Moving to Apple?

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10648479
Apple has always cost more, although in recent years not as much as they used to.

I think they may find it hard to justify the costs now that they're on intel processors rather than IBM PowerPCs.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10648479
For me, other than loving the MBP hardware, it's really all about OS X for me.

I've installed OSX on my home built system. It takes some research into hardware compatibility, but it can be done. Google hackintosh.

The main thing Apple has going for it, in my eye, is that they don't burden themselves with compatibility. Microsoft promises backwards compatibility up the wazoo (due to many of their business clients) and they write an OS that has to work on a huge variety of hardware. Apple isn't saddled with any of that. In addition, Apple only builds systems with close to top of the line hardware. Net result: it works well.

Fun, fun!

Of course, the Apple "premium" for hardware goes a long way back -- the big deal was the proprietary system that you couln't just go to the computer store and upgrade, whereas PC users could upgrade and rebuild with good low-price parts. I haven't checked the Apple way for a while -- did the move to Intel change this a lot? I know that Apple charges a premium for parts, but you can also get, say, regular memory cards -- how about other stuff, like adding I/O, for example? Can you get "off the shelf" stuff to upgrade?

But the appreciation for Apple products has been well-earned -- an elegant and robust OS goes a long way with users. It still had a good reputation before OSX. In fact, I saw part of a discussion with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, actually sitting down with each other, and Bill Gates had nothing but praise for the quality of the innovation that Jobs has led Apple into.

Now, Apple users also have for many years promoted the "security" superiority over Windows. I'd say that's a mixed bag. Windows has grown more secure over the years as they moved from single user systems into a "real world internet" system, but they are always going to be subject to people probing and attacking them because they are the "big target". Apple on the other hand (and Unix/Linux) were not bothered because they were so small compared to MS -- nobody bothered. But as Apple grows in its position due to the iPod/iPhone/iPad explosion, well, I'd say the target grows on them as well. And correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we actually seen viruses crop up on Macs?

But a problem that still seems to be there is the "closed" OS, or maybe just the fact that it's still a smaller market. Apple has had great products, especially for the "creative" types (art, video production) but has always followed behind in the diversity of products available. I know it's been coming along, but has the Apple system "opened up" more to outside programmers? I know that Microsoft has had a pretty open platform for programming from back in the MS-DOS days, maybe even more open than Unix was (less protection). Things have tightened up security-wise in Windows, for sure, but still you have some great programming tools that allows you to develop powerful Windows apps, not just "scripts" -- and here I'm ignorant -- does Apple have programming platforms that allow a user to fully develop apps from the ground up?

Totally agree, Marc.

I've dabbled with Hackintosh stuff in the past, but I'm basically down to one portable solution, and for that, the top of the line 17" MBP does really well for me. I upgrade it every 1.5 to 2 years. Been doing that since the last iteration of the 17" Powerbook. As I said, it works really well for me.

I can set it and forget it.

tonylong wrote in post #10648977
I know that Apple charges a premium for parts, but you can also get, say, regular memory cards -- how about other stuff, like adding I/O, for example? Can you get "off the shelf" stuff to upgrade?

As long as you're buying hardware which is supported by the OS, you can buy off-the-shelf (I believe). Hard drives are a no-brainer. Video cards you're pretty much restricted to whatever specific cards are available in the Mac, but you can probably save *a little* buying from a vendor like newegg rather than paying Apple to install it.

tonylong wrote in post #10648977
Now, Apple users also have for many years promoted the "security" superiority over Windows. I'd say that's a mixed bag. Windows has grown more secure over the years as they moved from single user systems into a "real world internet" system, but they are always going to be subject to people probing and attacking them because they are the "big target".

Definitely true. MacOS represents what, 5% of the PC market (just a wild guess there)? If that suddenly changed and it was like 48/48/4 MacOS/Windows/Linux, you'd see a ton of viruses, spyware, etc. written for Apple.

Blackwood wrote in post #10649226
Definitely true. MacOS represents what, 5% of the PC market (just a wild guess there)? If that suddenly changed and it was like 48/48/4 MacOS/Windows/Linux, you'd see a ton of viruses, spyware, etc. written for Apple.

What's interesting, though, is going to college--I thought I would be in the minority buying a Mac, but what ended up happening is an enormous percentage (at least 30%, sometimes up to 50%) of people in class had Macs. And I don't even go to an art college, but a predominately engineering school...and still, people buy Macs.

It made my day when I walked into class last year and could see unbroken lines of 7+ MB/MBPs, all lined up in a row.

I don't really try to convince people away from Apple or PC. I figured if they're leaning one way or another, they'll go with what they want.

I've used both systems, and have switched back to PC for a few reasons.
1. I can get a more powerful PC for what I need/want for less than an Apple.
2. I am heavily invested in PC shortcut keys already. I don't want to relearn a bunch of new shortcuts.
3. I think Steve Jobs is a tool.

Macs are nice though - they are more stylish than a PC, and come with a bunch of software. I don't have any use for their software, so I don't really consider it a bonus. The styling is nice though.

I think in general, if you're not starting fresh, Macs are probably more intuitive to learn. I have spent a lot of time with PCs, so it was difficult for me to unlearn all my habits.

I think it would be fun to build a "hackintosh" - PC parts with OSX on it, but that would just give PC hardware power.

Do I think one is "better" than the other. No. Whichever works for you is better.

Macs are definitely easier to shop for. There's limited choices, so you can just pick whatever Apple's brilliant marketing department wants you to buy. The part that irritates me is that they "update" their computers with 2 year old parts, and put a cool marketing spin on it, and manage to sell it for a huge markup.

PC shopping can hurt your head because you can find so many different combinations and specifications. You can buy age old crap, or cutting edge tech, but damned if you gotta sort through it all and find what you want.

Sorry for the rant.

levitening wrote in post #10649483
What's interesting, though, is going to college--I thought I would be in the minority buying a Mac, but what ended up happening is an enormous percentage (at least 30%, sometimes up to 50%) of people in class had Macs. And I don't even go to an art college, but a predominately engineering school...and still, people buy Macs.

It made my day when I walked into class last year and could see unbroken lines of 7+ MB/MBPs, all lined up in a row.

That's because college is full of people who are very concerned with image and don't have to pay for their own stuff. Let me rephrase. When I was in college, people with jobs and paying their own tuition and rent had PCs. People who were on the parent's tab had nice jelly bean colored computers.

That's exactly the point for Apple, if you think about it. By having a proprietary system, and "requiring" you to buy "Apple-approval-stamped" hardware and software, they can guarantee the operation of their computers and peripherals. That's why they often take first place in customer satisfaction surveys. That's why people say It just works.

imahawki wrote in post #10649646
That's because college is full of people who are very concerned with image and don't have to pay for their own stuff. Let me rephrase. When I was in college, people with jobs and paying their own tuition and rent had PCs. People who were on the parent's tab had nice jelly bean colored computers.

I do realize that, and that is very true. However, the fact that Apple is that prevalent means we are going to have a whole lot of people who potentially got "hooked" on Macs in college who use them down the road. It's not so much that they own one mac, but that they have been exposed to and gotten to know OS X. I see Apple's market share going up for quite some time.

Apple's market share has continued to grow. They've also gotten some converts from their device sales (iPod, iPhone, etc.) My comments in this thread have never been about the quality of Apple products, their market share, etc. just my objection to the fallacy that Apple computers aren't more expensive when they are and every comparison I've seen is either ULTRA high end or picks some ridiculous component (like an $1,100 monitor) to even the prices out.

levitening wrote in post #10649483
What's interesting, though, is going to college--I thought I would be in the minority buying a Mac, but what ended up happening is an enormous percentage (at least 30%, sometimes up to 50%) of people in class had Macs. And I don't even go to an art college, but a predominately engineering school...and still, people buy Macs.

It made my day when I walked into class last year and could see unbroken lines of 7+ MB/MBPs, all lined up in a row.

When I was in school, I saw practically no apple computers. (Engineering degree from a school with a large engineering program).

I won't try to claim the validity of this... just a quick google result, but it seems that as of last december, Windows was outselling OSX 90 to 5. I have no idea whether that accounts for individual license upgrades, entire systems bought, etc..

http://arstechnica.com …ista-overtakes-mac-os.ars

In any case, I think you'd have to see something like 20% marketshare going to Apple's OS before the majority of virus writers would decide it's worth their effort.

The stats at the end of that article are interesting. Mac OS users seem to upgrade to the newest version at a far faster rate than Windows users. I assume because it is cheaper? I also think that MS finally really hit the mark with XP and I personally have had NO OS related issues since XP. Even though Vista was much maligned, my Vista laptop (that I'm typing this from) has been flawless and my Windows 7 machine rocks.

More Yes, but How Much More?
Apple stuff costs more overall, you will not get any debate from me about that... What I do find incorrect is the assertion that they cost a *lot* more (and admittedly a lot is quite subjective). When an Apple product is released is when it's the most cost competitive, but over the life of the Apple product it becomes less and less competitive because Apple doesn't adjust their prices until they typically replace a product. Also as others have noted Apple is not looking to make cheap, they produce a premium product where quality of design trumps value engineering (most of the time) and I think if premium PC/Windows stuff is compared to Apple's offerings the Apple will cost more, I just don't think it costs a *lot* more.

I also think what is lost on a lot of 'spec heads' that just compare GB, Ghz, etc. is that they miss the intangable aspects of how elegant and easy OS-X and the Apple hardware is to work with, and that Apple provides an OS that comes with most of the software people will need. So for me when you compare the part for part as well as understand that there is something of value that doesn't exactly translate well to a spec sheet (and that includes customer service) I think it's easily worth the minor (minor being a realitive term right) price difference. For some folks it isn't and that's totally fine... find what works for you and go with it. It's not like the quality of ones images is limited by the operating system they choose to use when editing.

Side Blathering (feel free to ignore):
One last thing I do find annoying is that almost all of the Apple haters thing that most everyone who buys an Apple product does so because they are clueless and wanted to look 'cool' and were sucked in by Steve Job's slick marketing machine, and that there is no real 'techie' reason that anyone would buy a Macintosh or that they might not have a valid 'real' reason for deciding that Mac was the right answer for them. These folks are usually such Steve Job's haters that it's also hard for them to talk about Windows and Mac without logic flying out the window.

Back in the dot.com days I managed the technology infrastructure of an interactive design/development firm where I and our staff had to make 50 Mac OS 9 and OS-X clients play nice with almost 200 Windows desktops in a native Active Directory world. So with my job title the developers and designers figured I was the referee for every Mac/Windows debate one could imagine for almost four years. Personally there is merit to choosing either platform, each one does some really amazing and powerful things, and each one has some profound short comings. To simply pick one system and blanket poo-poo on the other reflects IMO an over simplitic ignorance to the other system (the same goes for blathering about Nikon vs. Canon... I mean if you can't take good photos with the one system your probably equally hopless with the other system, and most Canon vs. Nikon debaters fall into this 'skill level').

Something I've found interesting is that in my current 'day job' while most of the ten people on my team spend all day long doing server/storage architecture with IBM P6 series systems and buying HP DL series hardware by the dozen, when they go home at night most folks compute at home on Apple products (MBP's, iMac's and Mac Pro's)... So it seems it's AIX, Solaris, Linux and Win 28K if they are getting paid to work on it and OS-X if they aren't and I don't think these bunch of nerds are doing it because they are the clueless Apple faithful.

I can play the @#$% measuring game!

I worked as a server admin myself in a large network (4000+ users) and had to deal with two departments of Apples play nice with the PC crowd. I did that for 4 years. It wasn't fun.

I can say I don't like making Apple products work with PC products quite easily without integrating my distate (and respect) for Apple's marketing machine.

Most of my technical friends usually work with PCs because that's the majority of the audience for work. If you're programming/working with Apple, it's probably because you're making something pretty (art/production related) or are making games on iPhone/iPad. I know a few that do develop Apps for Apple though. They're really smart guys. You have to be to program for Apple. It's hard!

I had a hard time using my Mac even when using boot camp, because when I programmed for PC I had a pretty keyboard missing a bunch of keys, and a mouse that needed a keystroke to function with my context menus.

I like the Mac for home use, surfing, design, etc because it's pretty to look at in my home space, but when I need to work, I like something more designed for function over form.

I kinda think Alienware is like the Anti-Mac. It markets extreme power (with weird ass form) over Apple's simple elegance (but relatively weak specs). Both are super expensive and are way overpriced marketing pieces. If I had excess cash to burn...which way would I go? The new iMac (July 2010) won't run the games I want to play at the monitor's native resolution with enough FPS to not piss me off. I can build a PC with the LCD screen (Dell u2711) for a couple hundred more but with WAY better specs an play the games easily, and yet, I still think about getting an iMac...now isn't that fantastic marketing! If Apple just put in some of the hardware I can choose (even if it costs more - I like a pretty computer too!), I might actually get one, but I can't stand how I have to get what Apple thinks is good.) The last time I owned a Mac, was because the Macbook Pro's specs happened to be what I was looking for.

Anyway, all this ranting and raving makes me realize, I stick with PCs because I can make/request/order them how I want to, and with an Apple, I'd be stuck with what someone else tells me is good. Perfect for a lot of folks. "I want the pretty silver computer with the bigger Gee Bees."

Isn't it awesome how Apple always wanted to be different, but then now, you just have a bunch of people all banding together to say how great it is to be different together, in the eyes of good ol' Jobs?

None of this post makes any sense. I just started typing, jumping around, typing some more, and crap. I'm gonna log off now. I'm tired from a long days work trying to make Apple play nice with PC. (Just kidding - I only work PC now.)

imahawki wrote in post #10649961
Mac OS users seem to upgrade to the newest version at a far faster rate than Windows users. I assume because it is cheaper?

Maybe, or maybe because Microsoft's monthly patches serve much the same purpose as Apple's less regular refreshes.