera. I don't have to spend time in configue-and-or-compile(linux) hell. I rarely have to perform maintenance on OS X. It really is nice not having to dig through registry keys to get something to run how I like. It just runs the way I like now.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 13, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> What I don't get is why are Mac users like salesmen? I mean, they're so adamant about Mac's being better. It even extends now to MP3 players. It's so fucking irritating. I work as an IT tech in a law firm (supporting PC's).



I was a network engineer for a consulting firm with 95% law firms. A lot of the lawyers here in Chicago went gay over Macs, probably due to the image they portray. 

Let's face it; what's cooler to see, an Apple laptop or a Windows laptop? 

I am actually getting a MacBook through my new job, so I can triple boot 10.5, Vista, and Ubuntu for testing purposes. I'm pretty excited about it, because unlike a lot of people, I can see the good in all of the OS's.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 13, 2007)

I think both are decent for their own purposes. I'd love a Mac for recording if I could afford one, but I think they are out of my price point. Also, I do build my own PCs but that doesn't change the fact that I think Macs are decent for many applications however I do have a preference towards PCs (mainly because I can't build my own Mac I guess).  That said, I bought an iPod Photo a few years ago and it has crashed on me several times and that's not a user error.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jun 13, 2007)

thadood said:


> The reason Mac/iPod owners go on and on about Apple's products is that the shit just works.



But that's not really a valid argument. Everything I have PC based works fine. I have a partner at my firm that has a Mac laptop with a video camera. The camera mysteriously just stopped showing up as available under iChat. I called our Mac using AV girl and she couldn't figure out why, she actually couldn't even find a control panel type configuration page for it. When I asked about such a control panel type of configuration page she said it doesn't have one as it's "just supposed to work". Granted she's probably just a moron and just doesn't know what she's talking about. My supervisor bought an iPod Nano 4GB and he tells me he's getting a lot of skipping in MP3's that play perfectly fine on his PC and his old player. Every machine/device will have it's fair share of problems.


----------



## Clydefrog (Jun 13, 2007)

I'd rather have a P-p-powerbook.

(nS) NEWS SOCKET > SCAMMING THE SCAMMER: P-P-P-POWERBOOK!


----------



## Durero (Jun 13, 2007)

Jeff said:


> unlike a lot of people, I can see the good in all of the OS's.


Wow! A mature, non-bashing, balanced statement in a Mac/PC thread! What a breath of fresh air. +eRep


----------



## Jeff (Jun 13, 2007)

thadood said:


> I don't have to format on a bi-yearly interval (or at all).



Me neither. 


> I don't have to defrag bi-monthly (or at all).



Me neither. 



> I don't have to find a good piece of software to categorize photos off of my digital camera. I don't have to spend time in configue-and-or-compile(linux) hell.



Me neither. 


> It really is nice not having to dig through registry keys to get something to run how I like.



Me neither. Except I'm talking about Ubuntu.


----------



## Clydefrog (Jun 13, 2007)

I don't have to do any of those things, EVER, and I'm an XP user.

Seriously, those are old, tired arguments that applied to Windows 98, at best. People with a bone to pick with Microsoft generally only have it because they never had enough time with XP to realize that it's not shit like 9x is.


----------



## thadood (Jun 14, 2007)

Clydefrog said:


> I don't have to do any of those things, EVER, and I'm an XP user.
> 
> Seriously, those are old, tired arguments that applied to Windows 98, at best. People with a bone to pick with Microsoft generally only have it because they never had enough time with XP to realize that it's not shit like 9x is.



Cough cough. You're talking to an ex-system builder and computer science major. I've had my damn fair share of Windows since 3.11. The only Windows release I never really got to try was Bob.


----------



## Battousai (Jun 14, 2007)

One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't...


----------



## neon_black88 (Jun 14, 2007)

Battousai said:


> One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't...



