Should I buy a PC or a Mac?
John Wolf
Mac G3 300 mhz upgrade card for my Power Mac Performa 6360. The HP that I
am thinking about purchasing is around $450, has lots of memory, PCI
slots, RAM banks, USB slots, software and a big hard drive.
My current Performa 6360
System: 8.1 US
Processor info: PowerPC 603ev
Machine speed: 160 MHz
I want to get advice from Mac/PC people on this matter. PC people will
tell me to buy the HP, and mac people will tell me to buy the G3 upgrade.
There are sacrifices that I will take in eather situation. For example,
If I bought the Pentium II 450 mhz HP
€ I will need to buy a PC monitor
€ I will need to purchase PC Conversion plus software or PC exchange, so
I can read/write to mac files, and disks. (I have gigabytes of Mac data on
disks in the Mac HFS file system format, that can not be read on a PC
without third party software.)
€ A SCSI controller so I can use my current Mac SCSI zip, and my Mac SCSI
hard drives with my new PC.
€ I will also need to purchase some software for the PC that I have on my Mac.
If I upgrade my Mac to a 300 mhz G3
€ I will need to purchase a PCI USB card to take advantage of the newer bus.
€ I will lose some speed, because the HP is probably faster.
€ I will still have an old Supra modem
€ Will not get any new software
€ Will still have a older hard drive
€ Will still have the same motherboard with limited PCI slots, RAM banks,
drive bays and a 40mhz system/io bus
Anyone that can help me please email me. I want to get a faster computer,
because my current Mac is slow.
John
--
J O H N M. W O L F
jo...@southcoast.net, jwol...@aol.com
John 3:16, Ecc 12:13
La Honda, California, USA ICQ me at my 36732268 IRC jwolf6589 / JW16
Visit my new Three Stooges page
http://www.southcoast.net/johnw/stooges
Tom MacIntyre
>I am thinking about purchasing eather a HP 450mhz Pentium II or a Power
>Mac G3 300 mhz upgrade card for my Power Mac Performa 6360. The HP that I
>am thinking about purchasing is around $450, has lots of memory, PCI
>slots, RAM banks, USB slots, software and a big hard drive.
>
Please excuse my tongue in my cheek...it all depends upon who you want
to fight with on Usenet!!
Tom
Danny Low
wrote:
>Anyone that can help me please email me. I want to get a faster computer,
>because my current Mac is slow.
Unless you have a compelling reason (performance is not a compelling
reason as you can buy PC and Mac systems with comparable performance)
I would stick with a Mac. Switching machines is always a hassle. If
you are happy with your old Mac and do not foresee any uses in the
future that require a PC, there will be less of a hassle upgrading
from a Mac to another Mac than from a Mac to a PC.
Danny
R. Wipfli
At home I'm working with a PowerMac G3 (266)
At work I'm have to use a HP Vectra VE (400)
But I can tell you, I'm not only happy to come home cause of the
job.
I'm always in trouble with this da.. HP. I'd installed Windows 95, I'd
installed Windows 98 and now I'm working with Windows NT, and my PC always
crashes...(NT does not support USB, I recognized that to late...)
So, my adwise will be totaly clear, buy a PC (HP or not) and you will
alsways work for your computer, buy a Mac and your computer will work for
you!!
John J. Yokay
experience, you always have problems with PC's, and the Macintosh is more
productive. Compatibility and software is increasing daily for the mac.
-John
----------
In article <37a638da...@news.cup.hp.com>, dann...@hp.com (Danny Low)
wrote:
Markus Hässig
Buy a Mac, so you have the best.
BUT: buy a PC and you do not have any trouble to change files with the most
people in the world. Or go to a newspaper-shop or game - shop and have a
look.
Or maybe you want buy something new -lets say a Palm-PC or so, and then go
in a shop. Hopefully then you don't have a mac.
Mac is better, Mac is more userfriendly, but the winner is mostly the
marketleader!
Markus
R. Wipfli schrieb in Nachricht <7o6vis$ajh$1...@news.eunet.ch>...
Donald Link
bothMacs and PCs and have found both systems to stable. I can screw up a
Mac just as easily as a PC when I start fooling around (which I generally
do). At work I use NT and have only found it to be unstable only with
shitty programs that fool around with the system. NT does require a lot of
upkeep, but it is rock solid and secure as you can get.
R. Wipfli <rwi...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message
news:7o6vis$ajh$1...@news.eunet.ch...
Floppy
<donal...@comctr.pr.mcs.net> wrote:
>Bull, sounds to me that you do a lot more with your PC. Plus I work with
>bothMacs and PCs and have found both systems to stable. I can screw up a
>Mac just as easily as a PC when I start fooling around
There are a thousand times more things that can go wrong on a PC than a
Mac, and when something does go wrong, on a Mac the avg (or slightly above
avg) user can relatively quickly fix what's wrong. With the PC you're
pouring more resources into tech experts who struggle to diag and fix
what's wrong if they ever can at all. We've run both Compaqs and Macs
with networks and labs at work and there's no comparison; the Conmpaqs
give us far more downtime, our users are less productive on them, and
they're more exppensive in the long run.
(which I generally
>do). At work I use NT and have only found it to be unstable only with
>shitty programs that fool around with the system. NT does require a lot of
>upkeep, but it is rock solid and secure as you can get.
That upkeep gets expensive in a hurry.
Cadimus
> There are a thousand times more things that can go wrong on a PC than a
> Mac, and when something does go wrong, on a Mac the avg (or slightly above
> avg) user can relatively quickly fix what's wrong. With the PC you're
> pouring more resources into tech experts who struggle to diag and fix
> what's wrong if they ever can at all. We've run both Compaqs and Macs
> with networks and labs at work and there's no comparison; the Conmpaqs
> give us far more downtime, our users are less productive on them, and
> they're more exppensive in the long run.
You forgot steep learning curve. Windows 98 and some popular programs
requires more training to understand them and more taining = more $$$
spent. Macintosh is much easier to learn and manage and generally have
smoother learning curve.
Floppy
cad...@tds.net (Cadimus) wrote:
That's why the IT training/support industry pushes Wintel on people and
businesses; they make the $$$ on everyone's dependency. Don't know if
it's true, but I've heard that's the largest business sector of the entire
computing industry.
John G.Burns
> >requires more training to understand them and more taining = more $$$
> >spent. Macintosh is much easier to learn and manage and generally have
> >smoother learning curve.
>
> That's why the IT training/support industry pushes Wintel on people and
> businesses; they make the $$$ on everyone's dependency. Don't know if
> it's true, but I've heard that's the largest business sector of the entire
> computing industry.
Bought my 7 year old (at the time) fiance's daughter a used Mac for
Christmas two years ago. I've had to spend approx one hour in all that
time maintaining it, speaks for itself :-)
--
"It is better to remain silent & be thought a fool than to open your
mouth in a meeting with users & prove it." Ancient programming proverb
NB: As I am a gibberring idiot any views expressed here are not
the views of Stolt Comex Seaway Ltd. Aberdeen, Bonny Scotland
Business jo...@seaway.demon.co.uk
BMW page http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk jo...@unixnerd.demon.co.uk
Lucas
box. No particular reason why I'd ask. ;-)
Did your MCSE certification tell you that? They would never lie and why would
they want to tell you about Unix?
I use PCs extensively at work and at home. I also have my PPC 604e 200 mac
clone. Besides the crappie Bigfoot drive, the computer is great. I'd consider
myself a mac guru and an expert PC user. Here's what I think:
Mac - Great for users of all levels. System 8 is much more stable than system 7
and you know the software is going to work on your machine. If you MUST run PC
software for that strange, off the wall program they make you use at work, then
invest $50 in PC emulation software such as Virtual PC. You don't NEED to spend
$600 on an Orange PC card. At my last job I was setting up the owners mac and
transferring all the files from the old one to the new one. As a joke, I
installed Real PC on it and ran it full screen. When he came in to work the
next morning, I told him that the mac wasn't working, so we had to set up a new
compaq that came in. He started toying around with it and all the kiss ass
employees gathered around. Comments such as "This is much faster than that G3
you were going to use" started popping up. As soon as I hit the space bar to
show the the Mac's menus and hid Real PC in the background, everyone went
silent. The boss started laughing his ass off and about 3 people turned pro-mac
that instant.
When it comes to security on the mac, it's easy to set up and it's flawless.
If you need advanced server functions or you just think you do, get Rhapsody (OS
X). It's based off of BSD, which is one of the most stable and fastest Unix
systems around.
If virii are your concern, then you only need to worry about 30 mac virii
instead of hundreds of thousands of PC virii.
If speed is a plus, then what are you waiting for? Get a G4. As software
starts using it's native code, it'll run 3x faster than the Pentium 3. When I
say native code, I mean the software will have to take advantage of the G4, just
like the switch from 68k code to PPC code. It's still backwards compatible.
Hell, get a used G3 and be about 2x faster than the pentium 3.
If you want to be cheap and save yourself some money, consider this. At the
high school I went to, they didn't listen to us in the internet (geek) club and
decided that PCs would be more cost effective. It took a month to get 30 PCs on
the network, secured from malicious users, and working properly. Now that's
about 22 workdays times about $12 per hour. That's around $2,100. After that,
the PC section of the computer room was down at LEAST once per week. I never
saw a mac down in my 3 years in high school. ;-)
If you're a fucking moron and "just want everything to work", then why don't
you ask that guy with the "moo box" he got from Gateway what he thinks about his
computer. Usually you can expect some vulgar language followed with, "At least
it's better than my last system." Hmm, see a pattern here?
For all you Linux and BSD users out there; YES, Linux and BSD are AWESOME, but
until they are commercialized BIG TIME, it's going to be a difficult system to
maintain and the efforts to fix bugs in their programs are going to be minimal.
Netscape seems to have a lot of problems on my Red hat system at home and my net
boot FreeBSD system at work. Same thing goes for a few other programs I use. I
would be in ecstasy if Linux was as easy and the programs as stable as the
Macintosh.
Well, now that I've shown my bias, I'd like to point out a few good things about
PCs running Windows. They're more upgradeable and supposedly, memory management
is better.
Never noticed any real world difference in memory management though. On the
mac, you can specify how much memory you want to give a program. That's a good
thing. Upgrading isn't as flexible, but you can do it. Only thing you can't
really upgrade is the logic board (motherboard). Have to get a VAR system for
that.
Oh, and Apple doesn't look like it's going out of business. I think that the
used book store down the street has a better chance of going out of business and
it's been around for a *very* long time.
If you have any comments or flames in response to this e-mail, you can direct
them to my personal e-mail address by replying. If you need to reach me at
work, my work e-mail address is stev...@aol.com
blah
-Lucas
Donald Link wrote:
> Bull, sounds to me that you do a lot more with your PC. Plus I work with
> bothMacs and PCs and have found both systems to stable. I can screw up a
> Mac just as easily as a PC when I start fooling around (which I generally
> do). At work I use NT and have only found it to be unstable only with
> shitty programs that fool around with the system. NT does require a lot of
> upkeep, but it is rock solid and secure as you can get.
>
Kailou Anassara
self-proclaims him/herself to be an expert in anything they are probably
trying to sell you something. Lucas, have you graduated high school
yet? Buddy, you need to grow up a bit! If you can't make your point
eloquently, don't make it. You are SO off the mark with your comments on
FreeBSD and Linux and you would know that if you spent ANY time at all
reading the news and following market trends. By your logic a product can
only be viable, stable and maintainable if it is highly commercialized.
This *REALLY* contradicts your apparent disdain for Microsoft products.
The strength of products like FreeBSD and Linux is precisely in the fact
that they are NOT commercial products, i.e., corporate America has not had
the chance to corrupt and bloat them yet. The issue of support? Gee,
what is this article being posted to...a news group?! No, a news group
can never be the source of support for a product. As for bug fixes and
new releases; that is one of the major strengths of Open Source. You have
literally a whole world of developers who can handle bug fixes and
enhancements. Its well known that Open Source is much more efficient and
quicker at rolling out versions and fixes than ANY corporation because
there is no corporate beauraucracy. Think before you speak.
The only reason to buy one computer over another would be for the tools it
can run. If you have a specific app that you MUST be able to run, then
make sure you get the computer it is best suited for. If that app is
designed for a PC then DON'T get a Mac and run that app in an emulator
like REAL PC, would you use a hammer to drive a screw? Don't get me
wrong, I'm a longtime Apple user and advocate, but the bottom line is that
a computer is only a tool and you will be much more efficient (and happy)
with the best tool for the job. 9 times out of 10 I believe the Mac will
be the best tool for dektop use. Don't fool yourself about emulators; an
emulator is just that, it emulates another system it doesn't replace it.
It will be MUCH slower than a true PC and you also have more chances of
incompatibilities. There are some apps that simply don't work in an
emulated environment. If you definitely must have cross platform
capabilities because of specific PC and Mac apps, than a Mac is your ONLY
choice and you are FAR better off getting a PC card than you are using an
emulator - it will be much faster and more stable, period (this is not my
opinion, its known fact). However, I have personally found virtually no
need to ever resort to a PC environment. There is very little worthwhile
on the PC that does not have a Mac equivalent. I have Virtual PC on my
Mac at the office (the only one in the office, BTW) and literally the only
time I have ever had to use it is to reproduce and troubleshoot someone
else's Windows problems. All things being equal, go with the system you
are most familiar with. If you have always used Mac, stick with it. If
you have always used a PC, stick with that. Unless you are interested in
learning the other platform why put yourself through the hassle of an
unfamiliar OS environment by swtiching?
-Kailou
Scott Rogers
with it. I was a PC user from the get-go, even though I knew (somehow
intuitively) that Macs were the superior machine. I bought PC after PC,
building my own systems in order to save money. My last PC, and one that I
still use regularly, is a K62-400. Nice machine. Plenty fast for me. I
built it to do multitrack recording (never more than 8 tracks or so, so it
does just fine).
But here's where the catch comes in: computers are only good so long as they
work. If you intend on doing *any* kind of alterations (new software, new
hard drives, new sound cards, whatever), be prepared for a mess, whether
you're using PC or Mac. Neither machine handles this particularly well.
I made the leap from PC to Mac when my PC lost its modem after a reformat
(another fairly common occurrence in the PC world). I built this machine
from *parts*, and it worked *fine* before the reformat. For the life of me,
I couldn't figure out how to get this modem back, and I still haven't.
This was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I bought a PowerMac 8100/100 on an auction and I haven't looked back since.
It's a little pokey, and is certainly no speed demon, but it gets the job
done and--most importantly--is incredibly stable (under OS 8.1 and OS 8.5).
This thing never crashes. It never loses its modem. It never won't print.
It always recognizes the zip. Add a new program? No problem. Remove a
program? No problem. Doesn't miss a step. Sure, there are subtleties to
learn about both operating systems, whether it's learning your way around
the win.ini, config.sys, autoexec.bat/dos, or the registry in Windows or
learning to deal with extensions and control panels on a Mac, but once you
get the hang of them, it's all the same.
Here's why I'm a Mac convert: they're simply less prone to the bizarro
errors and the sudden loss of peripherals to which PCs are prone.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no zealot. PCs are great for some things. Macs
are great for other things. With Macs you most certainly sacrifice the
ability to waltz into the store and buy any piece of software on the
shelves. But is that such a bad thing? ;)
FWIW, do some serious thinking about what you want to *do* with the
computer, and then some serious thinking about what you're willing to put up
with, and choose the best machine for your needs.
Cheers
Scott
Telcontar
<str1...@osu.net> wrote:
>
>But here's where the catch comes in: computers are only good so long as they
>work. If you intend on doing *any* kind of alterations (new software, new
>hard drives, new sound cards, whatever), be prepared for a mess, whether
>you're using PC or Mac. Neither machine handles this particularly well.
>
better. I've spent untold hours wading through tech support hell servicing
PCs. I've installed new programs only to discover that the new program
broke Windows, or another program. My only Mac experience that even comes
close to that was installing a multi-media program on a Mac and letting it
install QuickTime 2.5 over top of QuickTime 3. And that was my own fault
as much as the installer's.
Nope, you want to own a computer and not get chummy with the tech support
people? Buy a Mac.
cheers
Simon Clark
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Nathan A.
> For all you Linux and BSD users out there; YES, Linux and BSD are AWESOME, but
> until they are commercialized BIG TIME, it's going to be a difficult system to
> maintain and the efforts to fix bugs in their programs are going to be minimal.
> Netscape seems to have a lot of problems on my Red hat system at home and my net
> boot FreeBSD system at work. Same thing goes for a few other programs I use. I
> would be in ecstasy if Linux was as easy and the programs as stable as the
> Macintosh.
I admin Mac desktops hooked into an NT file server at work. Both are buggy. The
Macs are treated extremely gently because the software tends to lock the damn
things up 2-3 times a day. I run a dual boot win95b/linux box at home and the linux
boot is extremely stable (much more so than any Apple or Microsoft OS i've used).
The setup IS hell on a linux system IF your hardware isn't 'officially' supported.
My voodoo3 2000 video card isn't officially supported, but once I found the proper
rpm's to install it works much better under linux than win95b. I have never had any
problems with Netscape under linux (i'm currently running red hat 5.2 with xwindows
and after-step). The point is, I completely agree with the part of your statement
about linux being difficult to install (in some cases) but frankly I think you're
full of caa-caa when you say that Mac software is more stable...
Jarmo
> I admin Mac desktops hooked into an NT file server at work. Both are buggy.
The
> Macs are treated extremely gently because the software tends to lock the damn
> things up 2-3 times a day. I run a dual boot win95b/linux box at home and the
linux
> boot is extremely stable (much more so than any Apple or Microsoft OS i've
used).
I admin Mac desktops hooked into an ASIP file server at work. While there
are bugs, we get crashes about 2-3 times a day, total. (15 clients).
We'we had the new server for about a month and it hasn't crashed yet.
We make ads using Quark, Photoshop and freehand.
My home machine almost never crashes, and that's were I play games and
install all kind of freaky stuff.
--
- Jarmo
"Look out, Thak! It's a... a...dang! Never can pronounce those things!"
Gordon Mulcaster
[snip]
> My last PC, and one that I still use regularly, is a K62-400. Nice machine.
[snip]
> I bought a PowerMac 8100/100 on an auction and I haven't looked back since.
[snip]
Can you imagine the reverse? Someone going from say a G3-300 to a Pentium 100?
Through-out my Mac owning history (started with a Mac 512K) I've almost
always also owned a PC and for much of the time the PC has been
substancially faster then whatever Mac I owned (like right now for
instance) but I've always perfered using the Mac...
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Bart
buggy. The
> Macs are treated extremely gently because the software tends to lock the
damn
> things up 2-3 times a day.
Newer Macs (ones manufactured in the last 2 years) running MacOS 8.x should
not be locking up 2-3 times a day. If they are, then you've got problems in
the Admin department. What software are you using, and what services are
you providing from the NT box to the Macs?
> I think you're
> full of caa-caa when you say that Mac software is more stable...
I missed the first part of this post, but IMO, Macs manufactured in the past
couple of years using 8.x are more reliable than win95/98, and should
provide uptimes on average of a week or so with heavy usage before they
should be rebooted. Granted 1 week of average uptime isn't comparable with
Linux which has uptimes of months, but really, these are still two different
tools for totally different tasks.
just my .02
Bart
Daniel R. Stra
average life of a mac is 4 years while a PC is 2).
The reason has more to do with the OS than the hardware. Many of the things
that people do repetitively are easier to do on a mac. These little things
add up to a lot of time after a while.
There are so many hot keys for the mac it is unbelievable. Once you know the
hot key for one program 99% of the time it will be the same for the same
task with all other programs.
Also, the interface was built for the human. What this means is that Apple
actually did human interface design testing while making the OS. Almost
everything in the OS was put there (i.e. on the right instead of the left,
etc) because user testing revealed it was the best location.
Other operating systems do a fair job of copying the mac on the surface. But
if you look closely they simply have made a negative of the mac. What this
means is that they did the exact opposite of Apple.
So, if Apple tested an OS feature on humans to determine it was the most
efficient and another company does the opposite then the same feature will
be least efficient on that OS.
There are many examples to site but that won't be necessary. just sit down
with a mac for 3 or 4 hours and then a PC. After a while you just get a
"feel" for what I am talking about.
The mac os offers a lot more consistency and an interface which requires
minimal effort to master.
Any tool that is custom built and allows the user to master it more quickly
is a tool that is more powerful.
if I give a guy a 13oz hammer with a custom handle and then give another guy
a 26 oz hammer with a bulky misshapen handle who do you think is going to be
able to drive nails more quickly.
It's the handle, the method the user interfaces with the tool, that makes
him fast. Not the weight of the hammer.
Even if a particular mac has slower hardware than a PC the "handle", the way
the user interfaces with the computer, is where the real power comes in.
This is why people can use a mac for so long without feeling like it is
slow. It is also why an efficient mac user on a slower mac can still
accomplish more than an efficient windows user on a faster PC.
I write this on a two year ld G3 which I would gladly compare to the speed
of todays PCs. Not because my hardware is faster but because I can swing
around the power I have more efficiently than a guy with "a bigger hammer".
Hope this helps.
----------
In article <7r7cr5$3pi$1...@ionews.ionet.net>, "Scott Rogers"
<str1...@osu.net> wrote:
> I agree. Which computer you buy depends ultimately on what you intend to do
> with it. I was a PC user from the get-go, even though I knew (somehow
> intuitively) that Macs were the superior machine. I bought PC after PC,
> building my own systems in order to save money. My last PC, and one that I
> still use regularly, is a K62-400. Nice machine. Plenty fast for me. I
> built it to do multitrack recording (never more than 8 tracks or so, so it
> does just fine).
>
> But here's where the catch comes in: computers are only good so long as they
> work. If you intend on doing *any* kind of alterations (new software, new
> hard drives, new sound cards, whatever), be prepared for a mess, whether
> you're using PC or Mac. Neither machine handles this particularly well.
>
> I made the leap from PC to Mac when my PC lost its modem after a reformat
> (another fairly common occurrence in the PC world). I built this machine
> from *parts*, and it worked *fine* before the reformat. For the life of me,
> I couldn't figure out how to get this modem back, and I still haven't.
>
> This was the straw that broke the camel's back.
>
> I bought a PowerMac 8100/100 on an auction and I haven't looked back since.
Telcontar
<junk...@jonfund.com> wrote:
>There is a significant reason why people use macs longer than PCs. (The
>average life of a mac is 4 years while a PC is 2).
>
>The reason has more to do with the OS than the hardware. Many of the things
>that people do repetitively are easier to do on a mac. These little things
>add up to a lot of time after a while.
>
While I agree that the Mac OS is more consistent and user friendly, that
isn't why people keep their Macs longer. It isn't as if a PC wears out
more quickly due to an inconsistent OS!
Mac owners have been able to keep their computers longer, among other reasons:
From 1991-1998 Microsoft released three major OS upgrades. Each introduced
steep new hardware requirements - more memory, more speed, more hard drive
space. In that same time period, Apple also released 3 major OS upgrades.
Each required more hard drive space, modest memory upgrades, but not more
powerful computers. Remarkably, due to the increasing amount of PowerPC
native language in the upgraded OS, the MacOS became somewhat faster with
each release, even as it also became more powerful.
Also, Macs (at least until recently) used higher quality components than
comparable PCs. However of late that has changed somewhat so we'll have to
see what effect that has on longevity.
Lee Maneman
"Daniel R. Stra" wrote:
> There is a significant reason why people use macs longer than PCs. (The
> average life of a mac is 4 years while a PC is 2).
>
> The reason has more to do with the OS than the hardware. Many of the things
> that people do repetitively are easier to do on a mac. These little things
> add up to a lot of time after a while.
>
> There are so many hot keys for the mac it is unbelievable. Once you know the
> hot key for one program 99% of the time it will be the same for the same
> task with all other programs.
This is also true with a Windows box, mon. I can navigate just fine in a Windows
environment without ever touching the mouse. It isn't that one interface is
really easier than the other, it's all about which interface you set the standard
of ease by, which generally is the first interface you because intimately familiar
with.
>
>
> Also, the interface was built for the human. What this means is that Apple
> actually did human interface design testing while making the OS. Almost
> everything in the OS was put there (i.e. on the right instead of the left,
> etc) because user testing revealed it was the best location.
> Other operating systems do a fair job of copying the mac on the surface. But
> if you look closely they simply have made a negative of the mac. What this
> means is that they did the exact opposite of Apple.
>
> So, if Apple tested an OS feature on humans to determine it was the most
> efficient and another company does the opposite then the same feature will
> be least efficient on that OS.
This is very silly. Each of us is a seperate and distinct individual, and what
you like on the left, I might like on the right instead. There is no "Best",
there is only personal preference.
>
>
> There are many examples to site but that won't be necessary. just sit down
> with a mac for 3 or 4 hours and then a PC. After a while you just get a
> "feel" for what I am talking about.
The "feel" he is talking about goes like this: If you're a pc user, you'll think
the Mac interface sucks. if you're a mac user, you'll think the PC interface
sucks. If you're a UNIX user, you'll think they both suck and you'll install
Linux instead.
>
>
> The mac os offers a lot more consistency and an interface which requires
> minimal effort to master.
And maximal effort to customize. don't forget. Some people LIKE having their GUI
spoonfed to them. Not me.
>
>
> Any tool that is custom built and allows the user to master it more quickly
> is a tool that is more powerful.
>
> if I give a guy a 13oz hammer with a custom handle and then give another guy
> a 26 oz hammer with a bulky misshapen handle who do you think is going to be
> able to drive nails more quickly.
>
> It's the handle, the method the user interfaces with the tool, that makes
> him fast. Not the weight of the hammer.
In part. It is also in a big way the user's familiarity with a tool that
determines it's usefulness.
>
>
> Even if a particular mac has slower hardware than a PC the "handle", the way
> the user interfaces with the computer, is where the real power comes in.
>
> This is why people can use a mac for so long without feeling like it is
> slow. It is also why an efficient mac user on a slower mac can still
> accomplish more than an efficient windows user on a faster PC.
>
Pure and incontrovertible BS. Give me your stats. Get me some references. Back
up your tripe. Jingoism is great, this is like the lutherans vs. the catholics.
>
> I write this on a two year ld G3 which I would gladly compare to the speed
> of todays PCs. Not because my hardware is faster but because I can swing
> around the power I have more efficiently than a guy with "a bigger hammer".
>
> Hope this helps.
Oh, certainly. I feel helped. This is a prime example of a rabid mac user
proselytizing his favored operating system. Well and good, but don't take it at
face value. I am a rabid computer user, and some computers complete some tasks
more efficiently than others, but none of them have the edge in all categories.
Matthew Ruben
wrote:
> "Daniel R. Stra" wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > There are so many hot keys for the mac it is unbelievable. Once you know the
> > hot key for one program 99% of the time it will be the same for the same
> > task with all other programs.
>
> This is also true with a Windows box, mon. I can navigate just fine in a
> Windows
> environment without ever touching the mouse. It isn't that one interface is
> really easier than the other, it's all about which interface you set the
> standard
> of ease by, which generally is the first interface you because intimately
> familiar
> with.
>
Mac applications generally adhere to a pretty standardized set of "hot
keys" and interface elements, whereas I've found that Windows apps are
much more varied in this regard, especially when it comes to the hot
keys. In my experience standardization seems to be increasing with
Windows apps, but a good bit of that can be attributed to the dominance
of MS's own apps on the platform, and I still cannot depend on key
combinations transferring over from one Windows app to the next. So
that's something to keep in mind for someone considering a Mac or a PC,
if that person is interested in using the mouse less as he/she becomes
more familiar with the system.
> > Also, the interface was built for the human. What this means is that Apple
> > actually did human interface design testing while making the OS. Almost
> > everything in the OS was put there (i.e. on the right instead of the left,
> > etc) because user testing revealed it was the best location.
[snip]
> > So, if Apple tested an OS feature on humans to determine it was the most
> > efficient and another company does the opposite then the same feature will
> > be least efficient on that OS.
>
> This is very silly. Each of us is a seperate and distinct individual, and
> what
> you like on the left, I might like on the right instead. There is no "Best",
> there is only personal preference.
>
No, there is not _only_ personal preference, any more than there is
_only_ an "average" standard. Apple developed its interface standards
based on extensive testing, while MS's GUI decisions were influenced in
part by a desire to avoid copying the Mac interface too closely for
legal reasons. If you prefer the left-and-bottom design of Windows'
icons and menubar to the right-and-top design of the Mac's, fine. But
the information we have at our disposal indicates that most folks
prefer the Mac's design. Of course that doesn't mean you or I will or
should, but there it is. So given that none of us knows the person who
asked the original "Mac or PC" question, it's perfectly reasonable to
point out that there's a higher chance he or she will prefer the MacOS
interface.
> > There are many examples to site but that won't be necessary. just sit down
> > with a mac for 3 or 4 hours and then a PC. After a while you just get a
> > "feel" for what I am talking about.
>
> The "feel" he is talking about goes like this: If you're a pc user, you'll
> think
> the Mac interface sucks. if you're a mac user, you'll think the PC interface
> sucks. If you're a UNIX user, you'll think they both suck and you'll install
> Linux instead.
Your response is just as unbending as his original point. A Windows
mouse is more flickery than a Mac mouse, to pick just one example. I'm
not sure of the exact technical explanation, but IIRC the MacOS
contains a provision for the screen to redraw the position of the mouse
at a speed proportional to how fast the mouse is being moved, whereas
Windows doesn't. I'm sure you and many other people don't mind (or
perhaps even notice) the Windows mouse cursor flicker. But that doesn't
mean the Mac mouse cursor therefore has some equally problematic aspect
to it.
More generally, many (most?) Mac users have witnessed Windows users try
the Mac interface and declare it superior. No, I don't have a
quantitative study on this, but the anecdotal evidence is so consistent
on the point, and accords to well with my own experience and
observations, that I am prepared to believe it and defend it.
> > The mac os offers a lot more consistency and an interface which requires
> > minimal effort to master.
>
> And maximal effort to customize. don't forget. Some people LIKE having their
> GUI
> spoonfed to them. Not me.
>
Okay, now you're the one who's being silly. The Mac platform allows one
to customize every aspect of the OS, either via the OS or
shareware/freeware apps. It offers more customization possibilities
than Windows. And because it is easier to install and uninstall a Mac
app, it is easier to customize the appearance of the MacOS using
different apps, utilities, system extensions and so on.
[snip]
> [...] This is a prime example of a rabid mac user
> proselytizing his favored operating system. Well and good, but don't take it at
> face value. I am a rabid computer user, and some computers complete some tasks
> more efficiently than others, but none of them have the edge in all categories.
Your tone of your post -- which I can only describe as aggressive
equivocation -- doesn't help with the original question at all. The
person was asking for input. The guy you're responding to gave it. Your
input consists mainly of (a) saying that this guy has no idea what he's
talking about; and (b) saying that we prefer whichever platform we
already use, without saying anything about how someone with an open
mind and no current preferences would go about deciding which platform
to use in the first place -- which was exactly the question that began
this post.
Matt
--
Aaron Finney
> There is a difference between "waltzing into the store and buying a program" and
> actually getting the program to run without messing up something on the system.
> I find PCs tend to become unstable very quickly after installing a variety of
> programs. I have a total of 560 different applications on my G3 with only Adobe
> PhotoDeluxe 2 causing me some grief. On the PCs at work, any new install tends to
> cause some system malfunction or the program itself frequently does not function
> properly without some adjustments to the system. This is rarely an issue on a
> Mac.
It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time (as well as
Unix systems) and would never dream of telling my boss, "These PC's are
crashing all the time because Windows95 is an inferior operating
system." I wouldn't have a job for more than a week.
Ridiculous.
otavern
> In article <7r7cr5$3pi$1...@ionews.ionet.net>, "Scott Rogers"
> <str1...@osu.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm no zealot. PCs are great for some things. Macs
> > are great for other things. With Macs you most certainly sacrifice the
> > ability to waltz into the store and buy any piece of software on the
> > shelves. But is that such a bad thing? ;)
>
There is a difference between "waltzing into the store and buying a program" and
actually getting the program to run without messing up something on the system.
I find PCs tend to become unstable very quickly after installing a variety of
programs. I have a total of 560 different applications on my G3 with only Adobe
PhotoDeluxe 2 causing me some grief. On the PCs at work, any new install tends to
cause some system malfunction or the program itself frequently does not function
properly without some adjustments to the system. This is rarely an issue on a
Mac.
My point is that ease of buying programs is quite different from ease of using
them. There also tend to be a lot more crappy apps for PCs than Macs. The Mac
market doesn't tolerate junk as much.
OT
Jerry Stratton
<A_Fi...@wfi-inc.com> wrote:
>It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
>user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
>an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time (as well as
But it is fair to blame the operating system for requiring an administrator.
Kailou Anassara
>> There is a difference between "waltzing into the store and buying a
program" and
>> actually getting the program to run without messing up something on the
system.
>> I find PCs tend to become unstable very quickly after installing a variety of
>> programs. I have a total of 560 different applications on my G3 with
only Adobe
>> PhotoDeluxe 2 causing me some grief. On the PCs at work, any new
install tends to
>> cause some system malfunction or the program itself frequently does not
function
>> properly without some adjustments to the system. This is rarely an
issue on a
>> Mac.
>
>It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
>user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
>an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time (as well as
>Unix systems) and would never dream of telling my boss, "These PC's are
>crashing all the time because Windows95 is an inferior operating
>system." I wouldn't have a job for more than a week.
>
>Ridiculous.
Yikes! I hope I never have to do business with you! I may have
misunderstood, but sounds to me like you're rather embracing the faults of
Windows for the job security it affords you! This is why so many PC folk
are afraid to admit the faults of windows - they like the bugs and
problems, it keeps them in business. A poorly configured UNIX (or even
Mac) box will have *FAR* fewer problems and require *FAR* less
administration/maintenance than even the best configured Wintel box. Fact
is, pretty difficult to poorly configure a Mac.
--
-Kailou Anassara
Lee Maneman
> There is a difference between "waltzing into the store and buying a program" and
> actually getting the program to run without messing up something on the system.
> I find PCs tend to become unstable very quickly after installing a variety of
> programs. I have a total of 560 different applications on my G3 with only Adobe
> PhotoDeluxe 2 causing me some grief. On the PCs at work, any new install tends to
> cause some system malfunction or the program itself frequently does not function
> properly without some adjustments to the system. This is rarely an issue on a
> Mac.
>
> My point is that ease of buying programs is quite different from ease of using
> them. There also tend to be a lot more crappy apps for PCs than Macs. The Mac
> market doesn't tolerate junk as much.
>
> OT
Mostly the problems you experience when installing new software comes from the fact
that many windows apps come with, to use a slightly obsolete term, TSR's, or
Terminate and Stay Resident applications, except now they're all in a nice little
memory eating row in the systray. These TSR's have an amazing ability to conflict
with each other, and also memory leaks (where a program claims more and more memory
without ever giving any back) are a big problem. I solve this by getting rid of most
TSR's, since you really don't generally need them anyways, they're just shortcuts to
various program properties dialogues and whatnot, somewhat analagous to the control
strip on a Mac. Another problem are shared .DLL's, or Dynamic Link Libraries, which
are code resources shared between multiple processes. Sometimes an important .DLL
will be replaced with a slightly modified one by one program, and then replaced again
with a different slightly modified one by another. Then the first program is geeking
out because it's making illegal function calls to what used to be it's version of a
.DLL... I'm hoping that this situation has been addressed in NT5, don't know yet.
Why I personally like the application support for PC's better than for Macs: Games.
I love games. I know most of what I know about computers in some way or other
because of games. Games probably run a little bit better on Macs as opposed to PC's,
just by nature of Macintosh's good graphics routines, but I don't really know for
certain. There are many, many, many more PC games then Mac games, though.
jeremy hooper
kai...@anassara.com (Kailou Anassara) wrote:
> In article <37F04918...@wfi-inc.com>, Aaron Finney
> <A_Fi...@wfi-inc.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is a difference between "waltzing into the store and buying a
> program" and
> >> actually getting the program to run without messing up something on the
> system.
> >> I find PCs tend to become unstable very quickly after installing a
variety of
> >> programs. I have a total of 560 different applications on my G3 with
> only Adobe
> >> PhotoDeluxe 2 causing me some grief. On the PCs at work, any new
> install tends to
> >> cause some system malfunction or the program itself frequently does not
> function
> >> properly without some adjustments to the system. This is rarely an
> issue on a
> >> Mac.
> >
> >It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
> >user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
> >an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time (as well as
> >Unix systems) and would never dream of telling my boss, "These PC's are
> >crashing all the time because Windows95 is an inferior operating
> >system." I wouldn't have a job for more than a week.
> >
> >Ridiculous.
>
> Yikes! I hope I never have to do business with you! I may have
> misunderstood, but sounds to me like you're rather embracing the faults of
> Windows for the job security it affords you! This is why so many PC folk
> are afraid to admit the faults of windows - they like the bugs and
> problems, it keeps them in business. A poorly configured UNIX (or even
> Mac) box will have *FAR* fewer problems and require *FAR* less
> administration/maintenance than even the best configured Wintel box. Fact
> is, pretty difficult to poorly configure a Mac.
Just my 2 cents.
I work as a consultant on both Macs and PC's. A lot of what I do is
troubleshooting. The observations I am making are a result of my personal
experience and I know that other peoples experierce varies.
In general a problem on PC takes 3-4 times as much time to resolve as the
same problem on a Mac. Setup is also significantly faster on a Mac.
Software behaves better on a mac in my experience and is more consistent.
I would take issue with windows networking being more "stable" than Mac
networking. Although I would agree with this in Windows NT, my experience
has been the reverse. Windows networking is more flexible than mac
networking but it is also harder to configure (although not
significantly).
I would certainly accept the criticisms of cooperative vs premptive
multitasking with regart to the MacOS. I do not this this is as big a deal
as it is often made out to be and doesn't typically affect most users.
Once OS X ships this will be a non issue. I am also not really impressed
by the sheduler in Win 95/98/NT. Although most of the system is
premptively multitasked I have often seen a rouge application sieze
control of the system to such an extent that the task manager could not be
used. Although this is not a hard crash requiring a restart, it might as
well be. I would also like to cite the Macs memory mangement as great
failing of Mac machines. Although I like the control over memory that a
Mac affords, it shouldn't be necessary to do this.
Macs are kept in use much longer. I still know people making good use of
ci's (circa 1989) although I see fewer and fewer of them. I see no 386's
In general one thing that I have noticed is that a misconfigued mac with
major problems will continue to function, although sub-optimally. A
misconfigured PC with even minor problems will simply not start. I don't
which is a better approach. The mac approach means that a machine keeps
working and people can get their work done but people complain that macs
are slow and unstable. Windows machines just stop working and people cant
work on them at all until the machine is fixed to some extent. In my
experience macs and windows machines (not counting NT) are about equally
stable.
Victor Daniel
> It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
> user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
> an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time[....]
>
But why should an ordinary home computer user need the skills of a system
administrator just to make sure his/her Windows system is configured
properly? Why should he/she need the skills of a system admin to stabilize
the system after installing a new program or peripheral?
Most people just want their computer to work, and are lost when it
doesn't. Macs, for the most part, just work, even after adding to the
system. Home Windows systems usually just work too-as long as nothing is
ever added or taken away from them.
Victor Daniel
Do you use ClarisWorks or AppleWorks? Then try the
ClarisWorks/AppleWorks Email List-more info at:
<http://home.pro-usa.net/macnut/cwlist.html>
Brian Richardson
I agree, although to be objective, it's a lot easier to maintain and
stabilize a Mac once you've educated yourself beyond the newbie stage. That
said, I find it a lot more fun to experiment with apps on my Mac than the PC
I use at the office. I believe that's because I find it much easier to get
rid of every bit of an app that doesn't play nice with the Mac. With Windows,
you keep leaving crap strewn all over the system.
Alan Zisman
wrote:
> I find it a lot more fun to experiment with apps on my Mac than the PC
>I use at the office. I believe that's because I find it much easier to get
>rid of every bit of an app that doesn't play nice with the Mac. With Windows,
>you keep leaving crap strewn all over the system.
The key words here are "I find..."
You enjoy playing with your Mac more because you're more familiar with
the way it works.
Others have the same feelings about their PCs.
In a household with a PC and a Mac, both my (teenage) children prefer
to play and to work on the PC (which they used first)... even with
equivalent software like Word 97 and Word 98, they only use the Mac if
they have no other choice.
This is neither a criticism of the Mac or of my kids-- it's that they
became comfortable on the PC.
With Windows, I don't "keep leaving crap strewn all over the
system..." but that's because I know where Windows software likes to
'bury the dead bodies'.
But I know that I can't generalize from MY experience, MY skills
level, MY comfort zones to you to to everyone.
==========================================================
When replying, please replace 'nospam' with 'home' in the e-mail address!
-- Thanks!
Jerry Stratton
>You enjoy playing with your Mac more because you're more familiar with
>the way it works.
>
>Others have the same feelings about their PCs.
I don't. I was much more familiar with the PC than with the Mac when I
switched. I hated playing with Windows, and rarely did so, because the
slightest error would cause it to not connect with the Internet, or forget
how to talk to the monitor.
Hell, I'm still more familiar with Windows internet access than with the
Mac; when we get a call about a Mac that "just stopped talking on the
Internet" it is much more likely to be a network problem on our network;
than with Windows, where it is much more likely to be a setup problem on
the user's computer.
Chris Jernigan
years. Doing graphic design and web design. I eventually moved into
multimedia and video capture. The PC was crashing on my several times a day
causing me to lose work every time it crashed.
I bought a G3 and have never lost any work due to a crash. Never had one
single freeze even...I could never imagine 'working' on a PC again! I even
catch myself feeling extremely sorry for those poor people out there that
are still trying to accomplish things on such an unstable operating system
as Windows.
Chris
MacAddict in Tennessee
----------
In article <37F74F12...@home.com>, Brian Richardson <deb...@home.com>
wrote:
> Victor Daniel wrote:
>
>> In article <37F04918...@wfi-inc.com>, Aaron Finney
>> <A_Fi...@wfi-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not fair to blame a poorly configured system or a
>> > user's/administrator's ineptitude on the operating system. I have been
>> > an administrator for both platforms for a considerable time[....]
>> >
>>
>> But why should an ordinary home computer user need the skills of a system
>> administrator just to make sure his/her Windows system is configured
>> properly? Why should he/she need the skills of a system admin to stabilize
>> the system after installing a new program or peripheral?
>>
>> Most people just want their computer to work, and are lost when it
>> doesn't. Macs, for the most part, just work, even after adding to the
>> system. Home Windows systems usually just work too-as long as nothing is
>> ever added or taken away from them.
>>
>> Victor Daniel
>>
>> Do you use ClarisWorks or AppleWorks? Then try the
>> ClarisWorks/AppleWorks Email List-more info at:
>> <http://home.pro-usa.net/macnut/cwlist.html>
>
> I agree, although to be objective, it's a lot easier to maintain and
> stabilize a Mac once you've educated yourself beyond the newbie stage. That
> said, I find it a lot more fun to experiment with apps on my Mac than the PC
David Craig
(because in Canada Mac almost cost more then cars) and to leave my dying old PowerPC
upgraded LC630. Anyhow being extremely experienced I thought it wouldn't be much of a
problem to adjust to Windows 98............WRONG. How the hell can anyone get use to a
piece of shit OS that is hard to use, crashes all the time (when you play a game, video
off the net, using ICQ, netscape all the time and which never did on my old mac) plus you
get fucking Internet Explorer built right into your desktop so Microsoft can make sure
that it will uses a huge chunk of RAM all the time even though you don't need it all the
time. The whole system is F%$king bullcrap and is nearing the day were a baseball bat is
going to bust it into small pieces. Yes, it's true that PC have more software & games but
with horrible plug and play (absolute nightmare) and constant problems what's the real
advantage? I can reload the entire MacOS 8 on my LC 630 in a half hour were as if the PC
goes down hard expect to commit over two hours to install Windows and iron the bugs out
such as installing drivers that the BS plug and play can't find even though there plug
and Play compatible hardware.
Be smart by and iMac or any other Mac, it run all the software you'll ever need and it
won't give you the kind of BS problems that only a mixture of a cheap wintel box and M$
Windows can provide.
-David Craig
P.S. if anyones rich out there and feels sorry for me and my situation your more then
welcome to send a new PowerMac my way. A G4 perhaps?
Shawn Hardy
If ever you need to wonder why SO MANY people have bought PCs rather than Macs, I think you
just answered your own question: Price and Software.
IF I were to ever back up the PC argument of "what's better" (not that I would), "Price and
Software" (and nothing else, mind you) would win the argument.
As more and more users realize that the Mac OS is simply better (as many are today, which is
encouraging), Mac software will grow, and so will popularity for Mac products.
Steve Jobs has been working on the Pricing aspect with the consumer (iMac) and professional
(Blue and White G3/G4 desktop) models, and now Software, as Apple is keeping more in touch
with software developers (than in the past).
Note: If there is even a hint of hypocrisy in what I've said, it is only due to the fact that
I too am a PC user (being a student, and before the iMac, the PC was cheaper). Actually, it
is more "irony" than "hypocrisy", and I'm reminded of this everytime Windows crashes.
P.S. If you feel so strongly about your PC being substandard, why don't you just sell it and
get an iMac? But wait a moment -- you probably won't get much for your PC, right? :)
David Craig wrote:
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shawn Hardy
University of Waterloo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kurt E. Claussen
just feel like I must put my $0.02 in here because I have been a PC user
since 1986 or so.
I have been using a PC since DOS v1.0 came out on a 5.25" disk and the PC
was "that machine in the other room that can't play games NEARLY as well
as my Commodore 64".. (and for the most part I still do miss my Commie..).
I have used Windows since its first incarnation, and have always scoffed
at Mac users.
Little did I know what I was actually missing out on.
About 6 months or so, I bought a user PowerBook 5300c just so I could
familiarize myself with a Mac because I had never used one other then what
was in the library at college (and they were pretty horrendous.) I
absolutely fell in love. It was nice to have a computer that was SO
hassle-free. I really never knew at all what it was like to install
hardware/software and have it actually work without having to twiddle with
drivers, IRQs and such.
Anyhow, last month, I bought an iMac and I now just use my PC for burning
CDs, and that is only because I haven't gotten a CDR for my iMac.. but as
soon as I do, my PC is going to be a doorstop.. :)
I really applaud Apple for completely changing my views on what Apple is.
I am really impressed, and if things continue like they are, I will be an
Apple user for life.
Best money I ever spent! :)
Kurt
---
K. Claussen -- bayp@martnet..com -- http://www.martnet.com/~bayp/
4x4 4x4 4x4 whoops! *splash* winchwinchwinch 4x4 4x4 4x4...
In article <38160A57...@artsmail.uwaterloo.ca>, Shawn Hardy
Dan Musicant
wrote:
:As a poor University student I was forced to buy a cheap Pentium II box for school
:(because in Canada Mac almost cost more then cars) and to leave my dying old PowerPC
:upgraded LC630. Anyhow being extremely experienced I thought it wouldn't be much of a
:problem to adjust to Windows 98............WRONG. How the hell can anyone get use to a
:piece of shit OS that is hard to use, crashes all the time (when you play a game, video
:off the net, using ICQ, netscape all the time and which never did on my old mac) plus you
:get fucking Internet Explorer built right into your desktop so Microsoft can make sure
:that it will uses a huge chunk of RAM all the time even though you don't need it all the
:time. The whole system is F%$king bullcrap and is nearing the day were a baseball bat is
:going to bust it into small pieces. Yes, it's true that PC have more software & games but
:with horrible plug and play (absolute nightmare) and constant problems what's the real
:advantage? I can reload the entire MacOS 8 on my LC 630 in a half hour were as if the PC
:goes down hard expect to commit over two hours to install Windows and iron the bugs out
:such as installing drivers that the BS plug and play can't find even though there plug
:and Play compatible hardware.
:
:Be smart by and iMac or any other Mac, it run all the software you'll ever need and it
:won't give you the kind of BS problems that only a mixture of a cheap wintel box and M$
:Windows can provide.
:
:-David Craig
:
:P.S. if anyones rich out there and feels sorry for me and my situation your more then
:welcome to send a new PowerMac my way. A G4 perhaps?
:
Well, I just bought a G4 Mac for my father (sorry, David), and really
have hardly a clue how to use it. I'm a PC guy, and won't be changing
any time soon myself, since I earn my money writing software that won't
run on Macs. FoxPro used to support the Mac, but they gave up on it 2 or
3 years ago.
You are clearly very frustrated with the PC. I've fought many battles
with my PC's and eventually won them all one way or another, and am used
to that. Knowing how frustrating and confusing the PC can be, I decided
to get my mid-eighties dad a Mac. Hey, the guy has never had a computer
and I don't want him to have a bad experience.
However, I think that the PC is a lot easier to use than it used to be.
I wouldn't take the promise of plug and play too seriously. The thing
about the Mac (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the whole platform is
controlled by Apple and they make sure it works! The PC is an open
platform and there is no central development agent, so there is no
guarantee that the different hardware/software, etc. is going to work
together seamlessly, easily, etc. It's caveat emptor and you should do
some research before you buy a PC or get extra software/hardware for one
to make sure it will work. It's kind of an adventure! Macs are
expensive, and how! Even the iMac is costly compared to a PC and the 15"
screen is miniscule, I'm sorry. I am looking at a 17" monitor right now,
and it's starting to look pretty tiny as I have been using a 21" at work
for a few weeks now.
Dan
Jae of Orbland
> :
> Well, I just bought a G4 Mac for my father (sorry, David), and really
> have hardly a clue how to use it. I'm a PC guy, and won't be changing
> any time soon myself, since I earn my money writing software that won't
> run on Macs. FoxPro used to support the Mac, but they gave up on it 2 or
> 3 years ago.
Well why not learn to write software for the Mac? There is a strong demand for that there
too. Just a thought.
Dan Musicant
wrote:
:>
:> :
:> Well, I just bought a G4 Mac for my father (sorry, David), and really
The language I use is not supported on the Mac. Doesn't look like my
professional future is involved with Macs. However, my father will have
one in a couple of weeks when they deliver. I did plan to be a desktop
publisher, and in the event that worked out for me, a Mac would make
plenty of sense. However, the demand for programmers is greater than for
DTP people these days, and besides, I'm color blind, and that's a
serious handicap in DTP.
Dan
dbf
Are you the same DM who DJ'd at KALX??
Just curious...Reverend Fries here, now living in Amsterdam...
In article <381c7031...@news.swbell.net>, musi...@pacbell.net (Dan
Musicant) wrote:
Remove SPAMSUX from email address when responding
Dan Musicant
:
:Are you the same DM who DJ'd at KALX??
:Just curious...Reverend Fries here, now living in Amsterdam...
Oh, man! No kidding! It's you, the Reverend (Folks, he was a DJ on KALX,
Berkeley too). Yeah, I guess I heard you went to Amsterdam. In fact,
believe it or not I recall discussing this very fact with someone a few
weeks ago! Yep, it's me...
Yo, I was just at KALX last night, doin' a phone shift for the
fundraiser. Um, did ya know we're available via the WWW now? Realaudio,
I guess. Check it out, if you're into it.
How's life over there?
BTW, I don't have a regular show since my last show expired in May, but
I did a sub a few weeks ago.
Dan Musicant (How many Dan Musicant's do you think there are in the
world?)
:
:In article <381c7031...@news.swbell.net>, musi...@pacbell.net (Dan
Tony Belding
> Be smart by and iMac or any other Mac, it run all the software you'll ever need and it
> won't give you the kind of BS problems that only a mixture of a cheap wintel box and M$
> Windows can provide.
I've got a sort of unusual viewpoint on this, since I've used a lot of different systems,
including Amiga for almost ten years before that platform really laid down and died. I
doubt I will ever be happy with an OS, since I tend to want all the goodies and none of the
weaknesses from the various systems I've used before. That may not be realistic, but I
can't help feeling that way when I sit down in front of the computer.
Linux: I've spent a lot of years avoiding Unix and its variants (including Linux, of
course). Whenever I encountered it, I wound up smacking my head against the most
user-hostile system that could be imagined. I notice Unix and Linux advocates tend to be
hard-core hackers or professional programmers -- but I'm a user and occaisional programmer,
and I want nothing to do with it. Linux reminds me of Amiga OS 1.3 -- and I don't really
like the idea of stepping back ten years. Linux advocates keep talking about how Linux is
always being improved and will soon be made friendly enough for normal users to handle. But
they've been saying that for a while now, and nothing substantial has come of it IMHO. Sort
of like how Microsoft keep saying the *next* release of Windows will finally fix all the
problems....
Win98: Yes it's awkward, grossly inefficient, and highly trouble-prone. The headaches
caused by Wintel systems are legendary, and I've experienced my fair share of them. To be
fair, some of those problems can be traced to cheap systems built from sub-standard or
mis-matched components. Also, let's admit that Windows can be operated by somewhat normal
human beings, unlike Linux. The only thing about Win98 that I would consider an actual
strong point is the amount of software and technical support available for it. But that is
not really a big advantage over Macintosh. I mean, I used an AMIGA for about ten years --
compared to that, the support and products available for Macintosh seem like a wonderful
bounty!
Amiga OS: Okay, it's been neglected for a lot of years and is now very outdated. It could
sure use parallel processing support, lightweight threading, and memory protection, and a
lot of other things. It's also fairly tough to program. Still... Why does no other OS
have window depth gadgets? Why does no other OS have custom screens? Why does no other OS
have an understandable CLI? (No, I don't count MS-DOS or Unix command lines as being
understandable.) Why can't I find any programs like Directory Opus for other platforms?
This is stuff I really miss.
Mac OS: Great hardware, good support, much more understandable and trouble-free than Win98.
MacOS seems to crash or lock up for no apparent reason at least as often as Win98, though.
Actually more often, I think, but Mac OS scores points for avoiding the conflicts,
configuration problems, and unexplainable behavior that Win98 springs from time to time.
Mac OS doesn't have several thousand files in the system folder that *nobody* can figure out
the meaning or purpose of. On the other hand, Mac OS lacks of lot of goodies that I miss
from other systems (especially Amiga): there's no CLI shell, no custom screens, no
preemptive multi-tasking, and the memory management is a joke. Mac OS appears to make very
poor use of screen "real estate" compared to Amiga or Win98, and switching between apps is a
bit awkward.
I have been told that Mac OS X will finally fix some major problems with Mac OS (Does this
sound like a familiar story?) and bring in preemptive multi-tasking and dynamic memory
allocation. I don't know whether to be happy about this or disgusted that it took Apple 15
years to do it. This is stuff Amiga OS had since 1985. I'm naturally skeptical about
anything based on a foundation of Unix (actually MACH, I know), no matter how much pain is
taken to hide it from the user. I don't think it should be the destiny of every OS to
someday grow up and become Unix. I'm also worried that if I want to program the thing, then
I may have to dig underneath the friendly veneer and wrangle with the ugliness and wierdness
of Unix. Anyhow, time will tell the story on this.
I got a new iMac DV Special Edition. I decided the Mac may not be perfect, but it should
allow me to get my work done with the least hassles and headaches. So far that has worked
out OK. If I had bought a name-brand PC system (like Sony, maybe?) with Win98, would it
have worked out as well for me? I may never know the answer, but I haven't found any
reason to regret getting the iMac yet. It's a spiffy little machine! I don't know if I
will ever find an OS that I'm happy with all around (BeOS? QNX Neutrino?), but I think Mac
OS is about the best option widely available and supported today for most folks.
-- Tony Belding
Michael Anderson
I use NextStep on Intel hardware, and it is the most solid OS I've ever
used. It handles un-graceful app crashes so easily I can seldom believe it.
WinNT - the 'stable' WinOS - which is where I am typing now, has many
problems, but less so than Win95 and especially 98. My Mac at home is more
stable than my PC at home ... and still performs well despite its' age...
So, if MacOS X is anything like the OpenStep I've been using, be happy ...
be VERY happy ...!
Mike
Okke
> However, I think that the PC is a lot easier to use than it used to be.
> I wouldn't take the promise of plug and play too seriously. The thing
> about the Mac (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the whole platform is
> controlled by Apple and they make sure it works! The PC is an open
> platform and there is no central development agent, so there is no
> guarantee that the different hardware/software, etc. is going to work
hello dan, just to correct you. the ppc-platform is an open platform.
but when the ppcp was introduced apple set out how the standard was
used. altough i never used anything pc products in my mac(besides from
an ide hdd) it should all work. i once heard that some1 used a 'pc'
soundcard in his mac.
btw, to have an open system you have to have very strict rules how to
use something. so if someting doesnt work, the manufactor didnt follow
the rules, or the rules are bad.
think of the osi (open system intercommunication) differerent os,
applications, modems & the all work together if the right communication
protocol is used.
> Macs are expensive, and how!
more people said this. but expensive is a big word. when you compare a
dell, compaq or ibm pc with an apple you wont find a big price
difference. i believe that a large part of the price is due to the
components. i will show these by telling 2 stories.
1) 1 of my teachers bought a nameless pc & his powersupply didnt contain
a big enough 'circled wire' (what do you call it? L [H] ). so his
current wasnt controled enough. the current killed 2 monitors.
2) another nameless pc had a bad powersupply and jammed radio signals.
ofcourse there are also rumours that nameless pc's work fine.
last but not least, pc's & mac's both have problems every now and then.
on macs you just have them less often & often they're fixed before you
call them a 'problem'. i for one glady pay a few bucks more to get a
good night rest & loose my hair in a natural way.
didnt you bought your dad a mac for that last reason?
--
Okke <kro...@tref.nl>
ICQ 435 595 78
David Prescott
I have been in the computer industry for more than 15 years and started using the mac right
from the start. I've owned many machines from the early II series all the way up to the G3
and getting ready to move to the new G4.
I was instrumental in getting the MacMall and PC Mall catalog started as I was the Director
of Marketing for Creative Computers (MacMall and PC Mall - Nasdaq - MALL). After several
years with Creative Computers, I was recruited by Insight - (Nasdaq - NSIT) which is a 100%
PC reseller. My position with Insight was VP of Product Marketing and was responsible for all
of their marketing efforts and product management.
As a VP at Insight I was given a "top-of-the-line PC", loaded with RAM, lot's of Microsoft
software and hooked up to the network...great.
The first problem I noticed at Insight was that the network and computers crashed on a
regular basis. Not a good move with around 600 full time employees. The second problem I
noticed is that they needed a "team" to maintain their network, and at least half the time
support was slow, and it didn't always work. The expense of maintaining all of the PC's was
incredible. My machine never worked properly, had lot's of problems with printers, see files,
virus problems, cheap or bad boards and manufacturing...the list just kept going on.
I ended up performing a large amount of critical reports, advertisements, spreadsheets and
other various projects from my mac at home. Eventually, we ended up purchasing several macs
for the advertising/marketing department at Insight!
I eventually left Insight and started up my own web design/development company in Scottsdale
AZ. We have a small network (6 machines/ethernet) and do all of our publishing and work
strictly on Macintosh. We only use PC's to check our work.
Advantage - Macintosh
The initial cost of a mac may be higher. We don't use iMacs we use all desktops and towers
and have mostly 21" monitors. Example - a new G4 350 Mhz machine cost around $1500 and a 17"
monitor is around $300. Remember, a mac G4 at 350 Mhz is much faster than a 600Mhz PIII!! A
600Mhz PIII costs at least $1200, and the cost of the monitor is the same.
The thing to consider is the ongoing cost of using the machine.
In the entire 15+ years that I've been using the Mac I have only had to pay for help once,
and that was only $40 for someone to show me how to set up an ethernet network the first
time.
My company, AZ-Web, Inc. http://www.az-web.com works with small to medium size businesses,
most of which are using PC's. Everyone of the PC using companies has had to spend thousands
of dollars on support, repairs, network installation, and maintenance. I understand that
larger companies may need dedicated support for their network and machines, but companies
that have less than 5 employees should not have to hire a consultant to help them do many
standard type procedures.
How about security?
I have found that the Mac is a more secure platform for our needs. Since most users (and
hackers) use pc's, the mac is much less likely to be hacked.
How about software and hardware availability.
Yes, the PC has more junk...but that's about it. Most of the "major" applications are
available on both platforms. We use Microsoft Office, Adobe products such as photoshop,
pagemaker, image ready, premier, and various other products. We have found that their are
more than enough applications to do just about anything you could imagine on the mac. In
addition, you can always run virtualPC or SoftWindows and run all of the PC stuff you want
(although slower).
Finally, long term investment. If you bought a PC 5 years ago you might have been using DOS,
Windows 3.1, or maybe you were just getting ready to upgrade to win95. If you were using a
mac you were using system 7.X and the chances are that any software that you had then will
work on your brand new mac running the latest and greatest system software.
I hope this helps
:)
Dan Musicant wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:10:36 GMT, David Craig <daved...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> :As a poor University student I was forced to buy a cheap Pentium II box for school
> :(because in Canada Mac almost cost more then cars) and to leave my dying old PowerPC
> :upgraded LC630. Anyhow being extremely experienced I thought it wouldn't be much of a
> :problem to adjust to Windows 98............WRONG. How the hell can anyone get use to a
> :piece of shit OS that is hard to use, crashes all the time (when you play a game, video
> :off the net, using ICQ, netscape all the time and which never did on my old mac) plus you
> :get fucking Internet Explorer built right into your desktop so Microsoft can make sure
> :that it will uses a huge chunk of RAM all the time even though you don't need it all the
> :time. The whole system is F%$king bullcrap and is nearing the day were a baseball bat is
> :going to bust it into small pieces. Yes, it's true that PC have more software & games but
> :with horrible plug and play (absolute nightmare) and constant problems what's the real
> :advantage? I can reload the entire MacOS 8 on my LC 630 in a half hour were as if the PC
> :goes down hard expect to commit over two hours to install Windows and iron the bugs out
> :such as installing drivers that the BS plug and play can't find even though there plug
> :and Play compatible hardware.
> :
> :Be smart by and iMac or any other Mac, it run all the software you'll ever need and it
> :won't give you the kind of BS problems that only a mixture of a cheap wintel box and M$
> :Windows can provide.
> :
> :-David Craig
> :
> :P.S. if anyones rich out there and feels sorry for me and my situation your more then
> :welcome to send a new PowerMac my way. A G4 perhaps?
> :
> Well, I just bought a G4 Mac for my father (sorry, David), and really
> have hardly a clue how to use it. I'm a PC guy, and won't be changing
> any time soon myself, since I earn my money writing software that won't
> run on Macs. FoxPro used to support the Mac, but they gave up on it 2 or
> 3 years ago.
>
> You are clearly very frustrated with the PC. I've fought many battles
> with my PC's and eventually won them all one way or another, and am used
> to that. Knowing how frustrating and confusing the PC can be, I decided
> to get my mid-eighties dad a Mac. Hey, the guy has never had a computer
> and I don't want him to have a bad experience.
>
> However, I think that the PC is a lot easier to use than it used to be.
> I wouldn't take the promise of plug and play too seriously. The thing
> about the Mac (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the whole platform is
> controlled by Apple and they make sure it works! The PC is an open
> platform and there is no central development agent, so there is no
> guarantee that the different hardware/software, etc. is going to work
> together seamlessly, easily, etc. It's caveat emptor and you should do
> some research before you buy a PC or get extra software/hardware for one
> to make sure it will work. It's kind of an adventure! Macs are
> expensive, and how! Even the iMac is costly compared to a PC and the 15"
> screen is miniscule, I'm sorry. I am looking at a 17" monitor right now,
> and it's starting to look pretty tiny as I have been using a 21" at work
> for a few weeks now.
>
> Dan
--
David Prescott
C.E.O.
AZ-WEB, Inc.
http://www.az-web.com
Dan Musicant
:Dan Musicant <musi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
:
:> However, I think that the PC is a lot easier to use than it used to be.
:> I wouldn't take the promise of plug and play too seriously. The thing
:> about the Mac (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the whole platform is
:> controlled by Apple and they make sure it works! The PC is an open
:> platform and there is no central development agent, so there is no
:> guarantee that the different hardware/software, etc. is going to work
:
:hello dan, just to correct you. the ppc-platform is an open platform.
:but when the ppcp was introduced apple set out how the standard was
:used. altough i never used anything pc products in my mac(besides from
:an ide hdd) it should all work. i once heard that some1 used a 'pc'
:soundcard in his mac.
:btw, to have an open system you have to have very strict rules how to
:use something. so if someting doesnt work, the manufactor didnt follow
:the rules, or the rules are bad.
:think of the osi (open system intercommunication) differerent os,
:applications, modems & the all work together if the right communication
:protocol is used.
:
:> Macs are expensive, and how!
:
:more people said this. but expensive is a big word. when you compare a
:dell, compaq or ibm pc with an apple you wont find a big price
:difference. i believe that a large part of the price is due to the
:components. i will show these by telling 2 stories.
:1) 1 of my teachers bought a nameless pc & his powersupply didnt contain
:a big enough 'circled wire' (what do you call it? L [H] ). so his
:current wasnt controled enough. the current killed 2 monitors.
:2) another nameless pc had a bad powersupply and jammed radio signals.
:
:ofcourse there are also rumours that nameless pc's work fine.
:
:last but not least, pc's & mac's both have problems every now and then.
:on macs you just have them less often & often they're fixed before you
:call them a 'problem'. i for one glady pay a few bucks more to get a
:good night rest & loose my hair in a natural way.
:
:didnt you bought your dad a mac for that last reason?
Yes, my dad has about 20 times more money than I do, so although I'm
doing the decision making and ordering, he's going to write me a check
for my expenses. Actually, I was going to get him a PC, because I have
had only PC's ever since I got my first computer in July 1993, a 486DX33
with 4 MB RAM.
I figured that my dad could call me and I could walk him through most
problems, configuration, installation, etc. However, I was shopping for
big monitors (my dad's eyes aren't so hot, so I decided to get him a
21"), and was in CompUSA, and looking at a 21" that was on a G4. I got
in a conversation with the guy next to me and he told me he'd been using
PC's and Macs for years and I should definitely get my dad a Mac. I
thanked him, and walked out wondering...
Well, I had an impossible time finding a 21" monitor with a thumbwheel,
which I think is a very good accessory for someone with bad eyes (or
even good eyes), and found a used 21" .26 dot pitch Nanao with the
thumbwheel at eBay, but it was for the Mac. That decided it, and I bid
it and won and that's how the decision was made. It's a long story, but
without explaining it, well, how could I expect you to understand?
And, yeah, the more I think about it the more I like it. I hear Macs are
really easy to learn and users are not apt to have those problems that
drive PC users nuts once in a while. Nothing nutty has happened to me
for about a year now with my PC, actually, but getting my DSL to work
with my machine was a major tussle until I tried moving the Ethernet
card to another PCI slot. I guess my motherboard is kinda weird. My next
machine will be a PC, though, because I program in Visual FoxPro, and
Microsoft stopped supporting the Mac with VFP.
Dan
:
:--
WalterS
proven that the MAC is not easier to use then a PC. This is a common myth
supported by the "Wintel" haters of the world. MacWorld magazine did a vary
interesting test on this subject. They took a group of new computer users
who had little or no experience with either platform. The users where given
iMacs and Gateway2000 PCs still sealed in the factory boxes. The Gateway
proved easier to get on the net, that's right! a PC was easier to get on the
net then the iMac. The users had problems with both platforms trying to
figure out how to do simple tasks, like creating new folders and moving
files. To make a long story short, after all was said and done, the PC was
slightly AHEAD on ease of use by new users. The iMac was given the day as
having a more "elegant" interface however. (It was MacWorld magazine after
all) This test has been repeated several times and the outcome has been the
same. There is NO difference in ease of use between a Mac and a PC. Tests
have shown that on the whole, people prefer whichever platform they learn
first. As for crashes, I have seen plenty of Macs crash. I am sitting across
from a MacG3 using 1 OS (OS9) that has crashed more then my PC which is
running 6 different operating systems (Win98, NT4WS, NT4 Server, Windows2000
RC2, Redhat Linux and the BeOS 4, this on a lowly 200mhz PPro). Is my PC
better then the G3? NO! It all depends on what the operator does to the
machine. There is a machine where I work that started out with DOS 5. It
has been upgraded to 6.22, Win3.1, WFW3.1, then Win95 without doing a clean
install. This machine has been used every day and I can count the number of
times it has crashed on 1 hand. The operator used the applications she
needed and left the rest alone. There is also another, brand new machine
that has crashed several times in 1 day. The operator was changing all types
of system settings with out knowing what he was doing.
I have a friend who has a Mac 8100 that I can honestly say I have never seen
lock up or crash. He set up the machine the way he liked it and left it that
way.
Another friends G3 was recently upgraded from 8.5 to 9. I watched as 2 vary
experienced Mac users struggled for over 4 and a half hours to get OS9 to
work. They finally had to boot from the CD and rename the old system folder
to get it to work. This friend constantly played with every setting he could
find.
There is no "perfect" or "better" computer platform/OS. They all have their
problems and short comings. The final answer is to use what YOU like and to
he#$ with what others think.
Dan Musicant <musi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:381fd51f...@news.swbell.net...
WalterS
I never argue with an idiot, they only bring you down to their level, then
beat you with experience.
Phaedrus <Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:141119990759229763%Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid...
> In article <FMsX3.9362$ra7.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>, "WalterS"
> <walter-s...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate to burst the bubble of most of the people here, but it has been
> > proven that the MAC is not easier to use then a PC.
>
> That's right. But a MAC isn't a Mac. So screw off you PC troll.
>
>
>
> --
> Phaedrus <Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid>
> "Stupidity is its own reward."
> n.b. e-mail is neither desired nor possible
>
bell...@my-deja.com
I have had my iMac for over a week, and not one problem with its use. There
were several things that happened that could have been a potential disaster
if it were a PC; however, the Macintosh OS is so stable and secure that it
corrected the situation without a glitch. However, I had two PCs over the
past five years and both were a diastrous and extremely stressful experience.
I had nothing but problem after problem. I was on the phone with tech support
from the first day I opened the box and turned on the computer for multiple
OS related problems. After finally deciding to purchase an iMac, I sold the
PC (with no regrets), and have had nothing but good experiences with my iMac.
It is such a PLEASURE to use, and actually fun. I don't miss one thing about
the PC or Windows. In fact, I have Virtual PC on my Mac and use Windows (in
the event I need something from a PC program -- which is very infrequently).
Actually, Windows works better through the Macintosh operating system than it
does on a PC!!!
I love Macintosh, and will NEVER return to a PC again, not after the numerous
bad experiences I have had with them. Just my two cents worth! :) Mac is the
way to go!!!
In article <V8AX3.9869$ra7.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>,
"WalterS" <walter-s...@home.com> wrote:
>
> I never argue with an idiot, they only bring you down to their level, then
> beat you with experience.
>
> Phaedrus <Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:141119990759229763%Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid...
> > In article <FMsX3.9362$ra7.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>, "WalterS"
> > <walter-s...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I hate to burst the bubble of most of the people here, but it has been
> > > proven that the MAC is not easier to use then a PC.
> >
> > That's right. But a MAC isn't a Mac. So screw off you PC troll.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Phaedrus <Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid>
> > "Stupidity is its own reward."
> > n.b. e-mail is neither desired nor possible
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeremy Brown
> I hate to burst the bubble of most of the people here, but it has been
> proven that the MAC is not easier to use then a PC. This is a common myth
> supported by the "Wintel" haters of the world. MacWorld magazine did a vary
> interesting test on this subject. They took a group of new computer users
> who had little or no experience with either platform. The users where given
> iMacs and Gateway2000 PCs still sealed in the factory boxes. The Gateway
> proved easier to get on the net, that's right! a PC was easier to get on the
> net then the iMac. [snip]
In this study, they didn't say that it was 'easier', only that it was
quicker. To get online on the Mac the user had to use the internet set-up
assistant. That took a little longer than the Gateway user who just used
Gateway's ISP. They're both brain-dead to get on-line.
Didn't that study also prove that the pc was "harder" to get to print a
document out, because the new users couldn't get past the office assistant
in word?
Ciao,
Jeremy
Jeremy Webber
> MacWorld magazine did a vary
> interesting test on this subject.
Do you have a date, or better still, a URL for this article? I've seen
a lot of credible studies which favour Macs over Wintel on business
grounds such as total cost of ownership, return on investment, etc, but
have never seen a credible study saying the opposite (the Microsoft
comparisons are so biased as to be laughable).
An article in a Mac magazine which showed Wintel winning (on one measure
at least) would have at least a measure of credibility. I'd like to see
it.
-jeremy
WalterS
the only one asking for the article. The article is available at:
http://macworld.zdnet.com/1999/07/features/imacchallenge.html
It was the July 1999 issue, page: 69.
The final results where 6 to 4 in favor of the PC with 4 categories tying.
This is to other individuals who decided to send hate mail to my mail box.
It really amazes me that I have received so much hate mail from people who
support the battle cry of "Think Different" and claim to be "open minded"
and "enlightened". I never once said I hated the Mac, or that PCs where
better then Macs. I do not believe either platform is "better", period. I
have had online "discussions" with the "Mac suckz PC rulsez" crowd before,
on the side of the Mac. I use a G3 on a regular basis and have attended Mac
classes to judge the suitability of the content for my employer. I have
recommended Macs to friends who where looking for a computer, just as I have
also recommended PCs to others, depending on their need. A G4 is a beautiful
machine, but if all you want is to surf the net and e-mail, WebTV would be
cheaper and would meet your needs. On the other hand, if you do any heavy
duty video editing or graphics, the G4 is the way to go. (Should also make
one hell of a good game platform for the serious user).
The best analogy I have seen is Pizza delivery. You wouldn't use a brand new
Ferrari to deliver pizza when a 10 year old Chevy would work just fine,
would you? I deal with Mac and PC users on a daily basis, and can guarantee
you that there are people in both groups who should not be allowed near ANY
computer.
One last thing, Macs DO crash and there are problems with the OS. Apple has
shown that they will listen to the users and fix the bugs if they know about
them. If you refuse to acknowledge there are any bugs, then why should Apple
try to fix them? The more you complain about the short comings, the faster
Apple will add the new features everyone wants and remove the bugs that
nobody wants.
Jeremy Webber <jwe...@asc.corp.mot.com> wrote in message
news:tzemdsw...@asc.corp.mot.com...
> "WalterS" <walter-s...@home.com> writes:
>
> > MacWorld magazine did a vary
> > interesting test on this subject.
>
WalterS
Phaedrus snipped 99% of the message. You only saw the first sentance which
could be taken out of context.
<bell...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:80nbco$qsq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "WalterS" <walter-s...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > I never argue with an idiot, they only bring you down to their level,
then
> > beat you with experience.
> >
> > Phaedrus <Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:141119990759229763%Phae...@NOSPAM.net.invalid...
> > > <walter-s...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
been
> > > > proven that the MAC is not easier to use then a PC.
> > >
Jeffrey W Ryan
> Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
> Newsgroups: alt.macintosh,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:51:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: Should I buy a PC or a Mac?
> My only
> qualm on the Mac is it's OS. The hardware is wonderful but an OS that doesnt
> have half decent multitasking or memory management (hah, try and get an iMac
> with 32 MB RAM running photoshop, you can do it on a PC running Windows)
You can do that on a Mac. Macs do have virtual memory, and we also have some
issues with memory management, I'll agree. Memory management on the Mac
requires the user to get info, memory and then set it. Was that so hard? I
would say we are at least half decent. Still, I wish the memory for the OS
was protected already. OS X gives that to us.:)
> and
> restricts the user from customizing the GUI is not acceptable. Perhaps Mac
> OS X Consumer will solve a few of these things, but I seriously doubt it.
Do you know what UNIX is capable of? Surely you do since you use Linux.
Memory management that is unheard of on a Mac, will be the staple of OS X.
Pre-emptive multi-tasking, cooperative multi-tasking, prioritization of
memory allocation via the user as well. The GUI thing...we can do some.
Fonts, menus, icons, views, etc. We can't change colors as easily
though..about the only thing I see that is restrictive on the Mac OS.
Everything else is similar but different as far as customization. The menu
on the Mac is where I feel we are quite superior, where it is much easier to
provide access to anything and everything.
> The Mac's great hardware is masked by a truely shitty OS.
So, you have used them at school. I used an NT box for quite a while, and
aside from memory management, I can't find anything that NT could do that my
Mac doesn't do better. NT Workstation that is. And, OS X Consumer will shoot
past NT Workstation, if not Server in their respective tasks. I know OS X
Server already beats NT Server in many areas, such as webpage serving, etc.
Truly *#$*$ OS says more about you, than the OS.
Mac is not perfect, but it's not perfectly bad either. Trolls do nothing
more than show the extremes of their emotions, rather than facts that can
support their opinions. One troll once said that it has been proven that the
Mac is harder to use than a PC. Where was the link to the scientific, double
blind study? Well, the reply was never even responded to, so who knows.
Typical.
Geert Middelman
Jeffrey W Ryan <jeff...@ispchannel.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
B464BD30.1467F%jeff...@ispchannel.com...
the
> Mac is harder to use than a PC. Where was the link to the scientific,
double
> blind study? Well, the reply was never even responded to, so who knows.
> Typical.
>
>
>
My reasen for using a mac is to be different from the rest of the world
Andrew
Jeffrey W Ryan wrote:
> support their opinions. One troll once said that it has been proven that the
> Mac is harder to use than a PC. Where was the link to the scientific, double
> blind study? Well, the reply was never even responded to, so who knows.
> Typical.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andrew Leonard
Nov. 15, 1999 | Never mind whether Microsoft
actually threatened to cut off Netscape's air supply, or
whether it sneakily ensures that its own software
applications work better with Windows than any other
company's programs do, or even if it illegally
strong-armed computer manufacturers into including
Internet Explorer on new computers. That's all
window dressing, so to speak. I got a fresh view of why
Microsoft bugs me a couple of days ago, after I
bought a new laptop.
The computer, a Sony Vaio 505TR, is the most
beautiful high-tech gadget I've ever owned -- straight out
of my science-fiction dreams, an ultraslim
burnished silver objet d'techno-art. I'll come clean: One of the
reasons I bought this model was that I knew that
Linux hackers were in love with it; reportedly, it is
completely compatible with GNU/Linux, from modem
to power management to CD-ROM drive. But all
that free-software compatibility, while nice, is
nothing compared to the sheer joy I feel every time I
glance at this finely engineered marvel. I just
want to hug it.
The impulse to hug, however, quickly vanished
when I turned on my Vaio. What was the very first thing
I was forced to do with my new computer? If you
guessed "kowtow to Redmond" you've just won yourself
a new mousepad. Because before I could so much as
twiddle on the touchpad, I had to enter the Windows
98 "Certificate of Authenticity" Product Key --
30 letters and numbers proving that I had the right to
start using the computer I had just bought.
Excuse me? Who owns this computer? Me, or
Microsoft? I felt insulted, and then angry. Now, I'm aware
that technically adept readers will suggest that
before powering on, I should have inserted a boot-up
floppy or bootable CD-ROM disk, and wiped the
hard drive clean before installing a different OS. But I
kind of wanted to take a look around -- get a
glimpse of what software had been installed, find out how
fast the processor cranked, take the touchpad for
a spin, etc. -- before performing major surgery. Instead,
I got a bald reminder of just who holds the reins
of power in my computer. It's not me, certainly, not
even the computer maker, but the operating system
manufacturer.
To the non-technical user, the operating system
and the computer may seem one and the same. You buy
the computer, it has Windows installed, and you
just have to unlock it before you can enter. To me it
seemed as if I'd bought a house and the
electrical system was demanding to see my deed of ownership
before I could enter the door. Basically, it was
flat-out rude.
Moments later, Windows prompted me to register
online. If I did so, I could get set up for online OS
updates without having to clumsily search out and
install various patches. Sounded like a reasonable
thing to do, so I agreed. But after having
agreed, Microsoft informed me that all the personal
information I was about to input would be made
available to Microsoft "and its affiliates."
No "check this box if you don't want your
personal information available." Nope -- to get the online
software updates, you've gotta give up the
personal info -- that was the quid pro quo, take it or leave it.
Now, I'm not opposed to giving something up in
return for a benefit gained -- but again, this was just
plain rude. Microsoft talks a great deal about
wanting to serve its consumers -- but this consumer just felt
like he'd been slapped in the face twice, within
minutes of turning on his new computer. A company
under as much pressure from its competitors, not
to mention the federal government, ought to know
better. It ought to be bending over to make my
first experience with its software pleasurable, instead of
painful.
So, I'll be installing Linux as fast I can --
even though, for my primarily word-processing purposes,
Microsoft Word, running on Windows, is hands-down
a better experience than any Linux-based
operating system can yet offer me. There will be
bugs, all kinds of unforeseen complexities, a steep
learning curve and plenty of geeky frustration,
but through it all I'll just remember the words that
scrolled onto my monitor the first time I
successfully installed the Debian GNU/Linux kernel:
"Happy Hacking!"
Bill? Are you listening?
salon.com | Nov. 15, 1999
Andrew
Andrew wrote:
bref: Get a mac, get a PC...but DON'T get Windows
Geert Middelman
Andrew <and...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
384111C3...@hotmail.com...
> bref: Get a mac, get a PC...but DON'T get Windows
>
what else: Linux: that's not for simple users