Travel Technology - Mac or PC

Personal laptop has died :mad: and I am not going to pay Lenovo another $300 to tell me that something is wrong again!

Having been a die hard PC fan, I am looking at converting over to a Mac. Most of my personal computer work is email, surfing the web, photos, design and video stuff and having tried a friend's mac I was impressed.

What is the forum's thoughts and what do you use?

Mac user myself. My first computer was a Mac, then converted to PC, now back to Mac. If you were impressed, then Mac is the answer.

And if you fly from T5, reserve one at PC World or Dixons and you won't pay the 15% VAT.

Be prepared though. You buy an Apple Laptop, next is an iPhone, then a Time Capsule, then a nice Apple screen, and before you know it, you're an addict.:D

http://blogs.computerworld.com/four_things_windows_7_can_learn_from_mac_os_x

http://chris.pirillo.com/50-reasons-to-switch-from-microsoft-windows-to-apples-mac-os-x/

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977680150

I went from being a PC guy to a Mac guy. Not regretted it for a minute.

The only slight problem is that the product I specialise in doesn't work too well on MacOS. However, I find that running Windows XP via Bootcamp is actually better than I've ever had it on a PC!

Cheers,
Rick

I went to Mac 2 years ago and have never looked back. Everything just seems to work. I added XP on to mine via bootcamp as well just in case there was anything that wouldn't run on OSX. I think I've used it twice in 2 years, I just get frustrated now with Windows.

If you know any students/teachers/anyone working in HE sector then the Apple educational discounts are good too.

Remember you can use Boot camp or Parallels for using yoiur curent applaicatiosn until you need to replace.

Mac laptops are haevy and hot, the Air is light but not reccomended.

In fact the only blip on the Mac horizon is taht the computers are not selling. The buisness is being driven by the iphone and ipod,in some ways the main business is back where it was pre-ipod

Heavy and hot? Not in my experience.

My Unibody Macbook runs very cool (never hear the fan) and is pretty light.

Cheers,
Rick

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/125)

Another PC to Mac guy. Still use PC at work.

Macs are for non-techies. Its usually plug in and go. Software installation is simple and less goes wrong compared to Windows. I suppose Mac builds the hardware and Opertating Systems hand in hand.
This is not the case with Windows and PCs.

For the techies, Macs are frustrating because there is limited ability to "fiddle around"

Another Mac fan. I grew up with Macs at home and school, and then switched to PCs at university. I replaced my university PC laptop with a Mac and I have been very happy. I love the way it comes with the software for photos and email.

However the laptop chargers are not robust enough and easily break. We've had two break (including one that had never even left the house) and have ended up buying an emergency spare. And they are not cheap to buy either. :mad:

But overall, it's a ^ for Mac from me.

Another PC -> Mac convert. I used to hate Mac users, they were so smug. I now understand what they were smug about. Reasons for me to keep being a Mac user
1) security. Macs are just so much easier to maintain, without constant threats from malware, viruses etc. I've actually accidentally visited sites containing malware, and never had a problem.
2) ease of use - although some things I find annoying (I still use a PC at work, so remembering the different key combinations for MS Office is a pain when switching between the two), generally, Macs just get on and do things. Instead of the annoying paper clip, I think Macs work out what you want to do, send you off to go drink coffee while they sort it for you.
3)sorting things out when things go wrong - the resources online are pretty good, and so far, I haven't had a problem I couldn't solve using them. I even managed to add in more memory to my Mac - something a non-geek like me wouldn't have considered, but the instructions were very clear (and started with 'place a towel on the ground' so at my level :D). I did have another FTer hold my hand through the operation!
4) aesthetically pleasing to use - so many of the basic programmes just seem a lot better than the MS equivalent. And now I have my first i-phone, phone and Mac fit together seemlessly!

One more Mac fan. But maybe the pro Mac brigade is always going to be more vocal in their loyalty out of perceived necessity?

For me the no brainer with with Mac is the manufacturer of hardware also makes the operating system software. For me that results in more seamless running of all applications and a distinct lack of need for third party plug-ins to add more functionality -- it's there already, out of the box as they say. But as per first para, I would say that! :cool:

Having been a die hard PC fan, I am looking at converting over to a Mac. Most of my personal computer work is email, surfing the web, photos, design and video stuff and having tried a friend's mac I was impressed.

Sounds like a Mac will be ideal if that's all you'd use it for as those seem to be its strengths.

We'll let this subject run on the BA forum for a few days before moving it on to Travel Technology.

Prospero
Moderator: BAEC forum

Do you travel a lot? That's my only reservation against my lovely Mac: it's heavy to lug around.

Work provide me with a 12" Compaq with Windows which is very light and perfectly usable, whilst at home I've become a Mac convert with laptop, wireless keyboard and mouse, cinema display, TV, phone, iPod... they really are that good.

For overnight personal trips I've landed on the a Dell Hackbook (but then I am geek enough to almost enjoy getting that to work).

As they say, 'Once you go Mac, you never go back'.

That is most certainly true.

Another PC -> Mac convert. I used to hate Mac users, they were so smug. I now understand what they were smug about.

Absolutely!

I went PC-Mac in 2007 after my previous laptop - an £1800 IBM Thinkpad - went back to IBM for repair one time too many in the first few years.

The industry I'm in is so Mac biased, people are almost religious about Macs, and their self-righteous smugness was what kept my from trying a Mac for so long. However, once I got one, after about a week I was seeing some benefit - after a month I knew I'd never go back.

Generally speaking, Macs just work. PCs always took me a hideous amount of time trying to get them to do what I wanted. Macs just do it, it's almost a bit boring in a way.

I am also a committed Mac fan, but will mention some of the potential disadvantages:

1. MacBooks are more expensive than PC laptops, though the gap narrows significantly if you compare with a PC laptop with all the same features (see the Which? report).

2. I highly recommend getting a 2 year extended warranty: all my PowerBooks and MacBooks have needed repair valued at more than the cost of a warranty, probably because I treat them roughly and they travel everywhere with me. (Being a cheapskate, I have found you can buy the extended warranty half price on US eBay!). Apple Store repairs are much faster than authorised repairers.

3. The current version of Microsoft Office for Mac does not support macros (they are promised for the next release). You either need to run the previous version of Office (easy if it is still installed), or use Office for Windows.

One more Mac fan. But maybe the pro Mac brigade is always going to be more vocal in their loyalty out of perceived necessity?

For me the no brainer with with Mac is the manufacturer of hardware also makes the operating system software. For me that results in more seamless running of all applications and a distinct lack of need for third party plug-ins to add more functionality -- it's there already, out of the box as they say. But as per first para, I would say that! :cool:
Your first sentence is 100% right on. Mac people seem to feel a constant need to proclaim their choice of computer to the world as if it mattered, prefacing every sentence with 'Macs just..' But don't Macs run on Intel stuff these days? Other than designing the trendy case that other people's parts fit into, do they really design any hardware anymore? I'm asking because I don't know. For the record I'm brand-agnostic (they don't care about me, so I see no reason to fall in love with a company). Just buy whatever is cheapest but sufficient for your tasks then throw it away when it's old. Windows laptops these days are so cheap as to be disposable, though a comparably equipped mac will cost more for reasons that escape me.

To articulate further the point made by nbevan, Macs generally require the user to have deeper pockets that PCs do - particularly when it comes to peripherals. Stuff like losing a power adaptor or cracking your screen can be eye-wateringly expensive compared to doing the same on a PC. And unlike PCs, you can't always wander down to PC World or Maplin and find a huge range of cheap components made by different suppliers; often you're stuck with the pricy Mac Shops and genuine Apple products.

Is it worth the extra? Yeah, of course - but you should bear it in mind that if economy computing is what you're about, go with a PC.

Timely thread - having been burgled last week, and now being laptop-less, need to decide whether it's a replacement Windows based machine, or splurge on a mac....

One thing that's putting me off is the relative cost of a mac - I generally buy an entry level ish (£450 or thereabouts) and then replace it every 2-3 years. From a cursory look at mac prices, it's going to be pretty much double that.

Might need to call on Dave_C's expertise...

Another PC to Mac convert... I switched in 2004, and have never regretted it.

When I take it away with me, there is no messing about to log onto the hotel wireless networks and the likes, just doe it all automatically. Wen I go back to the same hotels, I do not need to enter the passwords any more for he wireless, it has them stored and connects straight away.

Very fast, quick, easy to use. I have the entry level MacBook, and for £699 or whatever it was I paid when I upgraded last year, was well worth it. The standard spec is great.

