^i agree with michael. and wtf at that internet bill.



and @ illriginal, yeah i have no doubt that you could build a computer with more badass specs than mine for the same price. i get where you are coming from but eh, at the end of the day i don't really care if my specs are the best ever. most normal computer using people, we don't even want to mess with or spend the time building a computer. i wanna click order, get my computer, open it and use it, and it work without giving me problems. which is what my mac has been for the last few years to me. it's been worth every penny of 1500ish or whatever i paid for it.

The main reason I got a fast internet connection is because I have two web servers, eight game servers, two Ventrilo servers, an IRC server, and mirror for the FacepunchStudios Distro that's in development.
Download is just an added bonus, I got that shit primarily for the upload speed.


I just don't think you get what I'm saying. For what it is, OS X is f*cking expensive. Solaris is UNIX, and it's only $30. OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, Fedora, all free. I don't see an open source version of OS X anywhere, but if I did, I would certainly have a copy.

And what can you do on OS X that you can't do just as easily (if not, easier) on an OS like Ubuntu?

It's not priorities, it's preference.

The thing is, mac is the best of both worlds. You guys say, it is just like linux, safe and light, and it has all the support for software that windows has. And the fact that they are extremely visually pleasing is a plus. O and it is true that apple is know for being very generous when it comes to customer service.

O and on a pc, you came make the battery last 60% percent longer by using the windows classic theme. But then it looks like poop, so mac is in favor again.

wat?

Quoted for f*cking truth. The day my kid asks me to pay anything close to that for internet access is the day I tell him to pay for it his damn self. LOL

And after reading all the mumbo jumbo in this thread, it really boils down to personal preference. I know, dumb it down much? I don't have the time, energy or money to spend a great deal on a system and I totally admit that I don't know much about this subject. I can give the layman's opinion though. I own a PC because it's easier and more practical for my lifestyle and needs. If I was hot and heavy about designing, I might think otherwise. Or into modeling. A friend of mine does this 3D modeling stuff and he swears by Macs.

I did that once.


And that was the first time I died.


I pay the difference. We were paying $75 before, so I'm paying around $630.

You should get the mac!! its so worth the money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7eU_CUIerQ



Watch it. PS: Chris now uses a mac.

I still don't get how it's expensive. OS X Leopard is only $60 with a student discount right now. Windows Vista is at least twice that price, the last time I checked. And the good news is that you can install os x on multiple macs - there's no limit. It would suck if you had to pay more for something just so you could install it on a few more computers. ;'[ And I really think what you get with a os x, however "miniscule" the amount is, is worth the money. But hey, everyone has a different view on what is worth their money.

Oh yea and I paid $1100 for my macbook, and it wasn't the base model at the time, either. I think it's worth my money considering the mobility of it.

P.S. my friend's Lenovo - he's had it for less than a year - has poor battery life, despite the amount of money it costs. It's a gaming laptop, but when he's just using it for school, he's often struggling to get it to last more than an hour.

I've had problems with Dell before. And I am fortunate enough to live in a city where the nearest apple store is 10 miles away from my house, and another apple store that is 5 miles away from my university. Dell has pretty bad customer service from what I've heard from others, and what I have experienced. Everyone has different experiences, but I'm glad that my macbook hasn't crapped out on me just yet. My battery life is still the same as it was two years ago AND I use my laptop every day for random stuff.

P.S. - Who needs to pay hefty prices for internet access when I can just mooch off my uni's wifi? I rarely torrent anyway.

mothaf*ckas, its called aesthetics, and yes thats the answer to every question

that's the gayest crap i've seen from him.

But this will make you lol

I'm not talking student discounts, or Microsoft. For UNIX, OS X is ridiculously expensive.

Also, Vista is ridiculously expensive too.

^ Do you think Adobe Photoshop is ridiculously expensive? Just wondering.

Yes, that's why so few people buy it full price.

No, I get what you're saying. But you should refer to my earlier post, because you're still making an argument about capabilities that amounts to little more than a straw-man argument.

Let's look at your Internet connection issue again. Sure, you could run a couple web servers, a Ventrilo server, etc., from a cable connection -- but it wouldn't be very pleasant. Likewise, I could surf the Internet, write documents, program, etc., from a cheap laptop running Linux, but it wouldn't be as nice as doing it on a Mac.

Look at something as simple as instant messaging. On Linux, Windows, Solaris, BSD, etc., you can use Pidgin; on a Mac, Adium is the premier IM client. These two pieces of software even share a codebase, but no one mistakes one for the other, because pretty much everyone agrees that Adium is a much better piece of software. Each perform the same task, but Adium does it better.

Finally, to argue that OS X is basically the same as Solaris or Ubuntu because they're all Unix-like is a bit of a straw-man argument in and of itself. OS X has a lot of polish that's lacking in other Unix-like operating systems. It also includes a lot of libraries (Objective-C/Cocoa, for example) that aren't available on other platforms, which means that while OS X can fairly easily run software targeted at Linux, BSD, or Solaris, a lot of software targeted at OS X simply won't run on those other platforms. Looking at my Dock, frequent programs I use that only run on a Mac include Apple Mail, Newsfire, iCal, Apple Address Book, and TextMate.

(Actually, TextMate is another good example of something that's better on a Mac: it's written by a former Unix programmer who loved Emacs and wanted a better Emacs for the Mac. And TextMate follows a lot of the same design philosophy as Emacs, but is leaps and bounds ahead of anything Emacs is doing. Programmers who use both Emacs and TextMate almost universally agree that TextMate is way, way better than Emacs.)

So I think that your argument about capabilities, and your assertion that OS X is exactly like Linux and Solaris but more expensive, are both unfair because they gloss over the actual issues that illustrate differences between the platforms. Of course, aesthetics may not be important to you, but that doesn't mean they're not important at all, and you can't just write them off as trivial.

I understand what you're saying. To be honest [ Vista | Ubuntu ] really doesn't look bad enough for me to justify spending 2x as much to get something that can do the same thing. Let's face it, Vista is not an ugly OS. At least in my opinion, OSX not as nice as it is expensive. Anyway, Apple doesn't kill you on the initial price of the computer. They hammer you with moolah when you decide to upgrade your MAC.

I just got shivers.


If they don't kill you with the cost of the computer... I would hate to see how much it costs to upgrade.

Meh. I'm not even aware that you can really take a Mac to Apple for "upgrades". I've always just bought a hard drive/RAM/whatever from NewEgg and popped it in.

Unless Uronacid means the OS...in which case you generally have to pay for OS upgrades for commercial OSes, even in the Windows world. (Luckily, though, Apple doesn't release major upgrades on a yearly basis like they used to.)

Apple doesn't use cd keys though, making it easy for you to upgrade without paying a cent and end up not having to worry about validation thirty days later.

I was referring to the upgrades you would purchase along with the initial computer. For example, the base Mac Mini computer comes with 120GB HDD. To add a 320GB HDD it will cost you an extra $175.00 more than a 120GB HDD. Now, I'm 100% sure that these aren't 10,000 RPM HDDs as they're laptop HDDs on the MAC mini... Standard laptop HDDs come with 5400 RPM but we'll kick it up a notch at 7200 RPM because this is Apple.

Fujitsu 320GB 7200 RPM HDD $70.00

$175.00 on top of the initial cost of a 120GB HDD is a f*cking rip off.

How about the upgrade from a 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Dou to a 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Dou processor for $175.00 (a totally unnecessary upgrade, but f*ck it... lets compare.) Well, this is somewhat difficult because it's a laptop processor to keep this thing from over heating, but I know sure as shit this thing is marked up at least triple.

You can get a bad ass 3.0 GHz, 3MB Cache, and 1333 FSB Core 2 Dou processor for 165.00 at Newegg. Give me a break...

I don't think anyone's arguing that a Mac is cheaper than a bargain-basement PC, or that Apple doesn't gouge you on (some) build-to-order options.

Plus Apple gouges on the upgrades for a Mac Mini because you kind of have to upgrade since you're stuck with what you got; the upgrades on, e.g., a Mac Pro are cheaper. I think the Mac Mini is a piece of crap anyway, and wouldn't argue that it's much of a "deal".

(Dell has some pretty ridiculous upgrade options though, too. Like, if you want Windows XP instead of Vista on a Dell desktop, you have to pay $150 more. That seems like kind of a rip-off.)


So what's your point? That you can build a PC from parts cheaper? Cool -- at the end of the day, you're still running Windows/Linux/whatever.*



* My point, again, goes back to the earlier post I made. Some people might be perfectly happy with Windows/Linux/whatever. Point is, a computer is more than just specs (and price), and when you buy a Mac, you're buying more than just specs.

What is worth buying from Apple? To be honest, the mini mac is the only computer from Apple that I would be able to use with out feeling like I'm wasting my money on something that can accomplish so much more than email, pictures, internet, and movies. I don't need an over kill computer for what I would do with a mac..

What more are you buying than just specs?... Mac has a well paid employment force. Linux devs don't. Mac is barely any better than Linux.

I didn't use bargain basement prices I could have gone a lot cheaper with a 5400 RPM HDD... about half as much



The WinXP "Upgrade" pricing has nothing to do with the manufacturer. -_-





There is only one computer form Apple I would even think about purchasing. The 999.99 white MacBook with base specs. That computer has reasonable specs for the cost + pretty OS, but the only reason is because other manufacturers just haven't jumped on board with the NVidia ION platform yet. Apple is the first manufacturer to utilize the ION platform and it nearly slashed prices in half when they used the GeForce 9400 in their lines. :/

I think you hold a minority opinion in that regard.

I've been involved with the computer science departments at both Bucknell University (where I did undergrad) and The College of William & Mary (where I did some graduate work). W&M uses OpenSUSE Linux on Dells for their lab machines; until 2005, Bucknell used Solaris and SPARCs in their labs, but they migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Dells in '05. Historically, most professors at Bucknell have used either a SPARCstation or a Linux workstation as their office machines, and most profs at W&M have used Linux workstations. But in the past 3-5 years, most professors at both schools have migrated to using Macs. I only know of 2 profs at Bucknell who still use Solaris/SPARCs, and W&M only has a couple profs who don't use Macs. Bucknell also had a pretty good legion of student Linux users, but I know a bunch of students who bought Macs to replace their Linux machines, and now the Linux Users Group at Bucknell is practically dead, whereas the Mac Users Group has a pretty strong following.

And that trend isn't unique to the comp sci departments. Math and physics professors generally have a strong affinity for Linux, but at W&M, almost all the math profs use Macs now, and most of the math dept. at Bucknell uses Macs, too. And I personally know of one chemistry professor at Bucknell who was a diehard Linux user for over a decade, until he learned about Fink; he's switched over to the Mac, too.

Even looking at more national trends, a lot of high-profile Linux users/developers have switched to Macs in the last couple of years (search Google, many of them have written blog posts about it). A few Mac users (notably Cory Doctorow) have switched over to Linux, but the migration from Mac to Linux is barely a trickle.

Of course, popularity means jack-shit anyway. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.



To be clear, I'm not trying to make an argument that you or anyone else should like Macs, because I don't care what you use. You can use whatever you want. But if you phrase it as an absolute like "Mac is barely any better than Linux", rather than "I personally prefer Linux to a Mac because...", then you should at least try to support your assertion. I understand that personal preference isn't something you're really obligated to justify, but that goes back to my whole point that the real issue here is preference, not a matter of specs, capability, or whatever.



On a more personal note, I'm inclined to believe that you're making that assertion because you somehow think it gives you "geek cred" to prefer Linux. Seriously, the wanking over Linux in this forum is insane, esp. since most of the Linux wankers here probably have little personal experience with Linux (i.e., less than a year or two). I mean, Linux is cool, but to be honest, it's not that awesome. And using obscure or "complicated" OSes doesn't make a person "cool". I mean, even a 9-year-old can install Ubuntu on his PC. It's not that hard.