Macs...so what's the big deal?

[-tetsujin-]

Macintoshes have been around since the day. Ever since I used to have my Amiga's(god rest their hardware). I've become a big PC nutjob and I just can't see how the Macs are still around especially when they seem so much more expensive. There's always good old Imac. Yeah rigght. I refuse to believe they're anything but a gimmic.

Honestly how do they remain in today's markets? What are they good for? Any info is much appreciated.

jin

[GroundZero3]

if you search there are several threads on this subject. mosty what i got from reading them is macs are great for photo editing and all that stuff.

Jason

[rummy]

I have an iMac, it was my first computer. We got a Mac because my wife works in desktop publishing, which is dominated by Macs. I haven't used any OS's older than 8.5, so I can't comment on them. The iMac is presently dead, due to the analog video board? It is only 2 years old. If you want a Mac, buy a tower, not an iMac!
You might find it humorous that many PC Magazines, PC how-to books, etc., are created using the Mac platform. Maximum PC magazine is one example. The fastest Macs are faster than the fastest PC's at some aspects of Photoshop, etc. Font handling, etc., on the Mac is supposed to be superior to Windows.
I use Windows2000 at work at my Fire Department, and am the second in line IT guy. The Mac is more pleasurable to use for almost any task, the Windows machine is more stable. (I currently have OS9.1 in the iMac.) The Mac can do lots of cross-platform things, that is one reason it is still alive. Mac artists, web page creators, etc can give you the details on such things, I cannot. I have found installing hardware, driver updates, etc., to be extremely pain-free on the Mac, not so sometimes with Windows.
I hate to say that the Mac OS is "dumbed-down" but it seems that way because they are so simple to use. Is it a bad thing that a computer does what you tell it to? I liken it to AI. BTW, I despise AOL, the Mac doesn't behave anything like AOL does, FYI.
Windows may allow someone to go in deeper and tinker more, but maybe its because you *have* to.
For user friendliness, interface customization and other esoteric reasons, I prefer the Mac.
For price, web surfing, Counter-Striking, peripheral compatibility, stability, widespread availability of replacement parts, etc., I prefer Wondows.
BTW, I've got some some posts up currently here at the forums. I'm building a PC, Duron 750, Iwill KK266, Memman Mosel RAM, WD HDD, Toshiba DVD, etc.
I'll most likely always have a PC and a Mac at home.
Please realize that some things I've said are simply my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[minime]

"We got a Mac because my wife works in desktop publishing, which is dominated by Macs. "

I have worked with a lot of publishing companies, ALL of them have now got rid of their macs. I am currently working in the Fine Arts department at a major Canadian University, who purchased a large number of macs, against my advice, and are now regretting it greatly.(I had to buy my own PC's for our work, not bitter) Lack of decent software, lack of support, INCREDIBLE instablility, and lack of performance have contibuted to this. Most major graphics companies are writing for PC first, and some will no longer me porting software to mac. There are no really good 3D progs for the MAC due to all these reasons. (And no, cinema 4d is not a decent prog...try MAYA)
BTW, apple's benchmarks are fudged. They've settled suits out of court over this. Do some digging, or bench them yourself. I did, and head to head (500 against 500 mhz) the PC wins. Try it....
There is a reason NO MAJOR COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPT IN NORTH AMERICA is dominated by macs.
Trust the people who know computers..I did and have bought nothing but PC's for the last 5 years. Now instead of crashing every 10 minutes and losing time and money, I can actually get things done.

Sorry to rant, but I can't stand it when people say "apple is so much better".
Apple's latest claim is that their 733 is "57% faster than a 1.4GHZ petium4". Any one with one or the other of these machines care to post benchmarks somewhere?

[SiteCharts.com]

Yeah Minime show them!!!

BTW: Macs are great for Graphics work??? Wrong!! A Mac monitor is much darker or brighter (I don't remember which but I can look it up) than a PC monitor! And 90% of all computers used are Windows PCs! Soooo graphics designed on a mac will look sh*t on 90% of all computers! I can only say what a great tool to do graphics work!! ;-)



[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 04-27-2001).]

[Pulsar]

Well mac monitors can be no darker or lighter as all the older G3 towers and all the new g4 towers all use a standard PC compatible monitor. The imac monitors are tuned for the imac and higher quality than a standard AOC pc monitor. The macs are used alot by educators, schools, and by any kind of graphics buissness. The macs are good for graphics. The PC everything else.

