Apple Or Pc?

[Hendrix]

Ok bad example, but you know damn well the point still stands. It's hardly convenient or even really relevant that you can 'just' dual boot to get Windows functionality on your Mac computer.

You could just use the mac programs to view the things you want though. It's just if you're use to word, excel or powerpoint, you're going to have to use a windows facility. I'm pretty sure there are mac ones.

[JonMack]

All my music is in Artist Folder > Album Folder > and almost all of it then has the correct song name etc. So on the hard drive it's fine but to put it on my ipod I have to import it into itunes (which fannies round converting things and god knows what) and then if you look on the ipod itself, itunes has usefully renamed every single mp3 as 3RF65HHJ.mp3 or whatever it turns it into which is about as useful as a chocolate hairdryer.

But I already have the music on my computer, why do I need to look through my iPod to find it? and if you want it off that bad, grab a copy of iPodRip and chuck it onto the iPod, then whenever you need to get your music off the iPod, you just launch iPodRip, which you already have to hand ON YOUR iPod, and take it off.

Or am I just being too logical here?

[TheCircus]

Ok bad example, but you know damn well the point still stands. It's hardly convenient or even really relevant that you can 'just' dual boot to get Windows functionality on your Mac computer.

What are you even talking about? Give me an example of a piece of software where there is nothing comparable on OS X?

[Extreme_biker0]

But I already have the music on my computer, why do I need to look through my iPod to find it? and if you want it off that bad, grab a copy of iPodRip and chuck it onto the iPod, then whenever you need to get your music off the iPod, you just launch iPodRip, which you already have to hand ON YOUR iPod, and take it off.

Or am I just being too logical here?

The logical thing to do would for Apple not to convert the files!!! Why can;t you see that?! You're saying you just have to do this and just have to grab a copy of that.

It's purely Apples proprietary and closed way of doing things that makes this necessary and that's what makes enough people mad, having used a pc, to call a Mac simply shit!

[Hendrix]

The logical thing to do would for Apple not to convert the files!!! Why can;t you see that?! You're saying you just have to do this and just have to grab a copy of that.

It's purely Apples proprietary and closed way of doing things that makes this necessary and that's what makes enough people mad, having used a pc, to call a Mac simply shit!

OH NO. Wait? Doesn't windows do that too?

Guess what, it's easy to stop a mac converting anything. Same as it's easy to stop a PC converting things..

Edited October 11, 2008 by Hendrix

[JonMack]

The logical thing to do would for Apple not to convert the files!!! Why can;t you see that?! You're saying you just have to do this and just have to grab a copy of that.

It just renames them, why is that so much of a big deal, the music is RIGHT THERE on the iPod, what else do you need to do to them!?

[Pashley26]

If Apple's OS are so shit to use why have windows changed all of there flag ship OS's GUI's and menus to replicate/take influence from Apple's current OS's.

[Extreme_biker0]

It just renames them, why is that so much of a big deal, the music is RIGHT THERE on the iPod, what else do you need to do to them!?

You still don't get it. I know it works. I've used an iPod. It's just that, why does it do it? Why, when I'm at a mates house, and he wants a copy of my (non-copyrighted) song off my iPod, can I not just connect it up and use the file explorer of the OS to move the file across. Why do Apple insist on bloating everyones (apple and windows) computers with software to transfer music files to the device? Every OS already has a file manager. It's silly and frustrating.

If Apple's OS are so shit to use why have windows changed all of there flag ship OS's GUI's and menus to replicate/take influence from Apple's current OS's.

As hardware advances and is better able to cope with animations and graphics it was the natural progression for all OS's to incorporate these things over time. IF there was any actual sign of plagiarism of ideas by Microsoft do you really think Apple wouldn't have sued Microsoft for IP infringement?

Or are all the guys at Apple just so cool they thought they'd let it slide?!

[Pashley26]

And don't even get me started on virus scans ! All that wasted time and those stupid f**king pop ups !

This argument is now DEAD.

[grant_hundley]

The logical thing to do would for Apple not to convert the files!!! Why can;t you see that?! You're saying you just have to do this and just have to grab a copy of that.

It's purely Apples proprietary and closed way of doing things that makes this necessary and that's what makes enough people mad, having used a pc, to call a Mac simply shit!

i would 'just do that' and 'just grab a copy of that' for a better computer....

windows sucks. its slow, it does a load of shite thats not needed. cant even edit HD on this computer.....

[ZeroMatt]

For anything other than making videos, recording music etc etc pc is the way to go. The hardware in the macs doesn't go anywhere near to justifying the cost and there are limitations as to what you can choose to have in there.

