OT: Apple Mac computers

[Andy Hall]

More detail required.....

Do you need the video one or is the audio one good enough?

[Huge]

And very good it was, too.

[Andy Hall]

I used to be an avid Sun user and liked the applications. Portability became my issue.

I would probably agree, but the notebooks are good. System administration is minimal and it's easy to do things like migrating the content of one machine to another. Windows doesn't have a good solution for that.

[Andy Hall]

Proof by manufacturer recommendation.

[Andy Hall]

Didn't know you were religious ;-)

[Rod]

I usually hibernate my Windows XP machine. This provides two benefits over cold starting:

The machine is usable in an acceptable length of time; It is reliable.

If I reboot regularly, I seem to get oddities occurring that don't resolve until another reboot. These can vary from one boot to the next. Once I get a reliable hibernation, I can often use that for weeks without another cold start.

[Andy Hall]

It's interesting how much this varies from machine to machine. I have really only once found a laptop on which Windows would reliably hibernate. This is one of my most important criteria since I don't want to have to arrive at a meeting and wait for the machine to boot up.

[Adrian C]

xubuntu is a much better user experience if you have only 256MB.

standard ubuntu load with KDE & Gnome runs very slowly. Also with that amount of memory (and perhaps less if UMA graphics) the ubuntu (and xubuntu) graphical installers often don't run - you have to install the 'alternative' CD in text mode.

[John Rumm]

I was not just talking about the cost of OS upgrades (which MS charge for as well), but was including the time spent learning applications and maintaining the system. The first of which is still shorter in general due to better user interface consistency (even though this is something MS has improved on over the years, they still have a much broader developer base that is harder to "control").

Having said that it is also important to realise that Apple's business model is designed to be able to work work with the top 20% share of the market only. i.e. consumers who in general are prepared to pay a price premium for a better managed computing experience. So from their point of view price does not really come into it.

Same as with Windows then. XP was due to be "end of lifed" some time ago and has only survived due to vista's low uptake.

How much use is a ten year old windows box? Change happens regardless of platform.

Note the hardware costs are almost irrelevant anyway - you may spend £500 - £1200 on the hardware every few years, but chances are you can easily spend 10 to 20 times that on software in a professional environment.

The same situation MS would love to engineer...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nope.

Bugger all.

Ok, Fuck all. :-)

Cost a new Mac is about twice the equivalent PC: MS office is as expensive for a mac as a PC.

Front Page probably doesn't exist.

BsiLeoprad or tiger comes with a fiarly crap mail and browser, and lots of stuff for looking at pictures and istening to music. Plenty f free browsers and mail clients around, but not free word processors and the like. Star office works, but under x windows which adds another layer of BS to the installation.

Either get a mac and pay, or learn to install a Linux.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, it isn't. Its based on FREE BSD, but the is a slew of other stuff on top.

[Bruce]

I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, now that Apple use Intel CPUs, it is all too easy for people who want to look cool (but aren't) to buy a Mac and then run the same old Windows OS and Microsoft software on it.

They can tell their friends that they bought a Mac, and it is (and they are) so bloody superior, then carry on using clunky old Windows programs as if they were still using their old Dell, HP, Compaq (or insert your favourite uncool PC brand here).

If you are going to buy a Mac, it is worth using software that is specifically designed for the machine. Otherwise, it is just another PC, but one that some people think is cool to own.

[John Rumm]

It won't by the time you get AV software on it!

[John Rumm]

Indeed. My old PIII 650 laptop with 384MB only just manages to run Win2K and modern AV software, I would not dream of trying to put XP on it.

[John Rumm]

Take care with recovery disks - some are evil and will wipe a system back to the out of the box state - minus all your data.

[conkersack]

Well, this was a few years back, when the black video ones had just come out. I stumped up for it, and then, err, stumped up for... etc, etc.

University. Gotta love it!

[GMM]

Well, that did open a can of worms didn't it?

For my 2 penn'orth, I should say that I run an outfit where we use both Macs and Windows machines, though no Linux as life's complex enough as it is! We only have a handful of each so anything I can say is, of course, anecdotal.

There was a time when the Mac OS was very much superior, although I think there's less difference between the two now than there used to be, so the arguments have to turn on cost, functionality and stability.

There is little doubt that Macs are more expensive to buy compared with the cheaper PCs, although I am always surprised at how much the gap narrows when you look closely at specifications. Since Macs are only made by Apple, there is only one quality standard which, like the better (and therefore more expensive) PCs, is quite high. To some extent, as with most things, you get what you pay for. Support from Apple tends to be pretty good too, although it's better if you happen to be close to one of their stores, which tend to be staffed by helpful people who know their stuff and can help you for free. Mac advocates bang on about total cost of ownership which may be relevant if you are costing support for a big organisation, but the embuggerance factor of an unreliable machine is what most of us are most concerned about.

Functionally, there's precious little between the two, unless (like my

15yo son) you want to play a lot of games. Some people might count the lack of games on a Mac as a positive advantage...I wish my lad had a Mac, then he'd get on with his homework(!) All the normal software is available for both platforms. Apple's iLife and iWork are pretty good value for the basics (especially as iLife is free), but you probably need Office (loadsmoney for both versions) in either case. Some web sites don't work properly on Apples (maybe on Linux too?), and that can be a minor irritation, but this is becoming increasingly rare. Some specialist software might only be available for one system or the other, which is why we run both.

The points much argued over about new operating systems are a bit of a red herring. In most cases a new system doesn't run too well on old hardware because it 'expects' an up to date configuration. New Apple systems come out more frequently than Windows versions but by no means every year.

The differences over the interface etc are rather moot: Old Macs used to be impossible to tinker with (a good thing in the workplace) but now you can change pretty much anything, if you really want to screw it up(!) If you just want to use it, it's probably simpler to move from Windows to Mac than t'other way round.

One big issue is stability in the face of viruses, spyware and general clutter. Windows machines are more vulnerable to these and, even with the best of precautions, they can cripple a machine to the point of needing to be wiped and reinstalling everything. Apples seem to suffer much less. This is probably nothing to do with the merits of the system, more that malicious/parasitic code is written for Windows because it's by far the most common system.

Of course Macs look prettier in general, but that's hardly an issue - and there are now some nice looking PCs.

Overall, I'd stick with my Mac given a choice but, if someone gave me a decent PC for free, I'd use that instead.

The biggest factor of course is which side of these rather over- polarised arguments you'd rather be on..or whether you get a combi boiler or a heat bank.......

[stuart noble]

Isn't that the whole point of a recovery disk? One assumes you will have put the docs and settings folder somewhere else beforehand, and that you have disks for software you've installed.

Even if it takes a couple of hours, you don't exactly have to sit and watch it, and it beats the hell out of trying to figure out what went wrong in the first place.

[Stephen Howard]

I've run XP on less - and if I need an AV solution I make it 'on demand' only rather than a background service. I have to say though, in all the years I've been using a computer I've only ever once encountered a virus on my machine...and that's because I activated it on purpose ( just out of interest ).

If you practice 'safe hex' you shouldn't have to run a system bogged down by too many countermeasures, though the methods by which this can be done aren't really within the scope of the casual user.

Regards,

[John Rumm]

Well on subjects of religion what do you expect! ;-)

Yup I would agree.

Yup, also pretty much the case now (ignoring the fine detail)

Probably because that is where the greatest demand is (or at least was). As more people move to online oriented services, then the actual client OS becomes even less of an issue as its just a window to your data held elsewhere. Not ideal for power users, but could keep quite a number of regular users happy.

There are some technical differences, but lack of focus of effort by the black hats is probably the most significant factor.

Ah, now one of our clients is a mac based magazine publishing shop run by women. You would be surprised just *how* important it is that their macs are *pretty*. Doing the job is almost secondary! ;-)

Personally I am not that fussed. I used to dislike macs back in the single thread 68K