Considering buying a Mac

isofa

.docx is the new Office 2007 PC Word format, and you can download converters / and filters to open these with older packages, regardless of the platform. Mac Office 2008 handles these no problem.

PCs with Office 2003 have just as much trouble reading these files as the Mac without the appropriate converters.

wakandem

my ten cents,
Go for the linux option. Macs are just a part of a faceless non caring corporate conglomarate that are only interested in making money. The profit margin alone for apple is obsene on all their products & that alone should put any money saver off them.. They peddle DRM infested products, They are as bad as ms for restrictive practices & control of their systems. Their software is substandard, safari is worse than even ie7.
A filthy company with a pretty face.

toasterman

That's a bit harsh.
I personally think the DRM system in Apple's iTunes is a lot more usable, easier to transfer between machines, etc.. than Microsoft's is. You can put everything of iTunes on up to 5 pcs (kinda activated online), and if you're unlucky and you keep breaking computers and/or replacing them, you can wipe all 5 recorded ones they have on file, and then reactivate each of your own machines in turn.

I think this is a lot better than MS's system.

I had some problems with the DRM not working properly on Windows, so backed up my licence file, and upgraded to the next version of Windows Media Player, only to discover that although my DRM now works and I can use the BBC iPlayer, the new version doesn't support the licence file of the old version, so I can't access my music I paid for previously.
At least when iTunes store the information online about who has rights for what, you can access your own files between versions.
Luckily I only had a couple of tracks, so I didn't bother trying to fix that.

Safari on the Mac is alright. I don't have a problem with it. Certainly better than IE7 in my opinion...although I can't compare them both side by side.
I tried Safari on Windows when it was first released and I'll admit that was rubbish....although to be fair it was in beta at the time.


Linux (free editions) don't really fit with other things in the world.
Relying on everyone working for free isn't sustainable...because some people will always leech off everyone else.
I don't see why everything should be free anyway. I mean I'm paid for my work that I do. And I definitely don't see why companies shouldn't be able to make a profit. If Apple's profits go back into design, r&d, etc.. then I say go for it. Good on them. At least they're putting it into new products I might like.
The vast majority of people don't care if complicated computer programs are available as source code downloads - same as I don't want to read a technical manual on precisely how my car works.

Simon_B_2

Thanks for all the input guys, anothe reason for considering one, is due to the last two laptops i've bought been fairly budget units that never seem to last more than 24-36 months tops before dying on their a**e.

Went to look at the Macs the other day and buying from there retail store would mean a further 14% reduction as my partner is a full time student.

I don't really need a dvd-rw or cd-r drive as i've had bought for 3 years and never used it, everything backs up to usb these days.

Think i'll sit on it for a while longer yet and see if i can't get some haggling in

Bob63

New, faster versions of the Macbook and Macbook Pro were launched yesterday. If you are buying directly from Apple (store/online/phone) you should get these immediately. PC World and John Lewis will likely lag as they get rid of older stock - which may be a reason to haggle.

Mike

JoeyG

toasterman wrote: »

Linux (free editions) don't really fit with other things in the world.
Relying on everyone working for free isn't sustainable...because some people will always leech off everyone else.
I don't see why everything should be free anyway. I mean I'm paid for my work that I do. And I definitely don't see why companies shouldn't be able to make a profit. If Apple's profits go back into design, r&d, etc.. then I say go for it. Good on them. At least they're putting it into new products I might like.
The vast majority of people don't care if complicated computer programs are available as source code downloads - same as I don't want to read a technical manual on precisely how my car works.

I have to completely disagree with this

The open source community has successfully been around since the 60s, so quite simply it does work
To use an example: this site, and just about every other website out there relies greatly on open source software... from the operating system level, the server software, server technologies etc.

AFAIK the original Mac Os's were based on UNIX... not sure how true that still is with the recent versions... Linux distributions such as Ubuntu are not as good because they simply havent been around as long.

I've got nothing against commercial operating systems, or any commerical software for that matter... but to say open source software is unsustainable simply is not true.

toasterman

cheesy.mike wrote: »

New, faster versions of the Macbook and Macbook Pro were launched yesterday. Mike

How come the base model STILL only has a cdrw-dvd reading combi drive. That must be costing them to order separate components and make them for just one model. It's the only model across the whole desktop and laptop range that doesn't have a dvdrw drive.

I've got a dvd writer in my windows laptop and I never use that - but having a laptop *without* a dvd writer these days, just makes them look overpriced compared to the windows laptops. Certainly a lot more noticable than whether or not the laptop has bluetooth (something which a lot of people don't use).
And they don't cost anything - it'd add £10 to Apple's price of building the laptop, if that. Just seems nuts to me.

toasterman

JoeyG wrote: »

I have to completely disagree with this

The open source community has successfully been around since the 60s, so quite simply it does work
To use an example: this site, and just about every other website out there relies greatly on open source software... from the operating system level, the server software, server technologies etc.

AFAIK the original Mac Os's were based on UNIX... not sure how true that still is with the recent versions... Linux distributions such as Ubuntu are not as good because they simply havent been around as long.

I've got nothing against commercial operating systems, or any commerical software for that matter... but to say open source software is unsustainable simply is not true.

My post you're quoting was actually a reply to wakendem's post of: " Go for the linux option. Macs are just a part of a faceless non caring corporate conglomarate that are only interested in making money. The profit margin alone for apple is obsene on all their products & that alone should put any money saver off them."

I'm not sure how successful the open source community is though really. They're giving stuff away for free and Microsoft/Apple are still winning in usability, driver support, and sheer numbers of users in most areas, despite charging people for it.
I think Windows server is very expensive, but IT professionals haven't ditched them and switched to a free open source option. And nobody is staying with Microsoft because they particularly like them.

The opensource world seems to have had most success with server software, and I'll give you that. They're doing something right there, clearly evidenced by Microsoft's new 'powershell' features where you can do things from a command line, gui optional. The majority of web servers are indeed not running Windows.

But where's the open source equivalent of desktop policies, exchange server, active directory?

People are also still buying MS Office, despite Openoffice's nearly-fully-compatible nature.

Firefox has made a sizable dent into the browser world, but most non-tech people who I ask "what made you go to firefox?" tell me that a friend of their son/daughter installed it, and they don't really know what the difference is.

The Linux community is also one of the worst examples of collaboration in history. Hundreds of different groups developing differently, separately, and not working together, coming up with different things, none of which is all-encompassing.

Even if you're considering switching from Windows to Linux - how are you meant to know which one to go for?
While a lot of people don't like Microsoft, who has time to try out loads of different versions to see if any of them support their wireless network card, AND their graphics card.

Every time someone gets a version of Linux for a desktop that could be great... like Suse, Redhat, etc.. that starts to gain wider appeal - everyone ditches it and jumps on another bandwagon...KDE starts to get good, then everyone switches to Gnome. Ubuntu seems to be the current vehicle of choice. I wonder how long for.

shona_2

geekgirl wrote: »

To save some dosh you can get your mac from the refurb store http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=AA9C1547&nclm=Certified
We have had no problems with any of ours that we have bought from there.

Me too - best thing I've bought in a long time!

isofa

JoeyG wrote: »

...
AFAIK the original Mac Os's were based on UNIX... not sure how true that still is with the recent versions... Linux distributions such as Ubuntu are not as good because they simply havent been around as long.

Not correct!

The original Mac Classic OSes. i.e. System 1 to System 9 (i.e. all before the new Mac OS X) were not based on Unix, nor did they have any Unix foundations or connections, they were a unique Apple OS - running from approx 1984 to 2001. The look and feel much copied by others, including Windows 95, although Apple did copy some of the components in 1984 from Xerox PARC. Still once of my favourite interfaces, despite it now looked aged, I can still boot some of our Macs into it, and the speed it runs is incredible! However the multi-tasking is weak.

It was the new Mac OS X first released for desktops in 2001 (Cheetah v10) that was based on the Unix BSD Mach kernel (because of the links with Next and Nextstep). This was a massive change, a total new OS from the ground up, software had to be written, but they still enable older OS 9 systems and apps to run in emulation - which I still do occasionally too.

All current Macs run this, and hence are based on a Unix kernal, which sometimes changes and is refined with new OS X releases, the current Leopard has a different kernal from previous versions etc.

However Linux has been around much longer than Mac OS X, around 1990-1991 if memory serves me correctly - so, in theory, it should be much more widespread if time frames have anything to do with it.

I agree than OpenSource is a great movement, as are Linux distributions. There are some fantastic OpenSource applications about.

Commercial companies are around to make money and sell products, that's what business is about. I have no problem in buying things if they serve a purpose well. I certainly wouldn't want an economy based on everything being free, society would break down immediately!

For me, work and home wise, Windows and Mac OS X fill most requirements though. But everyone is different.