M$?

iviv

Microsoft. For ages, people have thought it cool to replace the S with a $ to represent their insatiable appetite for money, releasing new versions of windows with extra unneeded features that just bloat your computer up.

However, what about the alternatives? Linux is fine. I've not personally used it, but I know its good. Its more technical, more secure, and aimed at a different market, though with releases such as the EEE, its becoming more widespread. But Windows has one main rival, that of Apple.

Apple, a copy of OSX will set you back £80. Windows comes in a mind boggling number of flavours, which can be confusing. But the general one, Home premium, is either £70 or £130 depending on if you upgrade or not, though OEM versions are cheaper.
Macs cost roughly twice as much as a windows PC.

There is nothing wrong with macs. They work great for dealing with photos, videos, that whole section of the market. They have a whole host of software that allows them to do things a PC can't. But that comes at a price. Microsoft are a business who are out to make money. Apple are just the same. Putting a $ into Microsoft doesn't make them suddenly more evil than apple.

[/rant]

[Deleted User]

I tend to automatically discount the opinion of anyone if they use M$, Vi$ta, Windoze, Winbloze, Microshaft because if they can't convey themselves on a reasonable level for discussion without dipping with such childlike remarks then I don't feel compelled to continue with them.

No one ever called Silicon Graphics $cilicon Graphic$ and they made some of the most expensive hardware and software there was around, infact, I stilll work on Irix occasionally.

superscaper

I used to have in my sig "M$ is not an abbreviation of Microsoft" or something like that. I just find it so tiresome when people do that as if they're saying "look at how clever and with it I am at the same time as sticking it to the Man". :rolleyes:

A company wanting to make money, whatever next.

BillScarab

Got to agree about things like M$ and Windoze. Funny how nobody ever seems to write O$X or Appl£.

However I think it's wrong to say Macs cost twice as much as Windows machines. If you compare the actual spec they cost about the same, it's just that apple don't make any low spec machines.

From Tomshardware again

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

Although reading that the price of upgrades from Apple is aboslutely disgusting.

espresso

Lighten up guys! You sound like some old farts who are members of a mass debating society!

:rotfl:

M4RKM

nothing wrong with a good discussion though...

I'm a mac user, but i'm a designer, it works for me perfectly.. in the process of me using macs, i've converted my sister and my mother, both of which who use them nowadays..

now, all i do when a new OS comes out, is buy the family pack, which gives me all the licences the computers need, for only £120...

Apple are more reasonable on software. The hardware, well i'm sure i've disucssed it elsewhere, if you compared a Dell AIO system to an Apple iMac, the Apple is value for money on a number of things...

the Mac Mini is a bit of a let down, as it doesn't include a keyboard and mouse, if it did, we'd have a great PC / Mac comparison available..

as for M$... well. i find it more awkward to type, and it is childish and petty..

M

iviv

BillScarab wrote: »

However I think it's wrong to say Macs cost twice as much as Windows machines. If you compare the actual spec they cost about the same, it's just that apple don't make any low spec machines.

From Tomshardware again

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

Although reading that the price of upgrades from Apple is aboslutely disgusting.

Interesting reading, though I have to disagree with them. While it may not be double, I just quickly totted up a base config from them.
The cheapest iMac. £800
Quickly built PC.
I had to take a couple of liberties as some components used in the mac (E6600 CPU, HD2400 graphics aren't sold there anymore, and I accidently gave it 2Gb ram), but it comes out at £490. Around £500 delivered. Add Vista and thats £600, as I just remembered that.

Yes, home built PCs will usually be cheaper than pre-built ones. But I checked Dell as well. The cheaper Dell XPS420 has a quad 2.4Ghz processor, 2Gb ram, a 500Gb hard drive and an ati 2600 256Mb graphics card for £70 less. Not as much of a saving, but its still more powerful for less money.

But essentially its up to the end user for what they want to do. My friend works in stage sound and lighting (Currently working with the RSC in Stratford with their production of Hamlet [He got Tennant's and Stewart's autographs ]) and he has to use a mac. There's a powerful program designed to work out best places for lighting, shows how it will all look, and so on, and its mac only. So obviously he needs a mac, and it works great for him. But if you're just going to be writing letters and browsing the internet, you don't need a mac just because its a fashion statement.

BillScarab

markymoo wrote: »

nothing wrong with a good discussion though...

I'm a mac user, but i'm a designer, it works for me perfectly.. in the process of me using macs, i've converted my sister and my mother, both of which who use them nowadays..

now, all i do when a new OS comes out, is buy the family pack, which gives me all the licences the computers need, for only £120...

Apple are more reasonable on software. The hardware, well i'm sure i've disucssed it elsewhere, if you compared a Dell AIO system to an Apple iMac, the Apple is value for money on a number of things...

the Mac Mini is a bit of a let down, as it doesn't include a keyboard and mouse, if it did, we'd have a great PC / Mac comparison available..

as for M$... well. i find it more awkward to type, and it is childish and petty..

M

If you're buying the family pack I hope you all live together.

I agree that Macs are not expensive when compare dto similar specced Windows machines. I just think they ought to release some lower spec machines as if all you want to do is surf the web and send emails you can get a dirt cheap Windows or Linux machine to do it with.

iviv

I must say I do quite like the iMacs. Apple do fantastic monitors (If expensive) and I like the idea of the iMac. Its easy to move around, as everything's in the monitor. However, you can't upgrade. At least, not very much. Its very cool, but not greatly practicle.
Though browsing the dell site earlier, it looks like their planning something along the same lines of computers in a monitor.

BillScarab

A few companies have done computers built into the back of monitors. I remember Novatech selling one a year or two ago. It's not a bad idea but does limit upgrades.

iviv

Yeah. When I go off to lan parties, thats when I wish I had one. Carting around a huge tower, monitor plus peripherals is a pain. But after recently buying a stonking great cooler and getting 50% more speed out of my cpu, I'm glad I go through the pain