Also 180 quid for a 1Tb hdd in a mac pro lol

[Krisboats]

Which is another part of Apple Inc's genius.

Marketing, something Apple excel at.

You also forgot misinformation.

Apple claim their stuff to be cutting edge, though if you crack one open its just standard pc hardware and quite usually its older tech hardware at that, at the minute apple are selling their 242 imacs with ati 2600 graphics cards built in. Thats 2 generations of cards behind everyone else. Apple are quite simply just another vendor, only they limit what can be done with the machine far more than any other companies do. Apple are exactly the same as sony, toshiba, dell, sharp, mesh etc in that all they are doing is getting some parts and sticking them in a box. The only difference with apple is they fill it with their own software and don't allow users to install anything else unless its under their terms (bootcamp etc).

2.8 ghz dual core

2GB 800mhz RAM

320GB hard drive

24" screen

All for the tidy price of £1,149

Instead of something like this for cheaper and a much better spec.

Apple fail to mention that they use out-dated hardware though and literally provide you with mutton dressed as lamb. Instead of telling you about their things they'd rather slate the opposition.

[Pashley26]

I agree, Macs aren't the best value for money systems out there but some people prefer the feel of a Mac.

For instance, I used to love it when my mac said hello and asked me how I was when I turned it on. I liked the funky graphics and the "Cheeriness" of it all. Which is a nice break from the sharp edges and black boxes of what I was used to.

I think if you like the way a Mac feels you'll never use anything else, but if you like things a bit more technical and "professional (loose term)" then a Mac can only look like a gimmick.

Personal preference, it's the way forwards

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You still don't get it. I know it works. I've used an iPod. It's just that, why does it do it? Why, when I'm at a mates house, and he wants a copy of my (non-copyrighted) song off my iPod, can I not just connect it up and use the file explorer of the OS to move the file across.

That's exactly it, though even if I don't want to transfer my music somewhere else, why does it rename anything at all in the first place? Why can't I just drag a folder full of mp3's onto the ipod without using annoying apple software? That is illogical and backward.

I used to love it when my mac said hello and asked me how I was when I turned it on. I liked the funky graphics and the "Cheeriness" of it all.

See I just find that gimmicky and sad...

Think this has been flogged to death a bit now, thanks to Extreme_Biker0 and Crispoats who seemed to put what I was trying to get at in far fewer posts!

At the end of the day all I can see is that apple are deliberately losing themselves 90% of the computing market by limiting what their mac users can do. If they were to make an OS which had none of its current built in limitations or compatibility issues and started selling pc's which (in theory if what all you lovers are saying is true) would be faster, easier to use etc. then they might be able to command a far bigger share of the market instead of limiting themselves as it seems they love doing... or is that just too logical?!

[JonMack]

The only difference with apple is they fill it with their own software and don't allow users to install anything else unless its under their terms (bootcamp etc).

What does that mean?

At the end of the day all I can see is that apple are deliberately losing themselves 90% of the computing market by limiting what their mac users can do. If they were to make an OS which had none of its current built in limitations or compatibility issues and started selling pc's which (in theory if what all you lovers are saying is true) would be faster, easier to use etc. then they might be able to command a far bigger share of the market instead of limiting themselves as it seems they love doing... or is that just too logical?!

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/07..._pc_vendor.html

It's estimated that they've had somewhere between 31% and 38% growth in the last 12 months, what's that saying?

[Tomm]

Not sure if this is still the case but in a world where 99% of people use Word, although Word is available for macs the file's aren't (or didn't used to be) compatible. Genius.

It's 100% compatible. I think a lot of people are basing their opinions of Macs on facts from about 15 years ago. Windows 3.1 was pretty rubbish too... At that time, a lot of OEM PC manufacturers were using proprietary peripherals/upgrades too (Dell, IBM). The fact is that Macs are compatible with 99% of files and you can do 99% of things, and the hardware is easily upgraded with aftermarket parts. Fair enough, you can't do CAD/CAM too easily in OS X, and there's no great games market either. But on the other hand, there are many pieces of software for Mac that you just can't get a PC equivalent (Final Cut Pro, Aperture are the obvious ones, Quicksilver is my favourite).

The right click thing was an annoyance to me at first, but having used a Mac for a while now, I understand 100% why they do it. 1) OS X doesn't really need right-clicks like PCs do. You can do most things with left clicks. 2) Holding control and clicking (for right click) is just one of several 'modifiers' that OS X uses. E.g. you can hold alt and click to certain things, shift click etc. Having your hands over the left hand side of the keyboard is useful for doing things in OS X quickly (Also it's there for keyboard shortcuts - of which there are loads for OS X). Photoshop uses this method too - ctrl/shift/alt all modify your cursor (depending on the tool you have selected) to allow you to do loads of complex things in a really simple way.

Here's a newsflash - people wouldn't use Macs if they didn't like them. You can call Mac users idiots and vain if you like, but if you truly believe that Mac users just sit in front of their screens feeling smug about themselves, you're wrong.

Also I don't think that complaining about Macs being 'too pretty' or 'too focused on visual effects' can be used as an insult. As humans we are visual creatures. We enjoy flashing lights and animations and pretty things. We go to the cinema, watch TV, enjoy paintings etc. It's in our nature to enjoy these things. Steve Jobs was just very astute in realising this and translating it to PCs. For example, it makes me smile every single time I use Exposé on my Mac. It's just little stuff like that, which makes me enjoy using my Mac.

Dave, you do have a point about iTunes videos/MP3s though. I would question why you're getting so frustrated by it since you presumably don't use it, but that's besides the point. I just got over it to be honest - most of my music is on a network drive so I just use my iTunes library for my iPod and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I can see why Apple have done it like this though - because iTunes does work damn well. I have subscriptions to a load of podcasts, so every week iTunes updates my favourite (BBC) radio programs and I listen to them in the car. Plus there's clever stuff on the newer iPods like coverflow and genius playlists which just wouldn't be compatible with a drag-and-drop system. In my opinion the all-in-one system works brilliantly, but I suppose if you don't like the whole integrated system then I'd suggest you don't buy an iPod. But I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that the only people who buy iPods and Macs are idiots who are enticed by flashy lights.

[Krisboats]

What does that mean?

It means once they've built up their effectively out-dated machine they install their own OSX on it and ship it out telling users that fitting a new hard drive into the machine and running windows only is bad. They also limit anyone else installing OSX on a standard pc because (last i heard) it was illegal to do so. Other vendors don't do that, they build up a better machine and just whack windows on it with no limitations as to what could be done with it.

[Tomm]

It means once they've built up their effectively out-dated machine they install their own OSX on it and ship it out telling users that fitting a new hard drive into the machine and running windows only is bad.

Er yes. But then so do almost every computer manufacturer. "Warranty void if removed" stickers etc etc. Actually Apple are pretty liberal with their attitude to user-upgrades. Just look how easy it is to change the hard drive on a Macbook, for example. How many other brands will allow you to change the hard drive on a laptop without voiding your warranty?

Re: "Outdated" - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-...vista,1985.html

They also limit anyone else installing OSX on a standard pc because (last i heard) it was illegal to do so. Other vendors don't do that, they build up a better machine and just whack windows on it with no limitations as to what could be done with it.

It is illegal to do so, at least at the moment. There are rumours that Apple will (at some point in the mid-term future) release OS X for all PC hardware. At the moment, there's not enough of an incentive. Apple make a lot of money from Hardware sales (after all, they make ~ 8% of all computers), not to mention the fact that it would a lot harder to make a stable OS for all PCs (instead of just Apple's own hardware which they know). Plus a lot of people (like you, and Dave) have pretty massive misconceptions about OS X and what it can do.

If Apple are to release OS X for PCs, it would want to come at a time when they could be assured of a big jump in market share. I think OS X would be a really threat to Windows if everyone knew about the reality of it, and could potentially get > 50% of market share. But it won't at the moment. People are 'locked in' to Windows and they don't want to give anything new a chance - especially not an OS with 'only 1 mouse button'. But people know about iTunes and iPods, and interest for Apple's products is really going up on the back of this.

There has actually been a rumour recently about an Apple product codenamed "the Brick" although no one knows what it is. Some people have been suggesting that "the Brick" could be something to smash Windows - I.e. OS X released on PCs. Maybe this will be announced on Tuesday. I doubt it.

[Krisboats]

Er yes. But then so do almost every computer manufacturer. "Warranty void if removed" stickers etc etc. Actually Apple are pretty liberal with their attitude to user-upgrades. Just look how easy it is to change the hard drive on a Macbook, for example. How many other brands will allow you to change the hard drive on a laptop without voiding your warranty?

Re: "Outdated" - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-...vista,1985.html

It is illegal to do so, at least at the moment. There are rumours that Apple will (at some point in the mid-term future) release OS X for all PC hardware. At the moment, there's not enough of an incentive. Apple make a lot of money from Hardware sales (after all, they make ~ 8% of all computers), not to mention the fact that it would a lot harder to make a stable OS for all PCs (instead of just Apple's own hardware which they know). Plus a lot of people (like you, and Dave) have pretty massive misconceptions about OS X and what it can do.

If Apple are to release OS X for PCs, it would want to come at a time when they could be assured of a big jump in market share. I think OS X would be a really threat to Windows if everyone knew about the reality of it, and could potentially get > 50% of market share. But it won't at the moment. People are 'locked in' to Windows and they don't want to give anything new a chance - especially not an OS with 'only 1 mouse button'. But people know about iTunes and iPods, and interest for Apple's products is really going up on the back of this.

There has actually been a rumour recently about an Apple product codenamed "the Brick" although no one knows what it is. Some people have been suggesting that "the Brick" could be something to smash Windows - I.e. OS X released on PCs. Maybe this will be announced on Tuesday. I doubt it.

I grew up using macs I still have one of the ones that came with a black and white screen and remember how i was amazed by the after dark screen saver application when i was about 5 or 6. I underwent years of my school life right through to my 18th birthday (finally got my own pc) struggling with incompatible software, doing homework on the mac at home and trying to print it out at school having massive problems getting them to read the damn files properly. Having to learn how to use things like quark while i was at primary school because we didn't have anything as simple as word or publisher.

I know exactly what macs can and can't do, and i know which i prefer. I'm not bothered too much by how the operating system looks, i'm not fussed about susceptibility to virus's because i'm usually careful enough to not have any, and i spend my time looking at the screen not the box so i couldn't care less if its shiny and white or (as it currently is) a crappy £15 case with a big fat hole cut in the side for extra fans and a window so i can see what my hardware is doing. I want performance from the hardware for gaming mainly, and i know any pc good enough to game properly is better than any mac for everything else. I also recognise that as apple make their own systems they are going to lose out on hardware sales as soon as a standard family pc version of OSX is released because people won't pay out for crappy hardware in a shiny white box.

[JonMack]

I grew up using macs I still have one of the ones that came with a black and white screen and remember how i was amazed by the after dark screen saver application when i was about 5 or 6. I underwent years of my school life right through to my 18th birthday (finally got my own pc) struggling with incompatible software, doing homework on the mac at home and trying to print it out at school having massive problems getting them to read the damn files properly. Having to learn how to use things like quark while i was at primary school because we didn't have anything as simple as word or publisher.

I know exactly what macs can and can't do, and i know which i prefer. I'm not bothered too much by how the operating system looks, i'm not fussed about susceptibility to virus's because i'm usually careful enough to not have any, and i spend my time looking at the screen not the box so i couldn't care less if its shiny and white or (as it currently is) a crappy £15 case with a big fat hole cut in the side for extra fans and a window so i can see what my hardware is doing. I want performance from the hardware for gaming mainly, and i know any pc good enough to game properly is better than any mac for everything else. I also recognise that as apple make their own systems they are going to lose out on hardware sales as soon as a standard family pc version of OSX is released because people won't pay out for crappy hardware in a shiny white box.

How long ago was that? When you were at primary school and upto the age of 18? I've been using Macs for the last 5 years and even then the OS has improved year after year, it's a bit stupid to base your opinion on machines you used when you were a child. When I was a child, we had a C64, it took years to load games and they used to crash all the time, basically, it was shit, but you don't see me slagging off Xbox's and PS3's because I had a bad experience with a C64. I'm not saying you'd love Macs, but if you actually used one which was released in the last few years, then you might change your mind.

I don't use a mac because the OS is pretty, or the case is pretty, or whatever, infact I was thinking of building up a Hackintosh machine just because it would be cheaper, I use Macs because I prefer the way they work, their stability, and their simplicity. With regards to a gaming setup, echoing what Grant said, what about editing HD footage? I've read that even with high spec PCs it just can't be done? Oh and shiny white box... http://www.apple.com/mac/ Okay then

[Krisboats]

How long ago was that? When you were at primary school and upto the age of 18? I've been using Macs for the last 5 years and even then the OS has improved year after year, it's a bit stupid to base your opinion on machines you used when you were a child. When I was a child, we had a C64, it took years to load games and they used to crash all the time, basically, it was shit, but you don't see me slagging off Xbox's and PS3's because I had a bad experience with a C64. I'm not saying you'd love Macs, but if you actually used one which was released in the last few years, then you might change your mind.

Woah there, i never said i was basing it on how they were back then, I said i'd been using them since then. The last mac we had in the house was a G5 thing for my dad to do his print proofing and sheet designs on. Last time i saw it he was running tiger or panther or something like that and now he's moved it to leopard. I'm pretty sure thats recent enough to have a valid and well rounded opinion.

I don't use a mac because the OS is pretty, or the case is pretty, or whatever, infact I was thinking of building up a Hackintosh machine just because it would be cheaper, I use Macs because I prefer the way they work, their stability, and their simplicity. With regards to a gaming setup, echoing what Grant said, what about editing HD footage? I've read that even with high spec PCs it just can't be done? Oh and shiny white box... http://www.apple.com/mac/ Okay then

Okay i admit, the box for it is more of a satin white than shiny. Sorry :$

I've not heard that HD editing can't be done on a pc, and i can't for the life of me see why it couldn't be? Especially with quad cores and over 4gb of ram being the norm for an average gaming pc nowadays. Premiere and vegas can both do HD i believe, so whats the deal with that? I don't see the mac pro coming out with more than 2gb of ram as standard, and for a lot more money. Whats the big difference?

EDIT: Okay, just had a look at the apple site and spec'ed up a computer very similar to my own. It costs £2,400. Thats ludicrous money! I know for a fact if that can handle HD editing mine can, yet mine was under £600 including screen etc.

[Tomm]

To be fair, if you're into games then (at the moment, at least) there's no point buying a Mac. Similarly if you're really into hardware geekery then again there would be no point. For the other 90% of people, a Mac is a realistic alternative.

EDIT: Okay, just had a look at the apple site and spec'ed up a computer very similar to my own. It costs £2,400. Thats ludicrous money! I know for a fact if that can handle HD editing mine can, yet mine was under £600 including screen etc.

I will refer you to the link I posted earlier. Although it's funny to laugh at the ridiculously high prices on the Apple website, no one actually pays for those upgrades.

Re: "Outdated" - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-...vista,1985.html

shiny white box.

One colour (out of a choice of two) of one Mac (out of six different models) is white? It's been like this for at least 2-3 years. You surely must be able to see that some of your views are based on Macs from 5 years ago, and that they no longer apply? Besides, by Tuesday I don't think you'll see any white Macs

[Krisboats]

One colour (out of a choice of two) of one Mac (out of six different models) is white? It's been like this for at least 2-3 years. You surely must be able to see that some of your views are based on Macs from 5 years ago, and that they no longer apply? Besides, by Tuesday I don't think you'll see any white Macs

I'm speaking about the macs that are readily available to go into a shop and buy. I know the aluminum versions are out, but the white ones are the ones that are mostly in the shops (including the mac shop in leicester). White is the image apple have gone for and unfortunately it sticks. I don't keep up with what the new apples are gonna look like etc, until this thread i didn't even know they were bringing out new ones on tuesday. But from the images on the mac site and the macs you see in everyday life, the white theme is clearly apparant.

The only ones that stand out to me as a consumer for being smarter and less gimmicky are the mac pro and the g5's. They look smarter and more robust than the plasticy type ones.

I will refer you to the link I posted earlier. Although it's funny to laugh at the ridiculously high prices on the Apple website, no one actually pays for those upgrades.

Read through the comments on said article? They pretty much sum up what i would say so go have a read. The review got equally expensive windows based vendors and compared them. It also didn't take into account windows machines having low prices and sales to compete with each other, something apple just doesn't do. It was a very poor and biased article designed to make the apples look better.

[JonMack]

I'm speaking about the macs that are readily available to go into a shop and buy. I know the aluminum versions are out, but the white ones are the ones that are mostly in the shops (including the mac shop in leicester). White is the image apple have gone for and unfortunately it sticks. I don't keep up with what the new apples are gonna look like etc, until this thread i didn't even know they were bringing out new ones on tuesday. But from the images on the mac site and the macs you see in everyday life, the white theme is clearly apparant.

The aluminium iMac has been released since April 2008 meaning the only white computer left is the MacBook, but as Tomm said, they should be going on Tuesday, so if your local Apple store still has white iMacs in then they're outta date.

But people associate white with clean, and that's the image Apple is going for, clean, simple, usable computers, which is what I think they are.

[mr ailsbury]

The aluminium iMac has been released since April 2008 meaning the only white computer left is the MacBook, but as Tomm said, they should be going on Tuesday, so if your local Apple store still has white iMacs in then they're outta date.

But people associate white with clean, and that's the image Apple is going for, clean, simple, usable computers, which is what I think they are.

Got my aluminium imac in like october/november last yearrr