As for it getting hot... it gets a little warm sometimes, but nothing to write home about...

I say go for it and you will discover a whole new world!

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/125)

For the techies, Macs are frustrating because there is limited ability to "fiddle around"

I would disagree with you on this KenJohn - there is plenty of opportunity to "fiddle around" with the Mac under the hood if you really want; it is Unix after all! You just need to be comfortable with the terminal. The power is there if you want it, need it & know how to control it(!) but as most people haven't got a clue about how to drive the 800-ton, 48-wheeled behemoth which is Unix, it's better that it remains safely hidden until such time that you may need it!

In my opinion, this is why the Mac is the best of both worlds for those of us who can "speak" Unix - fluffy, cuddly GUI when we're using the iLife suite of tools; hard-core command-line when we need to "get dirty" with the ability to install all manner of Unix packages! For example, all of my text processing is done by an installation of LaTeX and edited using TeXnicCenter; it produces beautiful, professional documents without the need for Pages, Office or even Neo/Open Office - steep learning curve, though ;)

Mac all the way.

Timely thread - having been burgled last week, and now being laptop-less, need to decide whether it's a replacement Windows based machine, or splurge on a mac....

One thing that's putting me off is the relative cost of a mac - I generally buy an entry level ish (£450 or thereabouts) and then replace it every 2-3 years. From a cursory look at mac prices, it's going to be pretty much double that.

Might need to call on Dave_C's expertise... I don't think you need to replace Macs as often as you do PCs though -that's one of their plusses. I have a GV, ordered on the day they launched, so it's pushing 6 or 7 years old... and I'm only now having to consider that it might be starting to get a bit old and tired and need replacement. Obviously that's a desktop, so I can't comment on the robustness of laptops...

I will add, Dave_C convinced me to buy a mac, so if you go to him, I know what you'll be buying ;) :cool:

Mac without a doubt (even if the wifi in the T5 lounges has occasionally not let mine log on!... although admittedly this was a fault on BAs side)

The Air is the one I try and carry with me... it is slower than the others but so portable, and the 17'' Mac Book Pro I tend to leave at home, or take with me only if I need to burn DVDs on the road or use film editing software etc.

When I get home, they connect beautifully to the 30'' HD monitor (which is a dream) and to the airport base station / time machine which handles any backups of changed files automatically, so the next time I leave the house I know if the laptops get nicked, everything is safe.

Yes, you'll keep on upgrading and spending money, but coming home with new Mac gear in its gorgeous packaging is like carrying haute couture :)

Your first sentence is 100% right on. Mac people seem to feel a constant need to proclaim their choice of computer to the world as if it mattered, prefacing every sentence with 'Macs just..' But don't Macs run on Intel stuff these days? Other than designing the trendy case that other people's parts fit into, do they really design any hardware anymore? I'm asking because I don't know. For the record I'm brand-agnostic (they don't care about me, so I see no reason to fall in love with a company). Just buy whatever is cheapest but sufficient for your tasks then throw it away when it's old. Windows laptops these days are so cheap as to be disposable, though a comparably equipped mac will cost more for reasons that escape me.
And therein lies the difference. Mac users enthuse. PC users advocate buying any old rubbish which works ;)

It is interesting, in a thread specifically asking which the OP should buy, no-one is championing the PC corner...

For my work laptop, i chose a Mac. If it was my money, i'd choose a PC.

Hello I would like to add my 2p to this.

I had a HP running XP, I would rebuild it every 3-6 months, starts very fast, then I would run all the SP's and Fixes, and it would be back to same slow boot up speed. Very very slow. It's a good processor but the HDD would spend all day loading.

After quite a bit of research I decided to try a Mac, I was a bit apprehensive because I still do development in Visual Studio, but as destere said, I've never looked back.

I bought the 17inch Unibody MacBook Pro in March this year, I agree that it's a lot of money for a laptop but I was just fed up with the troubleshooting and hacking I had to do with XP, i really don't have the time to do this any more, I needed something that works out of the box and the MBP fulfilled this.

I still need to run Windows Apps so I use VMWare Fusion, though Parallels is good and you can also get Sun's VirtualBox for FREE. In fact I have found that XP is more stable on VMWare!!!

Pros
- Good reliable hardware (so far)
- OS is very stable (with Snow Leopard on the horizon - more speed increases on their way)
- OS upgrade to only cost $29 (how much to upgrade XP/Vista etc..)
- User Interface so intuitive
- No known viruses/trojan horses to infect the mac (though there Trojan horses but that's through installing pirated software from BitTorrent)
- No need for Anti-virus/
- Can still run XP/Vista using Virtual Machines technology (VirtualBox, VMWare Fusion/Parallels/Bootcamp)
- At least 6-7 hours battery use for my MBP17
- in OSX extra software built in whereas in XP/Vista you have to buy
- Just one desktop version of MacOSX (none of this Vista Home, Light, Ultimate, Superduper..... and whatever they call it)

Cons
- Mac UK Keyboard slightly different, eg: @ in the different place but not a huge learning curve
- I'm having trouble connecting up a dual-screen setup at home
- Very expensive in comparison to a PC.

I'm very pro-Mac but my usual advice to most people is to look at what you want to do with the machine and then decide.

There are some specialist areas where PCs still command pretty much the whole software market and Mac representation is, at best, one of 'poor relations'. Accounts software springs to mind as one example. If it's mission-critical to you then you should consider this. Suggestions of Parallels or BootCamp are all well and good but both of these inflate the price as you have to purchase a copy of Windows - so you can wave goodbye to around GBP100 just for that. I also tend to think running Windows on a Mac does seem rather perverse - you'd be better off buying a cheap Windows box.

Generally, though, I've yet to meet a Mac user who does anything other than enthuse about their machine whereas all PC users tend to do is whinge about theirs.

Macs do generally last longer - my parents iMac lasted about 8 years before it was finally replaced with a Mac Mini a couple of years ago.

In terms of warranty I think AppleCare is pretty much essential for an iMac or laptop as if the screen fails this can be an expensive repair. If you purchase a laptop from John Lewis they do give 2 years warranty free of charge. You'll also get 4 BA miles per pound instead of 2 from the Apple Store (hey - this IS the BA board !).

As to the claim by KenJohn that most techies dislike Macs because they can't 'fiddle' this is not really true. I'm head of IT where I work and I much prefer Macs because they cause me far less hassle and they are far easier to fit into existing networks. The end users tend to like them as well so it's a win-win proposition. An XServe as a file server leaves a Windows box for dead both in terms of specification and value for money. I'm aware some IT 'professionals' look on Macs with disdain but it is usually ignorance and fear of the unknown when you get right down to it. They also want to protect their jobs by having systems that are hard to set up and administer.

I'm also not sure I 'buy' the argument about peripherals being more expensive. I can't think of anything to buy that isn't a generic item. Memory, USB and FireWire drives, screens, mouses, keyboards - you can buy a cheap one and just plug it in. But if you must go to PCWorld or Maplin then, really, you deserve to be ripped off...

BAH

Mac all day everyday!

anytime i use windows how i find it so slow, it just feels like going back in time!

mac is an addition once you get started!

once u go mac you never go back ;)

Your first sentence is 100% right on. Mac people seem to feel a constant need to proclaim their choice of computer to the world as if it mattered, prefacing every sentence with 'Macs just..' But don't Macs run on Intel stuff these days? Other than designing the trendy case that other people's parts fit into, do they really design any hardware anymore? I'm asking because I don't know. For the record I'm brand-agnostic (they don't care about me, so I see no reason to fall in love with a company). Just buy whatever is cheapest but sufficient for your tasks then throw it away when it's old. Windows laptops these days are so cheap as to be disposable, though a comparably equipped mac will cost more for reasons that escape me.

Apple needs to design the motherboard and the internals of their laptops so that other people's parts fit in there. Apple has even boasted about the internal design of their laptops. And the same goes for Mac Pro, which has stunning interiors compared to the hodgepodge of most PCs. Designing a sleek aluminium case and throwing standard components in is not enough as they would not fit in.

As for price difference between Macs and PCs - yes, you can buy a 15" PC laptop for a fraction of the price of a MacBook Pro. If screen size and, say, hard drive are the only things important to you, you're better of with a cheap PC. But if you want a PC with the exact same components of a Mac laptop, there will be no price advantage. In fact, comparable PC laptops can be more expensive! The most common misconception is to compare entry level PCs with Macs and conclude that PCs give you a better run for the money. In reality, you should be comparing the quality of the components, processor speed, amount of memory and hard drive space, etc.

