Apple obsession or delusion
Discussion
crowfield said:
Windows XP!!??? Finished and went out of support ages ago. Open to all sorts of nasties these days as Microsoft no longer patches the holes any more. Glad you are not hooked into my network!
Who said it connects to the internet or a network? It serves one use and thats it.I could put windows 7 on it but why fix something that isnt broken?
I've been using pcs for software development for about 25 years using both windows and linux. I also used sun sparc machines a long time ago too. I had a mac laptop for the last job and on the basis of that I bought a mac mini quad core machine for home. I'm not back on windows 7 at work on a quick laptop. I don't much care what OS I'm using although I do prefer what's on the mac but the main differentiator is that the mac is more reliable. I don't have to reboot it and the performance is always consistent. They're worth a bit extra to me. Use cases differ though I guess.
TheAngryDog said:
crowfield said:
Windows XP!!??? Finished and went out of support ages ago. Open to all sorts of nasties these days as Microsoft no longer patches the holes any more. Glad you are not hooked into my network!
Who said it connects to the internet or a network? It serves one use and thats it.I could put windows 7 on it but why fix something that isnt broken?
crowfield said:
TheAngryDog said:
crowfield said:
Windows XP!!??? Finished and went out of support ages ago. Open to all sorts of nasties these days as Microsoft no longer patches the holes any more. Glad you are not hooked into my network!
Who said it connects to the internet or a network? It serves one use and thats it.I could put windows 7 on it but why fix something that isnt broken?
K12beano said:
Did I mention my new Mac arrived... Took it out of box, plugged in, switched on and it just does stuff....
As did my HP Windows Laptop, so your point is?crowfield said:
TheAngryDog said:
^^^ another person who misses the point about cost entirely. I'm never buying an apple product again, it seems to affect intellence 
But my Mac cost, say £1000 and lasts at least 8 years and still performs perfectly, I spend £500 on a PC laptop ( HP Probook if you must know ) and within a year it is slowing down. After 3 years I shall have to replace with another £500 laptop, so overall the cost is higher - Since owning the Mac, I have had 3 PC laptops. And as to affecting intelligence - you cant even spell it! 
I've got a 3 year old laptop, it hasn't slowed down. Well, actually not strictly true - I overclocked the NVidia GPU a little too far, so am now on the Intel HD3k instead. Otherwise it is running as quickly as the day I bought it - and as its running an i7-2630QM, that is pretty rapid for most regular tasks.
My 7 year old PC desktop has just been retired. I put it together for about a grand, it didn't slow down as far as I could tell and I never had a reliability issue with it. People always compare Macs to whatever cheapo plastic PC they had before, so obviously it seems great in comparison as Apple don't make cheap rubbish, compare it to a decent PC and the gap will be less or none (and so will the price difference). Horses for courses.
I think we will all have to agree to disagree here. I am a heavy user of both PC and also Mac. From my point of view, I have to replace the PC's far quicker than the Macs. I dont play games, they are purely business tools, with internet and email in addition to regular office type programs. ( Office 2013, Sage Accounts ( not Mac ) , Photoshop CS6, Vsphere Client etc.)
This take me right back...RISCOS vs Windows, PC vs Mac, Playstation vs Saturn, Chelsea vs Man U. Religious wars are always great fun and entirely unproductive; still, it whiles away the hours I suppose.
By the way, *my* machines are really old and really fast and sooo much better than yours and are rreeeaaaally advanced cos Bill Jobs said so and..and...and your mums fat and your dog smells SO THERE!!!!
By the way, *my* machines are really old and really fast and sooo much better than yours and are rreeeaaaally advanced cos Bill Jobs said so and..and...and your mums fat and your dog smells SO THERE!!!!
deckster said:
This take me right back...RISCOS vs Windows, PC vs Mac, Playstation vs Saturn, Chelsea vs Man U. Religious wars are always great fun and entirely unproductive; still, it whiles away the hours I suppose.
By the way, *my* machines are really old and really fast and sooo much better than yours and are rreeeaaaally advanced cos Bill Jobs said so and..and...and your mums fat and your dog smells SO THERE!!!!
Risc OS was better than Windows. And as the underlying hardware that powered it is now running the majority of phones on the planet, that war has won in an expected way - and that was partially down to Apples investment.By the way, *my* machines are really old and really fast and sooo much better than yours and are rreeeaaaally advanced cos Bill Jobs said so and..and...and your mums fat and your dog smells SO THERE!!!!
Was there ever a PS v Saturn battle? Saturn was around the point that Sega realised they should give up.
Chelsea v Man U is easy - football is a crappy game.
And my PC is way faster than yours, 'cos I said it is. Nyah nyah nyah so there, with knobs on.
crowfield said:
I think we will all have to agree to disagree here. I am a heavy user of both PC and also Mac. From my point of view, I have to replace the PC's far quicker than the Macs. I dont play games, they are purely business tools, with internet and email in addition to regular office type programs. ( Office 2013, Sage Accounts ( not Mac ) , Photoshop CS6, Vsphere Client etc.)
Agree. I'm a big hobbyist self-build PC fan, and I have more computing power in my home PC than the met office (well nearly 
) and I've been building them for 25 years since I was a student in the days when to get Sensible Soccer running on your 386sx you had to spend about 3 hours d1cking around with config.sys and autoexec.bat files 
BUT for work, and any commercial use Apple wins hand down. High quality construction, easier to maintain, and the closed eco-system means that they are all standard with identical drivers, known issues etc. The retina screen will be calibrated within known tolerances so my images will look as they're intended, rather than so random colour gamut that the PC manufacturer puts in on the cheap. Then of course battery life........ the PC world is still like the wild west in comparison. It's luxury saloon vs cheap Korean motor.Edited by StuH on Friday 5th December 15:10
StuH said:
crowfield said:
I think we will all have to agree to disagree here. I am a heavy user of both PC and also Mac. From my point of view, I have to replace the PC's far quicker than the Macs. I dont play games, they are purely business tools, with internet and email in addition to regular office type programs. ( Office 2013, Sage Accounts ( not Mac ) , Photoshop CS6, Vsphere Client etc.)
Agree. I'm a big hobbyist self-build PC fan, and I have more computing power in my home PC than the met office (well nearly ) and I've been building them for 25 years since I was a student in the days when to get Sensible Soccer running on your 386sx you had to spend about 3 hours d1cking around with config.sys and autoexec.bat files BUT for work, and any commercial use Apple wins hand down. High quality construction, easier to maintain, and the closed eco-system means that they are all standard with identical drivers, known issues etc. The retina screen will be calibrated within known tolerances so my images will look as they're intended, rather than so random colour gamut that the PC manufacturer puts in on the cheap. Then of course battery life........ the PC world is still like the wild west in comparison. It's luxury saloon vs cheap Korean motor.Edited by StuH on Friday 5th December 15:10
I've got a rather nice calibrated IPS screen at work that would (at the time) have rivalled anything Apple produced.
And "any commercial use" is pretty broad - so when you're doing random software development for PCs, you should be using a Mac? Or for doing standard document production, a Mac is a better bet - even at a corporate that has tens of thousands of PCs?
Sure, there are cheap rubbish PCs around. And there are well built, high quality PCs around. Apple just don't bother with the low end.
My last word on the matter. I have just got a brand new Fujitsu Core i5 out of the box, powered it up and let it load into Windows. Rebooted, then ran Windows update. It installed 80+ updates, restarted and was back into Windows ( 7, not 8 ) I have run Windows update again and again and installed all available updates until it reported there are no more updates available. Now the boot time has increased quite considerably. Brand new PC and with no software installed on it as yet, but the updates have already slowed it down. I shall say no more on the matter.
clonmult said:
You aren't comparing like with like though.
I've got a rather nice calibrated IPS screen at work that would (at the time) have rivalled anything Apple produced.
And "any commercial use" is pretty broad - so when you're doing random software development for PCs, you should be using a Mac? Or for doing standard document production, a Mac is a better bet - even at a corporate that has tens of thousands of PCs?
Sure, there are cheap rubbish PCs around. And there are well built, high quality PCs around. Apple just don't bother with the low end.
Well yes to an extent you are right, but the general argument goes 'apple macs are a ripoff' or similar, but they're not, they're actually great value for businesses, corporates and any profession where your laptop earns your living. Build quality is excellent, screens are standard and high quality, easy to support, etc. They are a TOOL fit for purpose. Yes I can spec a similar Windows laptop but it won't be a standard model and I will pay through the nose for the privilege to the likes of Dell, HP or Alienware, for some huge heavy desktop replacement with cr8p battery life! It's no wonder that most big corporate now buy them, as they will still be working in 3 years time, and the support costs are a fraction of fragmented PCs all with differing GPU's, HDUs etc. So to get a Windows laptop anywhere near as well specced as a retina macbook you have to pay as much as you for a Mac but without having a standard supportable machine.I've got a rather nice calibrated IPS screen at work that would (at the time) have rivalled anything Apple produced.
And "any commercial use" is pretty broad - so when you're doing random software development for PCs, you should be using a Mac? Or for doing standard document production, a Mac is a better bet - even at a corporate that has tens of thousands of PCs?
Sure, there are cheap rubbish PCs around. And there are well built, high quality PCs around. Apple just don't bother with the low end.
I also have a nice calibrated (pair of) pro monitors at home, but I've yet to find a laptop screen that offers anything like quality of a Retina MacBook for use on the move.
Yes. For all the reasons I've stated. A business (and any intelligent person) looks at TCO not just initial capital, and there are several studies which make a very valid case for Apple on this basis, due to higher residual values, cheaper support costs, and hardware longevity.
Like I say I have a PC I use for video post production work, 12 core XEON, 64Gb RAM, Raided SSD's but It;s still no Mac, and I'll be moving to Mac Pro when they refresh with Broadwell CPU's in the new year as I can pick it up from my desk at work and bring it home due its small size and light weight. Try that with a comparable specced PC!
StuH said:
the general argument goes 'apple macs are a ripoff' or similar
Not really, the general argument seems to be - I bought a PC for £300 and it wasn't as nice as my £1K Mac ..I haven't rebuilt my PC in ages and it still boots up quickly, I don't know what people are doing to slow their Windows PC's to a crawl other than installing a load of rubbish on them that runs at startup (admittedly this is much easier to do with Windows than iOS).
The above all typed on my mid 2014 i7 / 16GB RAM MacBook Pro ..
I do find it interesting that people rarely get het up about luxury brands, in fact often young males often do the opposite - love the idea of super expensive 'gucci' kit; but when it comes to apple, one of the few 'luxury' electronics brands, people take offence and complain.
Are Nike air Max worth paying double the cost of similar brands? No. But people are happy to pay it. Why would apple not be included in this? They are beautifully made, very well thought out, reliable generally. Nobody forces you to pay a little extra, but people seem to get really angry about them.
Odd.
Are Nike air Max worth paying double the cost of similar brands? No. But people are happy to pay it. Why would apple not be included in this? They are beautifully made, very well thought out, reliable generally. Nobody forces you to pay a little extra, but people seem to get really angry about them.
Odd.
ATG said:
When someone buys Nike they don't usually say "I really need Nike. You'd be mad to buy anything else. They're better value for money really. They stop my feet smelling and everyone else's trainers are just crap in comparison."
Parallel to a thread going on in Biker Banter, how Harley and Ducati riders look down on everything else.
I did like the Apple -> Gucci comparison though. Though no-one ever talked to me why I didn't buy a Gucci wallet instead of brand X.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff