Ok, hi people. I am totally all for Mac, but most people are stuck on Windows, and thats like sad... So yea, How many Create Bloggers have made the switch to Mac? And if your still on windows...WHY?!



...yea this is a lame topic, I bet no one really cares...but oh well..


MAC > Windows

I've been using Macs since 1994, and before that I exclusively used Apple IIe's, so I haven't really switched from Windows--although I do have a few PC's running Windows, too, and a computer running Linux, which I use mostly as a router these days.

I love Macs; they keep technology beautiful

but I haven't had one since the first G4; they've gotten a bit expensive for everyday usage.

http://www.apple.com/macmini/

$500 is not that expensive.

I'd buy it if I wasn't saving up money for other things. I really need to get a job.

The Mini isn't really a great computer, though, and there's no room for expansion.

you can expand the mini a little, and it is a decent machine if you get the high end.

i use Macs at work, but I have a PC at home. I like them both, but I like Mac OS better than Windows.

Of course, I hate windows with an extreme passion....>.>

^.^

How can you expand it? You can replace one stick of RAM, but even that's a pain in the ass.

didn't say it was easy. ^.~

you can swap out bits and pieces. upgrading rather than expanding, i suppose.

*shrug*

I suck at communicating.

I want a mini, though. They are decent enough machines for what I do. I don't game or anything, you see. ^.~

Yea, Mac Mini is ok for just using it for everyday stuff.

I to extremely hate windows. And I paid 2,200 to get out of windows. It was totally worth it!

So yea. Yay for Apple and Os X

you know you could have just used linux, and you would have saved $2200.

Except that, in terms of a desktop OS, OS X is far more mature and useable than Linux at this stage.

a bike is more matured and useable than a car.

does that mean it's better?
(now that OS X moves to intel it's biggest downfall is it can't be installed on existing computers)

(they should make a mac that fits in a 5.25 drive bay and uses existing stuff)

(i don't think it can be done)

Bah, Ubuntu/Kubuntu are easy enough for the average person to use/install and understand.

Compiling software from source is easy for the average person to understand? I think not. Linux itself might be easily installed with some distributions, but adding additional software can be a pain in the ass. Adding hardware can be a pain, too. Drivers can be hard to find. For example, if you have an ATI graphics card, it can be a pain in the ass to get it working, especially if its "old". (That is but one example.)

well, macs aren't nessicarily better. they just make you buy all new hardware if you want to switch- i don't see that as ease of compatibility.

My post mentioned OS X because it was specifically being talked about; I meant to say that Windows and OS X are far more mature and functional than Linux is for the desktop at this point in time.

Of course, I have an old computer running Linux as a router, and it works great for that duty.

What software does the average user need that isn't already included in KDE?

I tried linux. But, there is not nearly enough software for it. No adobe.

also, I really don't find Linux to be as much of a pleasure to use. I really enjoy Mac. I don't think Linux is really supported enough by 3rd party companys like Adobe right now.



Yea. I still love my G5, and as far as moving to Intel. It is going to be a very gradual move. For a while there will be a choice. Intel and IBM based computers as well as a Intel or IBM OS X. And then slowly the IBM computers will kinda go away. Personaly I think it is a good move. Macs will become so much cheaper now and they will get a wider user base because of that.

If you use a Linux-based computer for more than just a few basic things, you will need to get other software.

Here's a short, incomplete list of some software I use on my Unix terminal at work, and my Linux box at home:

1. Router software
2. gcc
3. Blue Fish
4. GNUplot
5. gzip/gunzip
6. tar
7. chmod
8. chown
9. emacs

Now a lot of that stuff is things that don't work at all similarly to Windows, like a lot of KDE apps do, but they're things you have to use. Using a Linux box will force you to move out of the supplied apps eventually, once you've used it a while.

The problem with Linux is that it is not as mature as OS X or Windows. Part of that is due to its lack of standards. An application written for GNOME, for example, may or may not function properly under KDE, and vice versa--even though it's a Linux application. Some applications might not allow something as simple as cut-and-paste functions to work across applications. And have you ever tried installing new fonts under Linux? It can be a real bitch to get them to work right in all applications.

Granted, Linux is on its way--it's growing--but I don't think it's there yet. It's great for a lot of server/high-performance workstation apps, but I don't think it's worked its way into desktop apps yet--although it is making inroads.

Of course, the reason I prefer OS X is because it packages the power and stability of BSD (similar to Linux)--not to mention all the cool command-line tools--into an operating system that is simple to use and just works. And, hey, if I find a cool Linux app, I can probably get it to run under OS X's X11 system, too.

I had a friend who's hard drive failed, so I gave him a Knoppix disc to use while he was waiting for a new drive. He was able to use it for what he needed without needing any new software (this was even while school was in session!). Everything he needed was supplied by KDE and the distro.



What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength. The beauty of multiple distros is the range of choices. Don't like gnome? Pick a distro with KDE, or vice versa.



K/Ubuntu is probably going to be the distro that makes Linux hit critical mass for the average desktop user. The only thing holding it back is the lack of apps that people recognize. And Microsoft's campaign to discredit Linux isn't helping either.

I understand what you're saying though. The reason's you've cited are why I don't have linux currently installed (seeing a bootloader would make my family panic as well). I'm waiting till next year for next Mac OS to come out for x86 so I can really try it out for myself (the last mac I used was a G3).

macs are better.. cause.. windows is.. fragile.... to put it nicely

I'd choose a Macintosh over a Windows.

Perhaps if you are doing basic word processing and basic Internet stuff (IM, email, web) you can do it without any additional applications, but if you used a Linux computer full-time, you'd eventually grow beyond that (I hope). I mean, you've added programs to your PC, haven't you? It's highly unlikely a distro would have all the programs to suit your needs included. If it does, you're probably not doing a whole lot with your computer, and in that case, any computer would suit your needs.

The problem in Linux arises in getting more software. Sure, it's easy to find, but often it's packaged as source, requiring a compile (which can take a lot of time for large programs). Even compiling can be a pain in the neck, especially if you encounter errors due to a lack of certain libraries. Some package-management solutions in some distros have alleviated most of those problems, but it's still not as easy as downloading and installing software on Windows or the Macintosh.


The availability of options in Linux is one of its strengths, but paradoxically, it's also one of its flaws. The problem is that I can get a program for "Linux" and install it on my Linux box, and it may not work. Why not? Well, what if its written for KDE and uses, say, kdelib or the Qt widget set. I don't have KDE on my computer, so I can't use that program--even though it runs in Linux. Similarly, a program designed for GNOME uses the GNOME libraries and the Gtk widget set, which won't work properly if you don't have GNOME installed.

So in the end you have a system with a number of different API's, which gets annoying to write software for, because who knows what API's the end-user will have. It gets annoying to get software for the system, too, because then you try to compile it and end up with a bunch of dependency failures because you don't have the right libraries.

Alternatively, on Windows or OS X, a developer knows exactly what his end-user will have in terms of libraries and API's. A Windows developer knows that a program written in the Win32 API will run under Windows. An OS X developer has more leeway--his end-user will have four API's: Cocoa, Carbon, BSD, and Java. Any application written in those API's will run under OS X.

A Linux developer...he has no idea what the configuration of the end-user's machine will be. So in the end, that which is a great strength of Linux--its customizability, is in turn its greatest downfall. Hardcore computer users love customizability, yes, but the average consumer? He just wants a box that will work. He'll be happy with what he gets, as long as it does the job. Unfortunately, Linux doesn't always do the job, or at least not easily.

I also don't look at the open-source model as a great strength for Linux in terms of getting it onto the desktop. It's a great idea, but the average user doesn't care about that--the average user isn't going to fiddle with code. Honestly, kryo, how often have you taken apart KDE, or Firefox, or any other program, and changed the code around to fix something? I'm making an assumption here, which is dangerous, but I am willing to bet it hasn't been that often, if ever. Many users tout the advantages of the open-source model on Linux, but they don't do a good job selling it--because the average computer user doesn't care about being able to take apart and modify his software. As a programmer, I like the open-source model--but hey, a large percentage of OS X's software is open source (including the entire kernel and many other components of the OS) so I get to play around with source code on OS X, anyway.

Wow, i remember having to defend me using a Mac about a year ago. It was on this very section of the forum. Now i see there are many who have switched.

A big reason is that Apple is switching from PPC to x86. That means we won't need new hardware.

