Macs 4 me!

[rapturefish]

I love macs. I am a graphic designer.

The thing about macs:
- They're cool to look at
- They're just as cool inside too
- They're user-friendly
- They're an integrated package (Apple owns the software and the essential hardware)
- Apple gives you what you need
- They're more expensive but it's worth it
- They're a little steeper on the upgrade curve
- They have a more stable OS
- They're crafted for right-brainers
- You can love a mac or Apple. Apple-philes kept the company afloat even when it was down.

The thing about PC's:
- They could be good to look at, but it's more like a tinkerer's paradise usually
- They're still cool inside
- Usable but not as user-friendly
- Pieces come from everywhere (clones abound, it's ugly but it works)
- MS gives you what they say you need (which is not what we need usually but we're stuck with it since everyone uses it)
- They're cheaper
- They're very flexible to upgrade piece-by-piece
- The Windows OS sucks cos it hangs up thirteen times a day (compared to Mac OS' twice a week) and rips off Mac OS' innovations
- They're geared to left-brainers
- You never love a PC or MS. but you live with it.

It's become two different approaches to computing and we need the diversity. I think the Mac missed the market share because of its refusal to allow people to clone the hardware - the result was it had better control of its product but it became less well distributed. Another reason was the sacking of Jobs - it's obvious that without Jobs the company suffered innovatively, directionally and creatively and that his reinstatement sent a revival to the company. Mind you, it could be argued that the lessons Jobs learnt in the wilderness did help a lot too.

Apple is a successful company, and it will probably continue to do well even with a small market share. But Microsoft has won the distribution war and it's a crying shame we have to put up with such a sucky OS.

blessings?

 

[lithium.]

so...I love unix...

 

[rock4christ]

I use a PC but I've heard that Macs are great because they don't crash. However, I like PCs because you can tinker with them and take them apart and replace things, which I like to do.

 

[paulewog]

Mac's have problems too. They crash, just not as often.

I love macs. I am a graphic designer.

Bingo, that's why Like all graphics designer use macs, hehe.

- They're user-friendly

Not to a pc user! *grins*

- They're an integrated package (Apple owns the software and the essential hardware)

Hence why it is expensive.... and not as compliant, and not as much software out there, hehe

- Apple gives you what you need

I knew it! communism! (I'm joking, hehe)

- They're more expensive but it's worth it

Depends on your point of view.

- They have a more stable OS

True. Linux/Unix is even more so. hehe

- They could be good to look at, but it's more like a tinkerer's paradise usually

And I like tinkering with them too...

- They're still cool inside
- Usable but not as user-friendly

Oh I don't know. It might take a bit getting used to, but once you do.... it's hard to use a Mac! hehehe

- Pieces come from everywhere (clones abound, it's ugly but it works)

Yes, and that also gives competition, drives prices down, gives you more to choose from, etc.

- MS gives you what they say you need (which is not what we need usually but we're stuck with it since everyone uses it)

With Windows, good point. But, again... there are a lot of options in software, after you accept the fact that you're sorta stuck with Windows. heh. Although, you CAN use Linux. I don't use Internet Explorer, for example.

- They're very flexible to upgrade piece-by-piece

Very, although you can run into quite a few conflicts. All part of the fun though.

- The Windows OS sucks cos it hangs up thirteen times a day (compared to Mac OS' twice a week) and rips off Mac OS' innovations

Haha, well, perhaps, though I think if MS had it first then Mac probably would have ripped MS off. That's like business today. Copy the other people. hehe =) As to hanging up thirteen times a day, I beg to differ. I'm running win2k. I'm hard on my computer, I install a lot of things, and I used to play games a LOT. Yet I could keep my computer on for, as latest documented, about 6 days. The only reason I restarted was because things were getting a bit slow (hey, with all the games I kept opening and closing, etc., I can see why it'd start getting slow, hehe!) My brother's desktop, which has no games on it, almost never CRASHES. The power went out last night though.

- They're geared to left-brainers
- You never love a PC or MS. but you live with it.

Wrong. I love my PC. I don't really love MS, but I do love some of the things they make too. =)

I think PC's have their uses, and forte's, and Mac's also. I prefer PC, simply because of the compatibility. I've always lived with crashes, so I can live with them still. I'd switch to Linux, but I'm hooked on Windows, merely 'cause most of my programs are for Windows and not Linux, and even some of my hardware doesn't work with Linux.

 

[Athlon4all]

I agree with Paulewog on Windows stability. I have used Windows 2000/XP on every computer that I use day to day since June 1999 and I have never really had "crashes" terribly. With Win 9x/Me that statement would prolly be true but with 2000/XP it isn't.

I personally like MS's software in Windows. I use IE, and WMP. I've always seen myself as a slight MS Fanboy:Q

And I Love My PC Too!!!! hehe Don;t you tell me PC's are unlovable! LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING!!!;D

 

[filosofer]

- They have a more stable OS

True. Linux/Unix is even more so. hehe

Well, Mac OS X is Unix.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Bah, if you guys think Win2K is so hot, try running it as a server (with all that Active Directory, IIS, and other junk going).

At my old job I ran a Win2K box for an email server (using Exchange) and a li'l Linux box for an Internet gateway/router. The Exchange server would occationally just "die" for no apparent reason (I pretty much had to reboot it ever week or two). In comparison, the Linux box had NO problems (once I got it configured properly).

Did I mention the Linux box was running Coyote Linux off a 1.44 mb Floppy Disk? No HD required. Let's see a Microsoft OS do that! (and be able to function as a router/gateway).

 

[seebs]

I've been doing a lot with XP for the last few days, and it has its share of crashes. Fewer than the '98 partition, but crashes nonetheless.

A friend of mine was working on something that involved a special dedicated box that did nothing but pass packets back and forth to a mainframe - and suddenly it started taking 5 seconds minimum per request (unacceptable when a transaction can involve >100 requests). They couldn't fix it, and couldn't fix it... so the IBM rep set up a Linux instance on the mainframe and ran the gateway there, and response time went back to solidly under a second. Oh, and now the machine doesn't crash at least once a week, either.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
the Linux box had NO problems (once I got it configured properly).

And therein lies the rub....once you got it "configured" properly.  My experience with that configuration step is that it is far from trivial.  At various times I've set up Linux systems (even the Free BSD version of UNIX once), and each time it has been a several day process....first get the mouse to work, then the video card, then for a real headache, get the stupid danged pacbell DSL connection going.  Finally, after what feels like about two years, get the system up and going.....and now try to install some software so that it'll work under Gnome.    I think if I want UNIX I'd have to go with Sun or Apple's OS X.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by MSBS
And therein lies the rub....once you got it "configured" properly.  My experience with that configuration step is that it is far from trivial.  At various times I've set up Linux systems (even the Free BSD version of UNIX once), and each time it has been a several day process....first get the mouse to work, then the video card, then for a real headache, get the stupid danged pacbell DSL connection going.  Finally, after what feels like about two years, get the system up and going.....and now try to install some software so that it'll work under Gnome.    I think if I want UNIX I'd have to go with Sun or Apple's OS X.

Not anymore the driver support has gotten really nice so you install the distro of linux or freebsd and your mouse and keyboard and video card and sound most of the time will work. But you are right that some times to get everything the way you want it it does that a while but not days I am able to setup my freebsd server in about hours.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by MSBS
And therein lies the rub....once you got it "configured" properly.  My experience with that configuration step is that it is far from trivial. 

Actually, the configuration wasn't quite a pain as you'd think. Straight "out-of-the-box", so to speak, Coyote Linux is painfully EASY to configure and set up (provided you know some networking basics and you want to only use it for one subnet).

The issue we had was we wanted to use it for two subnets. Now, there was nothing inherent to Coyote Linux preventing this, but the basic allowance had not been made for easy configuration of multiple subnets. Luckily, though, someone else had made a 'patch' for Coyote to give the added ability to configure multiple subnets. Of course, the patch required a later, Linux-only distro of Coyote to work (and since we had no other Linux boxes in house, one of the employees had to bring his PC from home to do setup on). That, admittedly, was a bit of a hassle.

But, once the Linux box was up and humming, we had absolutely no problems with it. In comparison to the Windows servers we were running... well, quite frankly, there is no comparison

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Actually, the configuration wasn't quite a pain as you'd think. Straight "out-of-the-box", so to speak, Coyote Linux is painfully EASY to configure and set up (provided you know some networking basics and you want to only use it for one subnet).

The issue we had was we wanted to use it for two subnets. Now, there was nothing inherent to Coyote Linux preventing this, but the basic allowance had not been made for easy configuration of multiple subnets. Luckily, though, someone else had made a 'patch' for Coyote to give the added ability to configure multiple subnets. Of course, the patch required a later, Linux-only distro of Coyote to work (and since we had no other Linux boxes in house, one of the employees had to bring his PC from home to do setup on). That, admittedly, was a bit of a hassle.

But, once the Linux box was up and humming, we had absolutely no problems with it. In comparison to the Windows servers we were running... well, quite frankly, there is no comparison

Yeah you really can't tell a difference between the two when you have everything right and they are stable. But what I like about unix is I don't have to reboot lol just restart Process you need. .

MY UPTIME...
2:17PM up 168 days, 23:06, 5 users, load averages: 0.23, 0.32, 0.29