Doesn't everyone here want the best? Win vs MAC

[d00df00d]

Slight correction: Apple computers have a lot of the same guts as PCs. They are not made by the same companies as PCs. There is a difference. In fact, that's exactly where the difference lies: it's not that Apples are necessarily made of better parts than PCs, it's that the total package tends to be more polished.

Heck, even that last part needs a caveat, because Apple tends to use displays that are MUCH better than what you get on most ready-built PCs.

Apple may not have engineered the hardware, but it DID design the OS and the exteriors. Apple devices provide a cleaner, more cohesive, more consistent user experience than almost all Windows-based PCs. That makes all the difference. It's also why comparing CPUs, RAM, etc. between Macs and Windows PCs isn't really an accurate portrayal of how the machines actually are in everyday use. Sometimes the Mac is faster spec-for-spec, sometimes it's slower; it depends on the application.

Personally, I don't really care for the way Apple designs its interfaces. I also want a great deal of customizability in my computers and never buy pre-made (except for laptops). Thus, I have no reason to buy a Mac, or any Apple product, really; the only one I own is an iPod, and that's only because it was given to me (I'd rather have a Zune HD or something). I just like to see credit given where it is due.

 

[Brons2]

Originally Posted By: Cooper
Okay, since everyone here wants the best for their car. The best filtration, the best fluids, the best wax, tires, maintenance, etc.


I don't want those things, I want good yet cost effective. Since I have to change often for warranty compliance, why buy an expensive boutique oil for example. I use Group III synthetics that are on sale, or just conventional like MC5000. Good value.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: GMFan
Like NickR pointed out Apple computers are made by the same generic manufacturers that make PCs but are yet way more expensive. It all has to do with marketing and looks...and as we can see some people are more than willing to pay for something perceived of a higher quality....whether it is true or not.

I would highly doubt that Apple computers are inherently more reliable than your typical PC. Apple doesn't engineer the CPU, HD, RAM, screen etc.

My younger sister has a Mac Book Pro for college and I don't see what all the buzz really is about... I didn't use the Mac and "see the light." I thought it was way over-priced. A base-line Intel i5, 4GB ram and 320GB HD with a 15" screen cost her $1800 refurbished a few months ago. My Lenovo has rougly the same specs and I got it for $500 after $200 instant rebate and the quality of my Lenovo is just as good as the Mac.


All current 15" MBPs use i7 processors and have, at minimum, a 500 GB HDD. They also cost $1800 new, not refurb'd.

 

[Mystic]

Apples are more 'polished' than PCs? You have some lab proof? I have quite a bit of experience with Macs. I will agree that the exteriors are really nice. Steve Jobs had a role in that. Sometimes however the exteriors are a little silly, and you get results like a nice exterior but the antenna can get covered up by a person's hand, or you have a computer or other device that has nonreplaceable batteries. Hardly more 'polished.'

I totally disagree about Mac monitors necessarily being better. A major Mac magazine (I can't remember which now) purchased a MacPro and an Apple monitor. They sent the monitor back as unacceptable. And we are talking Mac people here who like Macs. There are monitors available every bit as good as Mac monitors and they usually cost less.

You get past the fancy exterior and the interior is pretty much the same as any other computer. But Macs cost a lot more. Try about $2500.00 for the least expensive MacPro (no monitor). For that price you can get a powerful Windows custom built gaming computer with a monitor and some change left over.

Mac OS X is a good operating system, although I still like Mac OS 10.4 ('Tiger') the best, 3 operating systems ago. Some Apple software has been a little 'unpolished.' There are endless security updates for Quicktime. In fact Apple updates can be so massive that it makes the typical Windows updates look tiny in comparison.

Macs never fail? Not exactly. I had a monitor go out on an eMac. I was lucky and I had extended coverage. Macs can fail like any other computer.

Macs better made? They are usually made in China by workers not exactly making a lot of money. A lot of the PCs are made there too. And there have been silly problems like too much grease constantly put on CPUs. Mistakes that are usually not made by PC manufacturers and custom builders of PCs.

I could go on and on. Take a look inside a Mac Computer. Did you take a look? Yes, it is a computer. There are people who have figured out how to get Mac OS X running on a Windows computer. That operating system runs just as good on the cheap Windows computer. You just have to make sure you use hardware that will work. For example you have to use Intel processors and not AMD, certain types of motherboards, etc. That cheap Windows box will do exactly the same job.

And, a $2500.00 computer SHOULD run better than a $500.00 one. But I have seen $500.00 computers run just fine-'polished,' I guess you could say.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Slight correction: Apple computers have a lot of the same guts as PCs. They are not made by the same companies as PCs. There is a difference.


Foxconn, who does Apple's stuff, also makes motherboards for Intel, DELL and many other manufacturers. So yes, they are made by the same companies as PC's too

Doesn't mean there aren't different tiers for quality however.

 

[Spazdog]

I still have an 333Mhz iMac G3 in my guest room.

It is nothing more than a quaint knick-knack that collects dust.

I fell for the hype and got the iMac to replace my overclocked Celeron 400 and Windows 98 homebuilt pile of parts. It was an expensive failed experiment. OSX "Tiger" is an annoyance once you have learned Windows. I tried the PC emulator and it was slow. Really slow.

I never went back to Apple and doubt that I ever will.

 

[PandaBear]

Some public information:

Apple stuff is made by the same companies that build the PC stuff. There are only so many of them and most of them are Taiwanese companies with Chinese labors. Foxconn, Asus, Compal, etc.

The contract manufacturers follow what the designers give them, either junk or gem, and price accordingly (usually 6% profit margin on top of expense).

Apple do use the same major components (chips) as the PC stuff, at the same quality grades (big OEM gets the top tier stuff and 2nd tier stuff goes to Bestbuy, Fry's, Newegg, Amazon, etc).

There are more than just component cost that makes Apple stuff cost more. PCB design for low cost can be very different than for high durability (heat away from certain area, and can be very different from miniaturization. Open up an iPhone 4, and look at how dense and compact the PCB is, and look at how big the same type of device from HTC / Motorola / Samsung is, and tell me it cost the same to make them. Now there're marketing and profit on top of that but it is not just marketing and profit.

Same for software, it takes a lot of effort to do power management software reliably. Lazy companies keep the power on all the time and ship the software with half the effort, but if you want to squeeze out every mAH of battery life, it is a lot of work (money).

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Foxconn, who does Apple's stuff, also makes motherboards for Intel, DELL and many other manufacturers. So yes, they are made by the same companies as PC's too

Doesn't mean there aren't different tiers for quality however.

I know. I was talking about the final assembly, which is what I thought people would interpret by the "made by the same companies" comment.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Apples are more 'polished' than PCs? You have some lab proof? I have quite a bit of experience with Macs. I will agree that the exteriors are really nice. Steve Jobs had a role in that. Sometimes however the exteriors are a little silly, and you get results like a nice exterior but the antenna can get covered up by a person's hand, or you have a computer or other device that has nonreplaceable batteries. Hardly more 'polished.'

I totally disagree about Mac monitors necessarily being better. A major Mac magazine (I can't remember which now) purchased a MacPro and an Apple monitor. They sent the monitor back as unacceptable. And we are talking Mac people here who like Macs. There are monitors available every bit as good as Mac monitors and they usually cost less.

You get past the fancy exterior and the interior is pretty much the same as any other computer. But Macs cost a lot more. Try about $2500.00 for the least expensive MacPro (no monitor). For that price you can get a powerful Windows custom built gaming computer with a monitor and some change left over.

Mac OS X is a good operating system, although I still like Mac OS 10.4 ('Tiger') the best, 3 operating systems ago. Some Apple software has been a little 'unpolished.' There are endless security updates for Quicktime. In fact Apple updates can be so massive that it makes the typical Windows updates look tiny in comparison.

Macs never fail? Not exactly. I had a monitor go out on an eMac. I was lucky and I had extended coverage. Macs can fail like any other computer.

Macs better made? They are usually made in China by workers not exactly making a lot of money. A lot of the PCs are made there too. And there have been silly problems like too much grease constantly put on CPUs. Mistakes that are usually not made by PC manufacturers and custom builders of PCs.

I could go on and on. Take a look inside a Mac Computer. Did you take a look? Yes, it is a computer. There are people who have figured out how to get Mac OS X running on a Windows computer. That operating system runs just as good on the cheap Windows computer. You just have to make sure you use hardware that will work. For example you have to use Intel processors and not AMD, certain types of motherboards, etc. That cheap Windows box will do exactly the same job.

And, a $2500.00 computer SHOULD run better than a $500.00 one. But I have seen $500.00 computers run just fine-'polished,' I guess you could say.

Do you know what the phrase "tends to be" means?

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

So who is winning the argument? I'm going to wait until y'all settle this Mac vs. PC debate once and for all before I spend my money on a new computer. I'm unable to make a decision on my own because I know it's more important to side with the winner rather than buy something that works for my needs and budget. I mean, one HAS to be awesome and the other one must be useless junk, right?

Carry on!

 

[Mystic]

Some time back the people at MaximumPC bought a device that made it possible to run Mac OS X on a cheaper Windows computer. They built a computer that could run BOTH Windows and Mac OS X depending on what hard drive was selected. So you can have both Windows and Mac OS X on a reasonably priced computer. Notice I said 'reasonably' priced computer. Sure you can also run Windows along with Mac OS X on a $2500.00 MacPro, using Bootcamp or various software.

The device they bought from a company cost somewhere over $100.00. Later people took one of those devices apart and discovered that for less than about ten bucks it was possible to duplicate that device.

Sure Mac Computers look nice and (usually) run well. But don't try to tell me that they are somehow superior to Windows computers. The fact is for about ten bucks worth of hardware a person could run Mac OS X on a Windows computer with the correct hardware (Intel processor, certain motherboards, etc.) for a lot less money than Apple charges for their computers. You could probably build such a computer for something like $600.00 to $1000.00. Apple years ago stopped other companies from building computers that ran the Mac OS. Those companies were building computers that could run the Mac OS for LESS MONEY THAN APPLE CHARGES FOR THEIR COMPUTERS!

Apple is more of a hardware company rather than a software company. Microsoft is more of a software company than a hardware company. Sure Apple makes software like Mac OS X, but they also make computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads, etc. Microsoft makes some hardware but their main products are Windows software and Microsoft Office software, at least for the general public and many companies. If Apple licensed their OS to other companies building computers it should be obvious from the past that other companies would be able to build computers running Mac OS X cheaper. It happened in the past, correct?

I am not saying that a MacPro is not a very good computer. It is a very good computer. But there is no magic 'polish' that puts a Mac Computer above Windows computers. Look inside a Mac and it is a computer. A Windows computer built well with quality parts is just as good. Computer hardware is computer hardware. Use good parts and a quality build and you get a good computer. Use trashy parts and a trashy build and you get a trashy computer.

There is so much competition among computer manufacturers today there is a small profit margin and some pretty average built machines. I think Apple wanted to avoid that. I prefer custom built Winodws computers. You can get exactly what you want and have control over what quality of components get used. And spend less money. The computer I have right now is fast and did not cost anywhere near what a MacPro would have cost. And I can upgrade that computer at any time merely by changing out older components for newer components, not by buying a totally new computer.

 

[d00df00d]

An iMac gives you great specs with an IPS display in a tightly integrated, attractive, space-saving package. As far as I know, there is no comparable Windows-based option that doesn't completely suck. What you could do is build a Windows-based PC with the same specs and an IPS display for the same or less money, and it would be equally fast if not faster. But the monitor alone would have the same footprint as the whole iMac, and then you have the computer itself to deal with.

Personally, I'm fine with that. For me, it's totally worth having all that extra bulk because I save money and get to configure my computer exactly as I want, and I don't particularly care how my computer looks. That's why I have a Windows-based PC and probably will never buy a Mac. Most of my friends feel the same way.

At the same time, most people in the world at large barely know what's inside their PCs, and use them for tasks that will run with plenty of speed on just about any computer. If they have the money, why would they not pick the more attractive and compact option?



Moreover, Apple accomplishes one thing that no other gadget company can even touch: a smooth and unified user experience across a broad range of devices. If you know how to operate an iPhone, an iPad, a MacBook, or an iMac, you can pick up any other of those devices and immediately be able to use it smoothly. If you like any of them, chances are you will like the rest. Despite the fact that they all serve different purposes, their aesthetics and mechanics are all similar. That's not even remotely true of the Windows-based equivalents.

Again, for my own use, I don't find that compelling whatsoever. I have no taste for Apple's aesthetics. I have a Blackberry, which is about as un-iPhone as smartphones get. My laptop is a Lenovo X220i Tablet, and my desktop is a loud, ugly, custom-built full-tower special. I have no trouble working across all of them, and I love every second of it.

On the other hand, having done IT support, I understand that most people are not as... shall we say, willing to engage with the intricacies of computer platforms. If they have the choice to have a set of devices that all require exactly the same set of sensibilities to operate, and provide the same sensory appeal every time, why would they not take it?



It's hard to keep yourself from projecting your own preferences on others, but I promise, it tends to be worth the effort.

 

[greenaccord02]

This is a crazy thread... The last few pages, especially.

Carry on, please.

 

[Mystic]

Well, based on what you are saying here, apparently you agree with what I had to say. You say that you have a Windows computer that you can configure exactly as you want. So do I. I also have an old iMac and I doubt that I will buy another Apple Computer.

There are all-in-one Windows computers also. I prefer a computer with a separate monitor. I had an eMac computer and the monitor went out. I was lucky and had extended coverage. Otherwise the entire computer would have become useless and I would have had to buy a new one.

There is no magic 'polish' or anything else when it comes to computers. A computer is a computer. It can be built with quality components or bad components. It can look good or look ugly. The last time I checked Apple Computers are being built in some of the same facilities in China where Windows PCs are being built. The Apple Computers are designed well (probably in the USA) but they are built by the same low cost Chinese labor that also builds the PCs. I have heard that Apple may start building some computers in the USA.

The only way I would buy another Apple Computer would be if Apple came out with an affordable desktop computer with a separate monitor and if Apple's Aperture software advanced to the point where it was better and easier than Photoshop. I also would like for Apple Computers to have somewhat better hardware and software compatibility. I doubt very seriously that Apple will ever come out with that affordable desktop computer, so I will forget about it and keep using Windows. It is an honest fact that I am able to get better prints using my Windows computer than my iMac. I care more about my photographs than about computer software and hardware that are merely tools and will be junk in a few years.

The only real problem I see with Windows is all the malware. But keep your software up to date and use a good antivirus program and that issue largely disappears.

I do not regret my decision to go to Apple Computers so many years ago. It was where I needed to be to get the things done that I needed to do. I also do not regret my decision in the last few years to leave Apple and return to Windows. No cult worship for me. Computer software and hardware are tools. I care about the results I am able to get. That makes sense to me.

 

[d00df00d]

I "agree with you" in the sense that my preferences for my own computers seem to be similar to your preferences for your own computers.

I disagree with you in that I think there is quite a lot about Apple products that makes OTHER PEOPLE legitimately prefer them, and that those traits are the result of real and unique skill on Apple's part.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Quote:
Some time back the people at MaximumPC bought a device that made it possible to run Mac OS X on a cheaper Windows computer. They built a computer that could run BOTH Windows and Mac OS X depending on what hard drive was selected. So you can have both Windows and Mac OS X on a reasonably priced computer. Notice I said 'reasonably' priced computer. Sure you can also run Windows along with Mac OS X on a $2500.00 MacPro, using Bootcamp or various software.