Yessss


----------



## darren (Jun 14, 2007)

I used a Dell laptop at my job for about two years, running Windows 2000 Pro. It was decently fast, never crashed on me (except for _every single time_ i unplugged it from its power supply while it was running... not a great feature in a laptop) and for the most part, if you're using Adobe apps and MS Office, the user experience is more or less the same... in those applications.

What drove me nuts was the stupid and convoluted way things had to be set up. "Wizards" were supposed to be a way to make that more user-friendly, but they're just as useless. It seems to take twice as long and twice as many clicks to do something as simple as changing your IP address (or renewing a DHCP lease, for example).

And even on XP, there isn't an easy way to support multiple network profiles. I have different network profiles for the places where i work, using various combinations of my Ethernet port and my wireless, DHCP or hard-coded IP address, etc. and i can switch between them with two clicks of the mouse. I still don't think you can get Windows to do that without add-on software, which drove us NUTS when we were on the road and working on client sites, working in hotels, working in airports, etc.

The real clincher for me, though, in the work that i do, is typography. The level of typographic control and refinement available on Windows is still eclipsed by the Mac. Yes, lots of designers do good work using Windows machines, but for me, it's like using a dull scalpel when it comes to typographic refinement.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 14, 2007)

darren said:


> I used a Dell laptop at my job for about two years, running Windows 2000 Pro. It was decently fast, never crashed on me (except for _every single time_ i unplugged it from its power supply while it was running... not a great feature in a laptop) and for the most part, if you're using Adobe apps and MS Office, the user experience is more or less the same... in those applications.
> 
> What drove me nuts was the stupid and convoluted way things had to be set up. "Wizards" were supposed to be a way to make that more user-friendly, but they're just as useless. It seems to take twice as long and twice as many clicks to do something as simple as changing your IP address (or renewing a DHCP lease, for example).
> 
> ...



There's a lot of things, especially in terms of power users that posix-based OS's such as OSX and Linux do better than Windows. One of those things is SCMP, which is basically what you're referring to with your Mac. 

Linux can do this too, and it's really a necessity for those that move around a lot, and it's pathetic that MS hasn't integrated this yet. Perhaps they have in Vista, I do not know.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 14, 2007)

I haven't seen any network profiles options in Vista, but then again I haven't looked for them either.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 15, 2007)

D-EJ915 said:


> I haven't seen any network profiles options in Vista, but then again I haven't looked for them either.



The lack of that in Windows is a real ass cramp. It's so mundane of a feature to add; I don't know why they don't do it.


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

Jeff said:


> There's a lot of things, especially in terms of power users that posix-based OS's such as OSX and Linux do better than Windows. One of those things is SCMP, which is basically what you're referring to with your Mac.
> 
> Linux can do this too, and it's really a necessity for those that move around a lot, and it's pathetic that MS hasn't integrated this yet. Perhaps they have in Vista, I do not know.



SCMP? Do you mean SMTP, unless you're talking about the South China Morning Post? I'm currently working on an occupation in the IT Networking field and have all three OSes. They all have their strong and weak points. In the end, just choose the OS based on what you feel most comfortable with. As far as price goes, you can get a lot of arguments depending on which model you choose. Besides, you can run OS X on x86 machines anyway (although the compatibility and speed is still being worked on).

For networking ease of use, I found OS X to be the easiest, followed by XP, and Ubuntu being last (however, with my latest version of Feisty Fox Kubuntu, it's just a 1-click setup wizard now).

