---

and they can run windows

---

Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.

People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.

This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

-------
Kids in the back seat can cause accidents.
Accidents in the back seat can cause kids.
Moral: Drive a two seater

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.  

People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.

This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.

There's a difference.

-------
Ș ‡ G
Mac OS X - My Anti-Virus.

---

Quote: from drifting at 10:20 pm on May 26, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

 

 Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.

 People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.  

 This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.

There's a difference.

---

I don't know about that claim, from everything I've seen with Mac you'd have to get the very top of the line twice as expensive as a PC for it to still be good 5 years later. Besides, Apple completely locks you out of any control you might have had over your system, since you can barely upgrade the damn thing and basically once it's too old you just toss it and half Apple another several thousand.

Also if you're going to pull the "solid Unix Base" then I'm going to point out right now that Linux i s free, open source, gives you full control over every aspect of your system, and can be installed pretty much everywhere. Plus It actually does run extremely well on old systems.

-------
Livewire Wifey: Katie :D
Windows, For when you don't know any better.
Mac, for when you think you do.
Linux, for when you actually want to get something done.

---

Quote: from drifting at 10:20 pm on May 26, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

 

 Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.

 People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.  

 This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.

There's a difference.

---

Kick backs? You mean the licensing? They get more for selling a copy than they ever will for it coming pre-installed.

And no, OSX isnt god's OS. Typical fanboy. And have you ever tried to use Leopard on an older PowerPC? It runs like shit.

The Intel chips only provide better performance (Im assuming you mean over PowerPC, simply because Intel chips on OSX DO NOT offer any performance increase over running it on Windows) because they are newer. Higher clock speeds. Better architecture. Again, they are newer.

Top of the line components? Are you serious? You mean the same components that ship in any Dell, HP, etc. They are nearly identical. Apple does not have any "special" or "high performance" parts that no one else does. And the only way you get the top of the line components is if you buy a top of the line machine. And the last time I checked, it was still $600 cheaper to buy a comparable Dell over a Mac Pro. Same spec.

Perfect driver compatibility? When was the last time you used a computer? In case you havent noticed, pretty much all machines ship with perfect driver compatibility for the OS they come with. Crashes? Ive had just as many problems with OSX as I have with Vista. An occasional wtf crash here and there, but its not like I get fatal errors constantly on either of them.

And you need a better computer every time Apple releases a new OS as well. Last time I checked, no one was running Leopard on a computer that shipped with OS9. Apples "new OSs" are the Windows equivalent to a service pack. Except, imagine this, Apple cons you into BUYING what turns out to be a package of bug updates, an updated interface, and an occasional new feature.

-------
Kids in the back seat can cause accidents.
Accidents in the back seat can cause kids.
Moral: Drive a two seater

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 4:04 am on May 27, 2009

---

Quote: from drifting at 10:20 pm on May 26, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

  Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.    

  People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.

  This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

 

 That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.  

 There's a difference.

---

Kick backs? You mean the licensing? They get more for selling a copy than they ever will for it coming pre-installed.

And no, OSX isnt god's OS. Typical fanboy. And have you ever tried to use Leopard on an older PowerPC? It runs like shit.  

The Intel chips only provide better performance (Im assuming you mean over PowerPC, simply because Intel chips on OSX DO NOT offer any performance increase over running it on Windows) because they are newer. Higher clock speeds. Better architecture. Again, they are newer.  

Top of the line components? Are you serious? You mean the same components that ship in any Dell, HP, etc. They are nearly identical. Apple does not have any "special" or "high performance" parts that no one else does. And the only way you get the top of the line components is if you buy a top of the line machine. And the last time I checked, it was still $600 cheaper to buy a comparable Dell over a Mac Pro. Same spec.  

Perfect driver compatibility? When was the last time you used a computer? In case you havent noticed, pretty much all machines ship with perfect driver compatibility for the OS they come with. Crashes? Ive had just as many problems with OSX as I have with Vista. An occasional wtf crash here and there, but its not like I get fatal errors constantly on either of them.  

And you need a better computer every time Apple releases a new OS as well. Last time I checked, no one was running Leopard on a computer that shipped with OS9. Apples "new OSs" are the Windows equivalent to a service pack. Except, imagine this, Apple cons you into BUYING what turns out to be a package of bug updates, an updated interface, and an occasional new feature.

---

You're wrong on just about every level, here. I'll point out your major flaws: Each Mac OS version that comes out is not a service pack. That's what the system updates are for. Notice how we have Mac OS 10.5.1, 10.5.2, .... 10.5.6? Well, those are more like service packs. Major OS upgrades that don't constitute a new OS. I've seen plenty of G4's that run Leopard a lot better than a P4 can run Vista. Hell, I've seen computers that shipped with OS 9 running Leopard, admittedly, not amazingly well (nothing a RAM upgrade won't fix), but a lot better than, say, a machine that shipped with Windows 98 can handle Vista.

Show me an 8-core Dell that not only matches the exact spec of a Mac Pro, but matches hardware quality that is cheaper, and I'll concede. Fact: Dell makes shit computers. They make computers that break, so you buy their "oh so fantastic" warranty. Why are Dell users content? because you can buy a $150 infinite-computer replacement plan? Computer too slow? take a sledge hammer to it and Dell will give you a new one. While that may be a nice thing they do for their consumers, but that's what keeps the idiots happy. They THINK they're getting true quality, really when their just getting their dicks sucked.

Hardware and Driver compatibility is a real issue. If the average consumer installs new hardware on their computer, chances are, it won't work properly. I understand that the "macs simply don't crash" adage isn't exactly 100% true, but to this very day, comparing Windows and Mac OS side by side, Windows continually dissapoints.

If I remember correctly, at the release of Vista, according to 3rd party benchmarks, a MacBook Pro outperformed ANY "PC" in running Vista.

Every PC I've ever owned was top of the line. They all broke on me one way or another. The very first Apple laptop I bought was the lowest end model available at the Apple Store and today, 7 years later, still runs like a champ. And my little cousin's, who've since inherited my old 12" PowerBook, fight to get to use that old Mac over the brand new Vista machine their dad bought them.

Oh, and not to mention, I have just about completed my Computer Engineering degree from a nationally ranked university, so I'm not just making shit up. I kinda know what I'm talking about. There's a reason why 95% of the Computer Science faculty at my school are Mac Users when the department officially stands by PC's... and they're not just rebels.

Bottom line is: with a Mac, you get what you pay for: highest quality hardware, performance, reliability and aesthetics.

-------
Ș ‡ G
Mac OS X - My Anti-Virus.

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 4:04 am on May 27, 2009

---

Quote: from drifting at 10:20 pm on May 26, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

  Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.    

  People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.

  This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

 

 That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.  

 There's a difference.

---

I don't know about that claim, from everything I've seen with Mac you'd have to get the very top of the line twice as expensive as a PC for it to still be good 5 years later. Besides, Apple completely locks you out of any control you might have had over your system, since you can barely upgrade the damn thing and basically once it's too old you just toss it and half Apple another several thousand.  

Also if you're going to pull the "solid Unix Base" then I'm going to point out right now that Linux i s free, open source, gives you full control over every aspect of your system, and can be installed pretty much everywhere. Plus It actually does run extremely well on old systems.

---

That's not true. I've seen "bottom of the line" macs from back in the day reliably run the latest OS release, still function the same as it did 7 years ago when it was bought and still make the user happier than a brand new Windows machine. I would know. My first Mac was the cheapest PowerBook you could get, no options, nothing. I bought that thing 7 years ago.

Upgrade? What do you want to upgrade? Hard Drive? It can be done easily. RAM? No Problem. Run out of things you'd want to upgrade? I thought so. If you want a computer for a specific purpose, like gaming, that needs a new graphics card every time a new game comes out, then you're probably going to build your own machine anyways.

The Mac OS software is 100% customizable if you know what you're doing.

Macs are worth every penny.

-------
Ș ‡ G
Mac OS X - My Anti-Virus.

---

Quote: from Sector Corrupt at 9:49 am on May 27, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 4:04 am on May 27, 2009

---

Quote: from drifting at 10:20 pm on May 26, 2009

---

Quote: from derailedjet at 12:53 am on May 27, 2009

---

and they can run windows

---

   

   Exactly. They are both PCs. People need to use the proper terminology. Which is the better OS would be the proper way to phrase this debate.    

   People need to get it through their silly little heads that OSX is not god's operating system, and they are running on the same hardware as everyone else. Furthermore, EVERYONE needs to realize that there is no debate. If you even think you might someday want to use OSX, buy a Mac, or buy hardware that is supported by the OSx86 project.    

   This debate should have ended the day Apple started using i386. MS's marketing team should have picked up on this, and said "Hey, lets market it this way: Buy a Mac, buy Vista. Put Vista on your Mac! Now we are all winning!"

---

 

  That's where I have to respectfully disagree. OS and Software aside, the Mac machine is a completely different beast. Apple uses only top of the line hardware, which is why their computers are generally more expensive. OSX is God's OS, most people just don't know that yet. It's very well written and based on the very solid Unix operating system. The beauty of combining Apple hardware with OS X is that the same people who configured the hardware wrote the software => perfect driver computability and therefore you don't see any crashes because of poorly written drivers which is common in lower-end "PC"'s. The debate didn't end once they started using Intel chips, it just because more software biased. Turns out, the Intel chips provide much better performance for the Mac platform. Microsoft wouldn't be so dumb to say "buy a mac, and run vista." Mac OS is too good out of the box for them to risk that, not to mention all the money they get kicked back to them for selling "PC"'s. Notice how you need a better computer every time Microsoft releases a new OS? With Mac OS, you can install the latest OS on a computer that was "new" 5 OS releases ago.  

  There's a difference.

---

 

 

 I don't know about that claim, from everything I've seen with Mac you'd have to get the very top of the line twice as expensive as a PC for it to still be good 5 years later. Besides, Apple completely locks you out of any control you might have had over your system, since you can barely upgrade the damn thing and basically once it's too old you just toss it and half Apple another several thousand.  

 Also if you're going to pull the "solid Unix Base" then I'm going to point out right now that Linux i s free, open source, gives you full control over every aspect of your system, and can be installed pretty much everywhere. Plus It actually does run extremely well on old systems.

---

That's not true. I've seen "bottom of the line" macs from back in the day reliably run the latest OS release, still function the same as it did 7 years ago when it was bought and still make the user happier than a brand new Windows machine. I would know. My first Mac was the cheapest PowerBook you could get, no options, nothing. I bought that thing 7 years ago.

Upgrade? What do you want to upgrade? Hard Drive? It can be done easily. RAM? No Problem. Run out of things you'd want to upgrade? I thought so. If you want a computer for a specific purpose, like gaming, that needs a new graphics card every time a new game comes out, then you're probably going to build your own machine anyways.  

The Mac OS software is 100% customizable if you know what you're doing.

Macs are worth every penny.

---

You can call a Mac computer 100% Customizable but to those who use customizable computers, we know the difference. Customizable does not mean I can change what shows up on my screen, though that's a part. But with a PC I can individually purchase each and every component in my machine should I so choose, choosing the best manufacturers for every part, and put this machine together myself so that I know every individual quirk to it. Then, on top of a machine I build myself I can put a Linux distro, which comes with all of the source code of each and every component, so that anything I want to tweak I can tweak. I'm a programmer and I want to have the freedom to do to my system whatever I happen to want, and with either a Mac or a Windows PC (especially storebought) I'll never have the freedom that comes from building my own PC and using free software.

Macs are shiny and easy, and they tend to not really exist in a "low end" sort of area, which means overall they all look damn advanced because they've completely cut the "bottom of the barrel" PC out of it by not making them. Sure, there's gains they get for controlling every aspect of the computer so it all works nicely.

But really, in the end it means you're paying thousands more to have your choices put in the hands of Apple.

-------
Livewire Wifey: Katie :D
Windows, For when you don't know any better.
Mac, for when you think you do.
Linux, for when you actually want to get something done.

---

xp... I like them because they are easy to reformat.

---

Mac! Because I don't have to reformat.

---

Quote: from poptartweirdo at 4:59 pm on April 24, 2009

---

xp... I like them because they are easy to reformat.

---

Mac! Because I don't have to reformat.

---

No one has to reformat. :/

-------
When they leave me, they're all smiles.
When they leave you, they're in tears.

---

Quote: from mountainview at 12:22 pm on May 31, 2009

---

Quote: from poptartweirdo at 4:59 pm on April 24, 2009

---

xp... I like them because they are easy to reformat.

---

 

 Mac! Because I don't have to reformat.

---

No one has to reformat. :/

---

Well.. there is always WinRot, the slow buildup of system slowdown because programs never seem to uninstall properly and the registry becomes a mess and slowly your computer turns into a giant flaming pile of garbage.

... Still, I don't mind the occasional reformat. I've reformatted my computers more than 20 times each in the last 8 months just to mess around with different distros and the like.

-------
Livewire Wifey: Katie :D
Windows, For when you don't know any better.
Mac, for when you think you do.
Linux, for when you actually want to get something done.

OK, so OSX is better is it? Explain why. I have a PC that runs fine, works nice and fast and doesn't crash. What makes OSX better?

Next, so Macs are more expensive because of their superior components? Looking through yes, they are for the most part using fairly good parts, however they also cost the earth. The Mac Pro is a fair way behind in graphics (well, they all are actually). Harddisks are nothing special, as are CPU's (seen any i7's on them?) Yes, they are using DD3 (at a price), but so what, I could spend the money and get it too, but the point is, most people don't do much more than surf the web, they don't need it, yet you have little choice with the Mac.

As per usual you fail to point out choice. Macs are great for a few very specific areas to the rest they are either over powered and over priced or impossible to make do what you want. (I run 3 monitors on my machine... last I looked there is only one type of Mac that can do this... Oh, also, please install the 5 drives I have in my machine in a Mac Pro.

Next, the OS. You claim it is solid and doesn't crash etc. Firstly I call bullshit on that. My Mac crashes more than my PC. At the moment it seems to have got into a state where Safari crashes on close (ever time). Also, if i close the system preferences window but not quit the application sometimes the window wont come back. I have spoken to others on that one so certainly not just me.

Not a service pack but a new OS is it? Now some of them have been big changes, but most of them almost no change. I mean, come on, 10.5, the 3rd biggest feature was the glass dock. No, not stacks, not time machine, the dock... just the look of it. Hell, it isn't even more usable, those little blue lights at the bottom of open applications are a lot harder to see. I've moved back to the classic theme or whatever it is.

Oh, and could you tell me about all the new life changing features coming in 10.6 please... I don't remember hearing about any.

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice OS, it has a few nice features, it even has some power in there if you hunt for it. Macs are however not for everyone. In fact, I would suggest they are not even close for most people. You might think I'm wrong, but the evidence says otherwise.

In fact, for a little fun, drawn of these stats:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

I have made a little graph:
http://www.craigk.org/bin/lw/win_vs_mac_vs_linux.gif

You might think it is a great OS, but if it was so great for everyone wouldn't you not think that in six years it would have done a little bit more? Oh, and granted these stats are of the w3, but they show market movement, if not numbers.

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

I can't stand Apple as a company (nor most of their products). I hate their business model too, which tends to stifle customization in favor of dumbed down ease of use. I don't like their apparent incessant need to control everything. I hate iTunes with a passion for being a pain in the ass. I dislike their OS which is neither as broadly compatible as Windows nor as open as Linux. I dislike the attitudes of many Mac users. I hate their tendency to sport style over function, when function is what actually matters in the first place.

I could go on...

-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships