Why Mac?
 

Ok I am reading all the comments about Mac computers on here and am beginning to think I should cancel my order for a new HP notebook and get a Mac instead.

The question is why? I haven't used a Mac in a few years but do remember it wasn't that difficult to use.

My Office software is for a PC, so that would require a new licence right?

As I stated earlier my main application are lightweight:

Office
Internet (wireless)
Watching/Burning DVD's

I do take my computer with me when I travel, but not always. The new notebook I ordered is only 5 lbs, so not bad compared to the boat I have now.

I can't figure out why I would want to spend the extra $400 or so for a Mac as compared to a PC. Thoughts?

I am fairly new to Mac. I have only had my Macbook Pro for about 2 months. There are a number of things evident to me though. OS X is a much better operating system than Windows XP or even Vista, although I do see that Vista is basically moving in the direction of OS X. With the Intel based Macs, you can now have the best of both worlds because you can either set up a dual boot to Windows or run Windows inside a virtual machine under OS X. You can't do it the other way around. Since I do a lot of Unix, having OS X running unix underneath is a big plus. For me, Mac is just a lot more polished. The only application I am having an issue with is Visio, but I do know that I can run it using one of the two methods I detailed above since it is Windows only. If I were buying a new laptop, the decision wouldn't be whether to get the Mac or the PC, rather it would be which Mac to get. I use EVDO, so it pretty much has to be the MacBook Pro 15". I need it for the card slot to take the EVDO card (note: not a PCMCIA card). MacBook Pro takes the Expresscard/34 instead. Otherwise, I think I would have gone for one of the black MacBooks for the smaller size.

As the commercials say "it just works". That's true. Things seem to work more simplky, so far in my experience. Fewer clicks to get things done. Fewer software and driver issues.

Mac OS X is much more stable than Windows. It's also much less resource intensive, and runs faster (and consequently apps run faster) on equivalent machines compared to Windows.

One small thing I really like so far is the sleep mode on Macs. My iBook goes from asleep to fully functional in literally 2-3 seconds, and it boots from shutdown in about 15 seconds. My windows PC's all take much longer to wake up, not to mention they take forever to boot.

With the new MacBooks, you wouldn't even have to give up any M$ dependent apps you currently use, as you can also install Windows using Boot Camp or Parallels.

Plus there's the smug satisfaction of not supporting Micro$haft. :D

Is bootcamps or Parallels built right into the Mac? I could install my MS Office without having to purchase any other software?

Also am I nuts for thinking that I would need the model with 1 GB of RAM, not 512 MB?

You'll have to ask someone else about Boto Camp and Parallels. I haven't used them, I just know about them. I think Boot camp is free but you have to pay for Parallels.

If you are planning to run bootcamp, IMHO you would want at least 1 gig of RAM if not 2. (2 seems to be a sweetspot for Vista).

For me, price is a determining factor. When I put together the Vista PC, to get an equivalent mac would have been >50% more expensive. YMMV.

bootcamp is currently a free download (officially a beta), and will be part of the forthcoming update to osx known as leopard which is due out in spring 2007. bootcamp allows one to dual-boot the mac into either osx or windows xp-sp2.

parallels is a commercial product which allows one to run windows concurrently with osx, no reboot required. windows apps are effectively full citizens with mac apps and you can copy/paste etc. between them. however, 3d graphics isn't fully supported (yet) so it may not be suitable for gaming.

parallels can also share the bootcamp install, so you can reboot when you need the speed, and run it concurrently when you need the convenience. and, you can even import your existing pc into parallels and continue using that!

there are free, open source office alternatives, such as openoffice. they aren't as polished as the real thing, but they might suffice. microsoft has a mac version of office, should you want the real thing.

finally, osx includes an application called textedit which can read and write ms-word files directly.

not nuts at all. 512 is suitable for very casual usage, 1gig is comfortable for most things, and 2gig is really where you want to be for running parallels and other ram intensive applications. ram is cheap - don't skimp on it.

for the office products, you can also use Openoffice
http://www.openoffice.org/

Its free and they have a version for Mac too.

Along those lines...
I used to issue this challenge to friends and family: get a mac and run parallels (because bootcamp is just a pain, who wants to reboot?) and with in a month you'll be on the mac side exclusively. You can get office for the mac, etc...

Now I'm even more gungho about it... ditch MS all together. Get a Mac, load NeoOffice (the openoffice port for OS X) and you'll wonder why you ever needed an MS program. I'm very serious about that too. I've stopped using Office on my personal computers 100%... the hardest move was away from outlook, but I've found a solution I like a lot more (thundbird with Zimbra server, ical and address book)

I've leave it to others to extol the virtues, or refute the benefits of a Mac running OS X. I just wanted to throw in the plug for NeoOffice.... with options that robust, its pretty easy to make the switch and not have it be too painful.

In terms of RAM, I hate to say that 2gb is the sweet spot for OS X. I agree that you can get by with 512 for some stuff...the Mini's I have connected to my TVs do just fine with 512,but all they do is run VLC and SofaControl (remote software)... if you plan on running itunes, an office app, email and firefox at the same time, you'll want 2gb. My Macbook does hum with 1.5gb but if I launch Aperture (granted a high end app) or get a bunch of firefox tabs going then I do get a beachball from time to time. On the plus side, with 2 gb of ram you can safely give Parallels 512 or even 750 or 1gb and still have a very stable and functional OS X environment.... in fact both will sing at almost native speeds

I agree with the vast majority of the previous posts.....MAC is a MUCH more stable and better operating environment than Windows.....however, I'm not a windows hater in the mac/windows verus - verus saga.... I just say Mac is a good system since you have the OS/Hardware and such coming from one vendor versus windows which has to try and be many things to different hardware/software platforms....

With that said, I will say that you can secure and make windows extremely stable...the problem with that imo is that it takes a somewhat technical person to do versus Mac which simply works out the box......

For me I would say, if you want simplicity in a great package that just works out the box....then get a Mac..... and if you want to tweak these things on your own then I would say go with Windows

MadHouse raised a interesting point.
Sometimes I get so caught up as a Mac fanboy that I forget the real compelling argument for me:

I'm a big believer in UI development. I think design and UI is one of the most underrated parts of software and technology- this is coming from someone who is working on a major new development project for a fortune 15 company...and our UI sucks! Think about it like this: we eat with our eyes first. No one (hopefully) eyes a pile of canned dog food and says "ummmm that looks great" but look at something coming out of a the kitchen of a great restaurant and your mouth waters before you even smell it. UI is the same way. You could sit down in front of the must functional piece of software (why do you think so many industry specific apps are still terminal based ?...look at the airlines) but it its ugly as sin and hard to use then you've already lost the user acceptance battle.

Apple has done an amazing job at creating a highly attractive and very usable OS. When I see OS X I'm attracted to it so I want to use it, when I do use it, I work more effortlessly. One of the most underrated features of OS X is expose...I think if apple had invented a better way to access it (other than using the F keys) then more people would see how innovative it is. Another often begrudged feature is Spotlight, but I love it. Press Apple+space, type a few characters of anything (application, email, document contents...) and boom, it comes up. It almost eliveates the need to remember where you filed anything.

The tight integration of the hardware and the OS means that periferials usually 'just work. I'm no stranger to hacking drivers, digging into the windows registry, etc...but I dont want to do that. That's a waste of my time. I can plug my camera in, iPhoto loads the photos and I'm done. I can email them out easily, load them into flickr, publish them with iWeb, anything...and its quick and easy and I'm done.

From a geek point, I love the BSD underpinnings of OSX... I can drop to a terminal (usually have at least 3 open in the background) and do almost anything...and faster than I can on windows....but I'm a nerd like that. Again, its an example of a UI that works for me.

In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that the interface entices me to use it and when I do I find its easier to use. Don't confuse easier with a lack of power or control. I mean my workflow is cleaner, I can do tasks with less effort and in the end I get more done and enjoy doing it more.

That is one of the reasons I'm not compelled to run Vista in any major regard. It doesnt do enough to change how I use the computer. Frankly I'm dont have hopes that Lepoard (apple's next OS) will do that either. We are at a bit of an impasse in UI until someone figures out something totally different...I'm thinking hand gestures or something...but we'll just have to wait and see :D

Thanks Madhouse24.

I am a fairly good tweaker when it comes to PC's but clearly not enough as I ended up having to reformat my HD about 1 - 2 times per year.

Right now my 2.5 yr old laptop is giving me nothing but grief. Programs freezing, crashing, simple things like Quicktime causes the application to quit. While I posted before about possible interference causing me intermittent wifi signals, it appears that it is my hardware as the router etc., is good and no-one else is having issues.

The PC I have on order is an HP dv2110US, 120 GB HD, 1 GB Ram (will upgrade to 2), lightscribe DVD burner, 288 MB shared video RAM, Vista Premium - got it for $800. An equivalent Mac would be $1,100 - $1,200... trying to figure out if it is worth the extra $$ (ie less hassle, less time intensive, last longer etc.- I think my current laptop should have lasted longer than 2.5 yrs, but it doesn't seem to want too)

There is an Apple Store walking distance from me. Don't know if they will give me the educational discount though... my student card is from a Canadian University. Also with exchange, it is cheaper to purchase in Canada, but then I have more taxes to contend with - so probably balances out.

Check out the refurbished units on apple.com...you can get a core duo Macbook for $950...
Its easy easy easy to get a student discount...just show the ID, no questions asked. If you are still worried, then order it off their website under the education section, they dont ask for any proof.

Well, let me take a contrary view here.

You're not buying an OS, you're buying an applications platform (particularly the OP and his/her stated needs). So you'll end up with pretty much the same software on either: Netscape or Firefox as the browser, Thunderbird or some other very similar mail client, Office or look-alike.

Yes, Mac hardware is niftier looking, but the single button mouse is a mistake, the white case soaks up hand-sweat and is impossible to clean, there's a very annoying sharp edge right where your palm rests, and the OS has become annoyingly non-intuitive. And yes, I have three Mac laptops and at least as many PC laptops.

MY take...buy a bottom-feeder laptop for travel and spend the difference on a good...[take your pick, bottle of Scotch, night in Las Vegas...!]

[Now, having said all that, most people will be a lot happier with a Mac :D ]

---------------
BACKGROUND
Ph.D. in computer science, one of the original designers of the Star UI, long history with Unix and a bunch of others, etc., etc.

I've just had another revelation today. Lately been sat doing rather laid out documents working in iWork and pages. I can export these to .doc and I can alo open .doc format in it without eny problem at all.

Iwork has pages (word processing and also good enough for minor desktop publishing and html) and Keynote (Apples competitor to Power Point) and rumor has it that the iWork 07 might include spread sheet. However, the templetes included in Pages all my invoices are now done in that. All my contracts, proposals etc are from now on done in pages. It has made my life so dang easy.

I am a proficient computer user. I'd say above average (ECDL trained and MCSE trained and Novell + the old Works). Run a web design and marketing company. Used to work for an ISP running Linux servers. There is no way I will ever go back to PC environment.

iWork is a fraction of the cost of Office and does everything I need it to do. If it wasn't for the fact that soe of my clients send me excel files I'd ditch office right away. However - if Apple do release the =7 version with spreadsheet and it is excel compatible Office will be wiped off my hard drive in a heart beat.

The other thing is that because I send all my invoices and contracts by e-mail I am by law obliged to send them in PDF format. Easy peasy. Just hit print and print to pdf and it's done.

Sure, they cost a bit more but when I was on PC laptops I used to have to get a new one every year just to keep up with technology and to get a better hard drive. My first Mac lasted me 3 years. I sold it on ebay and gave the guy my phone number if he'd ever have any problems with it. That's a ear ago and I haven't heard a word. I guess it's still running.

/E

I totally disagree. I am now so used to the single button mouse on the laptop that it annoys the cr*p out of me when I sit and work with a client who happens to have PC laptop. nd what is this with that little joystick on the IBM and toshiba? (have had laptops from both of those).

At home I plug in the USB mightymouse which looks like a single button mouse but isn't. At the office I have a big trackball.

When I travel I just stick with what the laptop came with.

And - because it is unix based, slap x11 on it and you get access to a whole world of free software like openoffice, gimp etc.

Sure, when my first MBP had to be repaired twice and eventually PC world refunded me the cost of it I wandered in to an apple store and picked up a new C2D MBP for £50 less than the first one cost me last year. Later that night I started sweating and telling myself I was an idiot as I could have walked away with a PC laptop like Acer for £300 and kept £1100. However, that panicky feeling only lasted a few minutes when I started thinking of my previous life with PC comparing it to being a mac user.

/E

Parallels is not built in -- it costs under $100 ($80 IIRC but don't quote me). I use it on a Mac Mini and it works great. I believe BootCamp is free but it is a "dual boot" situation -- you boot either Mac OS or XP. Parallels allow you to run windows in a window or full screen.

I bought the mac mini last summer just to play with (and see how some web pages I do render on a mac). It needed more memory (cam with 512mb, upgraded to 2GB) but other than that I am happy. I mostly use it as a "media server" -- iTunes, digital photos, as a server for my ReplayTV (think "Tivo" only better :) ) network.

That being said, when it comes time to replace my traveling computer, I will very closely look what Mac has to offer -- especially if the rumored flash-drive version comes in at a good price.

As to installing office, I don't think there would be a problem. Parallels handled the XP installation key and activation just fine.

all good posts. There is no one is better than the other, but there is a clear comment that within the parameters of what most users are doing, using their computer for, the MAc just works. I use both daily, have no problems going back and forth. appreciate the pcs' laptops mostly for what they are, and offer. Love the macs for the ease of doing so many things, and their ability to do them quickly, effectively and with a bit of flair at the same time.

I use parallels on my macbook, and it works fine. I use bootcamp on the imac at home, and it works great too. I imagine either IT or parallels will be rolled into jaguar or soon thereafter. PL was only 50$ when I bought it, I like the fact that I can use it to run JUST one application and not have to switch wholly over to the XP sp2 base.

ok help me here understand 1 thing.

The PC I am looking at has 288 mb of shared RAM for video, the Mac book only has either 64 or 128 MB - doesn't that mean it is inferior in terms of graphic capabilities?

No; the video memory on the Mac is dedicated memory. The shared RAM on the PC is actually system RAM which gets used for video. IME, dedicated video RAM generally performs better than shared RAM in almost all scenarios (even when the difference in MBs is so large). YMMV.

The term "shared RAM" usually implies that the video chip borrows RAM from the system. 288 is a strange number, but it sounds like there is 288mb of built in system RAM...like a DIMM soldered to the board which both the CPU and the video chipset can access...typically its dynamically allocated..you usually get about 32mb by default and the the video chip can request more as needed.

Again, since 288 is such an odd sounding number, I'm not entirely sure what is going on with the PC you are looking at...But 288 minus 32 is 256...so if the video chipset uses 32mb then you have 256 built in for the system...it probably has 2 open DIMM slots then where you can add more...maybe it comes loaded with 1 512 and 1 265 (unlikely though) which would give you 1 gb total....

With the Mac you get dedicated memory for the video. The video chip gets its own RAM chip, either 64 or 128mb...its not shared at all. Its that simple. There is usually a performance bonus to have dedicated RAM both for the system and the video subset.

I won't jump to a Mac because, as long as people keep saying you need to run Windows software on it...well, clearly, it's just easier to run windows.

And I like being able to sync my phone with Outlook -- and use Yahoo Calendar as both a public "publishing point" of my calendar (and backup of data) as well as an easy way to sync my calendar/notes/tasks/etc between work and home.

Two button mouse on the laptop. A total brainfade by Apple to not have it built in. Sounds small, but it's deeply annoying not to have it -- and I buy a laptop to make my life EASIER, not harder.

And finally, the cost of constantly upgrading the OS is annoying to me. And Apple makes you pay for upgrades all the time -- compared to MS, where you can pay once and then get upgrades for a LONG time.

And finally...it just costs more.

Steve

You're very welcome^ :D

http://forum.onmac.net/ If you "become" interested in a mac, there is a pretty good online forum and one for "for sale" items (may be worth having a look)

also


http://www.notebookreview has an excellent forum at http://forum.notebookreview.com/ which has a wealth of information^



Hopes this helps :-)

I'm going to dissect this one, not for Sllevin's benifit but just to offer another angle for anyone else considering these points... That is to say, I'm not arguing with Sllevin over any of his points, but there is another take...

Like I previously said, I dont think there is any need to run any windows software. I think for some people its a security blanket and its unique to OS X. You cannot make the transition the other way...or instance, I cannot run OS X software in a window on my PC... thats kind of a bummer to me

I dont know which phone you have, but I can almost guarantee you could do it on the mac. If the built in iSync itself doesnt support the phone then its likely that pocketmac or TheMissingSync would. iCal is compatible with Yahoo Calendars. The built in sync services in OS X (10.4) is simply amazing.

On a mac laptop you can tap with one finger for a left click and two fingers for a right click...you can also drag with 2 fingers to scroll up and down...I find myself doing it ALL THE TIME on my dell laptop only to be disapointed that it doesnt work.
On any mac you can control click or click and hold to emulate the right-click

on a different note, as someone who works closely with software design, one of the problems with right-click menus is that you have to actually do it to know what your options are. In other words, you have to test the waters first which breaks on of the tenets of good application and UI design. Apple put the functionality to support right-clicking into the OS but you shouldn't have to right click to do anything... so really having 2 buttons makes things harder in a lot of ways...

I'm not sure I follow you here...
Personally I'd rather pay $100 every 2 years than $300 (vista ultimate) every 5... I like that OS X isn't rigioursly copy protected either...one could, questionably in the legal sense, buy one copy and easily install it on all their home machines... I have 8 macs...so I can at least spend $250 on the OS X family pack vs $300 x 8 for my PCs

With MS you do not pay once and get continuous upgrades...you pay each time.

I dont agree that every 2 years constitutes constant upgrading either...at any rate its a cycle which I'd embrace rather than run from...look at how dated XP looks and feels compared to Vista...

I currently have an older PC and, much like Maple, am looking at a Mac. I've been eyeing a mac mini, and using my existing PC monitor with a monitor switch between the 2. The pricing on the mac's is one thing that makes me hesitate, but I keep hearing alot of good about them, stability and performace wise. I'm a unix admin by trade, so I do like the unix underlaying OS as well :)

I'm debating between the 2 intel dual core models. Would it be better to go with a slightly slower CPU and get more memory, or the faster proc and not as much memory? I hate the fact you can't get the superdrive with the slower processor :( That's another big draw for me.

I see mentions of the new OS coming out this spring. If I bought a Mac Mini now, would I have to buy the OS, or does mac usually offer some sort of discount for "recent" purchases?

Thanks

You don't have to pay for OS upgrades. Yes Apple puts out an entirely new OS every three years or so, but the average price for OSX has always hovered around $100. Microsoft has a tendancy to put out flawed and outdated OS's every 5-8 years, and a full version of Vista will run you $400.

Yes the Mac costs more because it's just better. Plain and simple.

funny
 

This last point is really funny. As someone who uses both mac laptops and ibm thinkpads daily, I ALWAYS find myself trying to do this when I get back to the thinkpad. It just works really well, as well as the one finger click/select and the two finger click/second menu. Afters almost a year with a macbook pro, I still try it on the IBM daily. Must be a problem between the KB and the CHAIR!

:-)

After my meeting this afternoon I do believe i shall wander to the apple store and check out the macbooks. Talk to the sales guy, see what they say etc.

No guarantees I will purchase on the spot though - not like it is a discounted F ticket :D

MapleLeaf

Yes they are cheaper here, and remember if you are resident elsewhere (not Can) then go to Customs before checking in at the aiport to get your receipt stamped for a tax refund.

When we got ours at the Eaton Centre :) we also got the MS Office software to download onto the Mac - v. simple and effective.

I am so glad that we made the switch!

Man o man am I in like ultimate fanboy mode today...I'm also working from home for the first week in a long time so I'm just giddy...

I used to agree that they *seemed* more expensive, but I made the argument that if you speced out a similar PC it would be about the same...It had been a while since I'd taken a close look, so I decided to check again.

Here's dell's offering (with Vista):
http://www.archatechs.com/dell.tiff
$1975.00

Here's a black Macbook:
http://www.archatechs.com/apple.tiff
$1,499.00 (before education discount, if one applies for you)

As best as I can tell, the Dell does come with a better video card, so maybe you can justify an additional $100 for the dell...but they only offer G (or A/G) wireless cards where the Mac's come with N chips...
Of course the mac comes with iLife, which I'd personally value at about $100...so maybe its a wash.

Bottom line, it appears that PCs actually cost more!

Of course you can find a $500 PC laptop out there, in which case, yes a Mac costs more. But if that is your price range then you should be prepared for what you are getting. If you just want a portable email and web surfing machine, its probably a better option than either of the machines listed above...but if you expect to get into multimedia, photos, advanced applications (say like running Outlook, Excel and Word at the same time) then you'd be right back in the Macbook price range pretty quickly.

Also, it seems to me that Macs have a much longer usable life than PC's, due to the "lightness" of the OS.

Get more ram...it will make a much bigger difference than the difference in the processors....get as much ram as you can afford.

Apple has in the past offered free upgrades if you are with in a certian period and discounted upgrades after that...then full upgrades for everyone else

For a balanced comparison, shouldn't the comparison be between the Dell and a MacBook Pro?

Care to be more specific on your definition of a "much longer usable life"?

Why? The Macbook seems like a pretty close comparison.
Check the specs in the graphics...

The Mac costs a lot more. Yes, the Mac is probably better than the PC, but is it hundreds of dollars better? Only you can decide. For me, it isn't worth the extra money. I have a 5 year old Dell Inspiron, and a 4 year old Sager, still running great with XP. I don't think you need to worry about whether they will last long, they will.

Now here is a quirk that makes no sense to me.

If I go to the apple.ca site and purchase there with the educational discount section, right up until the final page they don't charge sales tax on the order. A savings of 15% in Ontario.

If I go to the apple.com site and do the same thing, they charge me the CA sales tax, 8.75%.

Did I miss something here?

I just purchased a 7 year old 450 MHz Powermac desktop that is still perfectly usable, with current software.

Thats just it....I'm not sure they do (at least apples to apples, oranges to oranges...as they say)

http://www.archatechs.com/dell.tiff
http://www.archatechs.com/apple.tiff

There are probably 50 million users of Windows 9x who, although not employing XP/Vista or Office 2003, will tell you the same thing, satisfactorily running software that many on this forum would deem antiquated. A computer's usable life isn't exclusively predicated on running the latest software.