As far as releasing/renewing on an XP machine - go to Run... Type in "cmd" then "ipconfig/release" and finally "ipconfig/renew"


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 15, 2007)

Code001 said:


> SCMP? Do you mean SMTP, unless you're talking about the South China Morning Post? I'm currently working on an occupation in the IT Networking field and have all three OSes. They all have their strong and weak points. In the end, just choose the OS based on what you feel most comfortable with. As far as price goes, you can get a lot of arguments depending on which model you choose. Besides, you can run OS X on x86 machines anyway (although the compatibility and speed is still being worked on).
> 
> For networking ease of use, I found OS X to be the easiest, followed by XP, and Ubuntu being last (however, with my latest version of Feisty Fox Kubuntu, it's just a 1-click setup wizard now).
> 
> As far as releasing/renewing on an XP machine - go to Run... Type in "cmd" then "ipconfig/release" and finally "ipconfig/renew"





Although I would put windows at the bottom of the three. When linux screws up....it tells you what happened, Windows just looks at you with a funny look.

And OS X....well it beeps and smiles and frowns and dances around like a happy little kid....


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

The thing I like about the Ubuntu series is that, when something goes wrong, it generally directs you at what could be wrong. Then you perform a quick google search and it tells you the exact code you need to type in the terminal. Linux then starts executing a verbose set of orders right in front of you and will pinpoint the exact cause that is going wrong (if something does go wrong).


----------



## JBroll (Jun 15, 2007)

That's what I like about Linux for my own personal use - I've been using computers for long enough to not consider myself a complete and total moron and Linux is, by far, the last OS I'd describe as underestimating the capabilities of its users. It'll give me everything I need to know about a problem and how to fix it, while Windows and OS X will hide me from the evil bad error information to keep my wee little head from exploding.

Jeff


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

You can do just about everything in Linux that you can in OS X via the Terminal. The GUI is just there for convenience. Don't forget, OS X is still quasi-OpenBSD based and it uses the tcsh shell by default.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jun 15, 2007)

JBroll said:


> while Windows and OS X will hide me from the evil bad error information to keep my wee little head from exploding.



In a lot of circumstances Windows will give you all the error details so long as click to get the details. I've solved many many issues (I'm in IT Tech for a lawfirm) using the Windows error information. You're right though that a lot of the time the info is obscure and you have to search it up through MS to get the info/solution.


----------



## darren (Jun 15, 2007)

Code001 said:


> As far as releasing/renewing on an XP machine - go to Run... Type in "cmd" then "ipconfig/release" and finally "ipconfig/renew"



Yes, i know _how_ to do it, i just question _why Microsoft has to make it so fucking obtuse!_

In OS X, you go to the Network preferences panel, look under TCP/IP and click the "Renew DHCP Lease" button.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 15, 2007)

or you could enable/disable the adapter or click "repair" which does ip renew automatically.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 15, 2007)

Code001 said:


> You can do just about everything in Linux that you can in OS X via the Terminal. The GUI is just there for convenience. Don't forget, OS X is still quasi-OpenBSD based and it uses the tcsh shell by default.



Can I kill the default GUI completely and run e16 instead? Can I slim it down to a 150mb installation and have a fully functioning system whose only disadvantage is a lack of eye candy? Can I get just about any aftermarket wireless card working through NDISWrapper? Can I run it on anything from a parallel-processing monstrosity that takes up half of my closet to an IBM ThinClient that I found in for $20 in the bargain bin of the local computer warehouse? Can I make anything but the very essentials for a single terminal disappear so that I can devote full power to numerical analysis? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm actually curious - I've had nothing but problems trying to get e16 up, I've seen FAQs and I just haven't gotten it as slimmed-down as I want it.

Jeff


----------



## thadood (Jun 15, 2007)

Code001 said:


> You can do just about everything in Linux that you can in OS X via the Terminal. The GUI is just there for convenience. Don't forget, OS X is still quasi-OpenBSD based and it uses the tcsh shell by default.



* FreeBSD file heirarchy/architecture with the Mach kernel.

I guess it's why I like OS X so much.. I prefer the file heirarchy/architecture of FreeBSD over Linux. To me, Linux still feels like a cluster-fuck when it comes to where files are.


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Can I kill the default GUI completely and run e16 instead? Can I slim it down to a 150mb installation and have a fully functioning system whose only disadvantage is a lack of eye candy? Can I get just about any aftermarket wireless card working through NDISWrapper? Can I run it on anything from a parallel-processing monstrosity that takes up half of my closet to an IBM ThinClient that I found in for $20 in the bargain bin of the local computer warehouse? Can I make anything but the very essentials for a single terminal disappear so that I can devote full power to numerical analysis? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm actually curious - I've had nothing but problems trying to get e16 up, I've seen FAQs and I just haven't gotten it as slimmed-down as I want it.
> 
> Jeff



Yes, you can run just using the Terminal and not run the GUI. Yes, you can turn off that "eye candy" and slim the OS down (although not as much as you can slim down Linux). You can get about any wireless card working, but I don't think you'd be using NDISWrapper. You can run OS X on x86 and PPC machines only. You can make it into a server as you're describing to devote full power to the machine.


----------



## technomancer (Jun 15, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Can I kill the default GUI completely and run e16 instead? Can I slim it down to a 150mb installation and have a fully functioning system whose only disadvantage is a lack of eye candy? Can I get just about any aftermarket wireless card working through NDISWrapper? Can I run it on anything from a parallel-processing monstrosity that takes up half of my closet to an IBM ThinClient that I found in for $20 in the bargain bin of the local computer warehouse? Can I make anything but the very essentials for a single terminal disappear so that I can devote full power to numerical analysis? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm actually curious - I've had nothing but problems trying to get e16 up, I've seen FAQs and I just haven't gotten it as slimmed-down as I want it.
> 
> Jeff



I've never tried but it should be theoretically possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

thadood said:


> * FreeBSD file heirarchy/architecture with the Mach kernel.
> 
> I guess it's why I like OS X so much.. I prefer the file heirarchy/architecture of FreeBSD over Linux. To me, Linux still feels like a cluster-fuck when it comes to where files are.



I said quasi as it doesn't fit into the FreeBSD, nor OpenBSD category completely. They're basically mirrors of each other anyway. Technically, OS X runs a version of FreeBSD with a Mach kernel and a NeXTish GUI.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 15, 2007)

thadood said:


> * FreeBSD file heirarchy/architecture with the Mach kernel.
> 
> I guess it's why I like OS X so much.. I prefer the file heirarchy/architecture of FreeBSD over Linux. To me, Linux still feels like a cluster-fuck when it comes to where files are.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 15, 2007)

So, long story short... if I'm willing to limit my hardware choices, go with proprietary software, and get rid of the vast majority of things that make OS X preferable over Linux or BSD proper, I can get the same functionality out of OS X as I do out of Linux? Wonderful! Where do I sign up?

Jeff


----------



## Code001 (Jun 15, 2007)

You seem to just want to bash OS X for some reason.... You can port most any slackware program to OS X. It's not proprietary. The hardware choices aren't too limiting, either. You seem to want it to be Linux. OS X isn't Linux and it never will be. However, they're in a similar family. But it seems you just want to smear OS X as much as possible.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 17, 2007)

I saw this and thought it was pretty funny:

Ctrl+Alt+Del









Note: I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I'm not anti-mac or uber pro-PC (I use PC's more than macs), just thought this was funny.


----------



## Jeff (Jun 18, 2007)

Code001 said:


> SCMP? Do you mean SMTP, unless you're talking about the South China Morning Post? I'm currently working on an occupation in the IT Networking field and have all three OSes. They all have their strong and weak points. In the end, just choose the OS based on what you feel most comfortable with. As far as price goes, you can get a lot of arguments depending on which model you choose. Besides, you can run OS X on x86 machines anyway (although the compatibility and speed is still being worked on).
> 
> For networking ease of use, I found OS X to be the easiest, followed by XP, and Ubuntu being last (however, with my latest version of Feisty Fox Kubuntu, it's just a 1-click setup wizard now).
> 
> As far as releasing/renewing on an XP machine - go to Run... Type in "cmd" then "ipconfig/release" and finally "ipconfig/renew"



Grasshopper, I have plenty of experience in IT. I've been doing it for some years now, as have many folks here on the board. 

And no, I am not talking about SMTP, I am talking about SCPM (sorry typed too fast before), and it's far more than a "release/renew" of DHCP. Read about it here. How about having different static IP configurations, network drive mounting, NIS configurations, etc all for different locations such as how we have it at my work?

As for Ubuntu being difficult, what's so difficult about plugging in a network cable? I've got it running on a home built tower, and an HP/Compaq NC6120 business laptop, both are as easy as Windows. 

Wireless support for Ubuntu works great too. I don't see the difficulty. 

Also, I've already said there's good and bad in all 3 (main) OS's. I run a 50/50 mixed XP/2003 -- SuSe environment, and am getting a MacBook Pro for testing once Leopard drops. 

There is no perfect OS. Probably never will be.

*EDIT*

Jesus, after reading this whole thread, I don't know what's worse, the Mac zealots, or the Linux zealots. Look, they all suck in some way. You just have to find the one that sucks the least for you. 

YOUR OS (and by "your" I mean nearly everyone in this thread) is not for everybody, and it's not better than everybody else's OS. So go sit back, buy a pink polo, and drink some cold beer and relax.


----------



## Toshiro (Jun 18, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> I saw this and thought it was pretty funny:
> 
> Ctrl+Alt+Del
> 
> ...



That is by far my fav web comic. Did you see the "Mac Panther"(Ctrl+Alt+Del) storyline? It's fucking hilarious.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 18, 2007)

Toshiro said:


> That is by far my fav web comic. Did you see the "Mac Panther"(Ctrl+Alt+Del) storyline? It's fucking hilarious.


 thanks for the link hahahahha


----------



## JBroll (Jun 18, 2007)

Code001 said:


> You seem to just want to bash OS X for some reason.... You can port most any slackware program to OS X. It's not proprietary. The hardware choices aren't too limiting, either. You seem to want it to be Linux. OS X isn't Linux and it never will be. However, they're in a similar family. But it seems you just want to smear OS X as much as possible.



I'm just being sarcastic. It's fine for what it is, but it's missing a lot of the things that make me like open-source software like Linux or BSD and I just can't use it for a lot of what I need to get done. I don't need to smear OS X, but that one's not the answer to everything either - and if I recall correctly, having serious questions about OS capabilities, like I asked about earlier, doesn't necessarily mean smearing it.

Jeff


----------



## Code001 (Jun 18, 2007)

Jeff said:


> Grasshopper, I have plenty of experience in IT. I've been doing it for some years now, as have many folks here on the board.
> 
> And no, I am not talking about SMTP, I am talking about SCPM (sorry typed too fast before), and it's far more than a "release/renew" of DHCP. Read about it here. How about having different static IP configurations, network drive mounting, NIS configurations, etc all for different locations such as how we have it at my work?
> 
> ...



The release/renew wasn't directed towards you. 

I disliked the way Ubuntu networked with OS X as I had to manually go into a connection area and type in the exact SMB pathway as opposed to having it on my networking places (which both Kubuntu and XP do). There was no 2 ways about this. Keep in mind, this was with DapperDrake and not Feisty. I hear Feisty is even worse when I went on the support forums. I dunno about you, but to me, typing in, "smb://Ubuntu-Dell/home/code001/share" all the time to connect to my laptop instead of double-clicking is a PITA. To read up on it, go here:

File sharing with OS X using Ubuntu 5.04 - LinuxQuestions.org

You're right about there being no perfect OS. An OS is a personal choice that should be chosen based on what you feel most comfortable with. All three can be powerful if the end-user knows what they're doing. All three have issues as well. That's why I dislike the fighting between the OSes. It shouldn't be an X vs Y vs Z issue. It should be about learning which feels most comfortable. It's like people bashing guitars because a neck is too thin/thick, so therefore, they're all crap. It makes no sense....



JBroll said:


> if I recall correctly, having serious questions about OS capabilities, like I asked about earlier, doesn't necessarily mean smearing it.
> 
> Jeff



No, but sarcastic, jack-ass remarks like this are....



JBroll said:


> So, long story short... if I'm willing to limit my hardware choices, go with proprietary software, and get rid of the vast majority of things that make OS X preferable over Linux or BSD proper, I can get the same functionality out of OS X as I do out of Linux? Wonderful! Where do I sign up?


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 18, 2007)

I'm a major fan of Linux, it's extremely versatile, and you can do ANYTHING with it. 

But, besides a niche application (which I plan to use ArchLinux for fairly soon) I prefer OS X as an easy to use, install and forget, plug and play style desktop.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 18, 2007)

Code001 said:


> No, but sarcastic, jack-ass remarks like this are....



I came right out and said that it was sarcasm, and I believe I can make smart-assed cracks in response to 



Code001 said:


> You can do just about everything in Linux that you can in OS X via the Terminal.



when I don't get answers and it's clear that the above is just not true. Perhaps I'm a little nitpicky about my computer concerns and a little sarcastic when these discussions come up, but I don't think that's reason to take things as 'ur OS sux u n00b!' - hell will freeze over before smart-assery dies in the SS forums.

Jeff


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 18, 2007)

Sheesh. This is worse than a Korn thread. 

Windows - from someone stuck in it courtesy of the US Army - has come a long way from the day I started seriously pricing Macs. (That would be the first day I saw Windows ME  ) It's a lot more stable (from a developer point of view), and functional when you turn the crap off. (I wish M$ would just include a control panel setting for "disable eye candy", so it left you the Win200 GUI, which actually worked, although not my favorite.)

That said, I have to deal with stuff running on Windows servers. 2003 is a *lot* better than 2000, but it still sucks compared to (insert Unix variant here).

Truth be told, the market's ripe for someone to come up with a stable, solid OS that will run on ultra-cheap hardware and mainly handle household functions without a.) application bloat that's so bad it makes pre-Jenny Kirstie Alley look like Calista Flockhart) and b.) has an interface that actually WORKS.

Apple's probably the closest right now, but they're just too damn expensive to ever be the major player. I'm betting some sort of "handheld" gets there before the PC world does.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 18, 2007)

It's easy to turn off the "eye candy" in windows, just hit the minimal thing under visual preferences on the system preferences thing.


----------



## noodles (Jun 18, 2007)

Mike, Linux would get there if it could ever shed the stupid geek street cred long enough to get people to actually start developing it as a desktop OS aimed at actually desktop users. The stability is there, the options are starting to rival MicroSloth, and it runs extremely efficiently. However, there are still lots of niggling little things that just don't run right out of the box, and require a strong SA background to fix.

Example of Linux stupidity: I run SuSe 10.2, and the default CD burner software only runs correctly as root. As a standard user, it doesn't have full hardware access rights, so it can't enable buffer under run protection. This type of strict security segregation is great in a professional environment, but absolutely ridiculous for the average home user, and something that seriously needs to be addressed IMHO.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 18, 2007)

noodles said:


> Mike, Linux would get there if it could ever shed the stupid geek street cred long enough to get people to actually start developing it as a desktop OS aimed at actually desktop users. The stability is there, the options are starting to rival MicroSloth, and it runs extremely efficiently. However, there are still lots of niggling little things that just don't run right out of the box, and require a strong SA background to fix.
> 
> Example of Linux stupidity: I run SuSe 10.2, and the default CD burner software only runs correctly as root. As a standard user, it doesn't have full hardware access rights, so it can't enable buffer under run protection. This type of strict security segregation is great in a professional environment, but absolutely ridiculous for the average home user, and something that seriously needs to be addressed IMHO.



 That is basically an example of some of the strongest arguments against linux, and reasons why Windows is still so popular.

Something I often get miffed about when talking to "linux zealots"

When it comes to desktops OS X is still the perfect middle road for me, if I'm in a haxoring mode I'll play with linux and have it booting from a dumb terminal, from a flash drive plugged into a server, occupying only 20 Megs...that's sweet, but not for the average user what so ever.


----------



## Code001 (Jun 18, 2007)

JBroll said:


> when I don't get answers and it's clear that the above is just not true. Perhaps I'm a little nitpicky about my computer concerns and a little sarcastic when these discussions come up, but I don't think that's reason to take things as 'ur OS sux u n00b!' - hell will freeze over before smart-assery dies in the SS forums.
> 
> Jeff



I posted that it can do most of those things you listed. Do you need exact sources or something to believe me? You asked me if it can do various things. For the most part, I said it could be done, and explained where it downfalls compared to linux (like when I mentioned it can't be stripped down as much as linux when it comes to operating as a server OS).


----------



## JBroll (Jun 18, 2007)

You didn't mention parallel-processing (I know it handles multi-core and multi-processing, I mean several different boxes working together) or budget-level versatility - this is a very big advantage of Linux and something that I need, being demanding and on a budget. I've also had different results with wireless cards but that's a different story. I'm not calling you a moron or a liar, but I can disagree with the statement that OS X can do anything Linux can. For the record, I'm also curious as to how the new one will work with matrix operations, but that's another different story.

Jeff


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 18, 2007)

Most users aren't gonna run a BEOWULF in their house dude


----------



## JBroll (Jun 18, 2007)

I know, but I'm not 'most users'. Of course, why most people would want to buy one big, expensive computer instead of just stringing together three dozen little, cheap computers to get the same functionality at a lower price is beyond me, but...

Jeff


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 18, 2007)

It's a little bit easier to manage


----------



## Code001 (Jun 18, 2007)

JBroll said:


> You didn't mention parallel-processing (I know it handles multi-core and multi-processing, I mean several different boxes working together) or budget-level versatility - this is a very big advantage of Linux and something that I need, being demanding and on a budget. I've also had different results with wireless cards but that's a different story. I'm not calling you a moron or a liar, but I can disagree with the statement that OS X can do anything Linux can. For the record, I'm also curious as to how the new one will work with matrix operations, but that's another different story.
> 
> Jeff



Where did I say OS X can do every single thing Linux can? I never said that at all. Also, there's a thing called OS X Server Edition for what I think you're trying to describe. Don't forget, Apple sells server computers as well:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...m=browse&mco=49561709&node=home/server/xserve


----------



## Vince (Jun 18, 2007)

noodles said:


> Mike, Linux would get there if it could ever shed the stupid geek street cred long enough to get people to actually start developing it as a desktop OS aimed at actually desktop users. The stability is there, the options are starting to rival MicroSloth, and it runs extremely efficiently. However, there are still lots of niggling little things that just don't run right out of the box, and require a strong SA background to fix.
> 
> Example of Linux stupidity: I run SuSe 10.2, and the default CD burner software only runs correctly as root. As a standard user, it doesn't have full hardware access rights, so it can't enable buffer under run protection. This type of strict security segregation is great in a professional environment, but absolutely ridiculous for the average home user, and something that seriously needs to be addressed IMHO.



niggling?


----------



## Jeff (Jun 19, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I know, but I'm not 'most users'. Of course, why most people would want to buy one big, expensive computer instead of just stringing together three dozen little, cheap computers to get the same functionality at a lower price is beyond me, but...
> 
> Jeff



Because x86 parts are so cheap in the first place that using the power and space for a bunch of cheap crappy PC's is stupid in a lot of cases, and Beowulf clusters aren't for everything. Not everything benefits from that type of processing, even in the Linux world. 

See, now you're just trying to impress people.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 19, 2007)

Jeff said:


> See, now you're just trying to impress people.



 Dude... just let it go... we understand you think you know EVERYTHING about PCs and all, but it got old about 3 pages ago.  

P.S. My USB cable is longer than your USB cable.


----------



## noodles (Jun 19, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I know, but I'm not 'most users'. Of course, why most people would want to buy one big, expensive computer instead of just stringing together three dozen little, cheap computers to get the same functionality at a lower price is beyond me, but...



No, you're not. You're exactly what Linux is designed for: the guy running servers farms in his basement who doesn't find what he wants in COTS software. Good for you, I'm glad you have a cluster in your basement. Quit trying to convince the world that OS X sucks, because it actually a pretty fucking good OS. Windows sucks, get it right.



Code001 said:


> Where did I say OS X can do every single thing Linux can? I never said that at all. Also, there's a thing called OS X Server Edition for what I think you're trying to describe. Don't forget, Apple sells server computers as well:
> 
> The Apple Store (U.S.) - Xserve



You're the guy that is going to defend Apple until the bitter end, because they have a solution for everything. Linux has it's place, quit taking it so personally when a condescending Linux geek slags on your OS. If it works for you, awesome, now go bring up some porn on your hideously overpriced monitor.

Now, can we drop this stupid religious debate before I close the thread? Neither of you are going to change each other's opinion. I've been in the IT field professionally for almost thirteen years now, and I already heard this one when it was vi versus emacs.


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 19, 2007)

noodles said:


> and I already heard this one when it was vi versus emacs.



You mean that debate actually ended?


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 19, 2007)

vi versus emacs? I like nano, like a noob, 

Anyways....all operating systems suck. Some suck in different degrees in different tasks. There is no "end-all" of OSes out right now, the future I feel is either open source, or in-house stuff like apple does. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates said the same about open source.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 19, 2007)

noodles said:


> No, you're not. You're exactly what Linux is designed for: the guy running servers farms in his basement who doesn't find what he wants in COTS software. Good for you, I'm glad you have a cluster in your basement. Quit trying to convince the world that OS X sucks, because it actually a pretty fucking good OS. Windows sucks, get it right.



I'm pretty sure I didn't say OS X sucks - I can't use it for what I need, but now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Christ on a bicycle, you'd think someone could be a smartass without all of a sudden being told he said things he didn't say. Just because it doesn't do what I need - and I have to explain that I have 'special needs' here - doesn't mean that it sucks.

EDIT: Emacs wins. Period. END EDIT

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Jun 19, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'm pretty sure I didn't say OS X sucks - I can't use it for what I need, but now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Christ on a bicycle, you'd think someone could be a smartass without all of a sudden being told he said things he didn't say. Just because it doesn't do what I need - and I have to explain that I have 'special needs' here - doesn't mean that it sucks.
> 
> EDIT: Emacs wins. Period. END EDIT
> 
> Jeff



What exactly do you use it for? I'm just curious.

BTW: Never liked Emacs, nano was always my go to for quick config edits.


----------



## noodles (Jun 19, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'm pretty sure I didn't say OS X sucks - I can't use it for what I need, but now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. Christ on a bicycle, you'd think someone could be a smartass without all of a sudden being told he said things he didn't say. Just because it doesn't do what I need - and I have to explain that I have 'special needs' here - doesn't mean that it sucks.



*BACK OFF*

You need to tone your attitude down or you're going to take a 24 hour nap.


----------



## JBroll (Jun 19, 2007)

My attitude? I just don't appreciate being accused of things I didn't do.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (Jun 19, 2007)

I'm just going to close this. 

JBroll, when you're not trying to be a dick you do post interesting content around here, but most of your posts are hostile, condescending, and argumentative. You may not have "done" anything, per se, but you sure as hell implied everything you were accused of here. 

Call this a final warning - either learn to play nice with others or expect to get progressively longer vacations from here.


----------

