So what you are saying is that there are different products that fit different user's needs?
Was I ever saying anything else?
I'm spending most of my time here opposing opinions that one solution is, by default, design and divine rights, much better than the other and same applies to everyone - only difference is some people are enlighten and some are not... yet.
Platform choice is completely personal, and everyone who thinks that one is undeniably better than the other is uninformed and overconfident fool. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is matter of everyone's personal preference to decide what is more important and which platform has it.
Roughly speaking... some people will prefer style, more luxurious materials and better looks, exclusive software not available on other platform, dramatically lower exposure to viruses and will not worry about price premium.
Some people will prefer more raw power for the money (or same power for less money), bigger choice of software in general, native gaming, more hardware options and will not worry about viruses.
Both groups are right, as long as they keep in mind that what works for them will not necessarily work for everyone else.
It still shouldn't prevent us from having civilised discussion about what we see as advantages of our chosen platform... \
Platform choice is completely personal, and everyone who thinks that one is undeniably better than the other is uninformed and overconfident fool. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is matter of everyone's personal preference to decide what is more important and which platform has it.\
Actually for the majority of Windows users, it's not about choice, but what was shoved in their faces. It's NOT choice, it's knee-jerk. Default. It's what you're SUPPOSED to use.
A lot of thought goes into choosing to use Macs over Windows. There are some psychological adjustments, but as far as actually USING a Mac, it's simply a better, more solid experience. The computer gets out of the way and lets you do what you want to do.
The main Windows advantage is some vertical market software and gaming. And if you're into building your own machine from scratch, you can do that with, I've heard, relative ease.
Quote:
Roughly speaking... some people will prefer style, more luxurious materials and better looks, exclusive software not available on other platform, dramatically lower exposure to viruses and will not worry about price premium.
Some people will prefer more raw power for the money (or same power for less money), bigger choice of software in general, native gaming, more hardware options and will not worry about viruses.\
Actually, the Macintosh user experience is about total integration of Mac OS X, Mac hardware and Mac software. Apple has stringent User Interface Guidelines that (hopefully) guide programmers to create apps that integrate with the rest of the Macintosh ecosystem.
So-called "raw" power, isn't necessarily controlled and directed power. There's a big difference. There is a massive amount of power working with a fully integrated system vs. a hodgepodge of hardware, OS, drivers, software and on-the-fly "unique" GUI decisions for nearly every software package.
This kind of total integration is IMPOSSIBLE on the Windows side.
So, until you have real exposure to the Mac user experience, you'll never really know what it's all about.
Some people like spending their days and weekends tinkering with their cars, some don't.
(Me? I don't even own a car!)
Quote:
Both groups are right, as long as they keep in mind that what works for them will not necessarily work for everyone else.
It still shouldn't prevent us from having civilised discussion about what we see as advantages of our chosen platform... \
Yes, but there IS a difference here. The majority of Mac users have been forced, in some capacity, to use Windows. I'd guess that the opposite does NOT hold true with Windows users.
So, when Mac users complain about Windows, we generally have a point of reference. I've heard numerous Windows users rag on the Mac, but when asked about their specific experiences (OS version, hardware, etc.) the answer the majority of the time is they've never used a Mac or not a CURRENT Mac running Leopard or even Tiger.
Those types of "opinions" have zero credibility, zero validity.
BTW: I've used Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista. AND every Mac System version since 1985.
Those fools at Consumer Reports were tricked by the "pretty cases" on computers that have the "same guts" as every other computer. Don't they know Macs are for "idiots who can't operate a PC"?
I hope Consumer Reports made it clear that Macs aren't for technically savvy people. They're just for people who need a simple computer. You can't do anything complex with UNIX. Just surf and email photos.
Actually for the majority of Windows users, it's not about choice, but what was shoved in their faces. It's NOT choice, it's knee-jerk. Default. It's what you're SUPPOSED to use.
One doesn't negate the other. You can have Windows "shoved" in your face at work, but still decide to use it or not at home. I don't think too many (if any) people taking part in this forum are in shoved only, no-choice category.
Quote:
A lot of thought goes into choosing to use Macs over Windows. There are some psychological adjustments, but as far as actually USING a Mac, it's simply a better, more solid experience. The computer gets out of the way and lets you do what you want to do.
Can't argue with that since I didn't experience Mac properly. I do believe it works that way for Mac users. I don't think, though, it is universal - nothing is.
Quote:
The main Windows advantage is some vertical market software and gaming. And if you're into building your own machine from scratch, you can do that with, I've heard, relative ease.
True that. Box I've recently built hasn't got weak point hardware wise, performance wise is in higher league than any iMac and was significantly cheaper. Once I complete it with new monitor and graphics card, it will round at NZ$2500. Have I selected to go for mid-quality components, I could have easily shaved off extra NZ$500. Cheapest iMac 24" is around NZ$3300.
Quote:
Actually, the Macintosh user experience is about total integration of Mac OS X, Mac hardware and Mac software. Apple has stringent User Interface Guidelines that (hopefully) guide programmers to create apps that integrate with the rest of the Macintosh ecosystem.
Another thing I can't argue without proper time spent on Macs. I'm not questioning Mac has such integration, but where I am right now, can't really imagine how much better is that from what I have with Vista... because my personal Vista experience is great, both hardware and software wise.
Quote:
So-called "raw" power, isn't necessarily controlled and directed power. There's a big difference. There is a massive amount of power working with a fully integrated system vs. a hodgepodge of hardware, OS, drivers, software and on-the-fly "unique" GUI decisions for nearly every software package.
There is undeniably some extra performance that can be unleashed with hardware-software integration optimization... but there is only that much of it available. I've recently spent some 20 minutes playing with 2.66GHz iMac in local Mac shop, mostly with iPhoto and iMovie, a bit with other installed applications. There was not enough time to really analyse software options, but I did notice some things related to performance. While iPhoto was running perfectly acceptable, I did notice brief (but easy noticeable) period of low-resolution image display before full quality display would be rendered. I had same thing on my previous dual core AMD system, but not on new quad core and ACDSee 9 I'm using now. Also, picture to picture swapping was slower on iMac. Dragging video clips into iMovie flow also felt a bit slower than in Studio 12 on my rig.
Now... I can accept that my applications, running on Vista and same hardware as above mentioned iMac, would be slower than iPhoto and iMovie under OSX. But... why should I run it on the same hardware, when I can get much stronger hardware for less money..? Even if you are not into system building (though most shops here will build configuration for free if you purchase parts from them), machine like Dell XPS 435 with quad core i7 can be configured with higher performing parts for the price of cheapest 24" iMac.
Quote:
This kind of total integration is IMPOSSIBLE on the Windows side.
Can't argue that. I'll try to virtualize (or install "educational" copy) of OSX on one of my computers before my next hardware purchase and give it a go... and then, maybe, I'll be able to discuss on that topic. It is a shame Apple is not providing some kind of no-guarantee (that it will work on all hardware) OSX time-limited trial download.
Quote:
So, until you have real exposure to the Mac user experience, you'll never really know what it's all about.
True. That is why my posts are about my PC experience. I do get carried away, sometimes
Quote:
Yes, but there IS a difference here. The majority of Mac users have been forced, in some capacity, to use Windows. I'd guess that the opposite does NOT hold true with Windows users.
So, when Mac users complain about Windows, we generally have a point of reference. I've heard numerous Windows users rag on the Mac, but when asked about their specific experiences (OS version, hardware, etc.) the answer the majority of the time is they've never used a Mac or not a CURRENT Mac running Leopard or even Tiger.
Being a Mac user in Windows dominant world does have that advantage - exposure to other system - when it comes to forums like this one. But once in a while we come across posts from people who claim that they have moved from Mac to PC for one reason or another. Most of them are being dismissed as trolls. I believe at least some of them are legit. There is no general rule.
Comments
So what you are saying is that there are different products that fit different user's needs?
Was I ever saying anything else?
I'm spending most of my time here opposing opinions that one solution is, by default, design and divine rights, much better than the other and same applies to everyone - only difference is some people are enlighten and some are not... yet.
Platform choice is completely personal, and everyone who thinks that one is undeniably better than the other is uninformed and overconfident fool. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is matter of everyone's personal preference to decide what is more important and which platform has it.
Roughly speaking... some people will prefer style, more luxurious materials and better looks, exclusive software not available on other platform, dramatically lower exposure to viruses and will not worry about price premium.
Some people will prefer more raw power for the money (or same power for less money), bigger choice of software in general, native gaming, more hardware options and will not worry about viruses.
Both groups are right, as long as they keep in mind that what works for them will not necessarily work for everyone else.
It still shouldn't prevent us from having civilised discussion about what we see as advantages of our chosen platform...
Platform choice is completely personal, and everyone who thinks that one is undeniably better than the other is uninformed and overconfident fool. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is matter of everyone's personal preference to decide what is more important and which platform has it.
Actually for the majority of Windows users, it's not about choice, but what was shoved in their faces. It's NOT choice, it's knee-jerk. Default. It's what you're SUPPOSED to use.
A lot of thought goes into choosing to use Macs over Windows. There are some psychological adjustments, but as far as actually USING a Mac, it's simply a better, more solid experience. The computer gets out of the way and lets you do what you want to do.
The main Windows advantage is some vertical market software and gaming. And if you're into building your own machine from scratch, you can do that with, I've heard, relative ease.
Roughly speaking... some people will prefer style, more luxurious materials and better looks, exclusive software not available on other platform, dramatically lower exposure to viruses and will not worry about price premium.
Some people will prefer more raw power for the money (or same power for less money), bigger choice of software in general, native gaming, more hardware options and will not worry about viruses.
Actually, the Macintosh user experience is about total integration of Mac OS X, Mac hardware and Mac software. Apple has stringent User Interface Guidelines that (hopefully) guide programmers to create apps that integrate with the rest of the Macintosh ecosystem.
So-called "raw" power, isn't necessarily controlled and directed power. There's a big difference. There is a massive amount of power working with a fully integrated system vs. a hodgepodge of hardware, OS, drivers, software and on-the-fly "unique" GUI decisions for nearly every software package.
This kind of total integration is IMPOSSIBLE on the Windows side.
So, until you have real exposure to the Mac user experience, you'll never really know what it's all about.
Some people like spending their days and weekends tinkering with their cars, some don't.
(Me? I don't even own a car!)
Both groups are right, as long as they keep in mind that what works for them will not necessarily work for everyone else.
It still shouldn't prevent us from having civilised discussion about what we see as advantages of our chosen platform...
Yes, but there IS a difference here. The majority of Mac users have been forced, in some capacity, to use Windows. I'd guess that the opposite does NOT hold true with Windows users.
So, when Mac users complain about Windows, we generally have a point of reference. I've heard numerous Windows users rag on the Mac, but when asked about their specific experiences (OS version, hardware, etc.) the answer the majority of the time is they've never used a Mac or not a CURRENT Mac running Leopard or even Tiger.
Those types of "opinions" have zero credibility, zero validity.
BTW: I've used Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista. AND every Mac System version since 1985.
Those fools at Consumer Reports were tricked by the "pretty cases" on computers that have the "same guts" as every other computer. Don't they know Macs are for "idiots who can't operate a PC"?
I hope Consumer Reports made it clear that Macs aren't for technically savvy people. They're just for people who need a simple computer. You can't do anything complex with UNIX. Just surf and email photos.
Are you perhaps mildly retarded?
Actually for the majority of Windows users, it's not about choice, but what was shoved in their faces. It's NOT choice, it's knee-jerk. Default. It's what you're SUPPOSED to use.
One doesn't negate the other. You can have Windows "shoved" in your face at work, but still decide to use it or not at home. I don't think too many (if any) people taking part in this forum are in shoved only, no-choice category.
A lot of thought goes into choosing to use Macs over Windows. There are some psychological adjustments, but as far as actually USING a Mac, it's simply a better, more solid experience. The computer gets out of the way and lets you do what you want to do.
Can't argue with that since I didn't experience Mac properly. I do believe it works that way for Mac users. I don't think, though, it is universal - nothing is.
The main Windows advantage is some vertical market software and gaming. And if you're into building your own machine from scratch, you can do that with, I've heard, relative ease.
True that. Box I've recently built hasn't got weak point hardware wise, performance wise is in higher league than any iMac and was significantly cheaper. Once I complete it with new monitor and graphics card, it will round at NZ$2500. Have I selected to go for mid-quality components, I could have easily shaved off extra NZ$500. Cheapest iMac 24" is around NZ$3300.
Actually, the Macintosh user experience is about total integration of Mac OS X, Mac hardware and Mac software. Apple has stringent User Interface Guidelines that (hopefully) guide programmers to create apps that integrate with the rest of the Macintosh ecosystem.
Another thing I can't argue without proper time spent on Macs. I'm not questioning Mac has such integration, but where I am right now, can't really imagine how much better is that from what I have with Vista... because my personal Vista experience is great, both hardware and software wise.
So-called "raw" power, isn't necessarily controlled and directed power. There's a big difference. There is a massive amount of power working with a fully integrated system vs. a hodgepodge of hardware, OS, drivers, software and on-the-fly "unique" GUI decisions for nearly every software package.
There is undeniably some extra performance that can be unleashed with hardware-software integration optimization... but there is only that much of it available. I've recently spent some 20 minutes playing with 2.66GHz iMac in local Mac shop, mostly with iPhoto and iMovie, a bit with other installed applications. There was not enough time to really analyse software options, but I did notice some things related to performance. While iPhoto was running perfectly acceptable, I did notice brief (but easy noticeable) period of low-resolution image display before full quality display would be rendered. I had same thing on my previous dual core AMD system, but not on new quad core and ACDSee 9 I'm using now. Also, picture to picture swapping was slower on iMac. Dragging video clips into iMovie flow also felt a bit slower than in Studio 12 on my rig.
Now... I can accept that my applications, running on Vista and same hardware as above mentioned iMac, would be slower than iPhoto and iMovie under OSX. But... why should I run it on the same hardware, when I can get much stronger hardware for less money..? Even if you are not into system building (though most shops here will build configuration for free if you purchase parts from them), machine like Dell XPS 435 with quad core i7 can be configured with higher performing parts for the price of cheapest 24" iMac.
This kind of total integration is IMPOSSIBLE on the Windows side.
Can't argue that. I'll try to virtualize (or install "educational" copy) of OSX on one of my computers before my next hardware purchase and give it a go... and then, maybe, I'll be able to discuss on that topic. It is a shame Apple is not providing some kind of no-guarantee (that it will work on all hardware) OSX time-limited trial download.
So, until you have real exposure to the Mac user experience, you'll never really know what it's all about.
True. That is why my posts are about my PC experience. I do get carried away, sometimes
Yes, but there IS a difference here. The majority of Mac users have been forced, in some capacity, to use Windows. I'd guess that the opposite does NOT hold true with Windows users.
So, when Mac users complain about Windows, we generally have a point of reference. I've heard numerous Windows users rag on the Mac, but when asked about their specific experiences (OS version, hardware, etc.) the answer the majority of the time is they've never used a Mac or not a CURRENT Mac running Leopard or even Tiger.
Being a Mac user in Windows dominant world does have that advantage - exposure to other system - when it comes to forums like this one. But once in a while we come across posts from people who claim that they have moved from Mac to PC for one reason or another. Most of them are being dismissed as trolls. I believe at least some of them are legit. There is no general rule.