[rummy]

Hello, minime,

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"I have worked with a lot of publishing companies, ALL of them have now got rid of their macs."
---------------------------------------------
Maybe I'm wrong and Mac isn't the dominant force in publishing. Along with hearing this information from numerous sources, word of mouth and written, I began to believe it when I found that my only PC how-to book, (A Peter Norton book for Win2k (?), I've loaned it out) many of the periodicals I receive, and every daily newspaper publisher that I've had contact with, used the Mac. But, truly, I don't know the numbers.

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"I am currently working in the Fine Arts department at a major Canadian University, who purchased a large number of macs, against my advice, and are now regretting it greatly."
---------------------------------------------
Funny, I don't associate "fine arts" with computers or computer generated art. Again, I'm no artist.

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"Now instead of crashing every 10 minutes and losing time and money, I can actually get things done."
---------------------------------------------
I, too, have experienced quite a bit of instability with the iMac that we have. But "every 10 minutes", nah! It could be partly due to the fact that I've installed tons of freeware and shareware. The fact that my web browser was built by Apples competition, Microsoft, probably doesn't help either. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif Also, I've never used any antivirus, preventative maintenance, or conflict diagnoses type software on it yet. No doubt, I've been very impressed with the stability of Win2k at work, especially with the large number of users accessing each computer.

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"There are no really good 3D progs for the MAC due to all these reasons."
---------------------------------------------
"Maya Complete 3 for Mac OS X will become available in Q2, 2001 for 7,500 USD, the same price as Maya 3 for the IRIX® and Windows® NT, Windows 2000 Professional platforms. International pricing may vary. The core features of the Mac OS X version of Maya will be the same as those in Maya for other platforms."
that is from this page: <A HREF="http://www.apple.com/macosx/press/alias_wavefront.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.apple.com/macosx/press/alias_wavefront.html</A>

---------------------------------------------
quote:
<snip>"....and lack of performance...."
---------------------------------------------
Actually, the newest Motorola MPC7450 (?) G4 processors are quite impressive. If I'm not mistaken, Mac's were first with USB, Firewire, DVD-R/CD-RW combo drives and GeForce3's. Where Mac has made big mistakes was taking so long to get AGP slots and CD-RW's as standard equipment. They've also been slow to go to PC133 memory and 133 bus speeds. Now they have DVD and CD authoring apps built into the OS.

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"BTW, apple's benchmarks are fudged."
---------------------------------------------
I never listen to Apple's "G4 verses Pentium" benchmarks, I read independant reviews. Yes, Apple processors can do some things faster than Intels CPU's. As new processors, with new instructions and architectures, come out, like P4's and G4's, some software has to be optimized to fully exploit the hardwares potential. You will find benchmarking tests that go both ways. If they have settled lawsuits over "fudged benchmarks", why would they continue to advertise that,
"The Power Mac G4 is a phenomenally powerful computer. This power is especially evident when it performs processor-intensive tasks in creative and scientific applications. In fact, at speeds of 5.5 gigaflops, the new 733MHz PowerPC G4 processor with Velocity Engine is up to 57% faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4. (1)"
"(1) Based on a suite of performance tests using Adobe Photoshop 6.0."
on their website?

My kids like to watch Japanese cartoons, and I've noticed that every time that a computer is part of the background, It appears to be a G3 or G4 series Mac. Perhaps one reason Mac is popular in Japan is due to its ability to better replicate the intricate characters of the Japanese language? Or is it better for anime? I dunno. Ever notice how many Macs you see on television shows? Are they using Macs to produce those shows? If they are using PC's, why give the Mac free exposure? I dunno.

Apple no longer licenses clones, that makes Mac's more expensive. Perhaps, though, it ensures tighter control of artwork or fonts or other graphics produced? So that as they are transmitted back and forth, from producer to client, or ?, for proofing, etc., they appear more true to the original?

Linux and Windows OS's can be run on the Mac. I can't install a Mac OS on my PC. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

My wife works for the state and I think her division has the only Mac's in the whole state. The state IT guys know nothing about the Mac OS. But, it doesn't matter, they always fix their own computer malfunctions. Matter of fact, I've never met or heard of a Mac IT guy. Is there such thing as a Mac equivalent for MCSE?

Anyway, If it weren't for wanting to play Counter-Strike, wanting to use MultilinkPPP, and wanting to ensure that my kids know how to operate the most popular computing platform, I could be happy with the Mac alone. Instead, I'll keep both. Kinda the same reason we have cars AND trucks AND motorcycles, etc.

But, if I could have only one platform, I would go IBM clone. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

One last thing, Apples existence benefits every computer consumer. Can you imagine what would happen if Apple ceased to exist, and Microsoft lost its main competition? BTW, Apple just sold its 5,000,000th iMac.



[This message has been edited by rummy (edited 04-27-2001).]

[RobRich]

Benchmark Adobe PhotoShop on a G4 as compared to similarly equipped a P4 or Athlon. You will quickly realize why the MAC still has a place within the market. The Altivec multimedia instruction set is one of the most powerful SIMD offerings available. The G4 processor is definitely a capable offering. Also expect a mild resurgance in Mac popularity now that nVidia and ATI have seriously powerful rendering solutions for the Apple platform.

Also just noticed,

Apple no longer licenses clones, that makes Mac's more expensive. Perhaps, though, it ensures tighter control of artwork or fonts or other graphics produced?

Apple actually had serious support issues with clone manufacturers. These clone companies would use non-standard devices which did not full meet AppleOS requirements, or else had poorly developed (often badly ported) drivers. I could forsee a new Apple/Mac clone segment developing as the newly developed OS X becomes more popular. OS X is built atop a BSD kernel core, thus driver support should no longer be a prevelant issue with most popular hardware devices.

Catch ya' later,
Robert Richmond

[This message has been edited by RobRich (edited 04-27-2001).]

[Warthog]

...to add to Rob's post, you will find that your "super duper uber graphic mac" will cost $4k...try building an equivalent PC and see how much that costs. Try building a mac...oh wait, you CAN'T build one. Oops!

As far as the OS being easier, that is simply a matter of opinion.

Look up old threads, read them and see if you still have questions.

Personally, I could care less if Macs are used to make magazines or not - they are of absolutely no use to me (limited hardware, software, tweeking, etc, etc.....), and so I wish not to ever own one. Ever.

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 04-28-2001).]

[smokin1]

I bought my daughter a Power Mac G4 with the dual 533Mhz processors for Xmas. I am a PC guy..but this thing ROCKS..
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
oh..and it cracks RC5 at an incredible rate..
LOL
live and let live..there is a time and place for everything.

[RobRich]

Warthog does raise a valid point concerning the usage aspects of the typical computer user. For most, a traditional x86 platform will generally offer a superior experience for much lower costs. However, some do require alternative platforms for optimum in both performance and efficieny for specialzied, platform specific applications. For these individuals, cost is often not the primary concern, but productiviy is. As for myself, if I were to spend $5,000 for a new system, it would likely be a Sun Ultra Sparc-III box, as this architecture running Solaris is generally best suited for my specific computing needs.

Robert Richmond

[rummy]

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif "Macophobe" is so much easier to say than "peeceeophobe" LOL.

-tetsujin- just wanted to know what they are "good for".

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"...to add the Rob's post, you will find that your "super duper uber graphic mac" will cost $4k...try building an equivalent PC and see how much that costs. Try building a mac...oh wait, you CAN'T build one. Oops!"
---------------------------------------------
You can customize your BTO Mac at the Apple store. Like RobRich said, and I suspected, you can't piece-meal one due to Apple's no-clones position.

I'm not sure, can I currently build a Dell PC with DVD-R and a GeForce3? Or build one piece-by-piece? At what cost?

G4 Macs are kinda geared toward business use. I'm pretty sure the "professional" G4 buyers recoup their equipment costs rather quickly.

Would I pay $2500 for the Mac that I like? Nope, not right now, that is why I have a new Duron system. Maybe in a year or two, after OSX has had time to mature, I might think about getting a "G5". http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gifheh.

Goodnight all.

[This message has been edited by rummy (edited 04-27-2001).]

[Hellmund]

I'm not sure, can I currently build a Dell PC with DVD-R and a GeForce3? Or build one piece-by-piece? At what cost?

Well you can get a Dell machine with a Geforece3 and DVD-R.But what Warthog I think is referring to is that you don't need to buy from Dell, you can custom make part by part. e.g and abit,transcend or SOYO mobo then a NVIDIA,ATI or Matrox Vid-card and so forth.You can't do this with Apples,there's one model with a few different upgrade Avenues whereas PC can be infinitely varied, well very varied at least. Also Custom building a PC is only more expensive because the newer parts cost more. Upgrading a Dell machine with an M64 to a Geforece3 will increase it's price by quite a bit.

[NDC]

It all boils down to a simple answer..... It depends what purpose the system is going to be used for......

[RayH]

Personally, for what I do with a computer a Mac is just impractical. So I don't own one.

For others, Macs do what they want them to do. More power to them.

[NDC]

Well, yes. For most users, MAC will not be the idea system to purchase for numerous reasons. That's why I use a PC for its own purposes and a MAC for its own..... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif