I have just been wiping and upgrading my daughters All-in-one MAC, it was her Uni machine and she told me its useless for "serious gaming", and personally I think it is useless for a lot more things, so its going on eBay or to CEX.
Don't get me wrong its a very nicely designed bit of kit if you are a bit arty and think in a certain illogical way, so I am sure it will be snapped up by someone who adores Apple MAC computers, and who is probably a hater of PCs (the Marmite bit).
After two hours prodding and poking the OS to no avail I had a fresh cup of coffee and thought "what is the most stupid way they could have done this", and guess what its worked. :doh:
The one thing I will say in its credit the OS upgrades don't hit brick walls where the motherboard is no longer suitable, something Windows could learn from.
Anyway it's gone for sale and I am now chilling out in front of my "bank" of PC's. 8)
We used to run macs at work back in the day, but moved to PCs just cos engineering design programmes lived there. They were way better than PCs at user friendliness, but we now have an iMac equipped home computer that I struggle to understand! It works well with the 5 iPhones and various iPads that live in our house though.
Donald
QuoteDon't get me wrong its a very nicely designed bit of kit if you are a bit arty and think in a certain illogical way
You should see the arty illogical way I develop in C on my Macbook. (Very probably won't be buying another one now they've remove the ESC key though).
.
PS I also have a PC running Linux if it helps.
:D
Quote from: railsquid on July 15, 2017, 11:51:49 AM
QuoteDon't get me wrong its a very nicely designed bit of kit if you are a bit arty and think in a certain illogical way
You should see the arty illogical way I develop in C on my Macbook. (Very probably won't be buying another one now they've remove the ESC key though).
.
PS I also have a PC running Linux if it helps.
Absolutely useless for gaming, twice the price for half the spec of a PC, snotty customer service and when it goes bang forget it.
But they look quite nice.
Having tried them almost 20 years ago, BoxTunnel has returned to and stayed with the Personal Computer, but if I ever get Billy Gates in a room I will have a word or two...
Graham. :)
Having worked in IT for my whole career, I gave up on windows machines five years ago and got a Mac. It's pretty much consumer electronics, just works. I resent having to spend any of my precious spare time having to sort out problems with Windows, or just waiting half an hour while it does an update.
But, as the title implies, chacun à son goût, as the French don't say.
I dont have much bother with Windows apart from the annoying
"Don't switch off as we are doing an update" which appears
almost daily, in fact it once appeared on a brand new laptop I bought.
The thing that drove me nuts when I tried to use a Mac laptop was the absence of a Delete key.
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
The thing that drove me nuts when I tried to use a Mac laptop was the absence of a Delete key.
Fn + Backspace.
Next!
Being slightly less facetious, as a long-time Mac user (started around 1990) the Delete key, as opposed to the Backspace key, is one it's taken me over two decades to get around to bothering with! I admit that being able to delete things going forwards through the word, as opposed to the Backspace deleting backwards, is pretty helpful. But for the longest time I didn't even think about trying! I guess having a mouse to move the cursor, then backspace-deleting, became my default.
Quote from: Yet_Another on July 15, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Having worked in IT for my whole career, I gave up on windows machines five years ago and got a Mac. It's pretty much consumer electronics, just works.
The brilliance of the modern Mac is that superficially yes, it looks like any other bit of high-end consumer electronics. But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother. Virtual machines allow you to run Windows software alongside either Mac OS X or UNIX, and you can also boot a Mac into Windows if you really must.
There are irritations to be found in Apple's approach to desktop and portable computing, but unless "bang for your buck" is your only concern, modern Macs are rarely bad choices.
Cheers, NeMo (back in the day, a regular contributor to Macworld and Macformat, so admittedly biassed!)
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother.
So how does that differ from a PC? PCs can all run Linux, which is UNIX-based. Just curious...
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 05:02:47 PM
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother.
So how does that differ from a PC? PCs can all run Linux, which is UNIX-based. Just curious...
Standard PC can boot into either Windows or UNIX = 2 options (but only one option, Windows, normally provided with the PC by default, meaning that whatever flavour of UNIX/Linux required has to be added afterwards)
Standard Mac can run Mac OS X, Windows and UNIX = 3 options (of which 2 are available right out of the box, Mac OS X via the Finder, and UNIX via the Terminal)
Not saying three operating system options is necessarily
better for the average home user than the two options possible with a generic beige box PC, but it certainly offers a full 50% more options! :P
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
The thing that drove me nuts when I tried to use a Mac laptop was the absence of a Delete key.
Fn + Backspace.
Next!
Being slightly less facetious, as a long-time Mac user (started around 1990) the Delete key, as opposed to the Backspace key, is one it's taken me over two decades to get around to bothering with! I admit that being able to delete things going forwards through the word, as opposed to the Backspace deleting backwards, is pretty helpful. But for the longest time I didn't even think about trying! I guess having a mouse to move the cursor, then backspace-deleting, became my default.
Who needs backspace when you have Ctrl-H? ;)
One of the nice things about the Mac for those of us with a more logical persuasion is the pervasiveness of Emacs-esque key bindings through many "normal" applications.
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
Quote from: Yet_Another on July 15, 2017, 04:02:23 PM
Having worked in IT for my whole career, I gave up on windows machines five years ago and got a Mac. It's pretty much consumer electronics, just works.
The brilliance of the modern Mac is that superficially yes, it looks like any other bit of high-end consumer electronics. But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother. Virtual machines allow you to run Windows software alongside either Mac OS X or UNIX, and you can also boot a Mac into Windows if you really must.
There are irritations to be found in Apple's approach to desktop and portable computing, but unless "bang for your buck" is your only concern, modern Macs are rarely bad choices.
I started with Macbooks many years ago as I needed a laptop with a proper OS and at the time Linux was tricky to get working properly on laptops; the combination of not having to waste time messing with that combined with the longevity of the hardware (current one is 6 years old), and at the time excellent battery life, have given quite excellent bang for my buck. Unfortunately Apple seem to be going full-on consumer gadget company and the latest round of Macbooks don't appeal at all (stupid touch bar in place of ESC/function keys, insipid hardware specs, forced donglisation of useful things like SD card slots), and Linux has come a long way so will probably consider something else once the current one is finally past it.
By strange coincidence opening the NGF and reading this thread is the first thing I have done with my new Mac - having just bought it from the Apple Store in MK. Wish me luck!
Cheers Jon :)
I only have an iPod Classic but have enough issues with the iTunes library to last me a lifetime.
My Mum has an iPad and loves it, especially for the security aspect.
I think the main gripe with Apple is they stick 2 fingers up to the rest of the computing fraternity and it's 'their way or no way'
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 05:02:47 PM
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother.
So how does that differ from a PC? PCs can all run Linux, which is UNIX-based. Just curious...
Ok a bit of history.
The first Unix V PC compliant versions ran on Motorola 68000 family processors which by coincidence was the processor of choice for the first Mac computers. This is where the Lynix Mac association came from but is now somewhat out of date. I know this because I worked on the first port of Unix on a PC (1981).
Most modern Mac computers are almost identical in design and structure to PCs not least because they all now use Intel processors.
You can run Mac OS on a PC and vice Versa and Lynix on either as long as the I/O is configured correctly.
The prime difference remains the ethos of the different OS versions.
In 1983 the VP Marketing for Apple explained it as follows.
PCs are built by engineers to be used by engineers. Mac computers are designed for lay people who need to do clever things but don't want to know how it is done. He then turned to his VP of engineering and in a quiet aside said "most people are going to be too stupid to own a PC so they are going to buy a Mac".
And there you have the Apple marketing strategy neatly summarised.
NB note the date he said it and look what has happened.
Quote from: railsquid on July 15, 2017, 05:17:06 PM
Unfortunately Apple seem to be going full-on consumer gadget company and the latest round of Macbooks don't appeal at all (stupid touch bar in place of ESC/function keys, insipid hardware specs, forced donglisation of useful things like SD card slots), and Linux has come a long way so will probably consider something else once the current one is finally past it.
I couldn't agree more. I'm writing this on a Late 2011 MacBook Pro, and while the current model is a bit faster, it lacks things, like a CD/DVD drive, USB 2 slots, and especially the magnetic power cable that I can't quite live without -- and fail to see the logic of removing!
I'm not convinced Apple still view the Mac operating system as the "crown jewel" it once was, and over the last couple of years their hardware has been innovative in some ways, but lacklustre in others. I'm hoping the next generation Mac Pro will indicate a return to form, but I'm not holding my breath. On the other hand, I have to use Windows at work, and Microsoft hasn't convinced me to jump ship yet!!!
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
You can run Mac OS on a PC and vice Versa and Lynix on either as long as the I/O is configured correctly.
Installing Windows on a Mac is trivially easy via either Apple's own Bootcamp or a third-party virtualiser like Parallels; doing the same thing on a generic PC is not easy --
and more to the point, is completely illegal.Microsoft sell their operating system to be installed on whatever you want; Apple sell Mac OS X expressly for their hardware. We can argue the merits of this as fellow geeks, but at the same time we should be up-front about the legality of it.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 05:02:47 PM
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
But that overlooks the fact it's a genuine UNIX machine capable of running UNIX software and operating systems without too much bother.
So how does that differ from a PC? PCs can all run Linux, which is UNIX-based. Just curious...
Ok a bit of history.
The first Unix V PC compliant versions ran on Motorola 68000 family processors which by coincidence was the processor of choice for the first Mac computers. This is where the Lynix Mac association came from but is now somewhat out of date. I know this because I worked on the first port of Unix on a PC (1981).
Most modern Mac computers are almost identical in design and structure to PCs not least because they all now use Intel processors.
You can run Mac OS on a PC and vice Versa and Lynix on either as long as the I/O is configured correctly.
The prime difference remains the ethos of the different OS versions.
In 1983 the VP Marketing for Apple explained it as follows.
PCs are built by engineers to be used by engineers. Mac computers are designed for lay people who need to do clever things but don't want to know how it is done. He then turned to his VP of engineering and in a quiet aside said "most people are going to be too stupid to own a PC so they are going to buy a Mac".
And there you have the Apple marketing strategy neatly summarised.
NB note the date he said it and look what has happened.
You are aware that it's not 1983 any more and OS X is a fully certified UNIX (https://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification/)? Though as stated above, unfortunately it looks like history is repeating itself and Apple is dumbing itself down.
QuoteYou can run Mac OS on a PC and vice Versa and Lynix on either as long as the I/O is configured correctly.
What on earth does "
as long as the I/O is configured correctly" mean, and what is "Lynix"?
Quote from: escafeld on July 15, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
In 1983 the VP Marketing for Apple explained it as follows.
PCs are built by engineers to be used by engineers. Mac computers are designed for lay people who need to do clever things but don't want to know how it is done. He then turned to his VP of engineering and in a quiet aside said "most people are going to be too stupid to own a PC so they are going to buy a Mac".
And there you have the Apple marketing strategy neatly summarised.
And Apple's marketing strategy was so successful that Microsoft bailed them out in 1997
Yes the statement was a red rag to Microsoft and they went out of their way to try and kill off Mac OS. Having said that it was only windows 7 and Windows 10 (forget Windows 8 ) that have started to offer the generic usability offered by Mac OS.
As for legality of cross platform OS installs, its a complete minefield, not least as there are shareware "Mac OS" synthetic OS variants around for PC, which are not tied to an Apple licence and as yet Apple has not tried to legally block them - yet. But we are really in Geek territory here.
QuoteWhat on earth does "as long as the I/O is configured correctly" mean, and what is "Lynix"?
Bad spelling :D
I/O is how the software talks to the hardware (Input/Output), which is physically different in PCs and Mac computers.
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 05:45:44 PM
As for legality of cross platform OS installs, its a complete minefield
No, it's really not a minefield in the sense of being a grey area open to interpretation. If you try to install a copy of OS X you bought from Apple or its nominated resellers (the only legal sources) then you have broken the license. End of story.
There is no minefield at all with install Windows on a Mac. Microsoft will be more than happy to sell you a copy!
Quote from: escafeld on July 15, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
And Apple's marketing strategy was so successful that Microsoft bailed them out in 1997
Not quite. Time for some history, boys and girls. Mid 90s Apple was certainly in a bad place. Losing market share. While contemporary versions of the Mac OS were miles better than MS-DOS, and arguably still much better than Windows 3.1, the gap between the Mac OS and Windows 95 wasn't nearly so obvious to the casual user. (Arguably, there wasn't a massive gap at all, but let's leave that for now.)
But while Microsoft certainly looked in a very strong position, it was actually a victim of its own success, and Microsoft needed to
not look like a monopoly. More critically, an ongoing lawsuit between the two companies was causing both of them serious grief, and it wasn't obvious Microsoft would win. The investment by Microsoft in Apple was in some ways a personal deal between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who if they didn't exactly like each other certainly understood one another and had a long history together. Anyway, the deal wasn't so much saving Apple but more "putting the past behind them" via mutual agreements on technology (putting the legal issues to rest) while simultaneously allowing Microsoft to argue, correctly, it wasn't a monopoly and therefore not subject to anti-trust laws.
Far more important, in some ways, than the shares bought in Apple (a mere $150 millions' worth) was the promise by Microsoft to continue with a Mac version of Office. This allowed companies and schools to keep buying Apple computers with the knowledge they'd still be viable for the next few years.
Microsoft did sell their shares eventually, getting a nice profit out of it, but Steve Ballmer was never a fan. He felt they should have let Apple die.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 06:05:03 PM
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 05:45:44 PM
As for legality of cross platform OS installs, its a complete minefield
No, it's really not a minefield in the sense of being a grey area open to interpretation. If you try to install a copy of OS X you bought from Apple or its nominated resellers (the only legal sources) then you have broken the license. End of story.
There is no minefield at all with install Windows on a Mac. Microsoft will be more than happy to sell you a copy!
Quote from: escafeld on July 15, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
And Apple's marketing strategy was so successful that Microsoft bailed them out in 1997
Not quite. Time for some history, boys and girls. Mid 90s Apple was certainly in a bad place. Losing market share. While contemporary versions of the Mac OS were miles better than MS-DOS, and arguably still much better than Windows 3.1, the gap between the Mac OS and Windows 95 wasn't nearly so obvious to the casual user. (Arguably, there wasn't a massive gap at all, but let's leave that for now.)
But while Microsoft certainly looked in a very strong position, it was actually a victim of its own success, and Microsoft needed to not look like a monopoly. More critically, an ongoing lawsuit between the two companies was causing both of them serious grief, and it wasn't obvious Microsoft would win. The investment by Microsoft in Apple was in some ways a personal deal between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who if they didn't exactly like each other certainly understood one another and had a long history together. Anyway, the deal wasn't so much saving Apple but more "putting the past behind them" via mutual agreements on technology (putting the legal issues to rest) while simultaneously allowing Microsoft to argue, correctly, it wasn't a monopoly and therefore not subject to anti-trust laws.
Far more important, in some ways, than the shares bought in Apple (a mere $150 millions' worth) was the promise by Microsoft to continue with a Mac version of Office. This allowed companies and schools to keep buying Apple computers with the knowledge they'd still be viable for the next few years.
Microsoft did sell their shares eventually, getting a nice profit out of it, but Steve Ballmer was never a fan. He felt they should have let Apple die.
Cheers, NeMo
Don't disagree, but minefield is Mac OS clones that have not been challenged and could be challenged some day. A lot of businesses run these clones especially in the US.
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 06:18:53 PM
Don't disagree, but minefield is Mac OS clones that have not been challenged and could be challenged some day. A lot of businesses run these clones especially in the US.
If you're talking about the licensed Mac clones of the mid 90s, such as those from Power Computing, then yes, that's an interesting bit of history right there. If I recall correctly they were limited to 603 and 604 processors, so unlikely to be able to run any version of OS X without serious difficulty (OS X needs at least a G3 processor, and modern versions are Intel processor-specific).
If you're talking about Hackintosh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86), then they're interesting, but definitely not legal. The courts have more or less consistently agreed with Apple on that one -- in the US, at least.
Apple did, in fact, have its own plans to produce the Mac for Intel processors all the way back to the mid 80s, though the most serious attempt was 'Star Trek' during the early 90s when it wasn't clear that Motorola's family of 680x0 processors was going to keep pace with Intel's x86 family. Came to nothing, of course, but the history of this project is particularly interesting and at the time the stories that emerged from Cupertino and made their way into Macworld were fully indicative of Apple at the time. Plenty of politicking between departments and managers, brilliant ideas, money being lost all over the place, and all sorts of great innovations failing to make it into the real world.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 06:29:46 PM
Quote from: Snowwolflair on July 15, 2017, 06:18:53 PM
Don't disagree, but minefield is Mac OS clones that have not been challenged and could be challenged some day. A lot of businesses run these clones especially in the US.
If you're talking about the licensed Mac clones of the mid 90s, such as those from Power Computing, then yes, that's an interesting bit of history right there. If I recall correctly they were limited to 603 and 604 processors, so unlikely to be able to run any version of OS X without serious difficulty (OS X needs at least a G3 processor, and modern versions are Intel processor-specific).
If you're talking about Hackintosh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86), then they're interesting, but definitely not legal. The courts have more or less consistently agreed with Apple on that one -- in the US, at least.
Apple did, in fact, have its own plans to produce the Mac for Intel processors all the way back to the mid 80s, though the most serious attempt was 'Star Trek' during the early 90s when it wasn't clear that Motorola's family of 680x0 processors was going to keep pace with Intel's x86 family. Came to nothing, of course, but the history of this project is particularly interesting and at the time the stories that emerged from Cupertino and made their way into Macworld were fully indicative of Apple at the time. Plenty of politicking between departments and managers, brilliant ideas, money being lost all over the place, and all sorts of great innovations failing to make it into the real world.
Cheers, NeMo
If the rumor mill is to be believed Apple are reconsidering a PC based Mac OS to boost their software sales and to back off their reliance on their own hardware designs which are struggling. The view in the valley is they are letting some of the clones run unchallenged to gauge the market uptake. Pert of the reason is that Windows 10 has forced tighter compliance of design by the hardware manufacturers. The other rumor is that Apple will licence a second source manufacturer soon.
How do you switch it off? ??? I'm not joking...any suggestions?
Cheers Jon :worried:
Quote from: PostModN66 on July 15, 2017, 07:36:37 PM
How do you switch it off? ??? I'm not joking...any suggestions?
Cheers Jon :worried:
Shut down, from the Apple menu at far left. You'll find Sleep and Restart there, too.
Generally, avoid shutting down or restarting unless you have to. Each time a computer (of any sort) restarts, there's a jolt of power that goes through the circuitry. Ages components faster than waking them up from Sleep. At least, that's what I've always been told!
Cheers, NeMo
Thanks Nemo!
Cheers. Jon :)
All electronics benefit from being left in standby rather than switched off. Failures often occur at start up, however the cost of leaving some domestic equipment on is quite high, sometimes in just the risk of fire from the build up of heat and dust on components.
Quote from: NeMo on July 15, 2017, 04:51:22 PM
Quote from: keithfre on July 15, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
The thing that drove me nuts when I tried to use a Mac laptop was the absence of a Delete key.
Fn + Backspace.
Next!
AHA!
my life has just changed. :beers:
Not to fan the flames at all, but I can't believe were still arguing this after all these years! :)
I've been in IT of one sort of another all my life, for the record, the first Mac I used was a Mac plus in 198wibblewibble and have had one model or another for since (with a brief couple of years with a PC due to work commitments). I've used all sorts of PCs and Unix machines over the years and I can safely say
I just don't care anymore! :) :) I just want something that works easily and I think OSX still has the edge over windows (I use a PC in work.. so I can compare them)
I do think apple have dumbed things down too much in the last couple of years with OSX, and I haven't actually turned my iMac on for a couple of months (do most of my internet stuff on my iPad)
What I really get hacked off with though is people who claim the Mac is good for Artsy stuff but anything serious or engineery needs a PC / Unix box (implying anything serious cant be done on a mac). I have 5 years of doctoral research in Artificial Intelligence exclusively using a Mac which would give lie to that claim grrrrrrrrrr :veryangry: :veryangry:
Anyhow, these days I'd rather do something a little more analog
'Discussions' about whether Linux, Windows. Macs, PC,s Unix or whatever is better come up from time to time and often end in slanging matches.
'Mines better than yours'!!!
Ultimately people use whatever they feel comfortable with and quite often they are most comfortable with whatever they started out with. That, IMHO, is because you learn to use one device/OS and any other device is 'different' which is quite often translated as 'worse'.
At the end of the day does it all really matter at all? Whatever device/OS we use we all manage to communicate effectively on this Forum!!!
;) :beers:
Quote from: austinbob on July 18, 2017, 09:22:09 AM
Ultimately people use whatever they feel comfortable with and quite often they are most comfortable with whatever they started out with. That, IMHO, is because you learn to use one device/OS and any other device is 'different' which is quite often translated as 'worse'.
At the end of the day does it all really matter at all? Whatever device/OS we use we all manage to communicate effectively on this Forum!!!
;) :beers:
Hi
I think the above sums it up very well.
I have always used a PC but when my son started his architecture course he bought a Mac book. I just couldn't get on with it because it doesn't work in the way I am used to but that doesn't mean its an inferior product.
Similarly I have always had an iPad as my tablet. My wife recently bought an Android powered tablet and I have issues with it because it isn't what I'm used to.
Given time I could learn how to use the alternatives but life is too short so I stick with what I know.
Cheers
Paul
Quote from: PaulCheffus on July 18, 2017, 09:39:29 AM
Quote from: austinbob on July 18, 2017, 09:22:09 AM
That, IMHO, is because you learn to use one device/OS and any other device is 'different' which is quite often translated as 'worse'.
;) :beers:
I think the above sums it up very well.
On one level, yes, that's probably true. People who drive 'stick' and people who drive 'automatic' often debate which is better, but there's certainly some truth to the idea people enjoy driving whatever type of car they're most used to.
But on another level, there are parallels to our beloved model trains. We all prioritise things differently. Some people want detail first and foremost, while others want bulletproof reliability. Some are budget-conscious, while others with deeper pockets don't mind paying for the best possible quality. Some of us value DCC, others see it as a pointless complication, so find the addition of complex circuits 'just one more thing to go wrong'.
Apple Computer definitely prioritises certain things: industrial design and a seamless operating system/hardware interaction to give a couple of examples, but isn't so bothered about price or upgradability. So if you want a computer that's cheap to buy and easy to fix/upgrade, then an Apple computer isn't for you. PC manufacturers run the whole range from those manufacturers like Sony who had Apple-ish attention to detail, right through to the generic beige box makers who build to a price, and let the user chop and change components as they want.
It's all horses for courses, really. Where these discussions turn sour is when people INSIST that their priorities (for example, being a good gaming machine) is the be-all and end-all of what a computer's about, and dismiss the values that others look for as being irrelevant or misguided.
Just the same as when someone says Union Mills are the best manufacturer because their locos can haul 127 wagons up a 1-in-5 slope. Might be important to you, but not to someone else. Indeed, I'd argue a model loco marketplace without Union Mills, Farish and Dapol actively competing (and before long Revolution and DJM joining in) would be a poorer place to be. Likewise the computer marketplace would be worse off too, if we didn't have Apple doing it's thing, while Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba and all the no-name beige box outfits did theirs.
Cheers, NeMo
I switched to a Mac about four years ago, I was absolutely fed up with the constant downloads from Microsoft and wasting hours while they installed and configured.
Neither did I want to have buy and install all the anti virus and anti malware that is an extra ongoing cost to buying a PC that people seem to forget about.
I only updated the OS once at no cost and am unlikely to bother updating it again because it just works.
Also a new Mac comes with a 12 month freephone number if there are any problems.
Yes my MacBook did seem expensive,but the case is machined from a solid piece of aluminium and not just some plastic mouldings that flex.
My partner just got a new Windows 10 laptop, about half the price of a Macbook, it's nice but not up to the quality of my old Macbook.
As usual it comes loaded with bloatware and Mcafee anti virus which will be removed when the 30 days expires,I'll have to dowload a tool to do this because Windows uninstaller can't totally remove it.
At least that will stop the constant pop ups to purchase it.
Already the updates have started to be required and as usual it's hit and miss whether any devices will install without jumping through hoops and needing to go to the manufacturers to get the latest drivers.
I found that with the Mac things just work out of the box as it were.
Allan
Quote from: Bikeracer on July 18, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
I found that with the Mac things just work out of the box as it were.
Hi
That's because Apple has complete control over the hardware, Microsoft do not.
Cheers
Paul
Here's an interesting analysis of Mac and windows software/hardware. Its based on multi user survey and its about 4 years old (so mostly Windows 7/8 comparisons).
http://lifehacker.com/mac-vs-windows-your-best-arguments-486125257 (http://lifehacker.com/mac-vs-windows-your-best-arguments-486125257)
For those who don't want to read it all here's the summary.
"The Bottom Line
You can discuss the pros and cons of Macs versus Windows PCs in great detail, but here's what it comes down to according to you. Most of you recommend Macs for the following reasons:
Macs offer a more straightforward approach to computing with fewer maintenance tasks
Macs have fewer viruses and security issues (with the caveats mentioned in the relevant section above, of course)
Macs can provide a UNIX-like experience and also have commercial applications
Macs software, on average, focuses more on its user interface and making your experience enjoyable than Windows software does
Other Apple devices work best with Apple computers
Conversely, you recommended Windows PCs for these reasons:
Windows PCs provide lots of flexibility and customization (with both hardware and software)
Windows PCs offer support for cutting-edge hardware
Windows has more software available than any other platform
Windows offers great backwards-compatibility
Windows provides a great gaming experience thanks to great hardware support and lots of games
Windows offers better options for music production
Windows is the same platform most of the world uses
On average, you felt both platforms were equal in the following categories:
Ease of learning
Good for designers"
Enjoy.... :) :) :beers:
QuoteWindows offers better options for music production
:smiley-laughing:
so erm why do so many recording studios run macs?why are some of the top mixing desks remote software only available for mac or ipad? Maybe windoze has finally caught up ,but for serious,and not so serious music production the tool of choice was always a mac.
Aren't religious discussions a breach of the forum code of conduct? :sleep:
Quote from: themadhippy on July 18, 2017, 01:43:53 PM
QuoteWindows offers better options for music production
:smiley-laughing:
so erm why do so many recording studios run macs?why are some of the top mixing desks remote software only available for mac or ipad? Maybe windoze has finally caught up ,but for serious,and not so serious music production the tool of choice was always a mac.
I am merely pointing out the results of an independent survey. How you interpret the results or whether you accept them is entirely up to you.
:beers:
Quote from: austinbob on July 18, 2017, 02:36:43 PM
Quote from: themadhippy on July 18, 2017, 01:43:53 PM
QuoteWindows offers better options for music production
:smiley-laughing:
so erm why do so many recording studios run macs?why are some of the top mixing desks remote software only available for mac or ipad? Maybe windoze has finally caught up ,but for serious,and not so serious music production the tool of choice was always a mac.
I am merely pointing out the results of an independent survey. How you interpret the results or whether you accept them is entirely up to you.
:beers:
Numbers don't mean quality. There are a *lot* of options for music production (and a lot of home studios) but the more professional ones have always tended to be Mac based. A lot of that used to be from the OS and hardware suiting it more (faster, more high end, hard drives that could reliably keep recording speed, an OS that wasn't interrupting things at random and mucking up the timing, plus of course the more reliable/ easy to use OS that let you get on with things). Lately it's down to the simple mean time between failure and easy maintenance and the history of the pro end music developers working on the Mac.
The same has always gone for the whole "More software for Windows" thing. There's always been more of it, Windows was the world's most pirated software (encouraged quietly by MS no doubt as if everyone has your OS you control the market), so there was always more people writing stuff for it, unfortunately most of it was rubbish. The same as phone apps nowadays. There's a lot of them, but finding the ones you want that do the job properly is always a challenge.
I love them both! :P :P
(http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/53/941-180717173715.png) (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=53494)
Quoteand for a long time the market leader
as far as pro studios go it still is,theres several young pretenders on the market including logic,cubase and reason that have tried but avid still rule the roost,pity there live desks are :-X
I date from the days that I used to occasionally help in a shop that sold Apple 2, and Tandy computers, Meanwhile I built the UK 101 for myself and for sale ( almost aka the Ohio Superboard).
I've never got that enthusiastic about apple, mostly they are overpriced for what they do.
And I don't like Marmite
My first one was the Apple Mac Classic II. Loved it, and was really useful for my school coursework. My next door neighbour worked for Kings College and had a top of the range Mac, which made mine look like absolute rubbish! LOL They were sooo much better than PC's which were everywhere. Just so expensive. I went to a dealer to buy a really good one (about 1995) and they quoted me £4000! So, that's when I had to go to PC World and got a PC.... :'( A Pentium II, 233mhz. It crashed constantly, as did every laptop and PC I owned up to about 2004.
Edit:- I just remembered that for my GCSE art I did a picture of a fruit bowl where all of the fruit had a bite mark and rainbow colours. Which I'd kept it!
Quote from: The Q on July 20, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
I've never got that enthusiastic about apple, mostly they are overpriced for what they do.
See this is where my comment about priorities is important. Yes, an Apple OS X computer is an expensive UNIX-based workstation if you're happy enough to get down-and-dirty with Linux.
But if something other than raw processor speed, RAM and hard drive statistics are important, an Apple computer can be good value. Seamless integration with peripherals, attractive and easy to learn GUI, generally good reputation for longevity, very few real world security risks, and so on -- these are all typical Apple selling points. If these matter to you, an Apple OS X system "isn't overpriced for what it does" because those are things you're happy to pay for.
Quote from: The Q on July 20, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
And I don't like Marmite
Me neither!
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on July 20, 2017, 11:43:45 AM
Quote from: The Q on July 20, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
I've never got that enthusiastic about apple, mostly they are overpriced for what they do.
See this is where my comment about priorities is important. Yes, an Apple OS X computer is an expensive UNIX-based workstation if you're happy enough to get down-and-dirty with Linux.
But if something other than raw processor speed, RAM and hard drive statistics are important, an Apple computer can be good value. Seamless integration with peripherals, attractive and easy to learn GUI, generally good reputation for longevity, very few real world security risks, and so on -- these are all typical Apple selling points. If these matter to you, an Apple OS X system "isn't overpriced for what it does" because those are things you're happy to pay for.
Quote from: The Q on July 20, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
And I don't like Marmite
Me neither!
Cheers, NeMo
Not to mention pretty good resale value too. I hear "overpriced" a lot (especially in the UK) for a lot of things. Usually it means "I don't want to spend money and I'm quite happy to sacrifice quality or my time to avoid it"
Or I'm not going to spend vast amounts of money on something that do no more than something costing half the amount.
Quote from: The Q on July 23, 2017, 07:51:35 AM
Or I'm not going to spend vast amounts of money on something that do no more than something costing half the amount.
Precisely. It's about priorities. The current MacBook Pro line is expensive, and in part Apple almost certainly are deliberately pricing themselves at the premium end of the market. That's a strategy that's work extremely well with the iPhone.
Whether they're overpriced though depends on whether what you want from a portable computer can be satisfied with a cheaper machine. Apple's argument would be that their innovative features, such as the Touch Bar and extremely high quality Retina display, provide value above the processor speed and RAM allocation. If not, then a laptop costing 30-50% less might do perfectly well.
It's a bit like comparing a Ford to an Audi. Both will get you from A to B, both will comfortably reach the 70 mph speed limit on British roads, and both will carry four people in comfort. But nobody in their right mind would say they offer the same driving experience, or that the build quality and components used in these two cars would be identical.
We have a Ford Focus, because when it comes to cars, that's what offers the features we need at the price we can afford. But others will prefer the Audi because they either value different things or can afford to spend more on their cars.
Cheers, NeMo
I am not quite sure of that analogy , alot of audi components also feature in Seat and Skoda at a budget price
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on July 23, 2017, 10:24:18 AM
I am not quite sure of that analogy , alot of audi components also feature in Seat and Skoda at a budget price
And there are plenty of widgets and screws in a MacBook Pro you could find in a generic PC laptop. The difference is how they're put together and those components they don't have in common.
If I gave you the choice between a mid range Audi and a mid range Seat, which one would you pick?
That's the difference.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on July 23, 2017, 10:27:25 AM
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on July 23, 2017, 10:24:18 AM
I am not quite sure of that analogy , alot of audi components also feature in Seat and Skoda at a budget price
And there are plenty of widgets and screws in a MacBook Pro you could find in a generic PC laptop. The difference is how they're put together and those components they don't have in common.
If I gave you the choice between a mid range Audi and a mid range Seat, which one would you pick?
That's the difference.
Cheers, NeMo
If it were a gift the Audi , if I were paying for it the SEAT , and that's the point I don't waste money unnecessarily.
Quote from: The Q on July 23, 2017, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: NeMo on July 23, 2017, 10:27:25 AM
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on July 23, 2017, 10:24:18 AM
I am not quite sure of that analogy , alot of audi components also feature in Seat and Skoda at a budget price
And there are plenty of widgets and screws in a MacBook Pro you could find in a generic PC laptop. The difference is how they're put together and those components they don't have in common.
If I gave you the choice between a mid range Audi and a mid range Seat, which one would you pick?
That's the difference.
Cheers, NeMo
If it were a gift the Audi , if I were paying for it the SEAT , and that's the point I don't waste money unnecessarily.
If you were buying to pootle down to the shops every day then the SEAT makes sense. If you're blasting up and down motorways, doing long distance travelling abroad etc. then then extra money on the Audi makes sense.
The analogy with cars is always a bit of a vague one, but generally speaking if you're someone who needs to use a Mac or benefits from using one, it's not wasting money (all my Macs have paid for themselves fairly quickly).
Quote from: The Q on July 23, 2017, 12:18:56 PM
If it were a gift the Audi , if I were paying for it the SEAT , and that's the point I don't waste money unnecessarily.
Indeed, the analogy was based on you having a free pick of either of them. And absolutely, for most people the Apple computer might be expensive relative to what they're willing to spend and what they need the computer for.
But for others, the 'value-added technology' is worth paying for. For example, if you're doing graphics, then a generic screen isn't as good as a high end one (like the Retina display on the MacBook Pro). A comparably appointed Windows laptop could be found, but it won't be a bargain basement $500 rig you'd pick up at Asda/Walmart!
What I'm saying is that the use of the word "waste" in your reply is the bit where we disagree. Choosing an Apple computer isn't a "waste" if the value-added technology is stuff you appreciate or need. Indeed, you might be someone who simply likes the upmarket image that Apple cultivates partly through marketing, and partly through better design. And that, my friend, is where we come back to parallels with luxury market motor cars. Steve Jobs was a huge fan of BMW, particularly their motorcycles, and saw Apple very much as doing with computers what the Germans do with their cars -- design them well, build them well, and yes, market them well.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Zwilnik on July 23, 2017, 12:28:51 PM
. . . (all my Macs have paid for themselves fairly quickly).
totally agree :thumbsup:
Quote from: Pengi on July 24, 2017, 08:59:17 PM
Quote from: Zwilnik on July 23, 2017, 12:28:51 PM
. . . (all my Macs have paid for themselves fairly quickly).
totally agree :thumbsup:
Absolutely, they are the best platform for launching PC ransom-ware :thumbsup: :D :D
Interesting review of MacBook Pro alternatives in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/26/what-are-the-best-macbook-pro-alternatives (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/26/what-are-the-best-macbook-pro-alternatives)
:beers: