DBT85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and discussing it on here would be breaking the rules
How odd, I'd better check the rules again to see what else I need to watch out for
and the site receives a small commission
desktop recommendations
- Thread starter kar1
- Start date
How odd, I'd better check the rules again to see what else I need to watch out for
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It always amazes me how PC fanboys get all airiated when Apple is suggested. Why is this ? I have always been of the opinion that you buy whatever suits you, if you want a PC then buy one, you're choice but some of us see beyond price and don't want to spend hours upgrading this and tweaking that. All we want to do is get on with using the thing for what it was bought for.
After years of PC use, I moved to iMac and would never go back. In my view it's altogether a much better thought out product ( I think it's called design).
Little things like only one cable to the back, silent operation, no updates every 10 minutes, I could go on but you get the drift.
After years of PC use, I moved to iMac and would never go back. In my view it's altogether a much better thought out product ( I think it's called design).
Little things like only one cable to the back, silent operation, no updates every 10 minutes, I could go on but you get the drift.
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They don't.
They get upset when people claim it is a better product and that it is sprinkled with Pixie dust in the Apple factory, that it never goes wrong, is perfect, never slows down, never gets viruses etc... Well... that just isn't the case - just ask IT pros who look after them professionally (Neil has already posted in this thread saying just that).
Yes, I agree it's a premium product, but no, I don't believe it is anything better than an equivalent Win7 PC. In fact, for the way I use my computer, it has a backward UI, is pretty much unconfigurable/unupgradeable and runs a fairly closed environment which makes it more difficult to run it in conjunction with other systems. For example, I currently have a dual 24" matte monitor system (I have to sit with my back to a window in my office, so need a matte screen). How on earth would I do that at a reasonable price with an Apple computer?
I really, REALLY don't have a problem with people buying Apples if that's what they want, but they are just another computer. The processor is the same, the chipset is the same. It will run the same programs and generally provide the same environment when you are inside those programs.
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In what way is it unconfigurable? See this argument is often put but is wrong. Macs are configurable in just the same way as a PC is. You are right about hardware upgrades but there is a customer base who just doesn't care. It's because the OS fits the hardware that gives them the reliability. To a lot of users this is more important than playing about with drivers trying to get things to work.
I agree, for you the dual monitor issue and the siting of your desk perhaps dictates what is right for you but that's the point I'm making.
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How about anything beyond changing memory? How about adding an SSD? Add an extra internal drive? Add two extra internal drives? All common things people want to do.... Less common, but still possible: add an extra card inside, or change the DVD drive for BluRay. All possible to do easily to 95% of PCs to lengthen their life without resorting to external boxes. And whilst I fully admit I'm not the norm, I have 6 self-build PCs here and they ALL have additional cards in the back of them - TV tuners, graphics cards, RAID cards, better Ethernet adapters.....
There, I've corrected that for you. IMHO, expandability is very important when spending this much on an item of equipment. You wouldn't spend premium money on a large TV and only have 1 HDMI socket now would you?
And now they are on their 5th or 6th iteration, and processors have changed, and graphics cards have changed, you will see this change IMHO. The latest releases of OS-X have had problems with compatibility and upgrades. You only had to look here when the last upgrade came out to see the issues people were having with it.
For all but the most esoteric hardware, that really is a thing of the past with Windows. As are BSODs.
IMHO, the grass just isn't as green as people claim.
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But you can't add hardware into a TV if you want to, nor washing machines, not fridges etc. Why would you want to.
In terms of software upgrades at least you don't get them virtually every time you switch on the machine, nor do you get AV updates, profile corruption, registry corruption etc etc
Several million customers can't all be wrong. Apple do very nice products which are relatively easy to use and maintain and they make a handsome profit out of it, good for them. Long may they continue.
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You expand the TV by changing the boxes. My 2008 Pioneer TV has been "upgraded" with an HTPC and a high-def terrestrial box - when I bought it, I didn't really have any HD content available, but I bought it with enough expandability that it would grow with me until it died. The point I was making is that it is such an expensive item which needs to move with technology, I wouldn't dream of buying a system that was only capable of what you have available today. You really should be looking at what is needed in 2 years time.
And I specifically didn't mention white goods as they do one function. They get replaced when they break, not when they run out of processing power or disk space, or expandability.
Windows updates are once a month. A/V updates are now mostly malware updates and if you don't run any a/v protection on any machine you enter sensitive information on, then more fool you - no OS will protect you against the user being fooled into handing out information to bad sites. Profile corruption, registry corruption: never had them - an urban myth quoted by people justifying use of Apple PCs perhaps?
Yes, exactly. It's just the FUD* that is quoted as reasons for Apple being simpler generally aren't true. And willy waving customer numbers really isn't the point as Windows is THE dominant software UI out there today.
