macintosh vs. microsoft ?

LOL i choose um, what are we talking about ?. I use freebsd I don't use windows or mac.

I use Windows. I'd rather use Linux but I'm addicted to Windows. Too many programs I need

Macs are great and fun but I like PC's better.

I would get a Mac, but they are too expensive to buy for private use.

Originally posted by paulewog
I use Windows. I'd rather use Linux but I'm addicted to Windows. Too many programs I need

Macs are great and fun but I like PC's better.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, When I used to play games alot I would use windows but the only game I play now is Unreal Tournament 2003 and its for linux/unix now. So there is no need for windows or mac for me.

Thats right seesaw and paulewog. They always make all major games for the PC and if the sales are good, they will consider making it for the Macintosh. Applications also make up a good reason. Its also popular and common. Pity my friends have a lot of nasty things to say about Microsoft but support the not so user-friendly linux.

Jag

Originally posted by Lacmeh
I would get a Mac, but they are too expensive to buy for private use.

Click to expand...

While that may have been true 5-10 years ago, it is no longer true. If you look at comparable capabilities, you will discover that Macs are at least as cheap as PCs.

I use Windows 2000 at work with Excel 2002 and Access 2000 for analyst - everyday. But I come home to enjoy working with my computer, not against it. Yes, I have Office 2001 for the Mac, but I have found there are better programs available that do not force me to work MS's way, and for a lot less money. And as far as programs, for most people, the same major programs are available on both platforms. And at latest tally, there are > 18,000 Mac programs (wasn't that the claim of Windows advocates?). So, how many word processors on the Windows side does a person need - and use?

All written with humor and teasing - there are far more serious things to get upset about.

DNAunion: I would be worried about lack of support in the future if I went with a Mac. Market share is all on the WinTel side.

What about having to learn things all over again? Most people have been "weened" on WinTel, and I doubt you could get very far in business computing without having to know WinTel - though you COULD get far without knowing Mac stuff.

Now I don't know much about Mac's, so take the following with a grain of salt.

Someone said that Mac has versions of whatever you use for Windows. That may be true, but do they interoperate as well? For example, I can open an Excel spreadsheet, write some VBA code, and pull back information from a Visual FoxPro or SQL Server database and plug it into cells in the spreadsheet. Can you do that kind of thing on Macs? What about very popular MS things like ActiveX controls ... are they supported on Macs? And since most businesses use MS Office, what if you receive an Excel spreadsheet with a VBA macro in it (from a trusted source, of course)... will it run on a Mac?

Are WinTel computers better than Macs? Not that I am aware of. WinTel's crash more frequently, from what I've heard (and my experience seems to bear out). And for years WinTel's were behind in graphics/multimedia capabilities (unsure if that STILL holds or not).

But I would still go for a WinTel system over a Mac.

I'm platform-agnostic. I have a mac, which I use for finances and other stuff where the random data loss and privacy problems of Microsoft wouldn't be okay. Microsoft just won a "lifetime achievement" award from the Big Brother people for destroying user privacy; of particular note is their stated plan to eventually eliminate the ability of users to block Microsoft from accessing their systems.

Of course, all the real work gets done on Unix.

As to the interoperation thing... Macs are about as good at it as Windows, better in some ways, worse in others. Not all Windows things run on Macs - but there are lots of things you can do on the Mac that you can't do on Windows.

My understanding is that most Office stuff is interchangeable between the various versions, at least as much as it is in Wintel land - keep in mind that, if you and a friend don't have the same year's version of Office, you face data corruption and random problems on Wintel systems too.

Regarding the business applicablity of Macs, yes, you can do the same things. The one difference is that MS Access is one program not available on the Mac. But there is FileMaker Pro.

So far, anything I have done with Excel including writing macros I can do with the Mac. I have been able to take the most complicated Excel 2002 work and open and use them on Excel 2001 (pre-OS X) on the Mac. And Excel v. X (OS X version) is supposed to be better.

Again some speciality apps that for a vertical market are indeed Windows only. But that too is changing.

And the latest rave among Unix and Linux geeks? They are switching to Mac OS X because of the Unix underpinnings of the operating system. Thus, many Unix programs are being re-compiled and run great on Mac OS X. In fact, I read in InfoWorld or NetWork World this last week that one of the premier programmers of Unix/Linux has switched to Macs - and has made the statement (not verbatum) - "This is what Linux should have been in a few years from now."

seebs: ... keep in mind that, if you and a friend don't have the same year's version of Office, you face data corruption and random problems on Wintel systems too.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: Indeed. Some of the VB macros I mentioned earlier run perfectly in Office 97 but throw errors in Office 2000. Someone else here at work had the same problem with her VB macros.

Another thing that kills me a about MS is the way they never leave anything alone.

Ever since Windows came out there had been a univeral and simple c:\windows\desktop\ directory (or folder, as MS calls them now). Copy something into this folde and it shows up on your desktop. I used this commonality to code programs to put output files such as spreadsheets onto the desktop. It makes it easy to drag and drop them into e-mails and they don't hang around as long (putting them in any old directory tends to lead to pile up - putting them on your desktop tends to lead to your deleting them immediately after their use since you don't let your desktop get cluttered). But then along comes Windows 2000 and bam!, away goes c:\windows\desktop\. I had to go back an recode multiple dozens of programs - scattered across the network - to place output files to another directory (where things now have a tendency to pile up).

Also, MS's new desktop path contains embedded spaces. Instead of simply the universal c:\windows\desktop\, it is now c:\documents and settings\<user name>\desktop\. Embedded blanks and user-specific. Many older programming languages and versions - such as those prior to 1995 - don't accept embedded blanks in path names (thankfully, all of mine do).

I also had to setup a ODBC DNS on a new Windows machine. I went into Control Panel and the ODBC icon ain't there no more. So I wrote an e-mail to our network administrator asking for help, but before he responded, I found that the ODBC icon in another location. I still got ribbed a bit for being dumb.

To find out your computer's identity on the network, in Windows 95 and 98 you right-clicked on Network Neighborhood and then went to properties. But in Windows 2000, you right-click on My Machine and go to properties.

And a bit different, but in Windows 95 and 98 I can select 2,000 files to delete from a folder and they are gone in 5 seconds. In Windows 2,000 it takes about 2 minutes.

And as far as MS programming goes, anybody work in VB? To access data in VB4 you used DAO - Data Access Objects, an object model that allowed access and manipultion ot Jet Engine databases. But then MS moved to RDO - Remote Data Objects, which required you to relearn much about accessing data. Then MS moved to ADO - ActiveX Data Objects, and you were once again forced to abandon just about everything you learned in DAO and to start learning a new method.

And I am sure that many others have many other such nuisance changes between version of MS products.

MS irritate me, but I'm stuck with them.

Macs were designed for graphics; PCs were designed for servers, command-line stuff, etc. When you run Windows, your computer is trying to pull off something it wasn't designed for.

Of course, we should all thank Microsoft for managing to do that successfully

I had to go with windows. Can't do Macs even though I like them. I'm the kind of guy that is continualy upgrading my computer myself, a piece here, a piece there-- it's the same computer as I had back in 1995, it's just that none of the parts are original and it's on it's 6th iteration of windows . You just can't do that kind of thing with a mac.

Hey friends, funny thing I just came to know about this article about Mac bashing. There were some saving moments but this article kinda made sense to me. Here is some of the juice:

Don't get us wrong, Steve Jobs makes excellent computers. Macs are extremely user-friendly and quite stylish. They are fully functional right out of the box. Great for design work and the graphic artist. But if they are so great, then why don't they have the most share of the market? It is clear that Jobs has targeted a certain market. Too bad the rest of us are not included in their strategy. Too bad for them that is. Better for us.

Firstly, Jobs keeps making the same mistake over and over. He builds these cute little machines that are design marvels. They even work pretty well. But they are not upgradeable. We want to be able to yank old hard drive and slap it in a new machine and have all the stuff there. Mac's are like a bagpipe to an octopus. An octopus cannot figure out whether to play it or date it.

Secondly, they are expensive. Expensive to buy, expensive to own, expensive to upgrade. For the initial cost of a well-equiped entry level Mac, you can own a kick-a|ss PC that for makes up for all the ease of use of a Mac with flat out power and performance. But when the operating system and many programs are not backward compatible, you have to spend a fortune to get your old stuff to work. For the cost of a simple RAM or hard drive upgrade for a Mac, you can practically buy a whole new engine for you PC. Complete with a new motherboard, RAM and CPU.....

Click to expand...

The Great Mac Attack

Jag

You just can't do that kind of thing with a mac.

Click to expand...

Well, as a matter of fact you can with a Mac. I have one that is ~ five years old, and have run every system up through OS X 10.1.5. I haven't gone to Jaguar yet because of time constraints. But my computer will handle it. And someone just wrote this week at AppleLinks about upgrading his 8500 (~1996) to Jaguar - and no problems.

Never underestimate the power of a Mac.

Hey, you know, Jaguar - Jag...heh heh.

Anyway, I personally feel the upgrade path is easier than a Mac. I can just go to any computer store I know and they'll have parts sitting on shelves and you can buy them according to your system specs and just install them. I haven't seen a store that sells Mac upgrade parts though. Also, the information pertaining to how a Mac works and their components are also much rarer than your average PC.



Jag

filosofer,
Well I was mostly talking about hardware...consider starting with a pentium 150 w/ 8 megs of RAM, a 1.6 gig hard drive, and a 6x CD-ROM, and upgrading it piece by piece until it's a 1.2 GHz Athlon (upgrading soon to a 2.0 Athlon I think), 70 gigs HD space, DVD-ROM + 24 speed CD burner, etc. This computer I have now has continuity with the old one, but the only original piece is the keyboard (forgot about that before). Upgraded a piece at a time I never had to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks. Buying a Mac seven years ago, you'd be limited in your ability to upgrade-- to go to the latest technology, you need to buy a whole new system.

Nothing against Macs. I'm an Apple fan from way back, and I've owned several. Lets see.... Apple ][+, Apple //e, Apple //c, Apple III+ (first attempt at a buisness computer, flopped and my father bought it cheap), Lisa 2-10 (another flop, again picked up cheap- emulated the original mac and had a 10 meg hard drive-- that thing rocked), and a Mac Plus. At that point I moved out of the house and had to fend for myself....didn't have another computer until I bought my own in 1995...since price was the biggest issue I had to go with a PC.

In terms of Microsoft versus Mac, sadly I'd have to go with Microsoft for now. There are just so many more options, both hardware and software wise for Windows-based systems than Macs.

Still, since my day-to-day PC use has gravitated from mainly game-related to Internet, graphics, and web design related, I foresee myself buying a Mac sometime in the future.

Of course, the third alternative Linux, is something I already use for server applications (my own test web server). I'd trust Linux far more than I'd trust a Windows or Mac platform for that task (especially since I can run a server off much older hardware).

You might be interested in what Macs are doing in the server market. InfoWorld and eWeek are both devoting special attention to Apple servers (Mac OS X 10.2.1) and the potential for business. They are very highly rated.

Times - they are a' changing...

Yeah....but have you seen what those babies cost? The cheapest is $3k.