PDA

View Full Version : Why buy a Mac if you intend to install Ubuntu on it?



Warpnow
May 29th, 2007, 07:56 PM
If you intend to put ubuntu on it...why would you spend the $$$ for a mac over a pc?

Just wondered.

(pr)
May 29th, 2007, 08:06 PM
I would: If the heating wouldn't be so damn bad. It gets really hot. If I had to buy a new pc, I'd go for a dell with Ubuntu on it. Drivers are working etc :)

hasimir44
May 29th, 2007, 08:13 PM
my opinion (nearly worthless :)) - because you look *cool* at the coffee houses..

I would never buy a mac, they only have one mouse button!

ronocdh
May 29th, 2007, 08:58 PM
my opinion (nearly worthless :)) - because you look *cool* at the coffee houses..

I would never buy a mac, they only have one mouse button!
Fascinating that these people bother to post in here. Anyway, people who buy Macs do because they like them. For me, it's the superior hardware, and the ability to easily run any operating consumer-grade OS on the market.

I don't think anyone is going to spend time trying to convert you, Warpnow, so look elsewhere.

Also, I have to say I highly recommend one of the new Dells. I'll be buying one myself soon enough so I can take Windows off this machine, use it as OS X and Ubuntu Studio and then the Dell for Ubuntu and WinXP (for gaming). =)

Greywhind
May 29th, 2007, 09:13 PM
I bought a Mac because I'm dual-booting Mac and Ubuntu, so that I can use Mac's great interface and features and have Ubuntu's flexibility and power, with the ability to cross-compile from Linux to Windows, which gives me the ability to avoid Windows entirely while still developing for all 3 operating systems.

Also, Macs no longer have only one mouse button on most of their mice. Not to mention the fact that there are lots of 3rd party mice compatible with them, including my new Razer Diamondback. When did you last use one, hasimir44?

ronocdh
May 30th, 2007, 01:14 AM
When did you last use one, hasimir44?I guess, like, 2002 or something. I mean, coffee shops were cool then, and the kids with the Macs looked sharp. I think it's the kids running Linux now who look cool in the coffee shop, *cough cough*. ):P

Seamyst
May 30th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Also, Macs no longer have only one mouse button on most of their mice.

Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button. The MightyMouse has a tiny scroll button/wheel thingy, but it still only has one clickable button. It's very annoying, but there you have it. You can buy just about any third-party USB mouse and have it work with Macs - it's what I do.

hessiess
May 30th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button

how are you suppost to use a computer with onlu 1 mouse button?

ronocdh
May 30th, 2007, 10:25 PM
how are you suppost to use a computer with onlu 1 mouse button?
I know I'm feeding the trolls here, but I'm a magnanimous person, and I can't watch even a troll starve to death. The short answer to your question is that you are restricted by an inferior design paradigm which mandates the user be equipped with at least two mouse buttons to interact with the GUI. Not everyone believes this is right, and there are those who believe in transcending this limitation by forcing designers to better present options visibly without resorting to hiding them under a right-click menu. It may not be "right" or "correct" or even interesting to you, but it is different, and therefore is extremely viable to the software movement from an evolutionary standpoint.

ronocdh
May 30th, 2007, 10:29 PM
Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button. The MightyMouse has a tiny scroll button/wheel thingy, but it still only has one clickable button. It's very annoying, but there you have it. You can buy just about any third-party USB mouse and have it work with Macs - it's what I do.
Have you ever even used a Mac? I mean, you could probably spot one in a line-up, but that's just because you would pick the only one that wouldn't make an infant weep with its garish design. It wasn't hard to prove you wrong on your FUD, but then, FUD is never hard to defuse; it's extremely easy to promulgate, though.

Read Apple's official page (http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/) about their flagship mouse.

Sorry for sounding like a Linux-loving forumrat, or worse, a Mac fanboi, but c'mon. This stuff isn't hard to see through, people!

russo.mic
May 30th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Mighty Mouse has a wheel, and although it doesn't look like it, it has 2 mouse buttons. It knows if your right or left clicking.

It works fine in both OSX and I used one with windows XP for while via a kvm hub, not that it even matters. I bought my MBP because I wanted a laptop with a big screen and a battery life of more than 20 minutes. Also, I like the fact that it's lighter than most PC laptops it's screen size.

It's the little things, the magnet powersupply, the retracting clamps when I close it. I feel this laptop will last me a bit longer than. It just feels more solid.

I use ubuntu because I like amarok, I like beryl, I like being able to compile my own software and not having to wait around for somebody to bring out an app for OSX.

Russo

Seamyst
May 30th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Have you ever even used a Mac? I mean, you could probably spot one in a line-up, but that's just because you would pick the only one that wouldn't make an infant weep with its garish design. It wasn't hard to prove you wrong on your FUD, but then, FUD is never hard to defuse; it's extremely easy to promulgate, though.

Read Apple's official page (http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/) about their flagship mouse. Then try really hard to store that data in your brain so you don't vomit nonsense out of your fingertips all the time.

Sorry for sounding like a Linux-loving forumrat, or worse, a Mac fanboi, but c'mon. This stuff isn't hard to see through, people!

Well, sorry that I made a mistake. I was going on my own experience with MightyMouse from a friend's computer, as far as that goes. Next time I'll do a little more research before making a claim like that.

Now. I've used Macs for the past three years, this August. I certainly don't claim to know everything about Macs, or even most things - I don't even claim to be a power user. Please don't bite my head off when I (or anyone else, for that matter) make a mistake. It's immature and it only makes YOU look bad.

You've been nice to me here before, so I'm not sure how to take this... just chalk it up to a mistake, shall I?

ghandi69_
May 30th, 2007, 11:32 PM
I like OSX, and enjoy using it, and I believe macs are probably very quality computers... but.. .I would never buy one due to price alone. All of there computers are insanely over priced ( I know..I know.. you get what you pay for), but in terms of building your own pc.... I would almost be willing to say you could get a $2000 mac for about half the price if you bought the compents youself.

But then again.. you don't get all that hardware 'tied' into your OS, which is part of the appeal.

ivesjd
May 30th, 2007, 11:48 PM
I didnt buy a mac, my school gave me one. And I use OS X still, I just one, needed to be able to work with linux, and like the control I have over it.

Torajima
May 31st, 2007, 04:01 AM
I've never understood why people complain about the mouse thing. Who cares what type of mouse comes with the computer? You can buy a multi-button mouse for like $20 and they are fully supported by Apple.

As for the original poster's question... why by a Mac? Because it's the only way to run all 3 operating systems on the same machine. My plan is to use OS X for the high powered audio/video apps, Linux for the open source apps (I use OpenOffice and Inkscape a lot these days), and Windows for the occasional work related crap that doesn't work right in OSX or Linux.

I've also been doing a lot of programming lately, and hope to test programs on all 3 platforms.

ivesjd
May 31st, 2007, 04:19 AM
I've never understood why people complain about the mouse thing. Who cares what type of mouse comes with the computer? You can buy a multi-button mouse for like $20 and they are fully supported by Apple.

As for the original poster's question... why by a Mac? Because it's the only way to run all 3 operating systems on the same machine. My plan is to use OS X for the high powered audio/video apps, Linux for the open source apps (I use OpenOffice and Inkscape a lot these days), and Windows for the occasional work related crap that doesn't work right in OSX or Linux.

I've also been doing a lot of programming lately, and hope to test programs on all 3 platforms.

You could do alot of the things you want to do in OS X in ubuntu studio. I like OS X too though. :)

Warpnow
May 31st, 2007, 05:34 AM
Russo, what kind of battery life do you get on a mac?

Battery life was my #1 concern when buying my laptop, ended up going with a dell e1405. I get 5 hours on my 6 cell battery and 8 on my 9-cell battery. I've heard rumors of some thinkpad getting 10, not sure if its exaggerated or not.

Ubuntu Studio won't become truly great unless avid releases a linux version...Avid is the industry professional standard. Final Cut is the amateur standard for mac/Adobe Premiere for windows, but none of those run in linux, do they? And you don't want an app that vital running under wine...random things might not work.

ronocdh
May 31st, 2007, 06:26 AM
My plan is to use OS X for the high powered audio/video apps, Linux for the open source apps (I use OpenOffice and Inkscape a lot these days), and Windows for the occasional work related crap that doesn't work right in OSX or Linux.
NeoOffice and Inkspace are both available on OS X, just so you know. You should check out OpenSourceMac (http://www.opensourcemac.org/) sometime, it's quite a killer repository. Not to discourage your use of Ubuntu, of course ;) but rather to do credit to the OSS movement in general, for its platform interoperability!

Torajima
May 31st, 2007, 11:55 AM
NeoOffice and Inkspace are both available on OS X, just so you know. You should check out OpenSourceMac (http://www.opensourcemac.org/) sometime, it's quite a killer repository. Not to discourage your use of Ubuntu, of course ;) but rather to do credit to the OSS movement in general, for its platform interoperability!

Yes, I use both on the Mac, as well as GIMP. But under X11 they run about 3 times slower than they do running on Linux (at least that's been my experience). And it seems the Mac versions are always a release behind the Linux versions.

dareofficer
May 31st, 2007, 12:26 PM
Well why do people buy nice cars, or cheap cars? I have both Mac's and PC's. Next to my PC is a new 24" iMac. Granted this is a very nice PC, with a great LCD monitor. When you look at both the iMac's video just jumps out! I have 2 new laptops, one a PC, and one a MacBook Pro. I would like to say again, BIG difference. Nothing wrong with the PC's and Dell makes a good PC for sure, but it just goes back to example; good car cheap car. The choice is yours as your opinion and mine.

Sheriff Buck

Chrisj303
May 31st, 2007, 01:15 PM
Why buy a Mac over a PC?
- Why buy a Ferrari over a Ford ?
- Why buy a Rolex over a Casio.....?

I would NEVER go back to PC hardware, never. After using Mac's for several years i have really come to appreiciate to better design and build quality the Apple Mac brings.

Whenever i use a PC laptop (normally to fix for a mate) the first thing that strikes me is the poor quality of the unit.

And the ability to legally boot into all three major OS', and to do it with style, is a major bonus in my books.

ronocdh
May 31st, 2007, 02:07 PM
Yes, I use both on the Mac, as well as GIMP. But under X11 they run about 3 times slower than they do running on Linux (at least that's been my experience). And it seems the Mac versions are always a release behind the Linux versions.
Don't use the GIMP on OS X! Use Seashore instead. It's GIMP custom-built for OS X. ;) Also, NeoOffice is the Aqua-friendly port of OpenOffice. My sole complaint about it is that it always loads as an office suite, i.e. you can't just run the word processor, argh. I don't use Inkscape, though, so perhaps that still has to be run under X11.

tehmacuser
June 1st, 2007, 03:14 PM
Don't use the GIMP on OS X! Use Seashore instead. It's GIMP custom-built for OS X. ;) Also, NeoOffice is the Aqua-friendly port of OpenOffice. My sole complaint about it is that it always loads as an office suite, i.e. you can't just run the word processor, argh. I don't use Inkscape, though, so perhaps that still has to be run under X11.

seashore is very good! :)

but seriously I have a MacBook and I have a Feisty Fawn and OS X (10.4.9) on the same machine. I use OS X for Garageband, and work related projects and Linux for programming. I could install Windows, but I don't have much hard disk space for all the bloatware :(

Macs have a MUCH higher quality and IMHO, much better tech support. I broke my iBook G4 a year ago and they replaced it for free. When my MacBook had an issue with the display flickering, they not only replaced my LCD, they replaced the RAM, the motherboard, AND the infamous topcase which used to change colors due to skin oils you can read about that all over the internet but the point is they go ABOVE AND BEYOND the requirement. I can't wait to get an iPhone and I can't wait for the next iPod. I love Apple because they care about what I want as a consumer. Call me a fanboy, I love an Alienware PC as much as the next guy for gaming, but I don't play games anymore - I create them *bwahahahahaha*

-tehmacuser

stmiller
June 1st, 2007, 06:24 PM
I think Mac laptops are very good.

1" thin
silent
don't look like some VCR or tape deck from the 1980s, like other manufac's laptops

Dell's laptops look like ***. Their high end model even has blue or pink neon lights, and weighs about the same as a house pet. Can you imagine coming to some sort of meeting with clients, and whipping out your pimped out brick-of-a-laptop on the table, complete with blue lights and a loud fan?

The only other PC laptops that come close to the size and finish of the Mac laptops are the Sonys, whose comparable based macbook-like model costs about $400 more than the Macbook....

ronocdh
June 1st, 2007, 08:54 PM
Dell's laptops look like ***. Their high end model even has blue or pink neon lights, and weighs about the same as a house pet. Can you imagine coming to some sort of meeting with clients, and whipping out your pimped out brick-of-a-laptop on the table, complete with blue lights and a loud fan?
This made me laugh, but I completely agree with you: non-Apple laptops, for the most part, just don't look professional anymore. I have a friend who recently bought an HP laptop, totally tricked out with 17" glossy screen, 512MB Nvidia graphics card, Core2 Duo, FireWire 800, Bluetooth, etc., and the damn thing looks ridiculous. It's shiny black plastic with blue LEDs all over it, it's like something from Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. I would never been seen with it. It looks like the MySpace page-design equivalent of a computer. Yuck.

hessiess
June 1st, 2007, 09:43 PM
look dusent matter as long as it works!

Chrisj303
June 1st, 2007, 10:22 PM
look dusent matter as long as it works!

I don't think thats true - when your spending serious money on a machine, you want it to look good.

But for me, the Mac's build quality is the selling point - pure luxury to use.

ronocdh
June 1st, 2007, 10:29 PM
I don't think thats true - when your spending serious money on a machine, you want it to look good.

But for me, the Mac's build quality is the selling point - pure luxury to use.
I agree. Saying that looks don't matter, well, that's just kind of irresponsible, but socially and professional. That plaid suit you bought? Yeah, it "works" in that it can be worn, perhaps even comfortable, but if it's ugly, why bother?

I spend so much time every single day on my computer that it damn well better look good. I'm certainly referring to the desktop environment as much as I am to the hardware, but I will not discount the appearance of the actual machine. There's no sense in that!

ivesjd
June 1st, 2007, 11:30 PM
At my school, you get the choice of a Lenovo R60 and the Macbook, (Macbook for art majors R60 for everyone else). So I declared myself an artmajor so Im a CS major with a macbook. The thinkpads are just so ugly, the edges are just strange. I love the look and feel of my macbook. Only downside to linux is, you cant Cmd+click on window names. :(

ronocdh
June 2nd, 2007, 12:52 AM
At my school, you get the choice of a Lenovo R60 and the Macbook, (Macbook for art majors R60 for everyone else). So I declared myself an artmajor so Im a CS major with a macbook. The thinkpads are just so ugly, the edges are just strange. I love the look and feel of my macbook. Only downside to linux is, you cant Cmd+click on window names. :(
Funny! But I must ask: what does cmd-clicking on window names do in OS X? I just tried it in Firefox to no avail, then in the Finder... ah, the Finder. That was a trick I didn't know about! I customized my Finder window to have an icon that displayed the levels. This way I don't have to mouse quite as far as you (Fitts's Law ;)), and I don't have to hold the cmd key, either.

Besides, I'm sure if you use KDE there's a way to gain this functionality! Post in the Desktop Environments forum if you're really interested in it. (For the record, I use GNOME, because I'm not a blind molerat with no social skills.\\:D/)

ivesjd
June 2nd, 2007, 02:39 AM
Ive got a friend who has been using Macs for most of his life, and everyday it seems, I learn some small new thing about the OS.

syborfical
June 2nd, 2007, 04:54 PM
Why buy a Mac?

Who cares !

Last time I checked most countries around the World People will buy what they want.
There will always be those people; what ever they own / buy is the best.


The Fact of the matter shouldn’t be what computer you’re using to run UBUNTU.
It should be you’re running Ubuntu.


My opinion

Pc’s are Pc’s they run pretty almost every OS.

Current Intel Mac’s are almost a pc. The have proprietary UNIX based operating system and polished GUI.

For games nothing beats a windows based PC for the number of games compadablity etc etc.

As long as YOU are happy with YOUR computer and it DOES what you want it to do. Who cares !.

kzm.
June 2nd, 2007, 06:01 PM
i agree.. buy the machine you like, if you can pay for it.

i actually bought the macbook because when i compared the macbook in the store with windows machines with similar specs it was slightly heavier and bigger but there for 200 to 1000 euro cheaper!

hasimir44
June 3rd, 2007, 06:19 PM
Fascinating that these people bother to post in here.

it fascinates you that "these people" post their own opinion? you should check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrogant

shubox357
June 3rd, 2007, 10:44 PM
I like Macs because of their simplistic aesthetics, quality hardware, and reputation as high class computers. I make a point to support high quality products, and i definitely don't half *** on computers. Tech specs only make up half the computer in my opinion, the rest is represented by the manufacturer's details and reputation. I have never had a problem with any Mac that I have either owned or used, each has served its purpose just as it was meant to. Maybe you can get "more" for your money with ram and hard drive space or whatever, but its hard to measure the quality of construction just from a data sheet. My dad's 4 month old Dell that is already showing wear(paint missing from palm rests, keys losing their finish) from normal use! Macs are just better quality, OS aside, than other manufacturers' products to me, so that's why I use them.

Nalzid
June 4th, 2007, 02:40 PM
my opinion (nearly worthless :)) - because you look *cool* at the coffee houses..

I would never buy a mac, they only have one mouse button!

Actually the Mighty Mouse ships with all new iMacs and it has 4 buttons. Left, Right, side and scroll/button. Anyway how can you claim that as a reason when you can plug practically any USB device of your choice into a Mac and works with out drivers to be installed, and there a lots of great mouses out there.;)

Ubivetz
June 4th, 2007, 03:31 PM
As for me, I hate iMac's mouse (I have wired one).
Actually, iMac has several disadvantages:
1) I our country it's too expensive (1.5 - 2 times).
2) It is almost normal PC.
3) It's proprietary UNIX-like OS works very slow (compared to Linux and WinXP).

elithrar
June 4th, 2007, 04:48 PM
OS X slow? On my iMac w/ 1.5GB of RAM it runs *very* well, and I often have several applications open at once; Firefox, Safari [webkit], iTunes, Adium [multi-protocol IM client w/ transparency!], Seashore [Aqua-streamlined version of The GIMP], Aptana [open-source XHTML/CSS/workflow program], and occasionally a movie in Quicktime or WoW running in windowed-mode. No slowdown, and I'm not exaggerating about that either.

OS X isn't perfect: at first, I felt it was a little 'dumbed down' but once you learn the huge bevy of keyboard shortcuts, become accustomed to Exposť [something Beryl emulates/betters on now!], and true drag-and-drop, it's a lot more powerful than you realise. Just takes some time; spending ten minutes or so with it isn't really endear you to it if you already have formed an opinion on it.

In terms of hardware, yes, they *are* a little behind the times, but being a closed hardware platform, a lot of the software is optimised to run on it, and the OS isn't a huge RAM hog like Vista is. I still wouldn't run it on less than 1GB of RAM, though. Ideally 2GB+ if you're really hammering out stuff or working with large projects.

I don't envisage myself running Windows on this iMac [which I'm selling], or the MacBook Pro I'm ordering this week. OS X for multimedia [photoshop/gimp], browsing & web design [firefox/safari & aptana/dreamweaver], and music/movies [itunes/quicktime], and Ubuntu for programming duties & WINE, should I need to game. Look forward to the new MacBook Pros catching up this week w/ GeForce 8600's and LED backlit displays, which should hopefully make them much better value. Current-spec Macs are definitely overpriced, quality & form-factor regardless.

As a side note, iMacs are definitely SFF PC's due to their footprint/integrated nature, though they could still be a little cheaper. MacBooks aren't too badly priced; the latest revision seems them being quite competitive with 160GB hard drives & 2GB of RAM w/ C2D's. The actual size of them needs to be accounted for too; they're no-ultralight, but they're a fair bit slimmer and lighter than your average/equiv. Lenovo or Dell.

hasimir44
June 4th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Actually the Mighty Mouse ships with all new iMacs and it has 4 buttons.

that's iMacs, but what about the laptops? as I said before - this is only my opinion and it's nearly worthless :) - I don't own a mac, but my girlfriend loves mac products (she's also locked in through DRM because of all the songs she's already bought through itunes - DRM free songs are also more expensive - seems kinda evil to me). I personally don't like the price tags either - but who cares! By all means - go buy a mac if you want to.

If anything, I've learned not to post in a thread as flaming as this one.. sorry to offend.

johng4
June 4th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Why I bought a Mac...

** PowerPC Architecture **
PowerPC is simply put the betamax of computing. Its so often overlooked, but it has so many advantages over x86(_64) that it almost makes the price worth it.

I bought a G4 iBook simply for the fact that I could be rest assured that the hardware will outlast most PC laptop hardware, and out perform a lot of computer with "faster" cpus. It does the job I need it to do, and a bit more.

I've always stated that if I could buy a non-Mac/Apple powerpc computer, I would. Look up the new Power7 architecture.. its just beefy. Hell, your game consoles run off PowerPC (most notably the PS3 and XBOX 360, not sure about the Wii).

On the topic of Mactels...

Not very impressed. It saddens me that Mac went this route, but who knows, maybe now IBM will come out with its own PPC hardware for people to build their systems on. For now, the Power6 and Power7 cores are based on Unix platforms (mostly servers). Would be great to have my own custom built PowerPC with a 5GHz Power7 cpu.

I should also mention that I got an iMac "berry" G3 for my kids so that they have a durable and usable system. Bought it for about $120 (600Mhz, 256MB RAM, 40GB HDD, CD-RW) and with ubuntu on it, it runs like a dream.

I get Macs for PPC, not Mac-hardware (as its generally IBM, or Motorola hardware). I'm not a fan of OS X at all. I think its frustrating, despite is aesthetics. So, every Mac I've had my hands on gets a linux install on it.

Not to mention, by nice uBook makes the fan-bois cry.

(PS - as noted in the signature, my PS3 has linux on it too. PPC4TW)

johng4
June 4th, 2007, 09:10 PM
On the note of, Ubuntu Studio and Avid/Digidesign...

1. Industry Standards in recording come and go. I went to college for Multimedia production, worked in multimillion dollar studios, and had every teacher (who were industry professionals) that all I was learning was an interface. Never tie yourself to a product.. in the multimedia field products come and go, standards change, and nothing is certain.

One such instance is the "standard" of 3D Studio Max, which bowed down to Maya, which has since bowed down to several other proprietary 3D Modelling/Animating programs. Then there was the standard of "Fireworks" and "Director" long gone, and replaced by numerous programs.

For every studio that uses ProTools, there's numerous others that use Reason, Sonar, or something else.

2. Ardour and Rosegarden4 are fantasic programs, that more than capable of competing with other proprietary programs. I've used them both, and have been impressed with how well they work, especially with JACK/LADSPA, and frankly haven't found something I can't accomplish with it that spending some $10,000 on software would justify.

3. Cinelerra is also a quality product. Interface could use some work, but honestly, on a high end system (generally a Mac btw) it runs fantastic.

The packages are there, and more than useable. Linux users do not need to wait, nor should they, for Digidesign or anyone else for that matter to release their products on Linux.

Chrisj303
June 4th, 2007, 10:24 PM
On the note of, Ubuntu Studio and Avid/Digidesign...

1. Industry Standards in recording come and go. I went to college for Multimedia production, worked in multimillion dollar studios, and had every teacher (who were industry professionals) that all I was learning was an interface. Never tie yourself to a product.. in the multimedia field products come and go, standards change, and nothing is certain.

One such instance is the "standard" of 3D Studio Max, which bowed down to Maya, which has since bowed down to several other proprietary 3D Modelling/Animating programs. Then there was the standard of "Fireworks" and "Director" long gone, and replaced by numerous programs.

For every studio that uses ProTools, there's numerous others that use Reason, Sonar, or something else.

2. Ardour and Rosegarden4 are fantasic programs, that more than capable of competing with other proprietary programs. I've used them both, and have been impressed with how well they work, especially with JACK/LADSPA, and frankly haven't found something I can't accomplish with it that spending some $10,000 on software would justify.

3. Cinelerra is also a quality product. Interface could use some work, but honestly, on a high end system (generally a Mac btw) it runs fantastic.

The packages are there, and more than useable. Linux users do not need to wait, nor should they, for Digidesign or anyone else for that matter to release their products on Linux.

There is NO linux equal to Ableton Live and Apple Logic pro. VST/AU support in linux, is also absolute crap.

I am a sound/studio engineer and as a result have been using Mac's for years.

The main reason Mac's dominate the scene is down to the OS more than anything - no individual piece of music production software.

Linux is just not stable enough to run in the vast majority of professional studio's, and although there is some *alright* software on linux -it's not a patch on the best OSX has to offer. It's just not.

shubox357
June 5th, 2007, 11:08 PM
If anyone really wants to know why to buy a Mac, just get one and you'll understand why they're great more and more with use.

ronocdh
June 6th, 2007, 12:00 AM
If anyone really wants to know why to buy a Mac, just get one and you'll understand why they're great more and more with use.
That reasoning almost made my head explode.

3rdalbum
June 6th, 2007, 12:03 PM
Linux is just not stable enough

lol.

shubox357
June 6th, 2007, 05:57 PM
That reasoning almost made my head explode.

from apple's web site:

"10. More fun with photos."

http://www.apple.com/getamac/

duh, right?

ronocdh
June 6th, 2007, 06:02 PM
from apple's web site:

"10. More fun with photos."

http://www.apple.com/getamac/

duh, right?
I know what you're getting at in your post, but personally I think that's a good advertisement. Maybe if Microsoft did a little more consumer outreach, they wouldn't have such a negative image right now. I mean, when's the last time you met with a Microsoft employee face to face and had them show you what's great about Windows? That kind of contact is just excellent marketing.

johng4
June 7th, 2007, 01:12 AM
There is NO linux equal to Ableton Live and Apple Logic pro. VST/AU support in linux, is also absolute crap.

I am a sound/studio engineer and as a result have been using Mac's for years.

The main reason Mac's dominate the scene is down to the OS more than anything - no individual piece of music production software.

Linux is just not stable enough to run in the vast majority of professional studio's, and although there is some *alright* software on linux -it's not a patch on the best OSX has to offer. It's just not.

Well, in every setup I've ever run I've never had an issue with Linux's instability in an audio enviroment. In fact, SoundOnSound rated JAMin as one of the best (if not the best, can't recall the article) audio mastering programs available. Rosegarden4 is considered to be one of the most feature rich MIDI enviroments available as well. Rezound is also a great recording program, despite a general lack of extra features, it integrates very well with the other multitude of linux audio packages.

One example... I was doing a series of live recordings at a bar. Hooked up the sound board's secondary output to my machine, in a noisy, smokey enviroment, and came out with exceptional quality recordings. Mastering took virtually no effort since I got a quality recording to start with. Cleaned it up, and came out with a fine set of recording to sell back to the bar.

Professional Studios tend to hold on to old hats. I've had long bitter arguments with the analog engineers who will die with their tape still rolling on the reels and a vinyl playing in the background, out of a zealous belief that analog is the only way to get a top quality recording. Digital guys aren't much different. We hold on to the programs we generally learned on, or made us feel most comfortable. Thus the mentality of "You can't have a digital studio without VST support" which is exactly why a lot of Linux audio projects struggle to get into the mainstream. I've had that argument with Windows and Mac digital engineers just the same.

Its like all the people who want DirectX ported, when honestly OpenGL is more effecient. Its backwards thinking to try and get VST on linux, when you could use LADSPA to gain the same result.

Am I saying that Linux outperforms Mac in audio production? No. But, you can get very close to it, just with a different mindset/mentality. In fact, I bet if you invested the same amount of money into a Linux system that you would just a basic Mac audio production system, you'd probably get a better result.

But hey, thats just my experience with it.

BlaineM
June 7th, 2007, 06:47 PM
it fascinates you that "these people" post their own opinion? you should check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrogant


thanks for that. shut people up...

you know, I dont know why I am still reading this thread 4 and 5 pages in.

Rediculous if you ask me. and strangely arrogant.
:-&this is me with the puke almost coming out.

Sweet Mercury
June 12th, 2007, 01:18 AM
Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button. The MightyMouse has a tiny scroll button/wheel thingy, but it still only has one clickable button. It's very annoying, but there you have it. You can buy just about any third-party USB mouse and have it work with Macs - it's what I do.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=6C04E099&nplm=MA272LL/A

Scroll down to the part where it describes the two button feature of the Mighty Mouse. It can be set up as one or two button interface, to appeal to old-school mac users and to switchers.

ronocdh
June 12th, 2007, 08:18 AM
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=6C04E099&nplm=MA272LL/A

Scroll down to the part where it describes the two button feature of the Mighty Mouse. It can be set up as one or two button interface, to appeal to old-school mac users and to switchers.
Somebody replied before reading the whole thread. ;) (Sorry again, SeaMyst!)

cragthehack
June 12th, 2007, 08:41 AM
Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button. The MightyMouse has a tiny scroll button/wheel thingy, but it still only has one clickable button. It's very annoying, but there you have it. You can buy just about any third-party USB mouse and have it work with Macs - it's what I do.

The button is also a toggle. There is a right click. Also 2 other buttons (on the sides). And the scrol middle button. I assume you never used one else you'd know. The days of 1 button mice for mac are over. Like last year.

Chrisj303
June 12th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Why buy a Mac ? - http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/

I'm sorry, but it's on a whole other level to Windows/ Ubuntu, it just is.

Once again i'm questioning my ubuntu install..

BlaineM
June 14th, 2007, 12:48 AM
it does look pretty neat.

benanzo
June 14th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Competition is a wonderful thing. I love the fact that Apple is setting the bar so high for competing OS environments. I love it when Microsoft does interesting things. I love it when the GNU/Linux world does it first, or does it better. This just makes for better engineers.

This just makes me love the Freedom of FOSS even more.

ronocdh
June 14th, 2007, 09:28 AM
Competition is a wonderful thing. I love the fact that Apple is setting the bar so high for competing OS environments. I love it when Microsoft does interesting things. I love it when the GNU/Linux world does it first, or does it better. This just makes for better engineers.

This just makes me love the Freedom of FOSS even more.
I have had many many people point out to me the Spaces feature in Leopard, using it as an example of how Apple is on the cutting edge of computer usability. :lolflag:

This is a great example of the free software dialectic, though. I'm also hoping the OpenMoko project will show up the iPhone in several ways, too! :D

ZERO_SHIFT
June 14th, 2007, 12:46 PM
I think that Apple is the IT innovator of our time, however innovation is not the only factor that matters in the IT world. When the open source community comes with a better solution to what Apple "invented" that sure makes FOSS a better alternative to OS X and Windows.

I think Apple's existence is crucial to bring innovation to the IT world however, innovation is only the first step towards building the pyramid. The concept behind open source software is extremely important where the open source community can collaborate in building upon this innovation, in which the structure of the open source community enables it build amazing application. Needless to say innovation within the Open source community is not non existent.

I was planning to buy a macbook last summer and dual boot OS X and Ubuntu, however I later acknowledged the fact that for the same price I could get a PC with higher specs. Sure the macbooks look cool; however I believe that even though looks are important, they are not the only factor that comes to place to buying a new computer.

If I was to buy a laptop only for its looks than VooDoo (http://www.voodoopc.com) PC would be my first choice. Whats important is achieving that balance between looks, power and of course cost. I highly respect Dell's move towards offering ubuntu; however I think that there PC's are dull when it comes to design.

Proprietary software is surly an issue within a Mac. Even though it might not seem as big of a deal right now but the extend that barriers are being incorporated is insane, I mean just look at DRM (http://defectivebydesign.org/) for example. [-X

One thing that I dislike about OS X is it's over-simplification. I feel that it dumbs people down. I mean are people so dumb that they cant handle two buttons? Its great to have application that are simple to use; however OS X apps has reached a level of simplicity that makes it complicated if you understand what I mean. If two kids work on two platforms for their entire life, one on GNU/Linux and the other on the Mac, who would you think would have a better understanding of his computer's infrastructure and capability? With Linux you can push your computer's limit by your self, no Steve Jobs needed.

Finally I think that the most amazing thing about the open source world is the amount of choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions) that is offered that no other OS can offer. The level of customization within the open sourced community is just unbelievable. I mean it reaches an extend where it is just it truly makes your PC personal. More over absolutely any one can contribute (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate) in the making of his operating system.

To brief, buying a Mac book is like marrying a person solely for his/her looks rather than their personality.

I am a happy proud owner of my PC (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_can_series.do?storeName=computer_store&category=notebooks&a1=Usage&v1=Travel%2Fmobility&series_name=dv2000t_series) running ubuntu. I do however pop to Apple.com once in a while to check what the other guys are offering :popcorn:

BlaineM
June 16th, 2007, 06:24 PM
macOS is based from unix. as far as the os is concerned, I think that it is a good one.

If I were to just buy a laptop, then put ubuntu on it, I would buy a ASUS... or maybe a uniwill.

And I hear that Apple uses ASUS mobos in their MACbook Pros anyway.

Fidelio
June 17th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Why buy a Mac over a PC?
- Why buy a Ferrari over a Ford ?
- Why buy a Rolex over a Casio.....?



Indeed. I think that about hits the nail on the head. Mind you, I never would buy a Ferrari or a Rolex. And I would never buy a mac. Sure, they're lovely, but really not that lovely.
I'm really not criticising them, but they're for rich people.
Say you're buying a packet of crisps. You don't really care whether it costs 30p or 60p. You just want the kind of crisps you like. If you're so rich that the difference between £800 and £1600 is sort of like the difference between 30p and 60p, then but a mac. And a Rolex. And A Ferrari.
Personally, a casio is a bit steep for me. My watch is a seconda and my car a Mazda 121, which, in case you're interested, is a cheapo version of a Ford Fiesta.

(I also play an Epiphone SG and a Japanese Strat)

Torajima
June 17th, 2007, 02:15 AM
Indeed. I think that about hits the nail on the head. Mind you, I never would buy a Ferrari or a Rolex. And I would never buy a mac. Sure, they're lovely, but really not that lovely.
I'm really not criticising them, but they're for rich people.

Oh, please. You people are living in the past... Macs have been competitively priced for some time now.

Go to Dell's site, choose the Ubuntu laptop and increase the specs until they match Apple's low-end Macbook. Guess what? The price difference is a whopping $85.

I'd like to think OSX and the iLife suite of applications are worth $85. Not to mention Apple's superior design...

Torajima
June 17th, 2007, 02:29 AM
Why buy a Mac ? - http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/

I'm sorry, but it's on a whole other level to Windows/ Ubuntu, it just is.

Once again i'm questioning my ubuntu install..

I don't know bothers me more about this thread, the mac haters or the mac zealots.

How exactly is Leopard a whole other level? It's nothing but eye-candy, save for Pages and Time Machine. Time Machine is of no interest to me, so why should I fork out another $130 for a feature that's been available on Linux for years?

If all you're interested in is eye candy, install Compiz/Beryll, KDE, Enlightenment, etc... it's not too hard to make the Linux desktop look as impressive as Leopard or Vista.

Motoxrdude
June 17th, 2007, 02:34 AM
how are you suppost to use a computer with onlu 1 mouse button?

Hold control to use the right click feature.

russo.mic
June 17th, 2007, 02:44 AM
As I've said before, Mac Hardware is great! THis is the only laptop that I know of with so much power in such a little package.

I just hate OS X. I use it for recording in Protools and Nuendo and such things. I like that fact that my laptop can boot 3 different operating systems, making it prepared for anything that comes my way. but I think honestly, outside of using protools, I've booted into OS X maybe 5 times in the last 5 months of owning this MBP... What does OSX do that Ubuntu dosent? I can't think of a thing. At least that I do...

kzm.
June 17th, 2007, 03:40 PM
this discussion is funny. i wonna add my ideas...

even i am more on the linux side than the osx side, i think osx does a very good job in the user interface. apple kept great control of the appearances of any app in their enviroment! you might think thats fashism and not great but from the point of user interface this homogence is good. on linux, everything looks different and behaves different, buttons are on different places, windows are flying around or docked together.. what ever the programmer feld like makes more sense. in a way that keeps linux more open to new ideas may be. i have no idea about the inner structure of linux or osx and may be someone can say more about this, but it seems that apple also did a great job in event structures and so on (actually i would know if thats true, i spoke to a lot of apple developer pointing that out).
ubuntu has apt-get install though :)

ivesjd
June 17th, 2007, 06:32 PM
I don't know bothers me more about this thread, the mac haters or the mac zealots.

How exactly is Leopard a whole other level? It's nothing but eye-candy, save for Pages and Time Machine. Time Machine is of no interest to me, so why should I fork out another $130 for a feature that's been available on Linux for years?

If all you're interested in is eye candy, install Compiz/Beryll, KDE, Enlightenment, etc... it's not too hard to make the Linux desktop look as impressive as Leopard or Vista.

[/QUOTE]

Your only talking about the 10 features that were revealed at WWDC, and Im sure that other features have been released. But dont knock it untill you try it. Its supposed to have 300 new features. Wait till it comes out, Im pretty sure Jobs and apple are just holding onto the good stuff till later.

jslmg
November 11th, 2007, 05:22 AM
Cuz everything works!\\:D/

ronocdh
November 11th, 2007, 04:09 PM
Cuz everything works!\\:D/
Geez, how the heck did you dig this one out? Let's let it die already, at least until next week, when somebody posts the exact same thing.

maluka
November 12th, 2007, 03:10 AM
i bought macs because i liked the hardware. i've owned an ibook, mac mini that i still have plugged into one of our tv's and is used mainly as a dvd player for my kids but also to browse the web. i also own a macbook pro. i honestly stopped booting into my osx partition the day that i got photoshop to work on ubuntu. i loved apple's hardware but i love ubuntu/linux more as an operating system.

cleentrax
November 12th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Hold control to use the right click feature.

I can't figure out how to get the control key to work for right clicks in Gutsy on my MacBook. Any hints? I've tried changing the keyboard type in xorg.conf, with no luck.

antisocialist
November 12th, 2007, 10:07 AM
if your going with pre made computers, i agree that you should go for a mac and dual boot,
however if you build your own computer, a mac ends up looking like a heaping pile of garbage sitting in a dumpster in a dark deserted alley compared to something thats custom made.
personally, if i want a good computer i go for the best of everything (except version of windoze) for it so that it works the best. i currently have a desktop with 4 fans and liquid cooling, nvidia geforce gfx card, 2 1tb internal hd's and 1 cd drive with 48x write speed, 1 dvd drive with 56x write speed, and 1 supermultidrive with 48x write speed on both dvd and cd, 4gb ram, in an atractive alienware case, not some ugly *** piece of sh*t computer from certain companies that pre-make comps.

the only way i would ever buy a pre made would be for warranty, and tech support.
the only premades i would buy are macs, or alienwares.

Chrisj303
November 12th, 2007, 06:47 PM
however if you build your own computer, a mac ends up looking like a heaping pile of garbage sitting in a dumpster in a dark deserted alley compared to something thats custom made.


That doesn't make sense.

If you choose an ugly looking computer / components it will look crap regardless of wether you or a factory worker has assembled it.

And if you are seriously saying that your machines look better than all Apple Mac's then I think you should post pics. Thats a very bold statement.

I have yet to see a powerful PC that looks anywhere near as nice as an iMac or Mac Pro. And I have also yet to see a laptop that looks better than the Macbook Pro - though that is very subjective and is entirely my own opinion. As is the fact that most home built PC's that I have seen look more like Optimus Primes jock-strap than a good computer (shiny plastic and tacky blue LED's ahoy!)

kye_
November 13th, 2007, 01:24 AM
I use a macbook because I enjoy creating music in my spare time and the software I prefer works flawlessly and efficiently on a mac, but for most other things I use Linux. 6-pin firewire is also very nice for portable audio recording. I've talked to other musicians who gig with their laptops, and all of them use macs, its quality reliable hardware.

aysiu
November 13th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Some of the replies seem to be going off the original subject heading (Why buy a Mac?), when the original post-er's question was about buying a Mac in order to install Ubuntu on it, so I've changed the thread title.

MichaŽlVD
November 13th, 2007, 02:09 AM
I bought an iMac because lack of cables is a great feature, and having no external speakers too, and because I could carry the box back home, etc.

I tried OS X for almost half a year, and then went back to Ubuntu, because it's more intuitive, and it never prevents you from doing something just because it can.

jslmg
November 13th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Some of the replies seem to be going off the original subject heading (Why buy a Mac?), when the original post-er's question was about buying a Mac in order to install Ubuntu on it, so I've changed the thread title.

Thanks for that clarification, Aysiu. I presume the intent was "Imagine buying a Mac and scrapping the OS X, installing Ubuntu instead, or at the very least giving Ubuntu the dominant partition on the drive." And since you put it that way, I'll just say this: If you (the general "you", not aysiu particularly) are thinking of buying a Mac specifically so you can put Ubuntu on it, well my advice is, don't. Get a Dell.

Many people may think that Mac's hardware is superior, with superior graphics, superior audio, superior CPU's, superior network interfaces--particularly wireless, superior whatever. All that is probably arguable, and one would think Linux would excel on a Mac. But the problem with this whole proposition is that you may not be able to take advantage of any of that in your Linux distro, even a crack one like Ubuntu.

Here's a list of the hardware--some of it made by Apple, some of it not--that I still have not gotten to work on my Ubuntu, running on an Intel Mac mini, and after much research in these forums, I've come to the conclusion that not many others have either, and in some cases, nobody has:

(1) An external microphone, running through an amplifier, into the line-in jack. Even seasoned forum gurus such as cyberdork have said they have not yet gotten this work.

(2) An iSight camera--still, still, still working on it.

(3) Wireless keyboard and mouse--forget it folks! Even if you manage to get a working connection, the signal strength will drop down to nothing in a few minutes.

(4) Apple remote--only works (and without any additional tweaking, which was cool) on Rhythmbox. I'm still, still, still, still looking for a working config script that will enable VLC's remote capability on my Mac mini.

These are the four biggies in my case, but I'm sure others could add to the list. BTW, if anyone has definitively gotten any of these working in Ubuntu 7.10 on a Mac mini, please do let me know.

Oh, and one more: the audio in Ubuntu works fine, and out of the box, too, but those linux audio drivers are crap. The audio on Rhythmbox, for example, distorts--get's all overmodulated--on my Mac mini after some time of play, and not that long, either--after a couple of hours. I forgive it by telling myself that "It's just a community effort; these guys aren't being paid to do this, and they'll work out these bugs through trial and error, over time." Yep, that's what I keep telling myself.

Well, I installed Ubuntu on my Mac mini (on a 10GB partition, leaving OS X plenty of room still) for two reasons:

(1) First the desktop graphics, made by developers who fearlessly and shamelessly put great ideas out there for the user to marvel at even if they are buggy and nightmarish to configure. Linux provides the best darn "show" in the computing world, no doubt about that.

(2) If I can ever get everything to work, a big "if," I would say, I may migrate completely over to Ubuntu, cuz I am increasingly sick and tired of all the corporate control crap of Apple, which is not that different in its fundamental business model from Microsoft, really. That whole iPhone-with-AT&T-only fiasco really drained my respect for Apple, actually. I do hope I can one day make that migration.

And one final note: If we want to compare the two operating systems, though that's not really the purpose of this thread, I would say that so far as I can tell, Linux surpasses Mac OS X in only one category: speed. It is noticeably faster in everything. But in all other categories that matter to the user, OS X is clearly superior: in security, in feature/setting accessibility, in stability of both system and applications that run on it, in networking, in audio.

But Ubuntu and Linux in general do have tremendous assets: The desktop systems with their swirling, twirling workspace switchers; the package managers, which are probably open source's greatest contribution; and the freedom and flexibility. These things will keep me coming back to Linux time and time again.

It's just that in Mac, everything works.

cyberdork33
November 13th, 2007, 03:59 AM
Some of the replies seem to be going off the original subject heading (Why buy a Mac?), when the original post-er's question was about buying a Mac in order to install Ubuntu on it, so I've changed the thread title.

This thread really ought to be moved out the support forum entirely.

Depressed Man
November 13th, 2007, 05:12 AM
That doesn't make sense.

If you choose an ugly looking computer / components it will look crap regardless of wether you or a factory worker has assembled it.

And if you are seriously saying that your machines look better than all Apple Mac's then I think you should post pics. Thats a very bold statement.

I have yet to see a powerful PC that looks anywhere near as nice as an iMac or Mac Pro. And I have also yet to see a laptop that looks better than the Macbook Pro - though that is very subjective and is entirely my own opinion. As is the fact that most home built PC's that I have seen look more like Optimus Primes jock-strap than a good computer (shiny plastic and tacky blue LED's ahoy!)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I myself hate the look of an iMac. The Macbook Pros look nice. But I'll take an Optmius Prime jock-strap looking PC look over the iMac's look anyday.

God and that white color irritates me too. I hate how Nintendo choose to use that for their default color for the Wii.

As for the original thread, I'd say if you wanted somewhat uniform hardware (there is a Apple Intel users section on this forum for example). But I suppose that's true of any laptop though. Assuming you pick a popular model (and not a Sony VAIO VGN-FE series like me).

cyberdork33
November 15th, 2007, 12:02 AM
This thread really ought to be moved out the support forum entirely.
Apparently my wish was granted.

tommy1987
November 23rd, 2007, 01:17 PM
I love Ubuntu don't get me wrong and always used to run it on my desktop machine, before I moved abroad with just a laptop which happened to be my first Apple Mac. Hence I am running Mac OS X Leopard. I miss Ubuntu but just cannot find a use for it, especially to run it alongside my Mac OS X installation since I have the terminal and all the power that Ubuntu would give but with this OS.

This made me think, for what reason do you people run Ubuntu when you have Apple hardware and presumably also use Mac OS. I really miss running Ubuntu but there are several problems, the first of which is Hard Drive space. How much is considered a suitable amount of space since mine is limited?

What is considered by you to be missing from Mac OS X that means you use Ubuntu.

Note: I don't intend to start a flaming war and am as far away from being an Apple fanboy as is possible.

volanin
November 23rd, 2007, 02:02 PM
This made me think, for what reason do you people run Ubuntu when you have Apple hardware and presumably also use Mac OS.

Honestly, I use Linux because I have pleasure with it.
I love tinkering with computer stuff, and MacOSX and Windows are just too closed.
If I just needed to edit documents, play games or access the internet, they would be fine...
but I find it much more enjoyable to mess with the computer and try edgy stuff.

The Linux world is too dynamic and too fluid. Things are changing all the time, some break,
others are a breakthough... and you are in the middle of it all, experiencing it first hand.

Take for example the new kernel 2.6.23:
If you linger around these forums for just a while, you will hear about CFS scheduler, tickless,
laptop_mode. When was the last time you saw common people like me and the rest of the users
here be thrilled by the KERNEL in Windows and MacOSX?

Stay a little more and you will hear about Compiz innovations, PulseAudio, KDE4, Telepathy, etc...
Sure you have some of these expectations in Win/Mac too, but they are usually delivered to you
closed in a box, working. It is fun in the beginning, but soon it becomes just another feature.

Linux, by nature, invites you to participate in it. It's your choice to do so, or use it "normally".
As you can see, it's just a matter of personal preference.


I really miss running Ubuntu but there are several problems, the first of which is Hard Drive space. How much is considered a suitable amount of space since mine is limited?

I use a 4GB root partition.
Some may argue that it's small, but I could NEVER fill it.
And I have every kind of stuff installed, ranging from many developer tools to common programs,
and right now it's 2.1GB filled. The only thing I remove from the default installation is OpenOffice,
which would account for another 400M, taking it to 2.5GB.

For the home partition, use as much as you feel comfortable.
With a little more work, you can even manage to share your home between Linux/MacOSX!
You have access to your files from both OSes with no mess, and with a single partition.
:)

ericartman
November 23rd, 2007, 02:05 PM
Pretty simple to me actually. If I had played with half the programs I got to play with in Ubuntu, on my G4, I would be broke and divorced. I have learned so much more using Ubuntu than I ever did with my Mac. To tell you the truth I also use Ubuntu because of these forums. So friendly and helpful it is unreal. I have 5 computers now running Linux, doing everything from being music servers, smoothwalls, recording TV, test beds. All put together with parts laying around my computer room. How much would have that have cost with Apple? I love my G4, but if I had to choose an OS it would be Ubuntu.

Cart

az
November 23rd, 2007, 04:00 PM
What about if you object to giving up your privacy (and some other rights) by running proprietary software?

aysiu
November 23rd, 2007, 05:32 PM
I've merged this with another similar thread.

Grey Box
November 23rd, 2007, 09:19 PM
I didn't buy my mac, it was a gift. If I would have bought a macbook (what I have) it would have been for the hardware, although honestly, it's not better than a well made generic laptop bought for the same money.

Now tha I have a macbook, I have been running OS X on it for about 3 months, trying to get used to it. I have to say I am sooooo glad I have ubuntu on it now because it's really more responsive and predictable in its behaviour. OS X is nice for nonproductive things like chat and loading holiday snaps, but I have (only!) 1GB Ram and OS X is such a memory hog, I have wasted lots of time gazings at the spinning coloured ball that I finally got bored of it.

Oh and the macbook has two mouse buttons on its trackpad (if you consider the CTRL key a mouse button.. sheesh!) - and even in OS X you need the right button if you want to do anything interesting.

And yes, actually, privacy is a big issue. OS X is no good without packages like Little Snitch (although even that is closed source.. does it snitch on its owner too?), and there is the history of Apple not being up-front with security flaws. It reminds me too much of Microsoft.

So there you are.. With a bit of work, ubuntu has improved my macbook, I'd have to say.

00arthuryu
November 29th, 2007, 12:09 PM
look dusent matter as long as it works!

I fully agree with you here.
I really 'dislike' (in a light word) apple fan boys.
I know one that said 'I hate ugly looking programs.'
I donno how many of you would agree with this statement.
Personally, my desktop hasn't even got a case. My friends still love to use my computer. As I have Ubuntu.

Sam Plamondon
November 30th, 2007, 12:05 AM
I find that OS X is quite the opposite of Ubuntu and other Linux distributions - it seems to be a simple to use, yet restrictive, operating system; Linux, while needing a bit more technical expertise, is very open and customizable. Between these two, in my opinion, is Windows. I have used all three of these operating systems, and I find they all have advantages - I have no particular favourite.
So why buy a Mac? Well, if you ever wanted to run all three of the above-named operating systems, then a Mac would be your only choice (unless there is a way to install OS X on a non-Apple PC, I have not looked into it). Also, Macs are very nice looking, and they have relatively good hardware (however, computers with similar or better hardware can be bought from computer companies such as Hewlett-Packard or Dell for a better price).
Personally, if I wanted to run Ubuntu on a desktop PC, I would probably buy a Dell or HP with similar or better specs than an iMac or Mac Pro for a better price. I would make the same choice for a laptop, but the MacBook Pro might be worth it's price - it's apparently really fast (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139830-page,3-c,systems/article.html).

juxtaposed
November 30th, 2007, 12:08 AM
(unless there is a way to install OS X on a non-Apple PC, I have not looked into it).

Yes, there is.

Nano Geek
November 30th, 2007, 03:55 AM
Yes, there is.But it's illegal to do.

Alfa989
December 2nd, 2007, 03:01 PM
What about if you object to giving up your privacy (and some other rights) by running proprietary software?
ROFL

Run, run! It's PROPIETARY

OMG! It's gonna destroy the world!!!

Geez... I can't stand that ********...

You're not giving up any right when you use propietary software... And it's not evil either...

Chrisj303
December 2nd, 2007, 04:54 PM
I run proprietary software virtually all the time - no harm as ever come to me as a result!

Sam Plamondon
December 4th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Also, Macs are very nice looking, and they have relatively good hardware (however, computers with similar or better hardware can be bought from computer companies such as Hewlett-Packard or Dell for a better price).

You might also want to try out computers from companies such as ASUSteK or Lenovo, which have reputations for high quality computers.

omns
December 4th, 2007, 02:55 PM
ROFL

Run, run! It's PROPIETARY

OMG! It's gonna destroy the world!!!

Geez... I can't stand that ********...

You're not giving up any right when you use propietary software... And it's not evil either...

hehe

Tipo
December 4th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I would personally go with a few-years-old mac. I had always used Macs before I started with Linux, and it's the hardware that I know and am comfortable with.

tuebinger
December 5th, 2007, 06:51 AM
I'm new to Ubuntu. I was home sick last week for three days and always was curious about linux, so I installed ubuntu just out of curiosity and boredom on my 6 year old ibook . I've been on working almost solely on that ibook since. ( I have only used my newer macbook a few times in the last week, and would use ubuntu on it but for not being able to get it to go wireless. ) It's weird -- It's just an OS. But I like it. Simple to use. No extra eye candy. All the applications are easily accessible. I'll still use OSX because I'll need it to sync my iPod and iPhone, but for surfing the web, word processing, and using the spreadsheet, I like Ubuntu much better. I'm also attracted by the whole philosophy behind the free software movement.

Terc
December 5th, 2007, 08:17 AM
my opinion (nearly worthless :)) - because you look *cool* at the coffee houses..

I would never buy a mac, they only have one mouse button!

I'm so *sick* of hearing this, Macs have had two button mouse support for almost a decade. Yup, the current Apple Mice and trackpads have two buttons, They use touch sensors to check for either a one finger (left click) or two finger (right click) click.

emptiness
December 5th, 2007, 09:57 PM
I bought my first mac a month ago and I love it,I have a 13 inch white macbook C2D gen 3 with 2gigabytes of ram.
I get about 3 hrs on battery in mac osx.About 2 1/2 in ubuntu gutsy.

I have had several laptops and desktops,I gotta say that it's my favorite.

mac osx is okay... after using linux for 3 years it seems a little lacking,fink did help a little.1 button mouse took a little getting used to but overall I love my first mac.
Don't love osx..

I don't like having to use ndiswrapper but it works well enough :(

igknighted
December 5th, 2007, 10:23 PM
I would make the same choice for a laptop, but the MacBook Pro might be worth it's price - it's apparently really fast (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139830-page,3-c,systems/article.html).

While they are fast, you can get (as you mentioned above) the same components (and same speed) cheaper by going with a Sony or other windows laptop. Besides, I would stay as far away from the macbooks as possible due to some rather major overheating issues (this has been an issue since the old iBooks, but apple has done nothing to rectify it and it's becoming a major problem).

maharbA
December 5th, 2007, 10:41 PM
don't forget, macs tend to have a very high re-sale value.
The 5+ year old Mac Cube still sells for $300. That's for a <500 MHz processor.

Alfa989
December 5th, 2007, 10:50 PM
While they are fast, you can get (as you mentioned above) the same components (and same speed) cheaper by going with a Sony or other windows laptop.
Mmm... I don't think so... With the same components, Macs are either the same price or cheaper than their PC counterparts...

Besides, I would stay as far away from the macbooks as possible due to some rather major overheating issues (this has been an issue since the old iBooks, but apple has done nothing to rectify it and it's becoming a major problem).
Those OMFG-it's-huge "overheating problems" that the Core Duos had was solved more than a year ago...
And the iBooks never had any kind of overheating issues BTW...

igknighted
December 6th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Mmm... I don't think so... With the same components, Macs are either the same price or cheaper than their PC counterparts...

Those OMFG-it's-huge "overheating problems" that the Core Duos had was solved more than a year ago...
And the iBooks never had any kind of overheating issues BTW...

Believe what you wish about price. I can get an HP laptop with the same processor/memory etc. as a 17" macbook pro w/ dvd burner for the same price as the same HP laptop, except with a 20" screen and an HD-DVD burner (each several hundred dollar upgrades no doubt).

If they have "fixed" the overheating issue, well I am still skeptical. And the iBooks certainly did have overheating issues. I had to send mine back for them to replace the logic board because there was a recall... because they were bursting into flames.

D-EJ915
December 6th, 2007, 02:55 AM
don't forget, macs tend to have a very high re-sale value.
The 5+ year old Mac Cube still sells for $300. That's for a <500 MHz processor.
The cube sells for a high price because they are a novelty item and collectors want them.

maharbA
December 6th, 2007, 07:34 AM
The cube sells for a high price because they are a novelty item and collectors want them.

True. That is an extreme example. But check out craigslist and compare. I have no hard data, but anecdotal evidence points to a greater resale value.

Sam Plamondon
December 6th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Mmm... I don't think so... With the same components, Macs are either the same price or cheaper than their PC counterparts...

Well, it matters where you look I guess, but from what I have seen, non-Apple computers are usually cheaper for their specifications. Here are examples of pricing between Apple and Dell (I chose Dell because of their fantastic, easily-navigable online store, which is easily the best of any computer company).
A baseline 15.4" MacBook Pro, straight from Apple's online store, is priced at $2,199. With the same specs (from the 2 GB of memory down to the 1440x900 screen resolution, wireless N, and internal Bluetooth), a Dell Inspiron 1520 bought off of Dell's online store costs $1,369. Well, the specs are not exactly the same - the Dell's Core 2 Duo processor has the slight disadvantage of being 2.0 GHz to the Apple's 2.2 GHz, and has 2 MB to the Apple's 4 MB of cache. However, I would say this is made up by the Inspiron: it has a 250 GB hard drive, over twice the amount of space as Apple's 120 GB HD, and its graphics card (an NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT, same as the Apple's), at 256 MB, has twice the amount of RAM.
Without any tax, the MacBook Pro is $830 more than the Inspiron 1520: with that extra money, you could customize your Dell with 4 GB of memory, a 1680x1050 display, and a Blu-Ray drive - and still have $80 left in your pocket.
Next, I looked at the 13-inchers: the MacBook versus the XPS M1330. Since Dell does not sell any lower-ended 13-inchers, I will compare Apple's best MacBook with the M1330.
With uniform specs, the systems' prices were almost exactly the same: the MacBook was $1,649 while the XPS was $1,629 - a negligible $20 difference.
What about Apple's cheapest PC, the $649 Mac Mini? If you are looking for a good desktop for the same price, the Inspiron 530s is a better deal. You get all the same specs, plus: a 2.20 GHz instead of 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, a 250 instead of 80 GB hard drive, a DVD-burning optical drive, and external speakers, a keyboard, and a mouse. While the 530s is not quite as small as the Mini, it is considerably smaller than an average desktop.
Apple's middle desktop in terms of price is the iMac, which starts at $1,299. The Inspiron 530s can be compared to it: with specs tuned up to match those of the iMac (plus 20-inch display), the 530s had a price of $1,059 - $240 dollars cheaper (enough to double the RAM and the hard drive size) than the iMac. It also had a .2 GHz faster processor, twice as much memory on its graphics card, and external 30-watt speakers. The only downsides were the lack of a microphone and, of course, the lack of the iMac's all-in-one form.
Finally, Apple's most expensive and powerful PC is the Mac Pro. Maxed out, the Mac Pro can reach the astounding price of $21,050, and that's without any extra software or warranties - however, its specifications are so mind-bendingly high at this price that even Dell's top XPS systems cannot come close (in price or specs).
So, I reduced the Mac Pro's specs until they were pretty much even with a maxed-out version of Dell's top desktop, the XPS 720 H2C. Once the systems were pretty much even (I won't go in to details as there were tons of options - lets just say that the Mac had more processing power while the XPS had better graphics, and otherwise they had all sorts of different small advantages over each other), the Dell was, once again, cheaper: $8,068 to the Apple's $8,552; $484 less. However, as the systems were both close to five-digit prices, the price difference is negligible.
Overall, the Macs were more expensive for their specs than the Dells, but (other than in the case of the MacBook Pro) not by huge amounts. However, I am sure that if you look hard enough, non-Apple PCs can be found for cheaper prices than can be found on Dell's online store. Also, I tried to be very fair about the prices, and made sure the large majority of specifications were as close as possible on all the systems I compared. I really like Macs, they are beautifully designed computers.
On a final note, this is a pet peeve of mine: a Mac is a PC. A PC is a Personal Computer, a computer which is designed and marketed for individual, home, or office use. The difference between a Mac and other PCs is simply its brand and the software loaded onto it: it is not as if Macs are an exclusive category of computer, hardware-wise (although I am sure that many Mac fans would argue with me about that). Those arrogant "Get a Mac" ads sure do not help... So remember: a Mac is not separate from, or better than, PCs - it is included in their group. Saying that Macs are better than PCs is sort of like saying that novels are better than books, or that Ubuntu is better than Linux,
Thanks for reading!
Wait, I forgot to mention: the prices of these computers are in Canadian dollars. It is easy to convert into United Stated dollars: they are worth pretty much the same right now (Canadian dollar is about half a cent less).

boast
December 6th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Personally, my desktop hasn't even got a case. My friends still love to use my computer. As I have Ubuntu.

And if you could, your car would have no paint job, no doors or windows, heck, even the roof sawed off.

:)

Alfa989
December 6th, 2007, 04:27 PM
Believe what you wish about price. I can get an HP laptop with the same processor/memory etc. as a 17" macbook pro w/ dvd burner for the same price as the same HP laptop, except with a 20" screen and an HD-DVD burner (each several hundred dollar upgrades no doubt).
But the HP's quality is horrible, the screen is not as good, there is not nearly as much great software included, etc... It feels like an unfinished product...
For me all PCs do... Except IBM/Lenovos and VAIOs... Sad but true... :(

If they have "fixed" the overheating issue, well I am still skeptical. And the iBooks certainly did have overheating issues. I had to send mine back for them to replace the logic board because there was a recall... because they were bursting into flames.
Nope, the iBook did not have any kind of problem with their generated heat. It stays nice and cool... And I only remember 2-3 late PowerBook G4s to burst into flames, never an iBook... :)

igknighted
December 6th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Nope, the iBook did not have any kind of problem with their generated heat. It stays nice and cool... And I only remember 2-3 late PowerBook G4s to burst into flames, never an iBook... :)

So I got a free logic board for nothing? Sweet.

EDIT: I guess it doesn't explicitly say heat-related, don't know if that was an assumption or if I saw it somehwere at the time: http://www.apple.com/support/ibook/faq/.

I still hold to my theories on apple computers not dissapating heat as well... even the most diehard mac fans I know will admit it as a flaw (and if you can get a mac fanboy to admit a flaw with apple, it must be real :D).

EDIT2: And there's nothing wrong with hp/compaq computers. They make some very nice laptops. The only thing I tend to dislike is their trackpads (they feel sticky). But if I were buying a big notebook (I call anything 15" and up big), I would take a 20" screen over 17", even if the 17" looked a little prettier. Besides, while the area of a screen is a feature, the "prettyness", which no doubt goes to apple, is not. It's just aesthetic. And thats the point... you pay more for apple's aesthetics. If this is appealing, then macs are a great choice. Personally, I could care less how a desktop looks and i prefer the look of my $500 acer laptop to the $1000+ macbook (no specs are nowhere close), so I really don't have any reason to buy another apple after that ibook (Not an OSX fan, running linux on apple's is a huge PITA since you cannot use grub)

Bromo
December 16th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Actually, that's not true. All Apple Mice, direct from the manufacturer, have only one button. The MightyMouse has a tiny scroll button/wheel thingy, but it still only has one clickable button. It's very annoying, but there you have it. You can buy just about any third-party USB mouse and have it work with Macs - it's what I do.

Thats not quite true - the Mighty mouse has several sensors:

1. TWO click buttons
2. Scroll ball on top that scrolls R-L and F-B
3. Scroll ball also can be a third button
4. Squeeze sensor

SO there is a scroll ball and 4 buttons.

The scroll ball gets dirty and stops working VERY easily, so I have a logitech. But naturally I had to go through 2 Mighty Mouse before figuring this out! :P

Bromo
December 16th, 2007, 02:50 PM
I still hold to my theories on apple computers not dissapating heat as well... even the most diehard mac fans I know will admit it as a flaw (and if you can get a mac fanboy to admit a flaw with apple, it must be real :D).

Well the MacBookPro gets hotter than a pistol - if you "lap" it in shorts you get nice first degree burns! She won't let me partition and install Linux on it either! :(

Well my wife "borged" that Macbookpro and I am not gonna pay for another one for me, so I am looking for a prebuilt Linux laptop - or one that converts well without a great deal of fuss.

(My previous laptop was a Mac PPC G3 running Ubuntu, but it recently bit the dust!)

Bromo
December 16th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Well, it matters where you look I guess, but from what I have seen, non-Apple computers are usually cheaper for their specifications. Here are examples of pricing between Apple and Dell (I chose Dell because of their fantastic, easily-navigable online store, which is easily the best of any computer company) [...Very thorough Analysis Deleted for brevity ...]

(third post! :) )

Wow ... what a great analysis! Thanks for that!! :D

It is clear through Apple's reported margins as well as the pricing exercise, they are not only getting a premium for their machines (looks like anywhere between a few percent to 20+%) and I would say from your analysis at the low end, the gap is larger than in high performance machines - and it is easier to see now they are all on x86 machines, too.

So the question is why can Apple command a premium (And they always have done so) and now with that premium, command a larger market share?

I have some theories:
1. "Cool" industrial designs (I think someone says "looks cool in a coffee house ... well, they have a feel of quality in my book and are sleek)
2. OSX (I really think a seamless *nix experience with their GUI on top of it is a selling point) - both from a stability point of view (esp. w/Vista) and non intrusive DRM and protection.
3. Hardware integration (Even though it is proprietary, their limited hardware set and actual testing means that they probably are one of the most integrated solutions on the market - at least of the larger manufacturers)
4. Non-intrusive DRM (this is important now that Vista is on the scene)
5. Not a lot of viruses/worms/malware (yet).

I suspect when MS goes "Vista only" in the summer (if they really do so) you will need a higher specified machine to equal the speed of a Mac since OSX won't have the same overhead as Vista which will more justify the premium, too.

But, with Apple or Windows when you buy the machine the spending starts, and you are on a treadmill ... this is what makes me impressed with Linux and Open Source. So while an Apple Fanboy (and one from Apple II days!) my dirty little secret in Linux (since 2004) ever since I fell in love with Unix at University in the 1980's! :lolflag: