Apple dropping prices...

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

So every Linux distro is faster and more secure than Mac OS X?

All I said was your comments were simplistic, which is true.

I can't find a comparison of Ubuntu 9 and OS X, but this comparison using Ubuntu 8 from last year would suggest they're pretty evenly matched, with Ubuntu being better at some things, and OS X being better than others.

Mac OS X 10.6 is coming out soon though, and by all accounts, it's very very very very fast.

I'm not surprised, I felt the same way when I ditched Windows and used Fedora; I can't say anyone else I know has ever felt the same way though.

They are simplistic because its two simple things I'm talking about. There are more viruses for mac than linux and its proven more secure in tests, and the distros I have used are faster, and I'm comparing what I've experienced using both.

Well, that's where personal choice comes in. I use Logic and Aperture a lot, which are both miles ahead of anything available on Linux. I also appreciate iLife.

I find Mac OS X easier to use, and I like having a computer made by the same people who make the OS that runs on it.

Agreed personal choice, I like to do as much as I need as cheap as possible, PCs are the way for me.

But you're the one comparing it to a MacBook Pro and concluding its better value.

Of course I am, I dont own the mac book either. I can only go on whats in front of me, and concluding its not better value is subjective to me. It is better value for me.

I dont need backlit keyboards magnetic cables and lid closing feartures and a metal case, or the bundled software. Why is it you mac heads cant get that?

I use FireWire for lots of things. USB 2 is much slower.

In fact, there are things out there, that will only connect via FireWire, because USB can't handle the necessary transfer rates. So for some people, having FireWire ports is a necessity.

As mentioned above USB 3. Customer service is not something I consider when I buy a computer but thats just me.

PC buyers don't want to buy "outdated" hardware because most of them buy PCs with Windows on it. If they were using a decent OS their hardware wouldn't become obsolete quite so quickly.

And I am using a decent OS thats probably the most scalable OS ever, however personal circumstances dictate I need a new laptop so there you go.

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

As should FireWire S3200. FireWire S6400 is also in the works.

FireWire uses less processing power, can use longer cables runs, can daisy-chain devices, and cen deliver more power.

Apple won an Emmy for developing it.

And not to mention way more expensive thats why usb is more common.

Marty_J

asininity wrote: »

They are simplistic because its two simple things I'm talking about. There are more viruses for mac than linux and its proven more secure in tests

There seem to be quite a few Linux viruses. The number of viruses in the wild on Mac OS X is zero. There are a few trojans, though it still pales in comparison to the 800 or so on Linux (as of 2006; I expect the number is much higher now).

Both OSes benefit from (among other things) not having a huge market share, and not running with root privileges by default.

and the distros I have used are faster, and I'm comparing what I've experienced using both.

Faster at doing what? And did you compare them on the same hardware?

Of course I am, I dont own the mac book either. I can only go on whats in front of me, and concluding its not better value is subjective to me. It is better value for me.

I'm just pointing out that your estimation as to the value of one or the other might not be considering all the pertinent facts.

I dont need backlit keyboards magnetic cables and lid closing feartures and a metal case, or the bundled software. Why is it you mac heads cant get that?

I get it totally, and I respect that. But there's nothing wrong with Apple making computers that have those things, or that are engineered with tolerances measured to the micron (that's one thousandth of a millimetre) and charging more for them than some box-shifter charges.

It someone wants those things, then they're going to have to pay for them, regardless of who the manufacturer is.

As mentioned above USB 3. Customer service is not something I consider when I buy a computer but thats just me.

Fair enough. But the average user would do well to factor it into the decision making process.

And I am using a decent OS thats probably the most scalable OS ever, however personal circumstances dictate I need a new laptop so there you go.

Well I'm sure you'll be very happy with whatever you choose.

And not to mention way more expensive thats why usb is more common.

I can't argue that USB isn't more common, despite FireWire having various technological advantages. FireWire is used in a lot of critical applications though, such as the military and aviation. It's also used a lot in the television, film and audio industries (Apple won the Emmy for their contribution to the TV industry).

I mainly dislike USB because I always try to plug it in the wrong way around. :mad:

asininity

Marty_J wrote: »

There seem to be quite a few Linux viruses. The number of viruses in the wild on Mac OS X is zero. There are a few trojans, though it still pales in comparison to the 800 or so on Linux (as of 2006; I expect the number is much higher now).

Both OSes benefit from (among other things) not having a huge market share, and not running with root privileges by default.

OSX benefits from having is basis in one of the most secure OS's BSD. Its the propietry bit you need to worry about. The fact that as you say linux covers many distros is to its advantage. Those 800 or so wouldn't work on all distros, its opensource and more secure because of it besides which they as the wiki say pose a minimal threat.

The biggest threat is hackers and though I can't find it (the internet seems to be full of microsoft stating vista sp2/windows 7 is the most secure os ever) there was a recent test and linux (ubuntu) was the only one not to fall, windows first and a few hours before the time was up osx. I believe it was a browser hack.

Faster at doing what? And did you compare them on the same hardware?

My usual daily computing. I compared on less impressive PC hardware, I like my lightweight distros. One runs straight from ram, very fast.

I'm just pointing out that your estimation as to the value of one or the other might not be considering all the pertinent facts.

My estimation is the only thing that counts when I'm buying a computer. However I'll keep an open mind and pop into an apple store on a day off and get someone to show me everything and see if I say 'wow' about the system or '@X$*' about the price.;)

I get it totally, and I respect that. But there's nothing wrong with Apple making computers that have those things, or that are engineered with tolerances measured to the micron (that's one thousandth of a millimetre) and charging more for them than some box-shifter charges.

It someone wants those things, then they're going to have to pay for them, regardless of who the manufacturer is.

Exactly if someone wants them I've not said theres anything wrong with it. When I look to buying a computer I look to the best hardware I can get for my money aesthetics comes a distant third. Most people buy macs cos they buy into the hype and because they look good.

I can't argue that USB isn't more common, despite FireWire having various technological advantages. FireWire is used in a lot of critical applications though, such as the military and aviation. It's also used a lot in the television, film and audio industries (Apple won the Emmy for their contribution to the TV industry).

I mainly dislike USB because I always try to plug it in the wrong way around. :mad:

I can say for a fact the the british army doesn't use firewire. They are still using stuff from the 50's. Its more common because its a lot cheaper, its that simple, a bit like PCs and Macs.

M4RKM

Most people buy macs cos they buy into the hype and because they look good.

I find this much more your opinion rather than actual fact.

I bought a mac, because it was cheap at the time, and did what i needed it to do, plus a lot more which now, i've got used to. An ugly tower is still an ugly tower, (this is going back to my first desktop mac), and it still had ugly wires..

and at the time, 5 years ago, £680 for a top of the range tower, plus screen (ok, ex display) was cheap, and lasted me ages, and still netted me £500 on ebay!


M

asininity

I'm sure most heavy users would agree with you.

Along with most of apples products, first time buyers tend to buy them for fashion and nothing else, finding out later how useful they are. Then they become those obnoxious fanboys that are all over the internet.

My girlfriend wants one because it looks cool.

littleowl

asininity wrote: »

I'm sure most heavy users would agree with you.

Along with most of apples products, first time buyers tend to buy them for fashion and nothing else, finding out later how useful they are. Then they become those obnoxious fanboys that are all over the internet.

My girlfriend wants one because it looks cool.

On the contrary! I used PCs for 12 years then bought an iMac 18 months ago. The difference amazed me and I wondered why I had stuck to ugly PCs and, even uglier, Windows (in its many iterations) for so long.
Yes - Macs are aesthetically pleasing to look at -but more, much more, than that, they work better, and for longer than any PC I have had.

I am NOT a Mac fanboy - I am over 60 years old.

asininity

littleowl wrote: »

On the contrary! I used PCs for 12 years then bought an iMac 18 months ago. The difference amazed me and I wondered why I had stuck to ugly PCs and, even uglier, Windows (in its many iterations) for so long.
Yes - Macs are aesthetically pleasing to look at -but more, much more, than that, they work better, and for longer than any PC I have had.

I am NOT a Mac fanboy - I am over 60 years old.

Well I can honestly say my PCs have all worked longer than 18 months, what were you doing with them? I wouldn't class any of my PCs ugly either, I'd even go as far as saying my desktop tower looks better than those towers you get from apple.

I'll agree on the windows front though.

M4RKM

apple don't really do towers for the home...

the mac pro is exactly that, a pro specced machine for pro environments, and the mac mini is so small, well, it's small..

and littleowl never said that their computer never lasted more than 18 months, they stated that they bought their imac 18 months ago...

windows based computers, that are of average spec, need to have TLC all the time, and regular rebuilds, and then after about 18 months, you'll probably want to upgrade the ram, and then when they hit 3 years old, windows version whatever comes out, and you need to upgrade substantially, or buy a new computer... linux and mac's don't suffer from that depreciation as much..

as for ugly pc's, there are plenty of really ugly cases around.

and we all know windows can be awful to use, but it does have it's uses.. so boring people can do their boring spreadsheets and boring charts... heh

M

asininity

littleowl said they'd bougth their first imac 18 months ago then later stated macs work better and longer than any PCs they'd had.

I assumed since it was their first imac that they must be speaking from personal experience otherwise they'd just be making it up from rumours to that effect.

My experience is that I have an 8yr old pc nearly 9yr old running linux thats very fast and brilliant for browsing the net and word processing. Got it for free too.

I never buy the ugly cases. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder so they say and theres more choice with PC's.

Windows has its place, and a large place it is too, I'm secretly hoping windows 7 is going to be good, I like games and vista is pants and xp just dont cut it anymore.