I'd have to say though, the Mac Pros are worth the $$$. I'm a tech intern at my school and one of these beasts came in. I got the pleasure of setting it up and configuring it, then a little peek inside :D. I'd have to say its one of the most upgradable computers out(besides the mac only components). Best of all, no lag or chug at all, no matter what. Also pretty much after you touch that power button your on the net 5 sec later. :D

This is all coming from a guy who was a hardcore PC, Microsoft guy until I became a tech intern this school year.

I think I can summarise by saying anyone who uses linux or a mac is an absolute loser; anyone who uses windows by preference is even more of a loser.

My comment wasn't supposed to be in criticism of you -- I just wondered what you meant by being a "hardcore Microsoft guy". Given the four points you posted above, I wouldn't have considered you hardcore -- just a run-of-the-mill Windows user who hasn't been acquainted with the other options yet. My comment was in response to the idea that somebody could be a fanatic Microsoft user by choice, and to the exclusion of non-Microsoft products.

Elation wrote:
I think I can summarise by saying anyone who uses linux or a mac is an absolute loser; anyone who uses windows by preference is even more of a loser.

...


Uhhhh.

"If you use Windows because you don't know about other Operating Systems, you're ok; but if you use other operating systems, you're a loser. Also, if you use Windows even if you know of other operating systems, you are a loser."

So:

* You are a loser if you use Windows (and know of OSX/Linux/etc)

* You are a loser if you use OSX/Linux/etc

* The only way to **NOT** be a loser is to not have the knowledge of other operating systems and use only Windows... without preference

~Kujila

That's what I said?

Let's face it, if you know anything about computers, you're a loser.

Kujila wrote:

1) The cost:

Apples are zippy little machines, that's for sure, but I could pay nearly half for the same hardware that is non-apple branded. D'oh! $599 for a mac mini with 512 MB of memory is hardly economical in my opinion.

For an entry level machine, no. It's not very economical. Not bad, but not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

That said, the "Macs cost more" myth has been widely debunked in recent years. The truth is two-fold:

1. Macs are comparable in cost to equivalently specced PCs from big name manufacturers (Dell, HP, Sony, etc). Sometimes the PC is cheaper, sometimes the Mac is cheaper. The key is to match them up as closely as possible, spec for spec.

2. Macs include many features as standard which are optional or not even available on PCs with comparable computing power. This is what drives the perception of high cost: you can configure a barebones PC without FireWire, Bluetooth, WiFi, remote control, built-in camera, motion sensor (Google "MacSaber" sometime - lots of fun and lols for all), and a bunch of other stuff. You can't do the same with a Mac to reduce cost. Apple includes nearly everything in the base level of each product line, and the only options are usually things like CPU clock, hard drive and memory size.

It could be argued that the Mac mini is more expensive than an equivalently powerful PC due to its form factor. Indeed, it's essentially a laptop without a screen and keyboard, and not a low-end one that's crippled with something like a Celeron. Miniaturization costs money, and that's reflected in the price.

2) The graphic capabilities of 'budget macs' :

The mac mini is what normally catches my eye when I pry over to the Apple site. The reason should be obvious to anyone in my financial situation; it's the only thing I could possible afford! But alas; the mac minis are stuck with the dreaded "No-T-&-L" GMA950 series of budget Intel integrated graphics! *Falls on face*

This is really only an issue for hardcore gamers. And frankly, why the heck would you buy a Mac if you're a hardcore gamer?

The GMA950 in my Macbook performs perfectly well for me. Heck, I've never once had any trouble with the Radeon 7500 (low end 5 years ago when I bought in) in my G4 tower. I'm far from the target market for high end 3-d cards, so take that for what it's worth.

3) Funky hardware concepts:

Ok Apple, I know you're artsy, but I reaaally don't want a big screen built into my computer. iMacs are nifty for certain, but from my standpoint the screen is superfluous. I want some towers, Apple. Standard, run-o-the-mill, Desktop Towers. ... aaand I don't mean that amazingly expensive "Mac Pro" you parade around as tower. *shifty eyes*

Agreed, 100%. There's a huge gaping hole in Apple's product line, where an inexpensive Conroe-based tower would sit nicely. The Mac Pro is incredible overkill for home and hobbyist users, but none of the other Macs offer the same internal upgrade capability. A single dual-core chip is plenty for most people, and it costs a whole lot less than the dual Xeons in the Pro.

Lots of people complain about this (myself included), but I seriously doubt Apple is listening. They're not interested in being all things to all computer users, and who can argue with them when they posted $1 billion profit on $7 billion in sales last quarter? That's obscene. Their business model is working fantastically well, so there's no incentive to try to compete with Dell.

It's too bad, because my G4 tower cost me $1200 brand new 5 years ago. It was bottom of the line then, but that's a heck of a lot more reasonable than the current bottom of the line tower (~$2000). I've been able to upgrade it in the years since, adding USB2, SATA, multiple internal hard drives, etc. I could upgrade the video card, but I already established that I'm not a hardcore 3-d user.

I think the simplified product line (Mac mini -> iMac -> Mac Pro, Macbook -> Macbook Pro) comes as a reaction from the mid 90s when Apple's product line was all over the map. They had like 15 different product families, with several dimensions of overlap in all directions. The bottom end product in one line was more capable than the top end in another line, but the medium ends in both were equivalent. And every line seemed to have one product that didn't belong there at all. Totally confusing for buyers, and Apple suffered (though this was only one of many reasons).

Since Steve Jobs came back, he's made it a point to simplify the product line, to the point of being too simple. It's frustrating.

4) Upgrade woes! :

Sure, the memory for Macs isn't anything special, and now not even the processors really are, but Apple likes to keep its friends close, and its customer's hardware even closer. Want to install a new soundcard? Weeeell, go find one for a Mac. Good luck... Oh? You found one? Ok, well try to install it into your goofy iMac casing. Ouch... can't? What about your mac mini over there? Still no? Darn! That being said, I hardly ever replace a PC for a new game; I will simply buy a $200-ish video card and plop her into my machine. With a mac, I wouldn't have that option, and, if I did, it would probably be limited to the few 'Made for Macintosh' reject cards that ATI and Nvidia occasionally pump out.

Not sure why you'd want a new sound card in any Mac unless you're doing serious music recording. In that case, you'd buy a Mac Pro or get an outboard audio interface that connects via FireWire anyway. All current Macs have digital output -- what more do you need?

As for video, it's again the complaint that there's no affordable tower in the lineup. The other machines are all-in-one and not meant for tinkerers and upgraders. Apparently Apple's just not interested in that market, and you can't fault them with their financial results. I'm not sure what you mean by "reject cards" and while I don't follow this aspect closely, my impression is that most cards from either manufacturer are available for the Mac.

To address the upgradeability myth in general, people complain that Macs aren't upgradeable or are incompatible with standard PC parts. Well before the Intel switch, they've used standard memory and hard drives as well as external interfaces like USB. Now, with the iMac and Mac Pro, you can drop in a new Intel processor to upgrade your machine as well. All standard. Video cards in the towers are still different from the PC versions because they need to support EFI. The PC industry still drags its feet on dumping BIOS for EFI, and apparently the video card companies can't or won't make cards that support both.

The other Mac models have the same amount of upgradeability as equivalent all-in-one PC models - upgrade the memory, add external drives, etc.

Oy! Sounds like a lot of negativity there, eh? Like I said, I love macs, I just have a few things keeping me from making 'the switch.' If I wasn't a darn PC gamer, I'm sure I would be able to shell out the cash for a mac mini and be happy, but alas...

If you're a gamer, just get Vista. It's Microsoft's version of OS X eye candy minus the compatibility and internal upgradeability headaches.

I honestly can't recommend a Mac to anyone who is a gamer because it simply doesn't offer anything over Windows. And even if you're not a hardcore gamer, there's no reason to get a Mac unless you (1) need or want iLife, (2) want a real unix with good commercial applications, (3) want a machine with most of the standard hardware that comes with a basic Mac, or (4) want something that'll run both OS X and Windows at the same time. Most people don't fit into any of those categories.

Mike H wrote:

If you're a gamer, just get Vista. It's Microsoft's version of OS X eye candy minus the compatibility and internal upgradeability headaches...I honestly can't recommend a Mac to anyone who is a gamer because it simply doesn't offer anything over Windows.

It should be noted that hardcore gamers can buy an Intel Mac and use Bootcamp to run Windows for games. I haven't done this myself, but I've heard almost universally positive results from those who have.

For those like myself who have had a separate Windows machine just for gaming (and, previously, just for BYOND development), it's not uncommon now to consider getting a Mac since the one machine can serve all your needs.

That said, I'm still likely to keep separate machines, for three reasons:

1) My Mac is a MacBook Pro that I also do my work on, and a portable isn't the greatest for games.

2) It works very well for me to have a laptop available while I'm playing a game, for looking things up, doing email, or even doing BYOND web development (good thing I tend to play turn-based games!)

3) These days I can run BYOND and even do BYOND development in Parallels with no problems...so it's not uncommon for me to use my Windows machine to play a game while using my MacBook as a Windows machine to run BYOND. Sick, eh?

Best thing about Parallels: Hit Command-H (hide), and you instantly have your Mac back!

I say get one if you want a laptop. Macbooks are better quality than any pc laptop, and you cant complain about upgradability in a laptop can you?

Macs have a bit of an advantage when it comes to operating systems. You can run Mac, Linux, or Windows. Personaly I would get one because I dont want Windows on my laptop anyway. Its more dificult to install Linux on a pc laptop, so a Mac would be a good alternative.

I think I fall into this category:

Don't honestly give enough of a [self-moderated] to make an OS switch.