A question for the 'Mac-ies' out there

[cywelchjr]

The Macs run all USB devices, so the keyboard and mouse WILL work. The monitor is also a "standard", so a good flatscreen would probably be best, as it will not take up much room.
Be SURE to train them to use the "shutdown" on the Mac, as the older OS would trash the drive if it was just powered off.(shades of windows!!) You will NOT need any anti virus for a Mac, one of the nice points.

I will agree with some of the others that while antivirus is much less critical for a mac, there are some viruses out there for just about every operating system, it's best just to make sure your protected.

[Crazcnuk]

Lol, this is funny.

First Apple didn't invent ANYTHING.

The whole concept of the OS, ie scalable fonts, color screen, and a pointing device (mouse) were all stolen from Xerox!

Weeks and Jobs went for a tour of the Palo Alto research center, Xerox's think tank, and saw all of these in the late 70's.

Apple's first attempt at using all this tech was the LISA which was a complete failure. The MAC was born out of the failed LISA system.

The whole suite of applications that made the MAC famous, ie Wordprocessing, Desktop Publishing, etc., were made by Microsoft. So much for better.

As for the OS being more Robust?!?! It doesn't have to do half what windows has to put up with so I don't see MORE robust. More limited definately.

It's very easy to claim a rock-solid operating system when, by design, it only has to handle those few applications that Apple will certify.

Apple has insisted on being completely proprietary which is what has kept it relegated to the back burner.

If you only need to do word processing, edit a few photos and browse the internet, and your a complete ludite with technology, then a MAC is probably for you.

To me Mac is to computers what a laptop is to a desktop. expensive, limited and non-upgradable.

I've been using computers over-the-modem since the early 80's and I won't go near Apple.

[kjohnson]

Lol, this is funny.

First Apple didn't invent ANYTHING.

The whole concept of the OS, ie scalable fonts, color screen, and a pointing device (mouse) were all stolen from Xerox!

You beat me too it! I was just gonna do the same speil.

[Crazcnuk]

Jut think how things would be different if Xerox had released, essentially a Mac, in 1977!! A full 4 years before IBM released the first PC.

I bet there are several Xerox execs who have nightmares about that decision.

[Jerry]

The whole concept of the OS, ie scalable fonts, color screen, and a pointing device (mouse) were all stolen from Xerox!

To a degree this is true. However, the Xexox PARC would only open 1 window at a time and I don't believe it was color. It did not have scaleable fonts. Doesn't change the fact that Apple mass-produced the windows / mouse concept and Microsoft copied it.

The whole suite of applications that made the MAC famous, ie Wordprocessing, Desktop Publishing, etc., were made by Microsoft. So much for better.

Not true, really. Adobe came out with Pagemaker and PostScrip, the former designed for the Mac and the later for HP's new LazerJet printers. (Later Adobe came out with a Windows version of PageMaker.) This innovaton kicked off the whole desktop publishing industry. Microsoft had nothing to do with it. While Microsoft does produce much of the Mac software out there, the Mac stuff generally is better. For example, the early Mac version of Excel had variable column height and width adjustments while the PC version of that time had only width adjustments. The Mac stuff was generally better because the CPU chips could address more memory directly, eliminating the page swap issues of the PC. BTW, some of the best database programs first out there, including one called Helix (later Double Helix) were far better than anything available for a Windows box.

The Mac also had the first 3.5 drive, high capacity 3.5 drive, USB, FireWire, and 1gb NIC cards in production machnes. At a time when PC manufactures are including USB mice and keyboards with their machines, most Macs come with wireless keyboards and mice. Apple had the first wireless machines; harken back to the "Airport" days. Microsoft's NTFS is a copy of Apple's HFS means of handling high-capacity hard drives. The Mac has been a technological leader many times over, copied by Microsoft and others.

Apple has insisted on being completely proprietary which is what has kept it relegated to the back burner.

Where Apple screwed up was in keeping a proprietary architecture for so long. For quite a while Apple stuff fit only Apple stuff. This began changing in the late '90s; I added an IDE Zip 100 drive to my G3 Mac in 1999. Plugged right in and worked fine. Since then Apple has made more and more use of industry-standard parts and pieces. And yes, Apple did insist on vendors keeping a uniform look and feel to applications. This probably hurt them. However, look at the problems Microsoft has had with Vista and Office 2007. They are so different from previous versions that business and corporations don't want to switch due to support and re-training costs. When Apple went from OS 9 to OS 10 they included a dual-boot feature that allowed you to use your OS 9 applications until you upgraded to the OS 10 version. I still use a program called Soap under OS 9 from time to time.

I agree that Windows has done a remarkable job in in adapting to different vendors and applications. I have gigabytes of drivers in my library to prove it; some for HP, some for Lenovo, some for Panasonic, some for Dell, some for Gateway....you get the idea. Out of the box, Windows won't work with most manufacturer's machines; you have to hunt down the specific drivers and add them to get everything to work. We "recycle" used machines, beginning with formatting the drives completely using a Linux suite of utilities called Knoppix. Generally I can get Windows to boot, but must search for video, ethernet, USB, and other model-specific drivers before I can clear all the question marks out of Device Manager. Windows is not as universal as some of you claim it is.

Macs not upgradeable? You must be kidding!

Windows has some fine features. If you want to work "under the hood" and like registry hacks, then it is a fine operating system, If you just want to get work done, the Mac is a better choice, providing, of course, that you do not need to run a Windows-specific application. Even then, with the Windows emulators on the market, your Mac could handle that as well. If you have to service and support Windows in a multiple-vendor envireonment, then the simplicity of the Mac and its adherance to standards becomes very attractive, because supporting Windows is a PITA.

I like my current Mac. I liked my previous Macs. I put up with my Windows machine at work because I have to. I make my living supporting Windows-based networks and workstations, and my opinion of Windows in not all that high. The mac also has its problems - not perfect by any means! - but it is a real pleasere to just be able to sit down and get my work done when I need to.

[Crazcnuk]

Don't get me wrong, I am no Microsoft fan, either. You don't amass a $60 billion fortune in under 20 years by giveing good value for the money.

I can't really fault Windows, it just tries to take on too much. When your making an operating system to accomodate everything, security is always going to be a bit tough, too.

When I said that Macs came with MS software, I was talking about the suite of apps that came preloaded on them. Of course you could always buy THE other one, or with a PC any of about a dozen.

I avoided windows completely until late 3.11. I had no use for the GUI system. I preferred DOS, back in those days.

As for upgradability, no I am not kidding, and before you get wound up, yes you can upgrade some Macs, just like Some PCs, but lets just say the choices are FAR fewer for Mac.

I think Linux could be a decent system, but it is too hacker/geek based. Not for noobs.

BTW the original Xerox system had scalable fonts, color screen and a GUI interface, with a pointing device (touchpad) these are the features that attracted the Apple bigwigs attention. Yes, it was limitied by today's standards, but it was years ahead of the first desktop PC.

[DGXSER]

Only reason I know of why Macs don't need protection is because no body is writing the worms and such for the Macs due to lack of numbers to effect.

interesting point as well, MAC only exist because Microsoft bails them out consistantly. It is still good money for them because of the amount of sales they get form MAC upgraders buying new windows software to run on the Macs.

I spent 4 years working in a MAC based firm out of my 20 years. I will take a windows machine any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Crazcnuk]

Actually, Gates keeps bailing Apple out because if it goes under, MS becomes a monopoly and the gov't will break it up like AT&T.

Most of us prefer if the ludites stay with macs, because then they can't call us for tech support every 10 minutes.

[boyat68]

One of the marketing problems for the MACs was the inability to self upgrade those machines as compared to a PC. In the beginning computers were used mostly by Geeks that fully understood the functioning and operation of a "COMPUTER". The Apple boys tried to lock up the operation of the computer to authorized dealers only. The PC was born to belay the Apple from taking over the market for MainFrame emulation where IBM was selling those imput terminals for $50,000 a pop. The Apple boys had an emulation program that would do the same thing. IBM commissioned the PC to run the Apple boys out of business by opening the Architecture of the machine to the world thinking that by everyone making a machine would stop the encroachment on their Terminal sales. They only geared up to sell 25-50 thousand of the PC, but the first year they had orders for 200,000. The rest is history, and yes the Terminal market floundered.

[Jerry]

As for upgradability, no I am not kidding, and before you get wound up, yes you can upgrade some Macs, just like Some PCs, but lets just say the choices are FAR fewer for Mac.

Well, OK, like what? I can get video cards, (NVIDA and ATI come to mind) SATA, e-Sata, RAID, 4gb of of PC 2100 or 2700 64-bit DDR RAM, came with a DVI card but runs twin monitors out of the box, has variable-speed cooling and can accomodate 4 built-in drives plus 2nd optical drives, including Lightspeed and dual-layer DVD drives, has 4 open PCI 64-bit 33mhz slots plus an AGP slot. (The PCI slots can support SCSI drive controllers or other standard devices.) I really don't know what you would want to put in a PC that you can't put in a Mac. And this is in a Mac that was introduced in 2002, some 7 year ago. While mine has the dual 1ghz processors, you could also get a pair of 1.25 ghz processors. How many of you Windows guys are running 7 year old dual processor PCs with 4 gigs of RAM?

True, mine won't handle the new PCI-e expansion cards but I have yet to find anything I would like to upgrade in my Mac that isn't available on the market.

[Crazcnuk]

Yes, but all that is recent, since they became windows clones.

Go back a few years.

Besides, I can get Nvidia and ATI, and several others, from many more mfgs than you can. I have all the connectors you mentioned, but mine can handle 10 internal hard drives, far bigger PSUs, I've got 4 120mm cooling fans, can get watercooling, have overclocking capability, many more chices of processors, mainboards, sound cards (if i don't use the built-in Dolby 7.1)

I can run any of about 20 processors, including P4 and D, Prescott, Cedar Mill, Smithfield, Presier and the new ones out.lCore 2s, Quadcores, and Extremes. My particular board is Intel, but we haven't touched AMD yet.

We outgrew AGP a while back, but run the newer Dual or quad PCI-E slots.

yes I have only 4GB of RAM, but Windows 32bit can't handle any more, and I haven't found a copy of 64 bit that I don't have to pay for, yet, but my system would have no problem with it.

I have 6 expansion slots, RAID, 2 IDE, 7 SATA-2 slots, dual Gigabyte LAN connectors and a pile of others

Never try and compete when the opposition is better.

Oh, and this is my cheap board, the Deluxe one is in the closet...

[Jerry]

Sure, I can get more expandibility on a new Mac; mine is 7 year old. How old is yours?

The point is that for "average" users - which you are not - the Mac is as expandable as any other PC. If you want to add another hard drive, 2nd monitor, upgrade your video card, or add more memory, these items are off-the-shelf parts.

The Mac is eaier to use, runs all the common office or home apps, has fewer virus problems, and is an excellent choice for any environment that does not require Windows-specific applications. Even then, add an emulator and that will cover the Windows side of the world.

For example...I wanted a 2nd monitor on my Mac, since it has 2 monitor ports built-in, all I did - literally - was plug a monitor into the 2nd port. It came up and gave me a cople options; separate monitor or expand the desktop acrross both monitors.

When I try this with a PC, the process gets stickier. 1. Open case. 2.Add a 2nd video card. 3. Boot into SETUP and fool with BIOS settings. 4. Reboot with 2nd monitor plugged in. 5. Hope it works. If not, find and install drivers. Reboot and repeat #5. 6. Set up extended or separate monitors. The PC side requires user to open the PC case. Also requires user to change BIOS settings. I will tell you from personal experience...any time a user is required to open a case, it is bad news.

The debate will go on, but there is no doubt that Windows is a copy of the Mac OS, and Apple still does it better. Apple's market share, never large for the Mac, is growing. They have a fine product line.

As an aside, Apple also offers the Mac.com account, e-mail address, web hosting, gallery hosting, FTP site for large file transfers to large to send as e-mail attachments, and serveral other services, including on-line backups. Costs $100.00 per year, not cheap, but I don't see Microsoft offering any comparable service. If you look at my Rallies page
http://homepage.mac.com/jerryfields/PhotoAlbum4.html
you will see they are Made by Mac, easy to do. My Gallery page
http://gallery.me.com/jerryfields
is also done with my Mac.com account. Also easy to use.

I've been at this since 1985, and you will not convince me that Mac is somehow a 2nd class computer. Far from it...the Mac has been a technological leader and outstanding computer for a long time, and the OS is superior in many ways to Windows. Apple has made some mistakes, so has Microsoft...remember Millenium Edition? ... but over-all the Mac is a fine computer and is a viable choice in today's market.

[Ivan]

Although I see your point that Macs are as capable as a PC, the monitor example was that easy on my PC. I can hook up to four monitors to it with the ease of which you speak, off one vid card. Have to use a couple splitters that came in the box with the card, other than that 4 is as easy as 2. Notably, the video card would be working extraneously hard at keeping up, but I imagine the same to be true on a Mac.

Although mu PC isn't 7 years old, its working on 5. I would really love to upgrade, but mine still plugs away and plays all the games I want and lets me pick fights on the net and give Tod hell . What more do I need?

Anyhoot.... I may just have to try and build a Mac for my next computer. Are they buildable(honest question, I really dont know), cause I build my own computers. I love doing that, kinda satisfying in a way...

[Crazcnuk]

"The point is that for "average" users - which you are not - the Mac is as expandable as any other PC"

Which has been my point from the start. Macs are limited. Period. They are great for people who do not need real computing power.

I've been at it longer than you, and I chose the TRS-80 Color Computer over the Apple II for the same reason.

I've played with them all, I am a self-employed contract service technician and have worked on or with Apple II, II+, Mac, Amiga, CoCo E, F With Coco Basic and OS/9, PCs; MS-DOS 2.2 to 7, Windows 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, IBM OS2, OS2 Warp, UNIX and Linux.

While Windows ticks me off to no end, I still have to work with it and it is more versatile than all the other OS's out there as far as the majority of users is concerned. The rest are just niche systems.

[Ivan]

"The point is that for "average" users - which you are not - the Mac is as expandable as any other PC"

Which has been my point from the start. Macs are limited. Period. They are great for people who do not need real computing power.

I've been at it longer than you, and I chose the TRS-80 Color Computer over the Apple II for the same reason.

I've played with them all, I am a self-employed contract service technician and have worked on or with Apple II, II+, Mac, Amiga, CoCo E, F With Coco Basic and OS/9, PCs; MS-DOS 2.2 to 7, Windows 3, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, IBM OS2, OS2 Warp, UNIX and Linux.

While Windows ticks me off to no end, I still have to work with it and it is more versatile than all the other OS's out there as far as the majority of users is concerned. The rest are just niche systems.

Oh Yeah? I had a Timex/Sinclair 1000! hehe beat that!