But I also can't deny that a good design wouldn't be a factor... I would never buy a computer that comes with a zillion stickers glued on the case. :p

I love these adverts

Mac v PC Virus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tY3Qv7iX5c)
Compilation of Ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tEtY2qAu4&feature=related)

Another vote for Mac.

Now that you can run both operating systems and even at the same time using VMware or Parallels not to mention Sun's free virtual box, there is no reason to go for PC.

The OS is more stable and responsive and UI experience definitely better.

The only reason I ever boot up Windows is if I need to use a VB macro or run Visio or Project. Otherwise I prefer all the Mac apps. In fact if Apple implement a proper VB interpreter, their iWork suite is pretty good and much better than Office 2008 in terms of day to day ease of use.

Well, between the wife and I we have a macbook, an Air, 5 PC laptops (counting our work laptops), a mac mini, and a PC desktop. I use the macbook as my primary personal computer.

But, you know what? Once you have them set up, I just don't feel there is that much difference in useability between the two operating systems. However, while it may not be true that the mac offers less configuration flexibility, I do think it is probably the case that the PC requires more configuration. In other words, I think that a mac straight out of the box is more useable than a brand new PC.

One place where I think the mac stands out is in the hardware, which is well-designed and solidly-built. It definitely feels more finished than my laptops from HP, Toshiba, and Lenovo. That being said, I also have a Vaio P, which I think is the equal of the macbook in terms of design and build.

And, FWIW, I don't think the macbook Air is as bad of a machine as many would make it out to be. The wife loves hers. It has a nice screen, a good keyboard, battery life is decent, and the weight is right for travel. Another USB port would be nice, perhaps, but it hasn't been anything approaching a major issue so far. It has its limitations, but as long as you are okay with them (and the price), then I don't see any reason to shy away from it.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/125)

Another PC to Mac guy. Still use PC at work.

Macs are for non-techies. Its usually plug in and go. Software installation is simple and less goes wrong compared to Windows. I suppose Mac builds the hardware and Opertating Systems hand in hand.
This is not the case with Windows and PCs.

For the techies, Macs are frustrating because there is limited ability to "fiddle around"

I'm sorry, but while it might look that way on the surface, believe me it is very much not the case!

I'm sorry, but while it might look that way on the surface, believe me it is very much not the case!

Totally agree. Lots to play with under the hood which can keep BSD and Limux fans very happy. Apple have just made thier OS so good that for day to day work there is no need to touch anything.

Remember that OS X is actually a BSD based distribution. Many Linux and BSD tools will happily work on Mac.

When I get home, they connect beautifully to the 30'' HD monitor (which is a dream) and to the airport base station / time machine which handles any backups of changed files automatically, so the next time I leave the house I know if the laptops get nicked, everything is safe.

unless you're unlucky like me, where both the laptops and the backing up equipment (Time Capsule) have been nicked!!!!! :mad: Now, I back up the Time Machine itself onto a hard drive and store it off site.

Luckily, this whole solution takes a fraction of time on Mac equipment, compared to the time consuming backup solution that are available for Windows.

It's definitely true that Macs last longer, and also last longer between reinstallations.

After a year or so, PCs tend to become horrendously overloaded, grinding and groaning on startup as 50 applications all start automatically loading and trying to download updates, bombarding the user with cascading dialog boxes, popups, security warnings, etc.

Macs are a lot more restrictive about what programmes are allowed to do - for most applications, to install them you stick them in your application folder, to uninstall them, you delete them. Easy. PC programmes have a nasty habit of leaving all sorts of traces in your system and not properly uninstalling, part of the reason why a Windows installation becomes unusable more quickly than a Mac one does.

A bit of digging will reveal this discussion carried out time and again in the Travel Technology (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=169) section.

Again - depends on your application, what you're going to use and where you're going to use it.

(and yes - I manage a PC network and run a Mac Network at home - as I tend to play photographer I find the toolset more appropriate to that platform - like I said, different strokes for different folks.)

For those feeling unloved and technical, have a Mac and want to play with BSD, open up a terminal box and run some system level commands with sudo. That'll change your views.

Macs are a lot more restrictive about what programmes are allowed to do

It's program.

BAH

I'll be the voice of dissent then :eek:

I had a Mac for a couple of years and have gone back to Windows laptop. Yes, the Mac "just worked" out of the box. Very impressed with how easy the setup was. However when things started to go wrong after about a year, I couldn't get them sorted out. Repeatedly had to reinstall programs. Files that I'd worked on would corrupt.

I can fix those things on a Windows PC, but had no joy in OS X. I'm sure there's an element of user-education needed, but for me the pros of Mac (shiny, easy to set up initially) were outweighed by the problems.

I wrote the burglar a thank-you note for taking it away. However I don't know the address to send it to!

I also tend to think running Windows on a Mac does seem rather perverse - you'd be better off buying a cheap Windows box.
Don't go to the SK lounge in ARN T5 then, that's how they've got it set up.

I'm with heckenhocker and the silent majority here: PC user. PC would get my vote, but for what you're going to do, I don't think it matters too much. Assuming that you don't mean heavy multimedia production/editing when you say "photo, design and video stuff" that is. If that is what you do, then a Mac would probably be more appropriate, otherwise either one will work just fine.

I live in a Mac and PC household, right now it's the Macs (iMac G4 and iBook G4) that have been passed on to the children and an Aldi PC (£350) and a Dell Laptop (£220) that are used by the adults for "work".

I do like Macs - just can't justify the prices at the moment.

Vista is now what OS X was five years ago and it gives me little trouble. My PC does all I need quickly enough for now - I don't bother with Video, so it's just web, office, photos and iTunes.

My wife's low end laptop came with XP as an option and works just fine for email and Open Office.

unless you're unlucky like me, where both the laptops and the backing up equipment (Time Capsule) have been nicked!!!!! :mad: Now, I back up the Time Machine itself onto a hard drive and store it off site.


That is unlucky :( My 1TB Time Machine sits in a double-bottomed 16th century built-in cupboard with a secret compartment made my my carpenter for that very reason! It's pure Harry Potter, and I'm amazed the wifi signal is at 90% in the rooms around it given the thickness of the wood!

Meanwhile a couple of GBs of capacity on my my .mac account handles the off-site backups of documents in a few specific folders in case of a fire :eek:

We are so computer-dependent these days that I wouldn't risk anything else.

It's program.

Thanks, a distinction I wasn't aware of (having always assumed program = American / programme = British, which is right, with the apparently sole exception of computer programs).

Yet another mac vote. It just works. Period.

My office and my household have used macs for years. At least 2 dozen machines involved over time. Only one (the one I'm using now) came out of the box as a lemon instead of an Apple, and this is where the service shines through. Apple has by far the best service available. No talking to India. Knowlegable techs. Various other hardware problems over the years, like dead hard drives or cd players have been repaired/replaced without a hitch.

Anything I need a PC for I can do in Parallels and the performance is more than satisfactory.

I'm a Linux and PC user and I'm probably looking to purchase a mac in the not too distant future, as I need to know how to be able to teach people to use every type of OS. I have heard good things about Psystar (http://www.psystar.com/) sadly they're not in the UK at the moment, and have files for bankruptcy to try and delay the Apple court case against them. Although there is also a German outfit that are doing the same thing I'm not so sue about them.

After using PCs for years, I purchased a MacBook aluminium at the start of this year and haven't looked back since.

Everything is so intuitive - the laptop looks and works brilliantly inside and out - even the box and packaging was beautiful!

Mac OS X is a beautiful operating system and almost never crashes. Time Machine backup to an external hard drive is seamless.

The Safari web browser is lightening fast on both wired and wireless connections (of varying theoretical speeds).

I also converted from Office to iWork which is far cheaper and works in complete harmony with Office documents.

The Apple protection plan gives you 3 years warranty and service, and of course the Apple Store is available for free advice. I often pop along to the free tutorials in the Regent Street store to get used to a new software package (eg. I've just purchased Final Cut Express to edit my upcoming Asia trip movie with).

If you can find a student to purchase your Apple products for you, you will enjoy a substantial discount!

Go down the Apple route, and you will never regret it!

I use a PC at work and a Mac at home and must say that for what I want (Photo, Video, Tinternet and music) the Mac wins hands down as well as having significantly more style in the design of thier products and superior customer service (providing you live close to an Apple store that is - luckily NYC isnt short of them!)

Additionally, the syncing and integration of the various products and software that apple offers is much better (iphone/ ipod syncing with itunes / iphoto etc is significantly faster with minimal issues / reboots / resets) on the Mac

Apple is more expensive but you get what you pay for. Additionally, I find that amazon.com has significantly lower prices for Apple hardware and software which makes it comparable to purchasing a PC from a reputable retalier (should one exist....)

Weird thing is having said that I'm in the market for a mac, I've just remembered I'll be having a few drinks with a couple Apple fanboys tomorrow. Will see if any of them are looking to flog any of their old macs to me cheaply.

Personal laptop has died :mad: and I am not going to pay Lenovo another $300 to tell me that something is wrong again!

Having been a die hard PC fan, I am looking at converting over to a Mac. Most of my personal computer work is email, surfing the web, photos, design and video stuff and having tried a friend's mac I was impressed.

What is the forum's thoughts and what do you use?

Crickey! You've only gone and done it now - You've started a Mac vs PC thread :(

I predict this one will run and run.

Those of you who are Usenet veterans will surely remember the infamous "Sigh..Mac vs PC" thread. It generated thousands of replies and ran for years.

Personally I'd love one of those snazzy Mac laptops myself but they seem to cost a fortune. I can only glance enviously at them, sort of how most of us glance enviously into the F cabin before turning right :D

Another mac vote from me. If you're getting a laptop try to avoid the most basic white plastic model as this is the previous generation.

Used to be a big PC fan but converted a few years ago and never looked back. There's a massive list of benefits which the above posters have covered but my favourite feature has to be how quickly the thing switches on. The OS is rock solid and I often don't restart for months at a time. No constant popups which I often see at client sites too.

As has been said - it's a slippery slope though as you'll want everything to go with it, Apple TV, iPhone, Time Capsule etc.

Great pieces of kit though. Perhaps the only exception I can think of is if you're a gamer.

It's program.

BAH

Application.


:p

It's worth mentioning, as said above, that they seem to breed after a few years and before you know it your house will be full of shiny Apple products...:p

Going slightly OT on the pushing towards very OT, Microsoft released ads about buying a PC over a Mac but before you all shoot me down check out the second link which is definitely NSFW... :D

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/27/new-microsoft-ad-campaign-targets-mac-prices/

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a2f1680448/laptop-hunters-jake

Mac for me - a wise department head told me in 1988 to think carefully about what computer I wanted, but he recommended Mac. Brilliant decision, as I confirm every day when I use my company Dell POS (Piece Of S**t). My company is paranoid about network security, but are trialing iPhones with our wonderful friend Lotus Notes.
The MobileMe app with Mac is fantastic - if only BA would upgrade Internet Explorer on the lounge computers, or better, install Firefox. And for that matter, enable the chat feature on G-mail. (Please note Dilly!)

I have just made the switch to the Mac (a Macbook Pro) and I am well impressed. I am running Windows via VMWare for applications that I will find 'handy' for work purposes.

I am only frustrated by my lack of knowledge about the Mac OS - but I will learn...

In very general terms, I do not regret for one minute moving to the Mac. It's a great piece of hardware, and it does not run hot at all.

Another mac vote! Design awesome, quality good, OS easy.

Microsoft Office for Mac blows, but thats about it. I guess you can just run the windows version through parallels....

Btw, in my experience of 5 mac laptops (some simultaneously), the average life expectancy before more serious issues arise (basically when I decide to replace) is about 4-5 years. By then tech has advanced so much anyway.

Crickey! You've only gone and done it now - You've started a Mac vs PC thread :(

I predict this one will run and run. Yeah, the only problem is, the PC guys don't seem to have turned up ;) It's kind of become a 'I converted to Mac and I love it'-fest :eek:

Can we therefore stop before the idiot fanboys find us? (on both sides)

Those of you who are Usenet veterans will surely remember the infamous "Sigh..Mac vs PC" thread. It generated thousands of replies and ran for years.
veering very off OT, for those who are >33yo - how about the Amiga v ST?!

Or Nintendo NES vs Sega Master System...

Lotus Notes.

:mad: '#£(%(*")*_*"!~? Lotus Notes.

:mad: '#£(%(*")*_*"!~? Lotus Notes.
Hey! I'm still struggling with Outlook! And don't get me started on Sharepoint development..........

:mad: '#£(%(*")*_*"!~? Lotus Notes.

Glad you like it as much as I do! People in my organisation keep pointing out that it is a terrible e-mail and calendar app. IT tell us that it is not for those purposes, but for databases, for which it is very good. So why not buy an e-mail/calendar app that works??

Yeah, the only problem is, the PC guys don't seem to have turned up ;) It's kind of become a 'I converted to Mac and I love it'-fest :eek:

That's because most computer users fit into one of two groups.

- Those that haven't tried Macs.
- Those that have tried Macs and now use them.

The second group are clearly a small minority, although unsurprisingly are well-represented in the affluent, computer-literate place that is FT.

There really aren't that many people who have knowledge and experience on both but prefer PCs. Most PC users I know who are also Mac literate use PCs because for compatibility with work systems, cost reasons, etc. Not usually because they prefer them.

I love my iMac, mostly because I'm a bit of a Luddite and therefore need the user-friendly aspects of the machine. Having said that, though, I indulged in an Acer sub-notebook to take when travelling, mostly for the size of the thing, as it weighs 800gm.

The sub-notebooks are available with a Linux OS (with plenty of applications installed) which I chose over Windows; as a travelling companion a sub-notebook is a handy thing to have but it won't take the place of a proper home computer.

veering very off OT, for those who are >33yo - how about the Amiga v ST?!

ZX Spectrum vs Commodore 64 (with Amstrad CP464 as the outsider)

It's kind of become a 'I converted to Mac and I love it'-fest :eek:

But I never converted. Have only owned Macs since first computer in 1992, still got them all.

Recently bought 4 Macs for my staff as the total lack of IT support in rural Ghana means we can't run PCs for very long before they crash and we can't fix them. Even I can sort out most (rare) problems with the Macs. The only one we couldn't fix here was an i-Mac (beside me as I type) walloped by a voltage surge.

There really aren't that many people who have knowledge and experience on both but prefer PCs. Most PC users I know who are also Mac literate use PCs because for compatibility with work systems, cost reasons, etc. Not usually because they prefer them.

I have knowledge and experience of both. I personally just prefer the way PCs work. That said, with Vista and now with Windows 7, my enthusiasm is starting to wane. Windows is looking too much like the Apple OS nowadays for my liking.

Apple's "security through obscurity" approach isn't going to last forever either. Give it another 5 years and you probably won't be able to tell the difference between Macs and PCs.

ZX Spectrum vs Commodore 64 (with Amstrad CP464 as the outsider)

Hey, what about MSX?!

Ok, I'll get my coat...

:D

For me, the #1 reason that I have stayed with Mac for all these years is Apple's technical support. Anything goes wrong, you call these guys and you're talking to somebody in Austin, TX or such. Not offshore. Not outsourced. They're there to solve your problem, period. And no waiting either. Most calls are answered within 5 minutes. Those time savings alone pay for the so-called Apple tax.

You have to pay for the privilege though. It's called AppleCare and it costs $170-$350 depending on which Mac for 3 years of coverage. If you qualify for the Educational discount, you could easily knock $400-$500 off your total cost, including AppleCare for three years. Oh... they're running a sale right now through September where you get an iPod touch with the purchase of any Mac.

Heavy and hot? Not in my experience.

My Unibody Macbook runs very cool (never hear the fan) and is pretty light.

Cheers,
Rick


Mine does run to the hot side. As soon as any video content is on be it a simple youtube or CNN clip, the fan kicks in right away. With surfing and office duty no fan. But the video will make it start every time and despite the fan it gets practically too hot to be on the lap. Heat is concentrated on upper left quarter where the power comes in.

Fan cannot be turned off at all. My previous PC laptop had a switch for the fan. Unless it was really much too hot I could turn it off.

Battery life is barely 3.5 hours without video. 2h with video. I am not terribly impressed by these things or let's say the impression is rather negative.

I have the 2.53GHz with 4gb ram. 13" screen.

What is very nice is that there are less glitches than with PC and no slow down in performance due to the registry getting junked up. Also no virus software to run and basically no maintenance.

Start-up and shut down times are MUCH better. I do a complete restart maybe once a week. I restart my PC daily.

TOuch gestures are very nice.

What I like more about PC is that the menu system is more intuitive and you can find stuff by just clicking and trying things out. There are always several ways how to accomplish things. On the Mac there are only two or three ways and one of them is a cryptic keyboard shortcut.

I'll give you an example of two things that I do almost daily and that are FAR easier on a PC. They have to do with pictures that are supposed to be easier to handle in Mac.

I open a folder with pics. All the pics show as thumbnails or other variations. I do a single click on View as Slideshow and I can view the entire folder as a slideshow in Full Screen mode. With Mac that takes five or six clicks and it is so not evident that I forgot it again after somebody explained it to me.

Resize pictures to integrate into a mail. With PC there are two ways. Either click the send as mail button and it will ask you how to resize them. Or you use the powertool resizer. Simply select all the pictures you want to resize. Right click and select Resize. Bingo. All pictures appear in the same folder in the resized version with an amended file name. The originals are still there. With Mac that same operation is super complicated. I checked it out online and followed the steps. It took three times as long. I decided I will continue using PC for photo work. Even MS Pictureviewer is easier to understand than bloody Iphoto where I need to import stuff before it works. Stupid!

Not being able to maximize windows with a single click is also ridiculous.

Spotlight on the other hand is sheer genius and works very well.

Besides this, Mac is the superior end user experience but it does cost twice the money.

Macs are for non-techies... For the techies, Macs are frustrating because there is limited ability to "fiddle around"
I'm a physics professor with a research group that includes a computational aspect. We're pretty techie, using MPI parallel computation on our own cluster, and now CUDA computation on a numerical computation server, and run our own web server, and run specialized experimental hardware. One of my graduate students introduced a Mac to the group, and at this point we're all Mac users. I think we're somewhat techie...

What I like about the Mac is that the everyday stuff is easy, yet because it is Unix underneath you can open a terminal window and do anything you want that a Linux/Unix server would do. I think that's pretty techie...

I'm 27 and a MAC LoL. I picked up my first mac 12" ibook in 2005 and haven't looked back and now a 15" Macbook Pro. I have a XP desktop which hasn't been turned on for a while.

I spend too much time and energy trying to maintain my WinXP pc from viruses, spyware and usually go thru 1-2 x a year reformatting it. Not the case at all with my mac.

I'd recommend getting AppleCare. I learned my lesson when I had to replace the screen on my powerbook and it cost me a whopping $600. I just recently replaced the SuperDrive on my MacBook Pro and it was covered my AppleCare.

I bought my first Mac when the Intel Mac Mini came out. Occasionally someone would have a problem with how a web page worked with Safari, and it was an excuse for a new toy to play with. Initially, I pretty much used it as a "media server" -- iTunes, my pictures and some software called "DVArchive" which pulls (and serves to) shows recorded on my networked ReplayTVs. I had a KVM switch so I could switch back and forth.

I also used it whenever I had to reboot my PC after installing software. Just switch over and continue browsing or what not.

Then my traveling computer started to go about the same time the MacBook Air came out, so I got one. This was the first time I used a Mac on a "day to day" basis. When got home from a trip, I would reluctantly go back to my PC.

Last summer my PC was getting a little long in the tooth when She Who Must Be Obeyed's old Dell desktop finally died. An excuse for a new iMac and She got the old mini. She had a few problems with the differences at first but was soon won over.

That being said, there are a lot of things I don't like about Apple as a company. I've never used an apple mouse that had a decent right button. And while iMacs are fine, I wish they had more choices for using your own monitor (nothing between a mini and the MacPro)

For me, the #1 reason that I have stayed with Mac for all these years is Apple's technical support. Anything goes wrong, you call these guys and you're talking to somebody in Austin, TX or such. Not offshore. Not outsourced. They're there to solve your problem, period. And no waiting either. Most calls are answered within 5 minutes. Those time savings alone pay for the so-called Apple tax.

I've had to call Apple's technical support three times (over a 2 year time span). Not once has my phone call been answered within 5 minutes.

Try 20 to 30 minutes. Each time.

Regardless, I'm with the "get a mac" camp.

For me, the #1 reason that I have stayed with Mac for all these years is Apple's technical support. Anything goes wrong, you call these guys and you're talking to somebody in Austin, TX or such. Not offshore. Not outsourced. They're there to solve your problem, period. And no waiting either. Most calls are answered within 5 minutes. Those time savings alone pay for the so-called Apple tax.

You have to pay for the privilege though. It's called AppleCare and it costs $170-$350 depending on which Mac for 3 years of coverage. If you qualify for the Educational discount, you could easily knock $400-$500 off your total cost, including AppleCare for three years. Oh... they're running a sale right now through September where you get an iPod touch with the purchase of any Mac.

you can also visit an apple genius at an apple store and get free tech support, apple care or not. however, if the mac needs repair and is not under warranty or apple care, then the repair (not the visit) will cost money.

I'll give you an example of two things that I do almost daily and that are FAR easier on a PC. They have to do with pictures that are supposed to be easier to handle in Mac.

I open a folder with pics. All the pics show as thumbnails or other variations. I do a single click on View as Slideshow and I can view the entire folder as a slideshow in Full Screen mode. With Mac that takes five or six clicks and it is so not evident that I forgot it again after somebody explained it to me.

open the folder, select all (command-a) and tap the space bar. when the quick look window appears, click the play button or if you prefer, step through the images one by one. you can also click the full screen button or move and resize the quick look window. this works with movies as well as photos, along with various other file types such as pdf, text, excel, etc.

Resize pictures to integrate into a mail. With PC there are two ways. Either click the send as mail button and it will ask you how to resize them. Or you use the powertool resizer. Simply select all the pictures you want to resize. Right click and select Resize. Bingo. All pictures appear in the same folder in the resized version with an amended file name. The originals are still there. With Mac that same operation is super complicated. I checked it out online and followed the steps. It took three times as long. I decided I will continue using PC for photo work. Even MS Pictureviewer is easier to understand than bloody Iphoto where I need to import stuff before it works. Stupid!

assuming apple mail, drag the image into a mail message and at the bottom of the window is a popup menu to resize the image. there is no need to use iphoto, but iphoto can also export an image directly to mail in various sizes. the resize is done on the fly so there's no need to have duplicate images in multiple sizes.

Not being able to maximize windows with a single click is also ridiculous.

the mac has a zoom button, not a maximize button and they're not the same. the function of the zoom button is under the apps control, not the operating system (the app just gets a zoom message), and it usually resizes the window to best show its content. having a window be full screen, particularly on a 24-30" monitor, is wasteful of screen space.

Besides this, Mac is the superior end user experience but it does cost twice the money.

macs do not cost twice the money for a similar configuration. prices are fairly close when specs are matched (which they are often not).

Buy a PC. Otherwise looking at this thread, there won't be many machines running an MS operating system soon. Do you really want your software managed by the iTunes App Store or coming via Software Updates?

It's becoming a MonApplely.


I'm beginning to wonder what else is happening in the computing world these days. I bought a TiBook when OSX was first released for my personal use. I wanted to get away from the personal computing mono-culture and back to thinking of computers as tools and creative outlets for problem solving.

I stayed with a "Mac for home use" and "Thinkpad for work" for years until ~18 months ago when I bought an Air. I wouldn't have done it if they'd given me something reasonably small. But the T61 I got threw me over the edge. I bought a 1st Gen MBA and haven't looked back.

I have great respect for MACs but I prefer my pc for what I do. Sure, pc's take it on the nose but then they have a much, much larger base to serve which I'm sure if that was the case, Apple would be no different....

I've been running windows 7 beta now as a server and it has been rock solid going on 4 months now...which, I think this will be a winner for the pc world....

in the end, do what makes you happy...i build computers for friends and you can get the stability out of the pc platform that you get with MACs, just usually not out of the box

I dipped my toe into water of MacWorld 8 months ago and I'm perfectly happy with my decision. So, sitting at my white MacBook with wireless Mighty Mouse.... Things I like:

- Apple wouldn't lower themselves to providing hardware that isn't up to their software (so yes, it can be expensive)
- As a result, the whole experience tends to be very slick compared to the bargain basement laptops I would have gone for in the past
- It really does "just work" but underlying flexibility, if you need it, isn't always well exposed
- Only one piece of software has ever insisted on starting itself up at startup on my MacBook, and that was by Microsoft (and I just add to edit my user to stop it happening)
- It boots up in the same time as it did the day I bought it
- I like the Me service (mail/calender/online storage and so on, nicely integrated with OSX
- When I have lots of windows open, the dock in conjunction with spaces makes life easy.