I really don't have a problem with people buying Apple products because they prefer them: each to their own. I have a problem with people saying "buy Apple because Micro$oft Windoze is rubbish". It isn't and has been as good as (or better in some places) as OS-X since the release of Win7. I can quite happily reel off issues with compatibility and usability that makes Apple software & hardware "rubbish" (iTunes openness with data and codec support, ability to get Apple machines to join Windows workgroups, filesystem compatibility, insistence of having the window banner at the top of the screen, inability to pick and choose my hardware specs, difficulty of maintenance, high cost, belief that the system doesn't need any protection etc, etc...) and I only bring them out when people claim Apple superiority
[*]FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Profile corruption, registry corruption: never had them - an urban myth quoted by people justifying use of Apple PCs perhaps?
I spend all day fixing Windows user profiles and problems so don't tell me they are rare. Our team look after several hundred Windows PC's I know how good they are.
Yes, exactly. It's just the FUD* that is quoted as reasons for Apple being simpler generally aren't true. And willy waving customer numbers really isn't the point as Windows is THE dominant software UI out there today.
It's only dominant because of MS Office being the industry standard and users afraid to move away from that.
I really don't have a problem with people buying Apple products because they prefer them: each to their own. I have a problem with people saying "buy Apple because Micro$oft Windoze is rubbish". It isn't and has been as good as (or better in some places) as OS-X since the release of Win7. I can quite happily reel off issues with compatibility and usability that makes Apple software & hardware "rubbish" (iTunes openness with data and codec support, ability to get Apple machines to join Windows workgroups, filesystem compatibility, insistence of having the window banner at the top of the screen, inability to pick and choose my hardware specs, difficulty of maintenance, high cost, belief that the system doesn't need any protection etc, etc...) and I only bring them out when people claim Apple superiority
No one said anything about superiority - just choices. IMac's can be joined to domains just as easy as MS Windows. Apple hardware and software is not rubbish, it's really rather good and a lot cheaper in most cases that MS software.
[*]FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Last edited:
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You implied it from your posts.
And this thread only got "airiated" with the challenge of building an iMac for half the price as that was just an answer to a direct challenge. Best we could do was about 70%, but certainly for me, irrespective of the software, I wouldn't choose an iMac as I'd want 2 screens anyway.
BTW: Macs have just as many user induced problems as PCs. Just ask Neil who looks after both for a living. It's that FUD I tend to respond to (which is why I responded to your original post).
BTW2: The several hundred PCs your team look after: what proportion are on Win 7. Whilst I don't work in IT, I know the majority of our Windows machines are XP in work.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
sorry but im going to call "balls" on that one. shall we talk about average office PC cost vs apple cost. staff retraining costs.. blah blah..
you could say the same about macs and media work mind..
yup. cross platform file locking is a complete hash up though. and i dont know what they did with the networking in lion onwards but it broke our AFP shares.
like for like i dont think so. office on both platforms on vol licencing is around the same if i remember rightly. same for adobe. OS then maybe, windows 8 may turn that around though.
snow leopard was excellent operating software, it was as stable as XP and 7. dont know what they did with lion and mountain lion but its leaving a bitter taste here.
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
10% Windows 2000 Pro
60% Windows XP Pro
25% Windows 7
Rest various OS's
Worst by far are XP Pro
madeinengland
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 84
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Exactly my point - To change platform to Apple would cost far more than just a hardware swap. Mostly in labour terms for training and support and lost productivity time while users change over. This is why companies don't change.
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yup. Don't compare the home user experience of 7 (or 8 today) with business environment XP. If you're going to compare home user of Mac vs Home user of Windows, you have to look at the typical environment of both, not compare a home environment with a business environment which is primarily running a patched 12 year old OS.
For a typical home user, it is swings and roundabouts as far as the user experience of a Mac and an equivalently spec'd PC go IMHO. Neither is intrinsically "better"....
BTW: the reason I use MS Office is it is an industry standard (just as TCP/IP is for example). I have to swap documents between other Office users, so use Office to enable me to do that easily. The times I've tried OpenOffice, I've found formatting issues within minutes compared to the same document formatted in Office. It just isn't a viable option IMHO.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
nowt wrong with XP. its bombproof.
i wouldnt call that "afraid" more business sense..
i wouldnt call that "afraid" more business sense..
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My old works PCs running XP were the only Windows systems I've had problems with. But then we do have a stupid number of system policies and auto-updated software on there.
The Win 7 machine I have now has been fine though.
arad85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But I work in a multi-national company with a one-size-fits-all policy administered out of India..........i cant say ive ever had any XP specific issues to write home about.. some of the oldest kit we've got is chugging along happily on XP
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No