Should I stay or Should I go(now)??

unklerosco

After being a PC user for years and then switching to apple I find myself going back to PCs...

Reason, I don't think I can take any more of apples c**p. Overpriced, under specced hardware. A great OS that you've to pay over the odds to use. iPods are the same as always, only a different shape/colour/size, Oh... and they only come with a usb cable now...

The iPhone... its a terrible phone, V. Good pmp/web access. I'm sick to death of mine.. Plan on getting it replaced under warranty(plauged with dead pixels) n selling it on...

So am I the only one that feels like this or are their others?? And I'm not apple bashing. I've gone from two iMacs, a macbook and a G4 to just the G4 which gets used about once a fortnight...

So, are there any reasons to stick with apple??

Oh, and their adds(which used to be good) are no longer about apple and just pointless pokes at microsoft...

Oafley Jones

Switched back myself 2 months ago and don't regret it. Could no longer justify the 'Apple Tax'. Furthermore, I was frustrated at the direction the company has taken in regard to consumer choice and developers, particularly since the arrival of the iPhone. With the exception of the new nano, i'm no longer digging Ives designs - loathe the shiny new laptops.

unklerosco

At least i'm not alone....

Tar.Aldarion

I'm not a move back to PC guy because I have never preferred mac, they are good at advertising though.
I use computers a lot, I am a computer Engineer. Why I prefer not to use mac:

1. Ridiculous price. My laptop spec cost E1, 000 more if I wanted a mac equivalent. Over twice the price.
2. While OS X is ok and all that, it's a lot of money for what is basically linux, which is free. If you don't want to use xp/vista use linux in my books.

Other points are merely personal preferance and experience, not liking the shortcuts, one clicky thing - yes they can be changed. Upgrading seemed a pain and 5 times too expensive. An annoying thing is making a document on a mac and putting it on a pc for it not to work randomly. Pictures/documents have been a bane. Transfer from mac to PC, just doesn't work a lot, the pictures won't open, is this only me? Conversely transfer from pc to mac works fine. Might only benot working for me though!

K.O.Kiki

I have no idea what you guys found so annoying.

Then again, I don't feel like updating every time a new shiny product comes out*.

Point about the ads though. I mean, bashing Vista is like laughing at blind puppies.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote:

Other points are merely personal preferance and experience, not liking the shortcuts, one clicky thing - yes they can be changed. Upgrading seemed a pain and 5 times too expensive. An annoying thing is making a document on a mac and putting it on a pc for it not to work randomly. Pictures/documents have been a bane. Transfer from mac to PC, just doesn't work a lot, the pictures won't open, is this only me? Conversely transfer from pc to mac works fine. Might only benot working for me though!

Upgrading? What would you upgrade on a laptop beyond RAM & HDD (to be fair, that was a PITA until the Macbook/shiny MBP), anyway?
And what kind of files are you using for them to not work on Macs? (this puzzles me greatly)


*I actually do, but the RDF wears off in a few days

J-blk

Ultimately it comes down to what you prefer - I love my Macs and would not consider switching back to Windows (which I have to use at work and annoys me - but at least it's XP...) but if you feel that's the way to go for you, then nothing anyone else here says should matter. I do agree that Apple systems are generally overpriced, but I mostly prefer Macs for the OS rather than the hardware. Though I've never had any problems both with hardware and support with Apple - something I definitely can't say about Sony, back when I was using a VAIO...

Dont be at yourself

Each to their own.

Apple products 'fit' me just fine, and meet my needs a lot better than Windows. Some people require more customisation, more options and more flexibility. I just want the basics done simply and to work well out of the box.

I'll gladly spend the money on a new macbook over a new dell laptop, because I know I'm getting an extremely well-designed, well-built, well-specced and well-supported machine which runs, for me, the best operating system with a fantastic suite of applications - and with the option of running XP or Vista if I ever need to.

Sad Professor

I'm no Apple fanboy, I'd be the first to point out their faults. But they're a computer company not an football team and I couldn't care less about their marketing or their phones. Yes, their hardware is overpriced but I buy it because OSX is worth it imo. As Apple see it you're paying for the overall experience.

unklerosco

I think its apples arrogance that annoys me... They charge over the odds cause they know their fanboys will pay for it and people that prefare style over substance will pay for it. Now that I've less money to throw about i'm realising how bad a deal ur getting if u buy an apple....

A basic mac pro, is €2049. Quad Core, 2gb ram, 320gb HD, 2600xt... Now a few months ago I was looking at buying a decent mac for home use, vid editing, running bootcamp etc. A friend of mine was selling a mac prob, similar spec to above only 4gb ram n 500gb HD.. Was looking for €1600.

I picked up a dell xps400... quad core, 4gb ram, 1TB, 8800gtx, TV card, bluray/HD-dvd rw n lots of other little bits for €650. What the hell is the difference between the dell n the apple??

unklerosco

Sad Professor wrote: »

But they're a computer company not an football team and I couldn't care less about their marketing or their phones.

They're getting closer to being a phone maker that does computers on the side now...

I do like OSX, I think its great... Far superior to vista n XP. I'd give anything to be able to use it on my dell, I know u can run it on a dell but its like running vista on a dell ;-)

I just can't justify the costs involved in running the software...

Sad Professor

unklerosco wrote: »

They're getting closer to being a phone maker that does computers on the side now...

I agree and it annoys me but it doesn't affect how I feel about the Mac, which has *always* been overpriced and under-specced and, yes, worth it because of the fantastic OS. Now if you can't afford it anymore I can understand you going back to Windows/PC but for god sake don't do it because you don't like Apple as a company. It reminds me of gamers who support/bash a particular console because they don't like Sony/Microsoft—they're idiots! Focus on the product, forget about the company.

Apple have changed a lot over the years, not always for the best perhaps, but the Mac has stayed pretty consistent imo. I've been using Macs for over a decade and I can't remember a time that I wasn't moaning about Apple.

projectmayhem

unklerosco wrote: »

I picked up a dell xps400... quad core, 4gb ram, 1TB, 8800gtx, TV card, bluray/HD-dvd rw n lots of other little bits for €650. What the hell is the difference between the dell n the apple??

The obvious one is that OS X runs a lot better then Vista. I'm not a MS-hater, I have a nice rig sitting there with Vista... but this year I got a Mac and haven't looked back since. Other then that, my Mac came loaded with software that I use all the time. The first thing I did with Vista was uninstall all the crap it comes with.

The fact that my hardware was calibrated for my software and vice-versa is nice too. It's nice to turn on a machine and not have to go looking for drivers from the internet after purchasing...

Then comes the bit no apple fans seem to want to admit - you're paying for the design. Shockingly enough, my Macbook Pro looks 10x better then anything Dell has ever produced. And I like that... Yeah I paid a premium for it, but I knew I was paying a premium.

As for specs, 1GB of RAM in a Vista machine means you're going to choke as soon as you type up a document in Word. 1GB of RAM in OS X means it'll run near flawlessly. So comparing specs doesn't quite make the same sense as people try to put accross. If I put 4GB of RAM in my mac then great, I have 4GB of ram... I have 4GB of ram in my Vista box and great, I can use 3GB of ram.... and that's before Vista chews up most of 1GB.

Then my final argument (for now ), customer support. I've only had to ring once with a simple issue and it was dealt with in a professional manner by someone (admittedly with an English accent) and he even gave me advice I didn't ask for. He knew his stuff and didn't quite stick to some horrendous "script" (or maybe he did - and knew how to act, but hey he made me feel good, which is all that matters). Ring dell tech support and tell me you'll get the same experience. And yes, I've had to ring dell before through work. Nightmare.

unklerosco

I'm not going back to pcs cause I can't afford a mac... Its partially that n partially because I can't stand apple.. I understand what u mean about the crazy 360/PS3 fanboys. I've had two PS3's and sold them both because I think the 360 is better and I prefare it.