Now.... The Mac vs PC question? I think Microsoft have a right to be a little aggrieved. Windows XP is a perfectly usable and stable piece of software. Little wrong with it IMO, other than perhaps it does slow down a great deal over time as you add applications (so, it's higher maintenance).

I wasn't impressed with Vista but I understand that Windows 7 does a lot to catch up with OSX (complete with a dock type thing). Also, with a PC, you *can* buy bargain basement hardware and get pretty good use from it (just be prepared for delays if you run more than a couple of applications).

A huge advantage for the PC (for me at least) is still my experience with the platform..... Need to set up a secure web server with web applications accessing a MySQL database? I can do that for no cost other than my time. It's the sort of thing I've just not yet looked into with my MacBook (Work? I have to use a cr@ppy Dell laptop for work).

macs do not cost twice the money for a similar configuration. prices are fairly close when specs are matched (which they are often not).

Show me mac laptops in the $400-800 range. I'd love to see those.

The cheapest one I see is $999 for a MacBook with these specs:
* 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
* 160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
* Keyboard (English) / User's Guide
* SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

The comparable Dell Inspiron 13.3" config is $800. Not double, but 25% more.

Show me mac laptops in the $400-800 range. I'd love to see those.

i would love to see those too, but apple doesn't have a product in every category at every price point. in particular, they don't have any netbooks at all, at least not yet (there have been a few hints that something is coming though).

The cheapest one I see is $999 for a MacBook with these specs:
* 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
* 160GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
* Keyboard (English) / User's Guide
* SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)

The comparable Dell Inspiron 13.3" config is $800. Not double, but 25% more.

comparing the two, i see that the macbook has 1066 mhz memory versus 800 on the dell, an nvidia 9400m gpu versus an intel x3100, dvi out instead of vga, gigabit ethernet instead of 100 base-t, 6 pin firewire versus 4 pin (can't use bus-powered hard drives with 4 pin firewire) and a multi-touch trackpad. os x is comparable to vista ultimate but the dell comes with vista home premium. on the other hand, the dell has a larger hard drive.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

so while the dell may be a little cheaper, it's also not exactly the same specs either.

I don't get it - why the back and forth?

Buy a Mac, get VmFusion or Parallels installed with WinXP or whatever at time of purchase and enjoy the best of two worlds. The family will luv the Mac and Dad can bang his head with Win OS :D

so while the dell may be a little cheaper, it's also not exactly the same specs either.

Fair, though finding the exact same specs from any two vendors is rather difficult. I thought it was pretty darn close.

And there is still nothing in the Mac product line less than $999. That is a reasonable consideration. There are LOTS of options on the Wintel side in that price range. At the upper end the price-points match more closely, but when you're at the upper end the pricing game is rather different.

i would love to see those too, but apple doesn't have a product in every category at every price point. in particular, they don't have any netbooks at all, at least not yet (there have been a few hints that something is coming though).



comparing the two, i see that the macbook has 1066 mhz memory versus 800 on the dell, an nvidia 9400m gpu versus an intel x3100, dvi out instead of vga, gigabit ethernet instead of 100 base-t, 6 pin firewire versus 4 pin (can't use bus-powered hard drives with 4 pin firewire) and a multi-touch trackpad. os x is comparable to vista ultimate but the dell comes with vista home premium. on the other hand, the dell has a larger hard drive.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

so while the dell may be a little cheaper, it's also not exactly the same specs either.

I found two that are very comparable and a lot cheaper:

http://www.frys.com/product/5810793?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

$650: double the Ram (expandable up to 8gb), double the Hard Drive, bigger screen, integrated card reader, HDMI and VGA out, 3USB plus eSATA, lightscribe dvd drive

that should make up for the slightly lower processor speed and the lower FSB and even the non-gigabit network card, even if you don't count that it is 35% cheaper.


Operating System Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-Bitwith Service Pack 1
Processor Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T6400
Processor Speed 2.00 GHz
Processor Cache 2 MB L2 Cache
Bus Speed 800MHz FSB
Memory 4096MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Max supported =8192MB
Accessible Memory Slots 2
Video Graphics Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD (shared) with up to 1759MB total available graphics memory
Hard Drive 320GB (5400RPM) Hard Drive (SATA)
Finish and Features HP Intersect Imprint finish & HP Webcam with integrated digital microphone
Multimedia Drive LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD?R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 14.1" Diagonal WXGA High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1280 x 800)
Network Card Integrated 10/100 Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)
Wireless Option Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n WLAN
Digital Media 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader* for Secure Digital cards, MultiMedia cards, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, or xD Picture cards
Fax/Modem High speed 56k modem
Audio SRS Premium Sound
Keyboard 101-key compatible & 1 Quick Launch Button
Pointing Device Touch Pad with On/Off button and dedicated vertical scroll Up/Down pad
PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot (also supports ExpressCard/34)
External Notebook Ports
3 Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0, 4th port shared with eSATA
2 Headphone out
1 microphone-in
HDMI
1 VGA (15-pin)
eSATA + USB 2.0
1 RJ-11 (modem)
1 RJ -45 (LAN)
1 notebook expansion port 3
1 Consumer IR (Remote Receiver)


The other is here:
http://www.frys.com/product/5892903?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

$479, That's less than half!

3gb instead of 2 for the mac, double the HD, bigger screen, card reader, PC card slot.

Both come with FREE UPGRADE to W7.

Operating System Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Processor Intel® Pentium® T4200 Processor
Processor Speed 2.00 GHz
Processor Cache 1 MB L2 Cache
Bus Speed 800MHz FSB
Memory 3072MB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
Max supported =4GB
Accessible Memory Slots 2
Video Graphics Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M with up to 1759MB of Intel® Dynamic Video Memory Technology 5.0 supporting Microsoft® DirectX® 10
Hard Drive 320GB (5400RPM) Hard Drive (SATA)
Finish and Features Acer MediaTouch Console
Multimedia Drive 8X DVD-+R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 14.1" WXGA Acer CrystalBrite™ Widescreen Display TFT LCD (1280 x 800)
Network Card Integrated 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)
Wireless Option 802.11b/g/Draft-N WiFi CERTIFIED
Digital Media 5-in-1 Digital Media Card Reader (Secure Digital™ (SD), MultiMediaCard (MMC), Memory Stick® (MS), Memory Stick PRO™ (MS PRO), xD-Picture Card™ (xD)
Fax/Modem 56K ITU V.92 with PTT Approval Fax/Modem
Audio Two Built-in Stereo Speakers

PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot
External Notebook Ports
Universal Serial Bus (USB) 2.0
Headphone out
microphone-in
VGA (15-pin)
RJ-11 (modem)
RJ -45 (LAN)

... One thing that's putting me off is the relative cost of a mac ...

... I do like Macs - just can't justify the prices at the moment ...As posted in several threads, Macs have a longer useful life than Windows PCs. Buy used. You'll get the same performance, etc., that you'd get with a bargain PC.

That's because most computer users fit into one of two groups.

- Those that haven't tried Macs.
- Those that have tried Macs and now use them ...There is a large third group: those who are required to use Windows for work, therefore are familiar with it, and therefore use it at home as well.

Personally: I have a PhD in an offshoot of computer science from a fairly well-known engineering school in Cambridge, Mass.; have been a Unix trainer; currently teach (among other things) Access, which requires Windows; and otherwise have fairly decent tech-geek cred. When I have a choice, I use a Mac. It's much better integrated. My time, when I charge for it, is too valuable for me to waste screwing around with Windows - which I'm quite able to do at any necessary level. It's just not a productive use of my time when I have a choice. (When I'm not being paid for my time, it's even more valuable. Why would I waste it trying to get an OS to do what I think it should, when another OS is happy to do that from the get-go?)

Even if you buy a new Mac, and even if you accept the position that it's more expensive than a comparable non-Apple computer would be (arguable anywhere above the lowest price level, which involves compromises many won't accept), you'll come out ahead if you factor in the value of your time over the years you'll use any new computer you get.

I don't get it - why the back and forth?

Buy a Mac, get VmFusion or Parallels installed with WinXP or whatever at time of purchase and enjoy the best of two worlds. The family will luv the Mac and Dad can bang his head with Win OS :D

The same can be done (though not legally) with most PC's...

As posted in several threads, Macs have a longer useful life than Windows PCs.

Mac fans keep saying that, but I don't see it in the real world. I'm still using a 7 year old Dell Inspiron 8200 with Win XP, for example.

Fair, though finding the exact same specs from any two vendors is rather difficult. I thought it was pretty darn close.

they are close, but as you can see, the macbook beats the dell in a number of specs so it's not too surprising it costs a little more.

And there is still nothing in the Mac product line less than $999.

mac mini, $599 new.

Mac fans keep saying that, but I don't see it in the real world. I'm still using a 7 year old Dell Inspiron 8200 with Win XP, for example.

xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

I found two that are very comparable and a lot cheaper:

those still have a lower spec video chip, slower memory, slower cpu, no firewire, no bluetooth and unknown battery life.

apple doesn't want to play in the under $1000 laptop market, at least right now. if $500 is what you want to spend, it obviously won't be a mac. a $500 laptop is going to have a lower spec than a $1000 laptop, whether it's a mac or a dell or whatever.

xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

Quite well actually. I've also installed Windows 7 on several 2001 machines, and with a little extra ram, it runs very smooth.

mac mini, $599 new.

While the Mac Mini really is a nice little machine, the entry level Mini is a total piece of junk - 120GB and 1GB is not a serious offering nowadays, especially since neither are easily user-upgradable AND that the $599 does not even get you a keyboard or mouse. Once you spec it on what is considered "normal" nowadays (keyboard, a mouse, 2GB and 320GB) you are looking at a $900 computer - a totally insane price for such a computer.

I really wish Apple would just make a normal desktop computer and price the damn thing at $500.

I really wish Apple would just make a normal desktop computer and price the damn thing at $500.

hahaha, why? Somehow I don't think you would buy it either way.

-David

veering very off OT, for those who are >33yo - how about the Amiga v ST?!

Clearly, the Amiga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q

those still have a lower spec video chip, slower memory, slower cpu, no firewire, no bluetooth and unknown battery life.

apple doesn't want to play in the under $1000 laptop market, at least right now. if $500 is what you want to spend, it obviously won't be a mac. a $500 laptop is going to have a lower spec than a $1000 laptop, whether it's a mac or a dell or whatever.

You are splitting hairs. And you know it.

Video is "somewhat slower" if at all. Same goes for chip. 2Ghz vs. 2.13GHz, firewire is of marginal utility at best unless you transfer from a video cam. The Macbook has FW 400 which isn't faster than USB 2.0, either. I'd rather have an HDMI out.

But a bigger screen, twice the Ram and twice the disk space for hundreds of dollars less is not splitting hairs. The specs of these machines make them clearly superior overall and much more so when price/value is factored in.

Overall, it is nicer to work with a Mac and the reliability and quick start-up times play an essential role in that experience. However, I still find that PC is more ergonomic, see my examples, and much more price-worthy.

It's like with everything else, to get the last ten percent of performance you pay double. That's what Mac is.

Till

You are splitting hairs. And you know it.

that's not at all what i'm doing.

Video is "somewhat slower" if at all.

there's quite a bit of a difference between an intel gma 4500mhd and an nvidia 9400m, particularly with gpu aware apps. os x itself and quite a few apps, including photoshop cs4, take full advantage of the gpu and a better video chip will make a huge difference in performance.

http://techztalk.com/techwebsite/10-15-08-nvidia-launches-geforce-9400m-notebook-graphics-card

"In test done with benchmarking tool 3D Mark Vantage, NVIDIA 9400M offered five-fold performance gain over Intel’s GMA 4500MHD graphics chipset."

Same goes for chip. 2Ghz vs. 2.13GHz, firewire is of marginal utility at best unless you transfer from a video cam. The Macbook has FW 400 which isn't faster than USB 2.0, either. I'd rather have an HDMI out.

the cpu speed is a wash but the memory bus is faster on the macbook (1066 v. 800) along with a 3 meg cache instead of 1 meg. firewire 400 is definitely faster than usb 2 and it also provides enough power to actually spin up a hard drive rather than relying on overspec-ed usb ports or dual usb cables to get more than usb's limit of 500ma per port. in fact, firewire can bus power two laptop drives from the same port. the $479 model only has vga, not hdmi, while the $699 model has hdmi but oddly lacks gigabit ethernet which the $479 model has.

But a bigger screen, twice the Ram and twice the disk space for hundreds of dollars less is not splitting hairs. The specs of these machines make them clearly superior overall and much more so when price/value is factored in.

the screen size is an inch bigger but it has exactly the same number of pixels, 1280 x 800, so there's no real difference in actual use. it does come with more memory but that's easy to add, as is swapping the hard drive should it fill up.

overall, it's a less capable machine with a couple of things that spec better than the macbook. in real world use it will be noticeably slower which is why it costs less.

While the Mac Mini really is a nice little machine, the entry level Mini is a total piece of junk

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

Yeah, I happily use one for watching movies, web surfing, picture editing etc.

xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

Moving the goalposts a bit there, huh? The computer still works, XP still works and is up-to-date (I think it is still a current OS considering how many still use it, and Microsoft still supports it, but whatever). It does everything my other laptop with Vista does.

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

But the $479 laptops mentioned above are "noticeably slower?" ;)

The answer to the question is that there is no definitive answer. It is a personal preference thing. Use what you like and enjoy it. There are pros and cons to both platforms at various levels.

The answer to the question is that there is no definitive answer. It is a personal preference thing. Use what you like and enjoy it. There are pros and cons to both platforms at various levels.

agreed. buy whatever best fits your needs. it's just the price comparisons of machines with different specs that i find bogus.

As posted in several threads, Macs have a longer useful life than Windows PCs.

Mac fans keep saying that, but I don't see it in the real world. I'm still using a 7 year old Dell Inspiron 8200 with Win XP, for example.

xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

What's going to happen to this argument once Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both start shipping? Snow Leopard's hardware requirements are going to undeniably shift the "longer useful life" argument to Windows 7.

Right now the useful life argument is rather subjective and based largely on personal preferences around what level of performance someone can put up with. Therefore there's no clear winner, as is obvious with some of these responses. However, in a few months from now this argument will no longer be subjective. Snow Leopard simply will not support legacy hardware dating back as far as Windows 7 will. It won't be a debatable point; Windows 7 will have the advantage in the "longer useful life" argument.

"Windows 7 beats Snow Leopard on older hardware support":

http://www.techchuck.com/2009/06/11/windows-7-beats-snow-leopard-on-older-hardware-support/

Clearly, the Amiga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q

Ahhh..... Nothing but fond memories of the Amiga. I got through a computer science degree with an expanded A500. It's what Mac should have been but didn't didn't achieve before OSX.

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

But $599 is not an entry-level price. In the PC world, $599 gets you a pretty beefy desktop (I paid that much for my current quad core Dell XPS).

I do not understand how Apple can get away with charging so much for so little.

Their laptops show a decent value for money, with a very good design, but the Mini is just boring and lacks any innovation, including user upgradable memory.

What's going to happen to this argument once Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both start shipping? Snow Leopard's hardware requirements are going to undeniably shift the "longer useful life" argument to Windows 7.

Right now the useful life argument is rather subjective and based largely on personal preferences around what level of performance someone can put up with. Therefore there's no clear winner, as is obvious with some of these responses. However, in a few months from now this argument will no longer be subjective. Snow Leopard simply will not support legacy hardware dating back as far as Windows 7 will. It won't be a debatable point; Windows 7 will have the advantage in the "longer useful life" argument.

"Windows 7 beats Snow Leopard on older hardware support":

http://www.techchuck.com/2009/06/11/windows-7-beats-snow-leopard-on-older-hardware-support/

Hmmmm..... Sound enough argument though I suspect many Mac Users will continue to use pre Snow Leopard versions of OSX for years to come. There isn't really any degree of built in obsolescence (I suspect XP will be used for years to come for the same reason). A computer's life span isn't necessarily defined by its ability to run the latest/greatest OS.

That said, it does look like Microsoft has had quite a re-think after being booed off the stage with Vista.

I have used both for many years, and while OS X on the MAC is a nice experience, you can have the same experience under Windows 7...

The hardware inside a Mac Pro is really not that different from what is inside a computer running Windows. Custom motherboard just like the big names (Dell, HP, Lenovo) have, but the other parts such as hard drives, memory, and all are the same as in windows based computers.

What you are paying for with Apple is the fact that they have kept things running very stable by having a VERY limited amount of hardware types to run on, while Windows can run on thousands of hardware combinations. Keeping the hardware limited like this ends with a very stable operating system as there is no issues with compatibility between various manufacturer's drivers, which is what caused Windows computers to be unstable at times.

OS X is what it is due to Apple limiting hardware and as a result, insuring stability. If they ever were to open it up, letting anyone install OS X on any hardware, such as what Microsoft allows now, then it would lose the stability it has now, and while still having a nice user experience, would bring in the same issues that Microsoft deals with often.

Microsoft could release their own PCs, running on their own hardware, charging like Apple does, but they chose to release a product that works on any mainstream hardware out there, giving it the large flexibility it has now...

So it all boils down to one question really, how much do you prefer to spend on your PC? (Windows and OS X systems are both PCs, Personal Computers)

OS X is what it is due to Apple limiting hardware and as a result, insuring stability. If they ever were to open it up, letting anyone install OS X on any hardware, such as what Microsoft allows now, then it would lose the stability it has now, and while still having a nice user experience, would bring in the same issues that Microsoft deals with often.

Microsoft could release their own PCs, running on their own hardware, charging like Apple does, but they chose to release a product that works on any mainstream hardware out there, giving it the large flexibility it has now...

This is a lesson that Microsoft has learned the hard way, and they're actually making some changes to better balance between reliability and hardware flexibility. Windows Mobile 7 is a great example. They've implemented must stricter hardware requirements that phone OEM's must adhere to, and they've actually announced that they're going to support fewer manufacturers on WM7 than previous versions of WM. The iPhone is a great experience because Apple controls the hardware and software. Microsoft is trying to get closer to "controlling" the hardware in order to provide a more reliable and better performing experience, while still allowing enough hardware flexibility to give consumers the choice over the form factor that works best for them individually.

So it all boils down to one question really, how much do you prefer to spend on your PC? (Windows and OS X systems are both PCs, Personal Computers)

If you're willing to spend a few $$ more for a Mac, you could run both Mac and PC. I wander through my local Starbucks and see Windows running natively (not through Parallels) on Macs a lot.

If you're willing to spend a few $$ more for a Mac, you could run both Mac and PC. I wander through my local Starbucks and see Windows running natively (not through Parallels) on Macs a lot.If Parallels Desktop is in full-screen mode there is no way you can tell, by looking at a Mac or watching a person use it, whether Windows uses Parallels Desktop or is running native. You would have to either ask its user or press Alt-Enter (Option-Enter in Macspeak) to try to return Parallels Desktop to windowed mode and see if it does. "Wander through my local Starbucks and see" doesn't suggest that you did either of these.

If you're not on a budget, get a Mac. I use a PC, but like Macs better. Cross compatibility between the two systems is much more seamless than in the past.

If you're willing to spend a few $$ more for a Mac, you could run both Mac and PC. I wander through my local Starbucks and see Windows running natively (not through Parallels) on Macs a lot.

Or why not just throw OS X on a computer that previously ran Windows... and get the best of both worlds as well, just without the high cost of a pure Mac?

Or why not just throw OS X on a computer that previously ran Windows... and get the best of both worlds as well, just without the high cost of a pure Mac?

the 'high cost of a pure mac' is a myth. when both machines are configured the same, there is very little difference in price.

Just got my MBP 17 and I'm loving it. With my Macbook, iPhone and Time Capsule, I'm very impressed how EVERYTHING worked perfectly right out of the box.

My MBP was $2,344 after the Education discount. As a comparison, the closest machine I could find in terms of features and components is the Dell/Alienware M17X - pricing out similar components gave me a price before ship/tax of $2,224.

On the higher end, there isn't much which differentiates Apple and MS-based laptops on price. It's on the lower end where Apple's entry-level laptops are typically twice the price (or more) of MS-based devices, although there is still a noticeable advantage going to Apple in terms of the components and features of their entry level laptops which tend to bend the price comparison at the low-end as well.

I installed Parallels (I found it's hybrid view much easier and better-featured than Fusion) to run a small number of Windows apps as needed.

the 'high cost of a pure mac' is a myth. when both machines are configured the same, there is very little difference in price.

Right, but there are no low-end models to meet the budget end of the marketplace. So the average price is higher. The fact that the processor is faster is mostly irrelevant to someone who just uses their computer for email and web browsing.

the 'high cost of a pure mac' is a myth. when both machines are configured the same, there is very little difference in price.

We've discussed this over and over again it feels... :D

The "very little difference in price really" only applies to the high end machines. It isn't hard to make a PC seem expensive when you compare an MBP with an Alienware or Voodoo machine.

But you can get a similarly spec'd machine from HP or Toshiba in their low end lineup for about a third. And yes - the build quality will be nowhere near as good as on the MBP, but to most people stuff like build quality and looks are not worth $1500.

The "very little difference in price really" only applies to the high end machines. It isn't hard to make a PC seem expensive when you compare an MBP with an Alienware or Voodoo machine.

it applies to all of their machines. the only issue is that apple does not have products at all price points, particularly the low end.

that means the cheapest pc is cheaper than the cheapest mac, but the machines don't have the same specs so i don't know why anyone would expect them to have the same price. match the specs and the price difference pretty much goes away, and it need not be alienware either.

$$ upfront is ONE thing, and it is certainly easier to find a more budget friendly machine than a mac in most cases. Although, I think for what one gets, the newest low end macbooks 13" unibody represent some of the best value out there.

But, we all know that is just one narrow area for macs. They just WORK, I have used macs and pcs for nearly 30 years now (okay, it was APPLE products back in the late 70's) and especially today the macs just work, they run solid, they don't crash, they don't require constant tending to keep them running optimally. If I can save five minutes day in startup, hassle, not having to fix something, etc (this is really more like 20-30 minutes) in a WEEK of working I have saved well in excess of the difference in money upfront - and the icing on the cake just keeps growing from there.

I STILL run both platforms for different reasons (I use a tablet sometimes for meetings and my consutling gigs) and when I am using my macs, I get into a nice mode of only thinking about my topic and not the bike.

especially today the macs just work, they run solid, they don't crash, they don't require constant tending to keep them running optimally. If I can save five minutes day in startup, hassle, not having to fix something, etc (this is really more like 20-30 minutes) in a WEKK or working I have saved well in excess of the difference in money upfront - and the icing on the cake just keeps growing from there.

Amen to that. I dread turning on my little Vista notebook after a few days.

"Important- this is something you should do!"

"It's been 30 days since your last full backup!"

"Your free trial of Windows Up-to-Date is almost expired!"

"There are important updates to install!"

"Vista is tuning up your computer" (Everything runs slow for a while)

"Vista is checking for spyware" (Slow again)

I've always used Macs and I partially bought the thing to become familiar with Windows. I know the cool thing to do is install OSX, but I still learn something every day in Windows so I consider the OS to be the cost of educating myself.

I have used both for many years, and while OS X on the MAC is a nice experience, you can have the same experience under Windows 7...

The hardware inside a Mac Pro is really not that different from what is inside a computer running Windows. Custom motherboard just like the big names (Dell, HP, Lenovo) have, but the other parts such as hard drives, memory, and all are the same as in windows based computers.

What you are paying for with Apple is the fact that they have kept things running very stable by having a VERY limited amount of hardware types to run on, while Windows can run on thousands of hardware combinations. Keeping the hardware limited like this ends with a very stable operating system as there is no issues with compatibility between various manufacturer's drivers, which is what caused Windows computers to be unstable at times.

OS X is what it is due to Apple limiting hardware and as a result, insuring stability. If they ever were to open it up, letting anyone install OS X on any hardware, such as what Microsoft allows now, then it would lose the stability it has now, and while still having a nice user experience, would bring in the same issues that Microsoft deals with often.


Years ago, as some may remember, NeXT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT) had its own hardware (very very expensive with stylish design as a important component) to run its OS (direct ancestor of OS X) before briefly deciding to release a binary-encoded version of NeXTStep that did work on 80486s albeit with a very limited number of compatible components (which would probably quickly disappear given the speed PC components become obsolete). Aliens must have kidnapped and replaced Steve Jobs with an evil twin.

I played with such a machine for a while and it was much faster than the 68000-based NeXT machines at a fraction of the price (even if acquired used). Apple can do that again, but they want to keep prices high by limited compatible hardware to their own.

I do not understand how Apple can get away with charging so much for so little.

Their laptops show a decent value for money, with a very good design, but the Mini is just boring and lacks any innovation, including user upgradable memory.

I've recommended Minis to two friends who have very basic needs. They're very happy with them. They were impressed by the size and that they could keep their existing screens. Both came from the PC world. One was mostly concerned that if something went wrong, he could put the thing in his briefcase and take it for repair.

As for memory, I seem to remember a study that showed something like only 10% of users even know they can upgrade the memory. And most of the rest will never do it anyway.