To Mac ..or not...
Discussion
Depends. If you're just wanting to do a spot of Office work (MS Office is available for t'Mac), internetting, email and whatnot, then yes. Shutterbugs are well served too, with PS Elements 6, iPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom all doing the do for photo phun.
If you need to run a specific piece of Windows software (perhaps Quicken, for example), then yes, but spring for a copy of Parallels or VMWare Fusion (or have a go with VirtualBox) to run a virtual PC with Windows on it.
If you're a serious gamer, then no. Get a Windows PC or budget for a copy of Windows to install on your Mac in dual-boot stylee.
Have a go with one. See if you get on with it. I can eulogise about OS X all day long, but if you don't like it, you don't like it.
ETA: There's a whole raft of activities on Windows associated with the maintenance of antivirus software, anti-spyware software and so on that just doesn't exist on OS X. There are no viruses or spyware for OS X (OK, there was one, but it required the user to explicitly download and install it, and it didn't really work anyway) and so while Symantec will flog you software for detecting viruses, you don't need it.
If you need to run a specific piece of Windows software (perhaps Quicken, for example), then yes, but spring for a copy of Parallels or VMWare Fusion (or have a go with VirtualBox) to run a virtual PC with Windows on it.
If you're a serious gamer, then no. Get a Windows PC or budget for a copy of Windows to install on your Mac in dual-boot stylee.
Have a go with one. See if you get on with it. I can eulogise about OS X all day long, but if you don't like it, you don't like it.
ETA: There's a whole raft of activities on Windows associated with the maintenance of antivirus software, anti-spyware software and so on that just doesn't exist on OS X. There are no viruses or spyware for OS X (OK, there was one, but it required the user to explicitly download and install it, and it didn't really work anyway) and so while Symantec will flog you software for detecting viruses, you don't need it.
Edited by CommanderJameson on Saturday 30th August 17:44
Yes. If you are sick of crashing and rebooting Windows and the pain of installing new versions / drivers for your software - a Mac will be a positive experience. However, if you don't like change and have a need to run specific Windows applications, best to stick with good-old-windows.
Me? Mac all the way.
Me? Mac all the way.
Morpeth said:
yes if its just for internet, music, word docs etc...
AgreeMorpeth said:
No if you use any specialist software,
Disagree, but the purchaser has to factor their own specialist needs in to whatever computing purchase they make. I have no problems with the sole use of Macs at home and work including specialist applications. CommanderJameson said:
Depends. If you're just wanting to do a spot of Office work (MS Office is available for t'Mac), internetting, email and whatnot, then yes. Shutterbugs are well served too, with PS Elements 6, iPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom all doing the do for photo phun.
If you need to run a specific piece of Windows software (perhaps Quicken, for example), then yes, but spring for a copy of Parallels or VMWare Fusion (or have a go with VirtualBox) to run a virtual PC with Windows on it.
If you're a serious gamer, then no. Get a Windows PC or budget for a copy of Windows to install on your Mac in dual-boot stylee.
Have a go with one. See if you get on with it. I can eulogise about OS X all day long, but if you don't like it, you don't like it.
+1, that sounds like good advice If you need to run a specific piece of Windows software (perhaps Quicken, for example), then yes, but spring for a copy of Parallels or VMWare Fusion (or have a go with VirtualBox) to run a virtual PC with Windows on it.
If you're a serious gamer, then no. Get a Windows PC or budget for a copy of Windows to install on your Mac in dual-boot stylee.
Have a go with one. See if you get on with it. I can eulogise about OS X all day long, but if you don't like it, you don't like it.
I thought this would be another mac worshipping thread
I'm apple born and bred been using them since the classic!! (and still have it) i use a macbook pro for work. Recently had too change our elderly ibook for home use and after lots of discussions went for p.c (hp) and this is my first pc / vista experience! and have too say the whole experience is overly complicated, norton download this, install that, wifi not working!!! rubbish!!! it's being sold next week and i'm going for a macbook. if it's for home use there's no beating mac, look better and they do just work!!
I changed my router a couple of weeks back and in the time it took to set up the firewall I had a serious virus. I have lost about 3 months of photos (The rest was backed up) including my best friends wedding. It took a week with an expert to get rid of the virus and now I have to re-install EVERYTHING.
It is a 64bit system and OS, it is a sod to get anything to work on it and I am sick of running around after it. Time, I just dont have.
I am PC born and bred, will it be an easy transition to a "hairdresers computer"?
It is a 64bit system and OS, it is a sod to get anything to work on it and I am sick of running around after it. Time, I just dont have.
I am PC born and bred, will it be an easy transition to a "hairdresers computer"?
i just can't seem to get on with vista, its such a system hog unless you spend decent cash, so i'l stick with the mac, had the laptop 4 years, can take over a gig of ram and copes with over 15 audio and software instrument inputs plus all their effects and what not when I produce a tune.
all in all depends what your core needs are!
all in all depends what your core needs are!
I came back from the US last trip with a 3.06 Imac 24" and am loving it, at work I use a pro but for internet and image work the imac is awesome and looks lovely to boot. Work have bought me office for mac so that covers the business side (twas expensive though).
Seems very stable and I have boot camp if I need a pc works perfectly.
We use a minimac for a tv download machine and I reckon the next laptop could well be a mac as well. I only really miss hardcore games though I have the xbox for that now.
Seems very stable and I have boot camp if I need a pc works perfectly.
We use a minimac for a tv download machine and I reckon the next laptop could well be a mac as well. I only really miss hardcore games though I have the xbox for that now.
R5GTTgaz said:
I've just done the switch to a Mac, it took a bit of persuasion in the Mac shop for the guy to justify the price over a normal windows pc but now I wouldn't be without it.
As they say 'it just works'
I'm no techno whizkid though so people with Linux and all that might disagree.
Yeah I'm usually a Linux user apart from this laptop I use for junk such as this.As they say 'it just works'
I'm no techno whizkid though so people with Linux and all that might disagree.
So for me I use my Mac for music, but alos have a PC running Ubuntu for music as well.
If the choice for you is windows or mac. I would go for a Mac.
Gooby said:
I changed my router a couple of weeks back and in the time it took to set up the firewall I had a serious virus. I have lost about 3 months of photos (The rest was backed up) including my best friends wedding. It took a week with an expert to get rid of the virus and now I have to re-install EVERYTHING.
It is a 64bit system and OS, it is a sod to get anything to work on it and I am sick of running around after it. Time, I just dont have.
I am PC born and bred, will it be an easy transition to a "hairdresers computer"?
If you're even half computer literate, OS X will be a doddle to operate. There'll be a transition period where you're getting re-orientated, because things aren't in the same place, and others don't work in quite the same way, but overall you'll be fine. It's logical (mostly) and consistent (mostly).It is a 64bit system and OS, it is a sod to get anything to work on it and I am sick of running around after it. Time, I just dont have.
I am PC born and bred, will it be an easy transition to a "hairdresers computer"?
You might find that you don't like it, though; which is why I recommended having a go with one. Perhaps see if you can borrow a mate's laptop, or something?
Yes. 100%. I have 2, have grown up building and using Windows based machines and saying Macs were gay nonetheless.
Buying a Mac, whilst a bit of a gamble, has turned out to be the single best thing I ever done in computing terms. Using Windows now feels like going back to driving a 1.0 Nova after my Evo7.. it's just horiffic.
It's a telling fact that so many people who have to work with Windows each day, or who have been pretty advanced Windows users in the past, or build software which runs on it, choose a Mac as their home machine.
Buying a Mac, whilst a bit of a gamble, has turned out to be the single best thing I ever done in computing terms. Using Windows now feels like going back to driving a 1.0 Nova after my Evo7.. it's just horiffic.
It's a telling fact that so many people who have to work with Windows each day, or who have been pretty advanced Windows users in the past, or build software which runs on it, choose a Mac as their home machine.
This is wandering a bit off topic, but...
Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Windows is internally as complex as it is. Microsoft have never really done what Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition, and that internal complexity gets reflected in the outward presentation of the operating system and the software that runs on it. Microsoft have a huge problem in that they really can't just toss everything, like Apple did, and start over with a new software architecture. They also have a huge problem in that their software development management structure is unfeasibly complicated and unwieldy, but that's another story.
Windows has a huge remit to be all things to all people - from gamers up to multiprocessor servers. It was never going to be small, or simple.
(Apple got around the compatibility issue by creating the Classic environment, which pretty much started up an instance of OS 9 on your OS X box in order to run old software. But it wasn't perfect and it didn't always work - I was glad to see its absence from OS X 10.5 because it meant that software vendors had no excuse any more to write Ye Olde Style Apple software.)
R5GTTgaz said:
I found when I got my Mac book that you kind of have to dumb down your thinking, not in a bad way, but in a way that after a few days will make your life so much easier and you will wonder what the hell they were thinking when they programmed windows.
I can sort of answer your last question: "How do we make an operating system that is backwards compatible all the way back to Windows 2?"Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Windows is internally as complex as it is. Microsoft have never really done what Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition, and that internal complexity gets reflected in the outward presentation of the operating system and the software that runs on it. Microsoft have a huge problem in that they really can't just toss everything, like Apple did, and start over with a new software architecture. They also have a huge problem in that their software development management structure is unfeasibly complicated and unwieldy, but that's another story.
Windows has a huge remit to be all things to all people - from gamers up to multiprocessor servers. It was never going to be small, or simple.
(Apple got around the compatibility issue by creating the Classic environment, which pretty much started up an instance of OS 9 on your OS X box in order to run old software. But it wasn't perfect and it didn't always work - I was glad to see its absence from OS X 10.5 because it meant that software vendors had no excuse any more to write Ye Olde Style Apple software.)
CommanderJameson said:
This is wandering a bit off topic, but...
Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Windows is internally as complex as it is. Microsoft have never really done what Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition, and that internal complexity gets reflected in the outward presentation of the operating system and the software that runs on it. Microsoft have a huge problem in that they really can't just toss everything, like Apple did, and start over with a new software architecture. They also have a huge problem in that their software development management structure is unfeasibly complicated and unwieldy, but that's another story.
Windows has a huge remit to be all things to all people - from gamers up to multiprocessor servers. It was never going to be small, or simple.
(Apple got around the compatibility issue by creating the Classic environment, which pretty much started up an instance of OS 9 on your OS X box in order to run old software. But it wasn't perfect and it didn't always work - I was glad to see its absence from OS X 10.5 because it meant that software vendors had no excuse any more to write Ye Olde Style Apple software.)
that is a very good point. The old ibm risk chip sends strings of very complex commands in and out of the cpu, therefore there are less commands running so the cpu can run faster, the PC old cpu(before dual core) had lots of simple commands but due to the amount ran relatively slower than the equivelent risk chip. However the dualcore cpu's are in a whole different ball game and are very good on both platformsR5GTTgaz said:
I found when I got my Mac book that you kind of have to dumb down your thinking, not in a bad way, but in a way that after a few days will make your life so much easier and you will wonder what the hell they were thinking when they programmed windows.
I can sort of answer your last question: "How do we make an operating system that is backwards compatible all the way back to Windows 2?"Backwards compatibility is one of the reasons that Windows is internally as complex as it is. Microsoft have never really done what Apple did with the OS 9 to OS X transition, and that internal complexity gets reflected in the outward presentation of the operating system and the software that runs on it. Microsoft have a huge problem in that they really can't just toss everything, like Apple did, and start over with a new software architecture. They also have a huge problem in that their software development management structure is unfeasibly complicated and unwieldy, but that's another story.
Windows has a huge remit to be all things to all people - from gamers up to multiprocessor servers. It was never going to be small, or simple.
(Apple got around the compatibility issue by creating the Classic environment, which pretty much started up an instance of OS 9 on your OS X box in order to run old software. But it wasn't perfect and it didn't always work - I was glad to see its absence from OS X 10.5 because it meant that software vendors had no excuse any more to write Ye Olde Style Apple software.)
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff