Why use a Mac?

[kaldor]

This isn't a topic meant to bash Mac or anything, I just want to learn a bit more about Macs.

I have used a Mac about 3 years ago. I didn't like it too much, the GUI seemed a bit wierd. Other than that it seemed fine. But, what I don't understand is that Mac seems like an overpriced closed source version of Linux. Mac OSX is Unix based. Why would someone need to pay so much money for a Mac?

If you are a Mac user, explain to me why you prefer Macs over other OSes :)

[L815]

I'm not a mac user, but I know a few Mac users from my college courses.
We go for programming, and I wondered why they use Mac and go through the trouble of programming through a Virtual Machine with Windows.

They say it's because everything fits just right. Also there are some cool features about it that windows is lacking.
They like how the system feels like it was written for a human being.

I asked them why they didn't just run Linux. They said because they like the look of Macs and don't mind paying the high price for it.

So I think it's a combination of Looks of the machine + Simplicity + not caring about hardware (for upgrading, and freedom of choosing etc..)


Personally, If the Mac OS was available for PC, I would buy it and run it along with Linux and Vista. I just find the lack of freedom in hardware, and the ridiculously high prices, too much for me.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well the benefits of apple is that they usually pick and choose some of the best hardware for their machines, making sure the OS and the system it runs on are in tune with oneanother.
This is perhaps Apple's biggest lead over windows and linux, the way it interacts with the system around it without many issues.
I have found both linux and windows are as good as the hardware they install on, more or less linux as with the right hardware linux beats windows for most stuff in my experience.
Windows is often worse then linux with initial installation, so many drivers, so many tweaks, but linux can be a pain too depending on hardware (like Ati)

[L815]

Yes, I admit the way Apple handles their software/hardware relationship is near perfect.

BUT, I don't like the restrictions. I'd rather choose from a list of hardware to run any OS I'd like, and either run them through Linux's HCL, or
check to see there is a driver for Windows from the company.

OEM versions of machines do this anyway when it comes to pre-assembled PC's.
My laptop was built with Vista in mind. Thus,everything works flawlessly and drivers are available through Sony.

The way pre-built is done, is pretty much the same as how Apple does it, only Apple has full control.

Not forgetting to mention, neither solution is problem free. Everyone's experience is relentless, so I don't mean to single anything out more than Apple is the greatest monopolistic company when it comes to an OS.

Of course, this is only a personal opinion, thus I don't require everyone's ideology to revolve around it :P

[Jim!]

I don't use a Mac, but recently a lot of people in my family switched to mac, when I asked why and if they thought it was better then Windows they replied with answers like:"everything just works and I don't have to worry about viruses". I don't have much experience with Mac OSX, I would give it a shot if it was available for PC.

[howlingmadhowie]

i use a ppc mac because a like programming in assembler for risc chips :) (don't worry. although it came with osx, i never booted it. the first thing i did was put an ubuntu live cd in the drive)

[zmjjmz]

Macs are pretty great, and a _lot_ people I know are buying them now.
There's only one problem with them though: No choice.
Of course, the same goes with Windows to an extent, but OSX is based on DarwinBSD and is thus far better than Windows.

[volkswagner]

I don't own a mac. I think users choose mac after being disenchanted by windows. Mac has the "cool factor". Folks choose Mac over a PC for the same reasons one chooses ipod over a generic Mp3 player. They like the look of the package & user interface. Marketing comes into play. Watch any sitcom, you will see the apple on the back me most laptops. Of course they paid more. It is the best. To stereotype, mac users are non tweakers. The want to use their computer, not tweak/break/fix it.

[pfunkman]

Well the benefits of apple is that they usually pick and choose some of the best hardware for their machines, making sure the OS and the system it runs on are in tune with oneanother.
This is perhaps Apple's biggest lead over windows and linux, the way it interacts with the system around it without many issues.
I have found both linux and windows are as good as the hardware they install on, more or less linux as with the right hardware linux beats windows for most stuff in my experience.
Windows is often worse then linux with initial installation, so many drivers, so many tweaks, but linux can be a pain too depending on hardware (like Ati)

This is the most uninformed and clueless thing i have ever read about the mac.

Your whole post comes down to macs have the drivers preinstalled. Well so does any OEM machine. Comparing the mac as a machine to windows/linux the operating system is assinine.

Really, the fact that you think apple picks the best hardware for thier machines tells me you have no clue abut apple. Thier marketing scheme can be summed up by "pair a fast processor with the cheapest hardware money can buy".

So you justify $700 worth of hardware in a $2,000 machine because of preinstalled drivers? I have nothing against apple other than the thought that thier name and OS alone are worth over a grand.

[ryaxnb]

* Quartz is better then X
* Aqua is easier then GNOME, though less configurable
* Awesome shareware
* Office, Creative Suite available
* Guaranteed to work on HW.
* Apple Store is simply the best retail experience
* Works with UNIX/Linux apps, like GTK.
* iLife and iWork rock.
* There is nothing like iMovie or iDVD for linux, and nothing quite as good as iPhoto.
* Commercial support. Quite excellent support actually.

[LMP900]

I was sold by the "Genie" minimize effect. ;)

Actually, a few reasons that Macs are enjoyable to use are:

Quicklook
Stacks
iLife
Expose
Adium
Quicksilver
Photo Booth
Finder column-view
Overall polish
System-wide dictionary/spell-checker
The fact that they've nailed sleep mode
Hidden gems such as Core Image Funhouse

It's easy to find reasons to use a Mac. But would I choose a Mac? That's a tougher decision.

[Twitch6000]

Really I have asked this myself and I have found no reason to use a mac :/.
I have tried them and only two things on it made me amused by it which I can do in linux.
The dock(Kiba-Dock AWM Or Enlightenment Dock on linux)
The way it is themed(if I really am that bored I can make whatever distro look like a mac)

Other then that its just useless to me :/.

[zipperback]

I don't own an Apple Mac. But I'm not against them. I think they're pretty nice systems.

Apple computer builds Mac systems that are designed with really well built hardware and the operating system is specifically tailored to work with it. The hardware and the software are both produced by the same company, therefore it is pretty safe to think that it's just going to work correctly. There is very little in regard to hardware compatibility issues, because they pretty much have everything you could possibly need built into it. USB, Firewire, Camera, etc.

They also have an excellent customer service and warranty service so if there is a problem, it gets fixed pretty quickly. Of course, you are also paying a pretty premium price, for that premium service.

Just my opinion of course.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

[kahlil88]

Awesome shareware

This might be my new favorite oxymoron. Shareware is the bane of my existence. Actually there's a great deal of open source software for Mac OS X.

[MattBD]

I bought a MacBook a few weeks ago and I am disappointed with it. I find it extremely frustrating the degree to which I can't customise my desktop (guess Ubuntu spoils you in that respect), and I find it a pain to install things compared to apt-get. I'm also not very keen on iLife. And one thing really bugs me - the fact that there isn't any kind of office suite installed, not even a basic one. At least you get MS Works on most Windows machines, and truth be told that's as much as most people need for home use.

But I do concede Apple have got a lot right. Including the Xcode IDE on the install disc is a very good idea, and Leopard includes a lot of handy stuff for development - things like Vim and Emacs are present, and Ruby on Rails is preinstalled, so it's good for developers.

[Nycthbris]

The only reason I purchased a macbook was for audio recording / editing software etc. I know Ubuntu Studio offers similar capabilities, but being a musician at heart, spending the time to properly set up Ubuntu for recording is time that could be spent making music instead.:guitar:

I do hope to someday use Ubuntu Studio but until open source audio production software matures I will be using a mac for my audio production needs.

[Newuser1111]

Mac seems like an overpriced closed source version of Linux.It is!(Sort of)

I have OS X 10.4.8 and I think it's mostly useless,
but that's just my opinion.

[Icehuck]

This is the most uninformed and clueless thing i have ever read about the mac.

Your whole post comes down to macs have the drivers preinstalled. Well so does any OEM machine. Comparing the mac as a machine to windows/linux the operating system is assinine.

Really, the fact that you think apple picks the best hardware for thier machines tells me you have no clue abut apple. Thier marketing scheme can be summed up by "pair a fast processor with the cheapest hardware money can buy".

So you justify $700 worth of hardware in a $2,000 machine because of preinstalled drivers? I have nothing against apple other than the thought that thier name and OS alone are worth over a grand.

I believe you are a little off base with your speculations on Apple hardware. Apples prices are competitive with other pre-built manufacturers with "similar" hardware. I say similar because they don't give exact specs on parts so I can only guess. That being said have you even looked at the Mac Pro? I dare you to price that hardware out at less then $1000. Tip: One of the processors in the machine retails for $1000 on its own.

[LaRoza]

Moved to Mac OS X forum.

[TheSlipstream]

Tip: One of the processors in the machine retails for $1000 on its own.

Are you serious? A quad core can be had for about $300, if you know where to look. The idea of a dual core costing over $1000 is laughable. According to Apple Australia's website, the MacBook Pro contains a:

2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed; or 2.5GHz or 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB L2 cache

Now, that's fast, granted, but it is certainly not worth anything near a grand.

[howlingmadhowie]

Are you serious? A quad core can be had for about $300, if you know where to look. The idea of a dual core costing over $1000 is laughable. According to Apple Australia's website, the MacBook Pro contains a:

2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed; or 2.5GHz or 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB L2 cache

Now, that's fast, granted, but it is certainly not worth anything near a grand.

a friend of mine has just bought a macbook with this processor. it's an intel core duo t8300. the funny thing is, i have exactly the same processor in my work laptop from dell (latitude d830). so we did some checking when it comes to performance (prime finding, calculating pi) and the chip under ubuntu is consistently faster than under osx. :)

[Icehuck]

Are you serious? A quad core can be had for about $300, if you know where to look. The idea of a dual core costing over $1000 is laughable. According to Apple Australia's website, the MacBook Pro contains a:

2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed; or 2.5GHz or 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB L2 cache

Now, that's fast, granted, but it is certainly not worth anything near a grand.

Macbook Pros are laptops I was referring to the Mac Pro which is a desktop.

An Intel Xeon "harpertown" 3.2ghz quad core is not going to be $300 and if it is its either A)junk or B) stolen. Random quad core for $300 isn't going to be the same as this processor. If you can find one that's not stolen for $300 please show me where. As it stands I can't find one at Pricewatch, Newegg,Ebay, or Tiger Direct.

[3rdalbum]

* Quartz is better then X

Start SSH, give me your IP address and a login, and I'll run iMovie on your computer but display it on my monitor.

What's that you say? You've got a clarinet lesson? :-D

As for the whole "My chip is better than your chip" argument, if you run a Q6600 at 3 GHz on a desktop computer (a rather common thing for enthusiasts to do), you'll find it performs very similarly to the Xeon. The Xeon is designed to be fast for menial server tasks, the Core 2 is designed to be good for a large range of typical desktop tasks.

You'd save yourself over $500 with the Q6600, including a really good CPU cooling solution to push the chip that fast.

[Icehuck]

Start SSH, give me your IP address and a login, and I'll run iMovie on your computer but display it on my monitor.

What's that you say? You've got a clarinet lesson? :-D

As for the whole "My chip is better than your chip" argument, if you run a Q6600 at 3 GHz on a desktop computer (a rather common thing for enthusiasts to do), you'll find it performs very similarly to the Xeon. The Xeon is designed to be fast for menial server tasks, the Core 2 is designed to be good for a large range of typical desktop tasks.

You'd save yourself over $500 with the Q6600, including a really good CPU cooling solution to push the chip that fast.

Oh I agree with you that the average desktop would never need a Xeon chip. My point was that the machine with the hardware listed is not over priced.

[TheSlipstream]

Macbook Pros are laptops I was referring to the Mac Pro which is a desktop.

An Intel Xeon "harpertown" 3.2ghz quad core is not going to be $300 and if it is its either A)junk or B) stolen. Random quad core for $300 isn't going to be the same as this processor. If you can find one that's not stolen for $300 please show me where. As it stands I can't find one at Pricewatch, Newegg,Ebay, or Tiger Direct.

Uh, the whole thing where you pull apart my argument doesn't work when it's been established I made a mistake. I thought you meant MacBook Pro.

[kaldor]

I was talking to a friend today and operating systems popped up. He told me he has a really old Mac. Something like a Macintosh Color 94? I forget the exact name. Anywho, he said it may be old but he likes it more than he likes Windows XP (OS on his main PC)

What is it about Macs that seem so attractive? I must say that OSX looks beautiful.

[the8thstar]

I love my laptop now (see specs below) and it's amazingly fast with Ubuntu and Vista (incredible isn't it?). I've customized the look of Ubuntu to resemble OS X (not with the Aqua theme though), because I want to get used to it for my next purchase of a desktop.

My wife fell in love with Macs when she visited the Apple Store. I know what the OS is worth in terms of reliability and I don't give a rat's XXX about closed-source, proprietary stuff, etc. That's hippy rhetoric to me because true freedom is a myth, especially in a world that's everyting but free.

I like Ubuntu because I can bend it to my will, but the average user like my wife is not ready for Linux. Too much tweaking is involved to make things work, to get the right codecs, etc. All that in the name of freedom? You've gotta be kidding me. IT'S A WASTE OF TIME THAT EQUATES TO THE MONEY SPENT ON APPLE PRODUCTS INSTEAD.

With OS X, I will get the best of both worlds: Unix and proprietary stuff. And to top it all, my wife can use the computer without having to worry about anything.

But despite all that, I'm still going to install Ubuntu on that iMac. Because I love it! :)