|  IP: Logged

A problem I ran into several times is that if it is possible to select the desired drive to boot from and those drives have different operating systems (such as Windows 98 on one and Windows ME on the other) problems can develop. After about 3 months, one of those drives is going to crash.

Apparently, one operating system will modify files in the other.

I found that if the drive that is not desired to boot from is turned off in the BIOS, the other drive will let it alone if either drive doesn't have anything higher than Windows ME.

 |  IP: Logged

Apple certainly has a small but loyal niche market, and I don't deny that for a few specialist applications (e.g. graphic design), Macs have a lot of good points. But they also have significant disadvantages, to wit:

• Firstly, they are only sold as complete packages, usually with a lot of bundled software, some or all of which the purchaser might not want. I built my PC from the motherboard up, and therefore I only had to buy the hardware and software that I knew I was going to use. With a Mac, you don't have that option.

• Overall, Macs cost more because they are designed to be as much a fashion statement as a functional piece of equipment. If you want to pay extra for something that looks pretty then fine, but if you don't then stay clear of Apples.

• It's a commonly understood falsehood that Mac processors are in some way 'better' than PC ones. Not true - two recent analyses I've read conclude that, comparing performance with price, then pound for pound many PC systems offer better value, the AMD-based hardware significantly better.

• As a general rule with most common applications, Macs can cope with files transferred from PCs, but not vice-versa. So if you're in the situation of having to send files to both Windows and Mac users, it makes sense to use a Windows PC.

• Major software applications are often a lot more expensive than their Windows equivalents.

• Hardware peripherals are more difficult to find and always significantly more expensive, making the package as a whole far more difficult to modify or upgrade.
  

Finally, if Apple really believes that its way is so darn superior, why doesn't it just market a version of Mac OS that'll run on normal PC hardware, perhaps on a separate partition of a hard disc? That way you could have Windows and MacOS running on the same machine, which would really give users a chance to evaluate Apple's claims about the performance of its OS on a level playing field.

-The same software bundled with the Mac can be downloaded for free from the internet, so it does not raise the cost at all. Of course I don't know who wouldn't want free DVD burning software.

-Actually in the long run Macs cost less. When you consider the time you save getting stuff done sooner and less time fiddling and tweaking with the crappy Windows OS you do indeed come out ahead.

-They are better. I have a Mac and a Windows PC. My Windows PC runs an AMD processor that is rated at a faster clock speed than my Mac. My Mac blows it away when accomplishing the same tasks. There really is a difference! Take it from someone who owns both.

-That is a problem with Windows, not Mac. But honestly, I transfer files back and forth from PC to Mac and back all the time and never have a problem. JPG, MOV, XLS, DOC, AEP, BMP, TIF, PDF, PSD, Divx and countless of others are handled the same way on both machines. Only a moron would save a project as a Mac-specific or Windows-specific format to be transferred to a another machine.

-Most hardware peripherals work with both types of machines. For example I recently purchased a TDK CD-RW unit. It didn't specify "Mac" anywhere on the package or manual. But I put it in anyway and it was recognized and works fine and dandy.

I don't think the Mac OS would run very well on other processors, since it is built around the IBM/Motorola family chipset. Oh by the way you can run any flavor of Windows on a Mac with Virtual PC... and it runs pretty damn well, too! Not very expensive, considering.

quote:

---

-The same software bundled with the Mac can be downloaded for free from the internet, so it does not raise the cost at all. Of course I don't know who wouldn't want free DVD burning software.

---

It might be free at the point of download, but as it'll only run on a Mac you effectively paid for it when you bought the computer. It's not like 'freeware' downloadable for PC, which will run on hardware not produced and/or marketed by the company providing the software. That's a bit like saying, 'Garbage collection is free, so who wouldn't want their garbage collected from outside their house?' It overlooks the fact that it's not free: it's just that you pay indirectly, through taxes, rather than by directly paying the man in the dust cart when he collects the sacks.

quote:

---

Most hardware peripherals work with both types of machines. For example I recently purchased a TDK CD-RW unit. It didn't specify "Mac" anywhere on the package or manual. But I put it in anyway and it was recognized and works fine and dandy.

---

What would you have done if it hadn't? At least with PC products the box says 'works with W9X, 2K, XP' or whatever, and if it doesn't then you take it back and get a refund. Whenever I've had to help people add new hardware to Mac setups, I've taken the new printer/PCI card/whatever to the information desk at whatever computer store and asked if it is Mac compatible. The response has usually been either 'no' or 'I don't know, buy it at your own risk.' You argue that:

quote:

---

When you consider the time you save getting stuff done sooner and less time fiddling and tweaking with the crappy Windows OS you do indeed come out ahead.

---

Exactly the same applies with upgrading. This all boils down to what is more important to the user, reliability or flexibility? If you want a pretty looking designer object that will do a limited range of tasks very reliably and are willing to pay a premium for something that is virtually crashproof, then Macs are probably the way to go. If you want flexibility and the ability to tweak and change your computer according to what your needs are and do not have an unlimited budget then I'd go for a PC anytime, Microsoft warts and all.

There's also the issue of how well the OS deals with process management. At least in the Unix world, I would personally rather have a dual- (or quad-) processor machine with moderate clock speed than a super-fast single-processor machine.

Again, you could argue that this is a fault of OEMs, who tend to ship ready-assembled systems with less memory than today's applications typically need. This is especially stupid because SDRAM is so cheap that the cost of shipping PCs with 512mb is not, comparatively speaking, very much more than with 128 (although admittedly, the price has gone up a bit in the last couple of months).

But for people building their own PCs who know what they need and how to assemble it, this really isn't an issue. On a system with, say, an 80gb ATA100 disc and 1gb of SD133 RAM, it'll load (under W2K with memory management settings configured accordingly) 500mb into RAM and work on it without reading from or writing to any hard disc. Even files of several tens of gigabytes can be handled without any undue delay caused by disc activity. This might be more storage than a Mac would need to achieve a similar level of performance, but this is more than offset by the lower cost of the hardware which results from being able to put a system together from scratch with a specific application in mind.

-Graphics Design
-Video Acquisition/Editing/Export
-Animation
-Sound Processing
-Music Composition/Arrangement
-Web Surfing
-Web Design
-Word Processing
-E-mail
-Graphic and Sound viewing/listening
-FTPing
-Printing

I couldn't see a reason to own a PC as a sole computer. I have heard that PC's need to be built for a specific task, such as video editing, and that computer can't be used for anything else if you want to keep it working at peak performance. Not the case with Macs... you get more for your money.

And yes, those programs ARE freeware. I purchased my machine 4 years ago and was able to download all of the included programs for free when they were introduced, including any updates. None of them came with my Mac. Are you saying that they are not freeware since they only work on the Mac? That's what it sounds like you are saying. That makes no sense.

Just try to accept the fact that some people own Macs and that they like them. They don't need your approval or anyone else's. Very few Mac owners are unsatisfied. Leave us alone. Have a nice day.

Over the years, there have been more than a few misconceptions about Macs. Let’s take a look at some of the most popular ones.

Myth 1: Everyone uses Windows.
Fact: If you’re an accountant, you’re most likely surrounded by beige Wintel boxes. But if you work in nearly every creative field, you most likely use a Mac. Like in graphic arts, advertising and publishing. Or in Hollywood. Or in science-based industries like biotech. Or in education, where half of the computers are Apples. Or if you are President of the United States (our two most recent presidents, a Democrat and a Republican, both use Macs). Even 25% of America’s lawyers use Macs. In all, over 25 million people use Macs in their homes, offices and schools every day.

Myth 2: Macs don’t work with PCs.
Fact: Simply untrue. Every day millions of documents, emails and instant messages are sent between Macs and PCs. Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations exchanged. Emails delivered and instant messages shuttled back and forth. This isn’t news because it happens silently, daily, with no fanfare. That’s because all Macs are designed to work seamlessly with PCs and connect into PC networks to easily access files and folders. The rest of the world should get along so well.

Myth 3: The software I need isn’t available for Macs.
Fact: There are over 15,000 applications available for the Mac, in every category imaginable. Productivity programs from Microsoft Office to FileMaker. Design programs from Photoshop to Maya. Filmmaking tools from Final Cut Pro to After Effects. Finance programs from Quicken to MYOB. And games from The Sims to Tony Hawk. But if you do encounter that rare program which isn’t available for Mac, you can still run it right on your Mac using Virtual PC. Still think there’s something you’re missing? Go to www.apple.com and check for yourself. We promise not to say, “we told you so.”

Myth 4: Macs don’t run Microsoft Office.
Fact: Quite the opposite. Not only does a brand new version of Microsoft Office run on the Mac, but — Office v.X for Mac OS X is actually better than its Windows cousin, with features available only on the Mac. Microsoft Office documents are fully compatible between Mac and Windows. So when you create an Excel spreadsheet or a Word document or a PowerPoint presentation on a Mac, you can send it to someone with a PC and it will open perfectly. And vice versa.

Myth 5: Windows has caught up with the Mac.
Fact: It can’t be denied that Microsoft has made a good business out of copying the innovative Mac OS. And, truth be told, Windows XP is their best effort to date. But Mac OS X has sent them back to the drawing boards. Particularly with respect to graphics, everything digital (like music, movies and photography), ease of use and elegance. In other words, all the things that make a state-of-the-art operating system, well, state-of-the-art. And we’re not the only ones who think so. Consider critics like the Detroit Free Press, who recently proclaimed: “The new OS X for Mac runs circles around Windows XP.” Or ZDNet’s David Coursey, who praises Mac OS X as “The nicest operating system I’ve ever seen.”

Myth 6: Macs are far easier to use than PCs. Guilty as charged.

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Are you saying that they are not freeware since they only work on the Mac? That's what it sounds like you are saying. That makes no sense.

---

That is what I'm suggesting, and the rationale is that the software is not truly 'free' because it only has any value if it is used with hardware that can only be purchased from Apple. When you bought that computer four years ago, part of what you paid for would have been invested by Apple to pay the software developers and fund the third-party R & D which eventually resulted in that software being available free at the point of download. I'm not saying that's wrong or even that it makes the machine a rip off - if you wan't to buy a support environment such as that one I'm sure that Apple provide it very efficiently. But neither does it mean that all Windows users are morons.

By far, the bulk of anthing I've wanted to run has run on my Macs. In those rare instances there was only a WinDoz solution, I ran it on SoftPC or Virtual PC. Cutting/pasting between the two environments is a nice feature of the PC emulation.

As to value...I've owned two computers in my entire life...a MacSE/30 and an iMac. The only cheat in the above was the SE/30 started life as an SE. Anyway...both computers are running and the SE/30, built in the 1980s is still a functional computer doing just fine (and it emulates a PC as well). I have found that I am just more productive on the Macs than on PCs...we have PCs at work. When in college, I even programed PCs on my Mac. So how many PC owners out there still do serious work with their 15 year old PCs?

Oh, and my Imagewriter II (dot matrix) is still in use printing my Quicken checks.

I don't have any complaints about the Apple value or reliability. And if I ever want to see PC problems, I can just emulate them Actually, I have found that Soft PC and Virtual PC's crash less too!

Steve

Now, I have worked as a Workstation Support Tech, and basically Windows will behave under Windows NT/2000 if the user only requires Office and e-mail, and not much else - they're not programing, constantly changing programs, or the configuration.

This is why home users are SOL. Unix/Linux won't run all their games/educational software (WINE helps some), NT/2000 aren't supported for most games/educational software (DirectX and driver support), and they've used Windows so long they don't won't to switch platforms.

Steven Gorsky

P.S. Old PCs seem to be delegated to running Linux, or computer controlled contraptions.