I agree about the ram issues with Vista, I have firefox open and its using 1.8gb of ram for that.. As for the looks, I guess its a personal thing.. I think Apples design used to be great, especially for the iMacs but lately I find it lacking... Dell etc are getting better but then again I'd rather have a €1000 extra in my pocket than having it on my lap..

Customer support, fantastic... Really really good. Dell are much better now than they used to be. We use HP in work and I dred having to ring them, its a nightmare..

Anyways, I still don't think its possible to justify the price premiums they charge... Naimly on the Mac(book) pro's... I'd pay an extra couple of €100 for design and OS but not upto €1k...

Tar.Aldarion

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I have no idea what you guys found so annoying.

Then again, I don't feel like updating every time a new shiny product comes out*.

Point about the ads though. I mean, bashing Vista is like laughing at blind puppies.


Upgrading? What would you upgrade on a laptop beyond RAM & HDD (to be fair, that was a PITA until the Macbook/shiny MBP), anyway?
And what kind of files are you using for them to not work on Macs? (this puzzles me greatly)


*I actually do, but the RDF wears off in a few days

It would have been ages ago and not a laptop. Could be easier now. They are intel.
The files I used are quite standard. It's not that they did not work with a mac, it's that they would not transfer to another os well if created on a mac.

The obvious one is that OS X runs a lot better then Vista. I'm not a MS-hater, I have a nice rig sitting there with Vista... but this year I got a Mac and haven't looked back since. Other then that, my Mac came loaded with software that I use all the time. The first thing I did with Vista was uninstall all the crap it comes with.

The fact that my hardware was calibrated for my software and vice-versa is nice too. It's nice to turn on a machine and not have to go looking for drivers from the internet after purchasing...

Then comes the bit no apple fans seem to want to admit - you're paying for the design. Shockingly enough, my Macbook Pro looks 10x better then anything Dell has ever produced. And I like that... Yeah I paid a premium for it, but I knew I was paying a premium.

As for specs, 1GB of RAM in a Vista machine means you're going to choke as soon as you type up a document in Word. 1GB of RAM in OS X means it'll run near flawlessly. So comparing specs doesn't quite make the same sense as people try to put accross. If I put 4GB of RAM in my mac then great, I have 4GB of ram... I have 4GB of ram in my Vista box and great, I can use 3GB of ram.... and that's before Vista chews up most of 1GB.

that's all well and good for 32 bit vista, assuming you don't use xp where you don't need near as much ram, what about linux on a pc? Why should I pay a grand more for an intel machine that looks 'nice' and has quite expensive linux? :-p
Also people think vista using a lot of ram is a bad thing, I disagree, it makes my programs start faster and ram has never been an issue(unused memory is wasted memory), it costs feck all(my laptop came with 4gb standard).
"The question shouldn't be "Why does Vista use all my memory?", but "Why the heck did previous versions of Windows use my memory so ineffectively?""
Also if you prefer you can make vista use way less memory, I don't see why you would though. When linux does it that is good, when microsoft do it, it is bad?

I agree about the ram issues with Vista, I have firefox open and its using 1.8gb of ram for that.. As for the looks, I guess its a personal thing.. I think Apples design used to be great, especially for the iMacs but lately I find it lacking... Dell etc are getting better but then again I'd rather have a €1000 extra in my pocket than having it on my lap..

I imagine you mean it takes that amount of memory for all processes you have running as well as firefox. Windows start using memory more efficiently and people complain.

projectmayhem

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

that's all well and good for 32 bit vista, assuming you don't use xp where you don't need near as much ram, what about linux on a pc? Why should I pay a grand more for an intel machine that looks 'nice' and has quite expensive linux? :-p

Because "linux" as an idea is fantastic, but has little or no actual product support. I've tried switching to Ubuntu but it's just not worth it. I can't get applications, or even copy-cat applications to do what I want to do.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Also people think vista using a lot of ram is a bad thing, I disagree, it makes my programs start faster and ram has never been an issue(unused memory is wasted memory), it costs feck all(my laptop came with 4gb standard).

I'd rather my OS use less memory and let my applications use the rest of it, tbh. Taking photoshop CS3 as an example, if I sit my Vista rig (quad-core, 4GB ram, et al) next to my standard macbook pro, PS will load much faster on the Mac then on Vista. So my programs don't run faster on Vista at all.

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Also if you prefer you can make vista use way less memory, I don't see why you would though. When linux does it that is good, when microsoft do it, it is bad?

Yeah you can make Vista use less memory, but it's nowhere near OS X or other Linux flavours... it's still not efficient enough compared to other operating systems. It doesn't need to be so bloaty with its memory management.

Red Alert

I switched my laptop to a Macbook Pro and since then I never really used either of my two desktops, and in fact they're gone now. I used to dual boot XP and Linux about 50/50.

In work I use Windows XP x64 with a severe amount of customizations - though two of the three computers there are looking at being migrated to Linux too. Again, I tend to use my Mac for most non-number-crunch stuff.

The real problem with using Linux for a general purpose computer comes down to stuff like iTunes and MobileMe. My Mac lets me do everything linux could and everything windows could. Best of all, it just works.

Tar.Aldarion

projectmayhem wrote: »

Because "linux" as an idea is fantastic, but has little or no actual product support. I've tried switching to Ubuntu but it's just not worth it. I can't get applications, or even copy-cat applications to do what I want to do.

Then you just can't use it, there is nothing you can't do easily. Most stuff wven comes with linux and you just run the installer.
Any number of flavours of linux are better than os x(which is just an expensive flavour of linux that isn't as fast...) and windows. A lot of software specifically for other OS' run way better on linux. The only possible reason to favour windows is gaming for when wine et al don't run them as well.

I'd rather my OS use less memory and let my applications use the rest of it, tbh.

I don't think you understand how SuperFetch works. You just basically said, 'I think my ram should be used more innefficiently, windows should not work like linux and take a step backwards'.
Why do you prefer a worse method?

Taking photoshop CS3 as an example, if I sit my Vista rig (quad-core, 4GB ram, et al) next to my standard macbook pro, PS will load much faster on the Mac then on Vista.

Different SW will open faster on different OS', any number of programs on my vista laptop open faster than my girlfriends mac with better specs. Similarily IE will work better on linux than windows. There is no way a quadcore comp should be beaten by runofthemill macbook though with worse specs. From my experience it opens things faster and the more you use a program with vista the faster it opens.

So my programs don't run faster on Vista at all.

Programs run faster with caching, that's how caching works. Without caching they run slower, that means without the caching things would open slower on vista, similarly with caching on a mac, the programs would open faster. The only reason for slow opening is indexing, real-time defragging etc which you can turn off but people don't do, it is better.

Yeah you can make Vista use less memory, but it's nowhere near OS X or other Linux flavours... it's still not efficient enough compared to other operating systems. It doesn't need to be so bloaty with its memory management.

It does not use memory perfectly, this is microsofts first effort at making a linux type memory caching system. I'm not saying vista is a godsend, it needs improvement. It however is much better than the old system, people generally just don't understand it. 'Omg, vista hogs my memory!1'
you do know this is what linux does already right?

cornbb

Don't think I'll be switching back to PC myself although I can sympathise with people's reasons for wanting to do so. I've always been Mac-skeptic to a degree but I really do prefer the whole (*cough*) user experience... I have Parallels for windows (although I rarely find a need to boot it) and Terminal for my geeky UNIX needs.

The youtube ad in the original post is just highly hypocritical though, when you consider how much of Apple's budget must be blown on the carefully cultivated boutique image.

Dont be at yourself

Any number of flavours of linux are better than os x(which is just an expensive flavour of linux that isn't as fast...) and windows.

Sadly, that statement only rings true for a very small percentage of people. I've used a few different linux distros (Ubuntu, YDL) and they are far from being as user-friendly as OS X, or even Windows. They still require too much knowledge of the workings of computers and operating systems, and things have a propensity to go wrong. When they do go wrong, help & support is scattershot at best, incomprehensible at worst. They are also always playing catch-up in terms of software and hardware support.

Linux, at the moment, is only a solution for a very, very small percentage of the population.

'OS X which is just an expensive flavour of Linux which isn't as fast' is a ridiculous statement to make, and one which ignores the fundamentally different experiences a user will have in using OS X and a Linux distro like Ubuntu.

unklerosco

cornbb wrote: »

The youtube ad in the original post is just highly hypocritical though, when you consider how much of Apple's budget must be blown on the carefully cultivated boutique image.

I read it was $250mil a year compared to Microsofts $300mil once off...

I'm interested see what windows 7 will bring... I aint a huge fan of Vista, mainly cause I use "Tiny XP" n it runs like a rocket with a rocket up its bum and i use XP every single day.. Vista does have some handy features tho.

Tar.Aldarion

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Sadly, that statement only rings true for a very small percentage of people. I've used a few different linux distros (Ubuntu, YDL) and they are far from being as user-friendly as OS X, or even Windows. They still require too much knowledge of the workings of computers and operating systems, and things have a propensity to go wrong. When they do go wrong, help & support is scattershot at best, incomprehensible at worst. They are also always playing catch-up in terms of software and hardware support.

Linux, at the moment, is only a solution for a very, very small percentage of the population.

'OS X which is just an expensive flavour of Linux which isn't as fast' is a ridiculous statement to make, and one which ignores the fundamentally different experiences a user will have in using OS X and a Linux distro like Ubuntu.

I admit linux can be hard for those that are not computer saavy. Especially if something goes wrong, but I don't think it is as hard as you make out. Ie, if they could not fix it in linux, they don't have a hugely better chance of fixing it in windows or OS X. Somebody else will have to hep them still. I thought linux was easy to use when I started it at work having a computer background but that will be different for most people, even making our own little distro floppy in college was easy. I was not referring to the average computer user, simply stating which I think is best. A bit like a fighter jet is a better plane than a propellor plane, even though anybody can go along and fly a propellor plane much easier. On 'user experience' and other factors such as cost etc the picture is greyer. Experience and feel will vary from user to user. Taking that into account, you have a choice bewteen windows and OS X for a person who deosn't want to use linux, for a 1, 000 euro I would rather windows if I preferred OS X.

betafrog wrote: »

Just a quick post to ask everyone to stop calling OS X an expensive form of Linux, it is in fact and expensive form of BSD.

And worth every penny!

It is at that.
Let's just call them all unix.

ZENER

Seems to me that if I posted a similar thread in a PC forum it would probably be ignored for the most part because they simply wouldn't give a damn.

The low spec hardware argument holds no water for me at all. Up until very recently it was impossible to get a Windows laptop with Bluetooth built in or Firewire (Sony excepted) as standard. Optical audio out on Mac notebooks or built in Webcams again only recent additions to upper end notebooks. Widows Vista costs from 74 euro (OEM with no support) to over 360 euro - Leopard costs 129 euro - end of !

However I've just seen an ad on TV (during Sky 2 Cold Case @ about 23:47) with various people claiming to be "A PC" - WTF ?! Seems like M$ are getting nervous over Apples gravity towards computer users. Why if people are going back to it ?

For those wishing to go back to Windows - so long, it was nice having you here and I hope our help and interaction here has made your experience a little better. You'll be back though !

Me personally I've never been a Windows user except for to use CoolEdit Pro. Soundtrack Pro put paid to that.

As for Linux - don't make me laugh. For appliances like FreeNAS or Smoothwall or SME Server they're great but please don't try to convince anyone that it's a serious replacement for Windows or OS X, it isn't and never will be until some of the bigger software producers port to it. GIMP will never be PhotoShop, Audacity will never be CoolEdit or Soundtrack Pro. Don't get me started about support . . . . .

I've tried nearly every flavor and have never found one that I would consider using day to day for my work or play. It wasn't because the distros were poor it's simply that the apps were atrocious.

I'll stick with my Macs thanks. After 15 years of cleaning up Windows machines for ignorant users I will avoid it like the plague !!

ZEN

unklerosco

ZENER wrote: »

The low spec hardware argument holds no water for me at all. Up until very recently it was impossible to get a Windows laptop with Bluetooth built in or Firewire (Sony excepted) as standard.

ZEN

Rubbish... My GF's dell X300 has firewire n buetooth built in n thats about 5yrs old... We've a load of old laptops in work that have both too...

Although ur right about the pirces etc.. 1 version of leopard 1 price. There's 6 versions of Vista and 5 prices(ones free).. Its crazy, same for office. Was doing tech support for an Adobe seminar yesterday, 3 versions of acrobat. The constant question throughout the day was, "what version do I need to do that"

ZENER

unklerosco wrote: »

Rubbish... My GF's dell X300 has firewire n buetooth built in n thats about 5yrs old... We've a load of old laptops in work that have both too...

Ok granted some machines had these features but they were standard across the range of Apple machines. Apple have frequently led the way with new technologies, Firewire and Bluetooth were among these. The argument between USB2 and Firewire is like the one about HD-DVD and BluRay or Betamax and VHS, only in one of these did the technically superior format win - guess ? My point was that these items were not standard fare in the majority of Wintel machines until about 3 years after Apple standardised them in their products.

Although ur right about the pirces etc.. 1 version of leopard 1 price. There's 6 versions of Vista and 5 prices(ones free).. Its crazy, same for office. Was doing tech support for an Adobe seminar yesterday, 3 versions of acrobat. The constant question throughout the day was, "what version do I need to do that"

Vista for free ?! Do tell . Office is a product that benefits from a price structure - not everyone requires Access or Outlook or even Powerpoint, for the majority of users (Windows and Mac) the only app they use from the package is Word and maybe Excel while office environs would make use of the other components.

Adobe Acrobat is a pain IMO. Slow, crash prone and in most cases not necessary except for particular features usually used in a business - Preview does everything I need for viewing PDFs.

ZEN

unklerosco

Vista starter is the free one... Only available in developing countries..

As for office... http://www.komplett.ie/k/kl.aspx?mfr=&bn=10338&sortBy=p&zbo2=false

Which one do I need?? Arrrggghhh.. There's too many.

As for the bluetooth etc. In fairness to apple. Their laptop range was quite small back then, they only had two chassis to build. The likes of dell/HP had a good few more varialbles... They are at the front of tech tho, they sure as hell charge u for it tho...

I'll be back when they release a 10-12" multitouch tablet for $999.... No sooner

ZENER

unklerosco wrote: »

Vista starter is the free one... Only available in developing countries..

So where do I pick up my copy ?

I'll be back when they release a 10-12" multitouch tablet for $999.... No sooner

There's another thread in this forum called Apple Tax which includes a link to an MS spokesperson. In the interview he mentions several times about a new sub $900 product from Apple due out very soon. Could that maybe throw the cat amongst the pigeons ?

ZEN

aidan_walsh

The sub $900 product is most likely the result of the rumour flying around before the last keynote, where a reporter was tipped off about a new $800 device and immediately speculated that it was a new Macbook, to be delivered a new cinema display.

Tar.Aldarion

ZENER wrote: »

Ok granted some machines had these features but they were standard across the range of Apple machines. Apple have frequently led the way with new technologies, Firewire and Bluetooth were among these. The argument between USB2 and Firewire is like the one about HD-DVD and BluRay or Betamax and VHS, only in one of these did the technically superior format win - guess ? My point was that these items were not standard fare in the majority of Wintel machines until about 3 years after Apple standardised them in their products.

Bluetooth seems pretty standard for years, I have had to ask manufacturers to specificially not have bluetooth on my last two laptops because I did not want it, similarly my last 3 laptops had webcams as standard. As for firewire 400 vs USB 2.0, both have their advantages but the reason it was not standardised is because of not being ubiquitous, usb is used for more things. Even ipods not just come with usb standard(for two reasons). I think usb was a bit cheaper to implement too? I had to write an essay on advantages of usb over firewire in final year but that's hazy.

ZENER wrote: »

So where do I pick up my copy ?

You can pick it up in about 140 countries if you want it bad.

K.O.Kiki

Back to the ads, what's up with that Windows one that has a little African kid dancing around, singing "I'm PC, I'm PC, I'm PC"?

Exploitation of the poor FTW!*


*I realise the kid might not have been poor or African -- but I'm certain that's what I was supposed to believe

unklerosco

The adds are to show that a pc isn't the guy in the mac adds... Although a mac is deffo the guy in the mac adds.... ;-p

johnk123

Seems to me that someone just started this thread to have a bit of a row...

unklerosco

Its not a row... its a...................emmmmm.....

Soundman

unklerosco wrote: »

Its not a row... its a...................emmmmm.....

difference of opinion?

unklerosco

Soundman wrote: »

difference of opinion?

Exactly

TerrorFirmer

Got a Macbook as a trade the last day, have to say I love it. So much quicker then either XP or Vista to boot by a long shot, more comparable to a heavily stripped down XP. I was already familiar with the OS so that's not really a big thing but I have to say after a day it was as if I'd been using it forever.

I wouldn't try to be one of those people who claim that they'd never go back to a PC/PC sucks balls, so on and so forth, ever again because my main PC will always be a windows based one, but I like my Mac just as much for the basics. One thing I have to say is that the standard features/software on a Mac are far superior to a plain XP/Vista install, there's a great sense of inclusiveness to the OS. We're all very conditioned to Windows and it's the established 'computer' for 90% of people but I think if a group of people had never used either operating system before osx is far more colorful and engaging from a basic functional point of view. Most people instantly look at it as a strange alternative to windows rather then a direct competitor, which is a shame.

Getting by OK even on the games front though to my surprise, enjoying the Marathon trilogy immensely! And Call of Duty 2....:)

Still don't think I'd buy a Mac new though. Just a tad too pricey for the hardware you're getting, not so much with the cheapest macbook but the higher you climb the price raises at an extortionate level.

jmck87

Interesting discussion....not as many biased views as usual lol

Apple nail down the 'user experience' way better than Microsoft....and market it to perfection. They pack their products superbly, create a hype about new products, etc etc.

If I was Steve Jobs I'd be proud of the business that Apple has become. If I was Bill Gates I'd be laughing hysterically all the way to the bank....lol

Personally, the best solution to computing for me is a Macbook with the ability to run Windows for the oddball programs....granted that comes at a premium cost, but I would never discourage someone on a tight budget from buying a Vista laptop.

kazzer

jmck87 wrote: »

Interesting discussion....not as many biased views as usual lol

Apple nail down the 'user experience' way better than Microsoft....and market it to perfection. They pack their products superbly, create a hype about new products, etc etc.

If I was Steve Jobs I'd be proud of the business that Apple has become. If I was Bill Gates I'd be laughing hysterically all the way to the bank....lol

Personally, the best solution to computing for me is a Macbook with the ability to run Windows for the oddball programs....granted that comes at a premium cost, but I would never discourage someone on a tight budget from buying a Vista laptop.

I definitely would discourage them. This is asking for trouble! Budget laptop and Vista do not go well together.