I'll get to you in two days mipadi.

Whoa. this topic really grew.





Yea, I totally agree with that. Today as a matter of fact, I was on my brothers brandy new Dell Laptop that he got for collage, I started setting it up for him, and Windows crashed while running only its Network set up utility. Pethetic

Well, OS X will only run on Apple-branded Intel machines--at least, at first it will...


Okely dokely, neighbor.

so, for now, OSx is hindered by the fact that you need new hardware.

it costs you probably 2000 bucks or more to switch to OSx and 0 dollars to swtich to linux...

Sorry, I still prefer Windows. Macs just make me uncomfortable when I use them, I'm not sure why.

Well my dad isn't here to enforce the computer ban on me today, so here I am.



Can't really argue with you here. If I did, I wouldn't be a real computer user.



I have a lack of experience with multiple distros (in fact, I've never used a gnome based distro, only a few KDE based ones), so I cannot argue here.



Yeah, it's a double edged sword.



I've gone into some programs like MAME and put // in front of some lines to comment out some things I didn't want, but I've never actually done any real programming on any open source projects. But that isn't why I like open source. I like open source because it's free, and problems can be fixed very quickly.

Like I said before, the thing stopping me from adopting OS X is the price of the hardware. Once it is out for x86, i'm going to give it a spin.



Rumor is, the leaked copies of OS X work even with AMD processors.

And my question is how long have you been usen mac? There was a point in time where Mac OS's were like Linux and Unix, very little software for em. And well look how mac is now. So I say give linux some time.

Apple may or may not have internal copies of OS X than run on generic PC hardware--that's something I can't speculate on. Such a copy is likely in existence. Since AMD chips support the x86 instruction set, it's entirely possible; however, Apple has stated they will use something to keep OS X from running on generic PC hardware. Several options exist, the likely being an onboard chip or hardware dongle that OS X's bootloader checks for on startup.

Will Apple continue to produce OS X in this fashion? I haven't heard anything solid either way, but I am inclined to believe that they will eventually release OS X for commodity x86 hardware. I doubt they'll announce that until they've gotten a few Intel-based Macs on the market, though (doing otherwise would severely hurt their hardware sales in the interim).

Eventually, someone will crack OS X to run on generic PC hardware. If nothing else, Apple will release OS X for generic PC hardware, if only to recoup losses from piracy.

One Macintosh site, said the apple intel computer will come with a boot loader that checks for a special chip. However, its likely this won't last long, considering it has been said the designer kits are able to run on generic pc hardware with a little effort.

Apple is not run by stupid people. Releasing Mac Os X for generic pcs will eventually happen, and when it does. Windows is toast.


and there will be celebrations through the world because no one has to deal with the horrible windows interface ever again.

The copy of OS X-x86 shipped to developer's was not able to run on generic PC hardware.

apple's not stupid. their computers cost more, like 500 bucks. people are less inclined to play 500 bucks for just better looks if they can get OS x on a cheaper dell.

It's not just "better looks"; Macs are engineered better than Dells, and if you compare the setups, including the software that each computer ships with, the prices are roughly even.

but you're looking at the software.

apple will make more money off thier computers than licenscing OSx, unless they charge high royalties.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; what you you mean, "but you're looking at software", and "apple will make more money off thier computers than licensing OSx"?

macs are better becasue of the software... mac hardware has always cost more, because you jsut had to use that for the software. if OSx is licensced, then macs loose the software advantage, and all you're paying more for is the better looking design.

I think Apple could still sell hardware, even if they licensed OS X. The software has always been a strength, but PowerBooks and Power Macs are very well-designed and built.

Everybody like's apple for their sleek style but I still like the functionality and freedom of a PC.

no doubt they're well designed and built, but they also cost more, just for the design.

i mean, macs do look good and all, but a PC could be made that looked like it for probably 300 bucks less (not counting the mini)

I have a PC, and that's what I'm familiar with, but we have a lot of iMac G5's at college, so I'm looking forward to using those =]

If you broke down a Dell and compared it to a mac, and then took em and threw em, and dropped em down stairs, or shook it till it died. The dell would last longer. To say a Mac is engineered better than a Dell is ridicules. If I took a mac Mini and opened it up, and tryd to explain how to replace a stick of ram over the phone it would take hours. (I know, I had to try it.) Now a Dell computer can be completely rebuilt by a grandmother with the assistance of a Dell technical support agent over the phone. And if they must, they will send a Dell support agent to you house and do it for you. Mac, never. I had my Mac mini for a day or two, took it out of the box – set it up and BOOM memory error. I called mac and the least they could do was send me a stick of ram and explain to me how to fix it over the phone. That was hell on ice. I didn’t want the peace. I had to pitch a bi**h to ship it to them and fix it. EVEN THOUGH, the warranty I bought with the Mac included them paying for shipping to them, well that never happened. As I look at it, there support is shit, and they can not back there product. That’s why I dislike Macintosh so much. And don’t try to convince me that the mac mini is low line and I should have spent more money so something the same could of happened. I could order a $299.00 Dell and it would run like a dream. (For like my mom or something)

I guess your mileage may vary. I'm not a fan of Dells; we deploy a lot of Dell units where I work, and we have a lot of problems with them. I have two at home, and I'm not a huge fan of them. Dells aren't really known in the industry for being "good"; they're known for being cheap. There's a reason they are so cheap. I'm not also a fan of their tech suppot, considering I can never understand what their technicians are trying to say.

I don't know much about the Mini (although I know it's not meant to be user-serviceable, which is why I am, admittedly, skeptical of your claim that an Apple-certified technician told you to open it up), but having used PowerBooks and Power Macs quite a bit, I stick to my claim that they are of a much higher quality than Dells. But I don't know about the Mini--I just know it is pretty low-end, and once again, there's a reason it is cheap. A lot of people who own low-end Macs have problems with them from time to time (just as a lot of people who own low-end anything--even Dells, or maybe especially Dells--have trouble). On the bright side, at least Apple's technicians are Americans who speak English, so you can understand them over the phone.

I can see what your talking about, but I compare them like the $299 to the Mini, and the Dell XPS Gen 2 Game PC to the G4 (which it has the Intel Extreme D proc, who is gunna use all that) but I still stand behind my claim on the Dells, I own the Dell XPS Gen 2 notebook and a Dell XPS Gen 2 Game PC. And as for the claim of Apple's technicians are Americans who speak English, Dell has American Technical support, for buisness and Gamen PCs, I have never spoke to there tech support in India. I mean if you think about it, its a good idea, maybe not for the consumer, but for the company it is. Dell saves, last time I read about it, they save about 59.2 million a year with there tech support in India. But I get American tech support with the notebook and desktop I own. And if you complain to the general floor manager they will transfer you to a tech support agent in the US.

well, it doesn't have to be a dell.

you can find comparable PCs for 300 bucks less, the only thing is the form factor is different.

if you can get OSx on those comparable PCs and they cose 300 bucks less than the comparable macs, which one will more people buy?

i mean, compare alienwares and dells. which one sells more? which one is better?

ack. I hate Dell.. My brother and Mom have Dell laptops and they both are horrid little machines. Even if you forget about windows. My moms is always having problems, my brothers too. I don't really see Dell as having alot of "quality" in their laptops. As far as their Desktops go... I have no Idea. But yea. If Apple continues to design such amazing hardware, I would still buy Apple Brand computers. I mean common.. What would you rather look at.. A dell, or an I-mac?

i have a 6 or 7 year old dell desktop that's broken down once, and that was the CD drive and they replaced it free of charge, not even shipping.

we've had windows problems, but not hardware problems with it.

i don't have any dell laptop- all my laptops are toshiba. they work nicely- we have a 9 year old toshiba that still runs the same as the day we bought it. except for my sister's, and that's becasue she abuses it. a lot.

windows hasn't given any BSOD on any of the XPs we have, and it usually works fine.

i think the biggest detterant to switchers, besides the price of a mac, is tha fact that they fear they'll have to relearn where everything is.

Dell Laptops are at the top of the market now adays. The XPS Gen 2 was rated the best gaming laptop by PC Magazine, they bear Alienware by leaps and bounds. I've found Dell laptops to be more user friendly than any other laptop I have owned. I have had HP, Compaq (yuck), Acer (which in my words is the second best to Dell), IBM, Gateway, and last but not least a old Power Book that had OS 8 and like 233 mhz. It was my dads old laptop for work, but then they got him a iBook.