The company was Psystar. Apple took them to court over their hardware, arguing that they had violated the OS X EULA, which states the software may not be installed an any non-Apple branded computer, and they also violated the DMCA, because Psystar had to circumvent Apple's copyright protection. Psystar knew they were violating the EULA, but operated under the ideals that such an EULA would not hold up in court.

After Psystar first tried to countersue Apple (this was dismissed) and then tried to file Chapter 11 to stall the court proceedings (judge overturned this), the court sided with Apple. Psystar appealed. The appellate court also sided with Apple. Game over. Psystar owes Apple 2.7 million dollars.

That said, you can still build yourself a hackintosh. Psystar got into trouble because they were actually building and selling a hackintosh computer. They tried to get around this by shipping the computer without an OS, then letting the purchaser install the OS, thus putting the burden of violating the EULA on the purchaser and not Psystar. Per the above lawsuit, the court didn't see it that way.

Building a hackintosh is still a copyright violation and a violation of Apple's EULA, but you've got a much smaller target on you as a single user. There was also some arguing that Psystar's products weren't even their own, but instead modified from other open-source projects like OSx86. If that is the case, and they really were taking free open-source software, skinning it, and selling it for profit... they're dirtbags who got what they deserved.

 

[Mystic]

They also were selling that device for something like $130.00 or so (I can't remember the exact amount) and when people took one of those devices apart the story was that there was a total of about ten bucks worth of electronic stuff in those devices. Frankly I don't need to try and rip off Apple. Even if I built a 'hackintosh' it still would not have the software and hardware compatibility of a Windows computer. It would be pointless to build one. I might as well run Windows legally.

Like I said above, I honestly can get better photo prints from my Windows computer than my iMac (even with fully upgraded printer software). Since what I care about are the photographs and the computer software and hardware are just tools to achieve those photographs, why even brother to run an Apple Computer (or a 'hackintosh' for that matter)?

Maybe if I had a Canon photo printer rather than an Epson, I could still get good photos from my iMac. But my Windows computer supports HP, Canon, Epson all just fine. It would be silly to buy a new photo printer just so that I could (hopefully) get good photo printing from my iMac. The Windows computer already gets the job done with my current photo printer. And I have had that photo printer while using Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. It seems to me based on personal experience that regardless how some here might hate Microsoft, Windows, Bill Gates, etc., Microsoft can get some things right. I don't hate anybody. I don't have those emotional issues. I will use what works for ME!

 

[Y_K]

Macs used to be far superior in both form and substance. Now that advantage is long gone. Form only. and it gets more and more cluttered, btw. The saving grace is the MSFT's lame attempts to emulate Macs.
Business model was also always different, and it worked for Jobs well: 2% of the market is enough to have a private jet.
Have been a Mac user for over a decade, then quit, when it was no more suitable and 'better'. It did have prime quality parts inside, e.g. it was all SCSI when Windows had pathetic PATA locomotives inside. It was a pleasure to open one up without cutting yourself, cursing and upgrade or replace things quickly, easy and without any experience. Many things like that are gone. Now they push beta software for testing which they should pay me, not the other way around.
Personally knew late Jef Raskin who was also disgusted with the direction Jobs took later. That is the man who created Mac.

As for the ease of use by average Joes, I am not so sure the average Joe can run 'ntpq -p' string or knows difference between BSD tar, GNU tar or Solaris/IRIX tar for that matter. Average Joe just declared Mac OS being linux underneath in a thread next to this one. The Joe does not know that linux is not even an OS.
Yes, form is still polished in the Apple Land.

And Apple is the champion of taking to court anybody who can do the same better and cheaper.

 

[d00df00d]

Not disagreeing with your whole post; just wanted to point out one thing. For a user interface (both hardware and software aspects), form IS substance. Apple may have lost most of its other "substance" advantages, but the user experience was and still is its trump card.

 

[Y_K]

But user interface is just a subset of user experience.
I guess, it depends on user