I don't use OSX much, but using itunes makes me want to shoot up an Apple store.
Also, isn't that heavier than a LifeBook?
Im going to weigh in.
Silkwizard is absolutely correct in saying that command line interfaces are impractical and unintuitive. We have all sorts of ways to access files these days and with the advent of the GUI there is no good reason for a mainstream consumer laptop or operating system to use it. That being said linux is not mainstream. Laptops are not meant to be gamed on, not meant to host servers from. These are portable devices for checking your mail, surfing the web, writing documents, working in spreadsheets, stuff like that. It is not meant to play Crisis on. 3 pounds is insane, there are hundreds of girls who are going to buy this puppy, for some reason students dont like carrying an 11.5lb laptop in their bags with all their other books, its usually bring laptop or bring books, not both. This is going to be fantastic, a laptop worth taking to school. I can actually take it with me. MacOS is NOT a good operating system for efficiency, and it is very inflexible. For simple users though it is more intuitive, intuitive for people who are not already trained on linux or windows though. Macs dont get viruses and they dont have issues with crashing and they dont come installed with lots of crap on it. This is great news. The thing is, i wont be buying one, why? because i dont write many notes and i just got an ipod touch and it lets me do everything on the output side very easily, its not fast for storing input like working in word but thats not how i use it. Apple is doing FANTASTIC lately, the ipod touch is freaking brilliant when jailbroken. I was getting annoyed at apple for a while but they have finally started giving good reason to switch. It can dualboot with windows AND it weighs 3 pounds with a dualcore processor. Amazing. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
And still; no one has anything solid to say about Vista or Linux in comparison to OSX, except to say that it sucks! I had used Mac's for my entire life up until grade 9 when i got my first PC. Then i switched. Vista is terrible but XP is far supperior for a home PC than a mac. You know, it runs byond.. and millions of other third party applications. Third party support IS what i care about for a PC. And XP is pretty stable and runs office 2007 etc etc. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
And still; no one has anything solid to say about Vista or Linux in comparison to OSX, except to say that it sucks! And what is so solid about OSX? I think you will find more people say Mac sucks than windows... | |
Nishiatsu wrote:
SilkWizard wrote: The problem is you can dualboot Macs with both OSX and Windows XP. Making it really the most open platform. The real issue is wether or not its overpriced. The operating system serves its purpose, and now that macs allow you to dual boot theres really no argument about wether or not the new macbook is great on the software side. | |
Nishiatsu wrote:
I think you will find more people say Mac sucks than windows... Ah, so is finding the truth then a simple matter of addition? As far as what is so solid; an intuitive design that *makes sense*, ease of use for users of any experience level, no viruses or spyware, built-in software suites that would cost hundreds extra for Windows, very rare crashes, full compatibility with 99% of the important software out there nowadays, an OS and software designed to take advantage of the dual core processors, the best backup software on the market INCLUDED with the OS, etc. etc. etc. I use XP, Vista and OSX on a daily basis. OSX wins hands-down. | |
It's pointless to argue with Apple fanatics. I guess I need a pair of their rose colored glasses.
| |
Masterdan wrote:
Macs dont get viruses and they dont have issues with crashing and they dont come installed with lots of crap on it. Macs aren't magically immune to viruses. The mac I used had issues with crashing and came installed with a lot of crap on it. For comparison, the computer I have now doesn't get viruses, doesn't have issues with crashing, and didn't come with anything installed on it whatsoever. | |
Repiv wrote:
It's pointless to argue with Apple fanatics. I guess I need a pair of their rose colored glasses. Interesting to make that accusation when not one person has tried to make a post disputing what I have to say with anything more than "mac sux!". | |
What does Mac have to offer besides a pretty interface? You can't use virus immunity as an excuse, because that's a population issue, not an OS one.
You know what I don't like about Macs? Lack of customization. I can't tell it to work exactly how I want it to. It works how Jobs thinks is best. This is why Macs seem so perfectly sown together, they didn't bother putting pockets in. I'm not going to argue from the standpoint of software library, because that too is an issue of population not OS design. But I will argue from the standpoint of being able to build my own computer. Sure, on a laptop this is almost a null point, but I will never buy a desktop from a manufacturer again. And until Apple allows third party manufacturers to create motherboards I wont own an OSX desktop. So what does Mac have over, say, Linux. A pretty interface. What does Linux have over Mac? A customizable interface, freedom of hardware, and the ability to tinker to your hearts content. Feel free to argue that their interface is just that great, but I'm quite happy with my Linux/Windows mix. Heck, I would imagine it wouldn't be that hard to make Linux look and function exactly like a Mac(OK, so some menus just wouldn't allow that). Masterdan: Anyone who thinks that the CLI is outdated and useless doesn't know what he is talking about. Sure, GUIs are great, and I do expect the majority of my tasks to be completable on the GUI. But nothing beats the simplicity of using a Linux terminal. I can, from anywhere in the world, on any device capable of inputing text and displaying it back, control my Linux computers. All I need is two colors to get the job done. Is it pretty? Not really. Is it intuitive? Damn straight. Sure, windows "cmd" is a pain to use, but once you learn how to use terminal, you find yourself using it for everything, even simply copy/paste jobs. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Nishiatsu wrote: Sorry, but i've had probably a total of three crashes on Windows in the last 2 years. And when you buy any PC/Laptop today you get free software to protect you from viruses and spy ware, well in the UK At least. As for the Macs, i had to use the iMac for the Stratford Olympics 1012 Project as apart of my Colleges exam. We were using the latest iMac (the last OS update before Leopard). The learning curve wasn't bad, actually there was none for me since i mostly used it for photoshop and digital image programs. The iMac crashed on me several times during my 8 month course maybe because the file i was working on was between 300-500+ DPI, but even still a fully suited iMac should be able to cope? Well it didn't so that turned me off from using macs. I don't go for flashy looks, i go for reliability which sounds ironic to most because i have Windows XP. But i have never felt that at any minute when i am maxing out my PC that it'll crash unlike the iMac. I don't see what is so intuitive about iMacs, what makes it unique? Oh because its more portable? What more functionality does it have? What do Macs in general offer software or hardware wise that i can not get? | |
Oh no. He may have been overusing the machine, but a system should never crash. It should tell the user "I'm sorry, but it seems you are trying to work my past my limits."
Sure, doing too much on a computer should cause it to run slow. It should give warnings. But any OS worth it's weight in dung should be able to detect when it is overloaded and manage resources correctly. Although it could have been bad hardware, which happens. It's understandable that sometimes faulty hardware comes off the lines. But if it was an OS problem, that just isn't acceptable. | |
Well i heard Macs were decent for digital photography and such. It wasn't a Pro but the Macs we had . I may have been over-using the machine or it could have been Photoshop and the file size i was working with. But at times it was fast then slow. Obviously when applying filter effects it'll take a while to load because of the file size, but there were a few times while saving/loading the file the Mac just locked up. It literally froze, i left it for 15 minutes because i couldn't afford to lose this piece of work i did. I ended up losing it because the Mac just wouldn't respond unless i turned it off then on.
How could i predict when the crash would happen? Until it got to a point where i was like..."wait...the file is taking a while to save, damn it it is going to crash", or "if i use my brush at this size and pace i don't think it'll be instant and Photoshop will probably crash". | |
End of discussion, macs are a flaming piece of shit. They're overpriced for the worst specifications, ever. For 1000$ dollars I could get a laptop that will perform 10x better. I don't like wasting my money of pieces of crap.
| |
Wow, way to take this from a grumpy argument to an all out flame war, SpikeNeedle.
| |
No problem, Danial.
| |
I haven't had much experience using Macs myself, I'm actually currently saving up for a High End MacBookPro to mess around with a bit, but from the sounds of things, Macs are more for the "Popculture" side of consumers, while Windows tends to lean towards the "Geeky" side.
Give or take, you'll get the odd people who will claim, even demand that you see, their side is better then the other for both uses, but that will simply never be the truth. It's all about preference. Personally, I use Vista, and I don't have too many problems with it, but I have an open enough mind to want to try something else. Ben here has played with both toys, and chosen his favorite. To him, Macs are simply better. Does that make them better all around? Does the fact that more people use Windows then OSX make Windows better? Nope. The cool thing about us having OS choices is that we have choice of preference. The sad is that over the internet OS preference has reached something of a religion status, people are being bashed for the type of computer they use, and that's just wrong. Like with Religion, we should respect everyones choices, even if we don't agree with them. So let Mac fanboys use their Macs, and allow Windows fanboys to run free with Vista, and lets even be nice enough to give those Linux people their freedom too. Why can't we all get just get along? | |
But I can get so much more done on a command line than in a GUI OS!!!!!
...Oh boy. Yeah, maybe you shouldn't buy a Mac. Perhaps you'd be happier with a Commodore 64 or something. Can't say that I'm sad I missed this discussion! | |
grumpy old people who wont let go of command line interface go ahead and use linux.
People who get a lot of use out of development, third party applications and gaming use a PC with windows XP. If you care about a gui but dont want to use a mac, use Vista and take an efficiency penalty. If you want to run a computer that is set in its ways but will work and because its so inflexible is pretty hard to muck up, then use a mac. | |
I have yet to meet someone who has used both systems for an extended period of time (such as myself) who doesn't whole-heartedly agree that OSX is far superior.