Mac or PC

[crackers57]

How do they stack up against the Commodore 64?
I've just been offered one real cheap

 

[notting18]

I grew up on macs only, and they are great if you want to do actual work, etc. However, for general stuffing around a PC (or windows mode on a new mac) is what you need!

 

[viccles]

I grew up on macs only, and they are great if you want to do actual work, etc. However, for general stuffing around a PC (or windows mode on a new mac) is what you need!

I concur. I'm using windows on my MBP as we speak. A little sluggish but its because mine is only a CD running 1.5GB of ram

 

[Higgs Boson]

One thing PC users can do that Mac users can't...*






*If offended by strong language, don't click on this shit!

 

[BomberGal]

Whats this no virus bullshit people sprout off. Macs get plenty of viruses.

Agree. About half the people here in my office use Macs...and they indeed get viruses. Anyway...get proper virus protection and you'll be OK. (BTW...don't you think there are less viruses because they've been less popular in the past?! The more people that use them, the more viruses there will end up being...)

I have a PC, have always had a PC, and I love it. Got a HP laptop at the moment. I have never had any problems with PCs in 15 odd years that you can't get with a Mac, or fix if you know what you're doing. I cannot stand Macs - they simply do not do what I want them to. And always do stupid things like sit there and take five minutes to think when I click to open something...or even when I don't click, the mouse just starts doing its little pretty-but-annoying spinning thing! (My uni has a lot of Mac labs, so I've had plenty of experience.) To me Macs are only about aesthetics...not function.

Each to their own, but I love my comp. (I've also noticed all the graphics/media people in here who love Macs. I don't do this stuff anyway.)

BTW, deeman12, in regards to your original post: it sounds like your sister needs to take better care of her PC.

 

[Team Mo']

Those adds make PC look so bad

 

[deeman12]

I should be able to download and do other stuff like taht with my PC, i payed $1200, it should be able to tolerate alot of downloading, I HATE PC. I cant see myself buying a mac because im not really into graphic designing and all that, i just want a computer that can take some stick.

 

[deeman12]

My anti virus system is kaspersky. Is that a good anti spyware.

 

[- PC -]

What can I say

 

[BomberGal]

My anti virus system is kaspersky. Is that a good anti spyware.

I've never heard of it, so I can't tell you how good it is. However, an anti-virus system is different from anti-spyware. You want to protect against both.

Use Spybot Search & Destroy for anti-spyware.

For anti-virus, use something like NOD32 (you have to pay, "legally", but it is one of the best). For free you can get avast! or the free version of AVG.

CCleaner is also a useful program to have on your PC. These three combined should keep your computer safe and clean. It might be worth running VundoFix to get rid of any nasty dlls that might be building up in your system. If you have genuine concerns about your system, maybe post on the Computing board?

What downloading are you doing? A PC shouldn't have any trouble with that, it could be the user...

 

[KissStephanie]

I want to get a new comp because my sister is always on this one. My sisters is a Pc, blue shit always comes up and cripted messages are annoying. If anybody has a Mac do you think that it is better then a PC.

There is no comparison. Microsoft is so far behind Apple it is not funny. It is well known that the current version of Mac OS X, which was released in May of 2005, is far more advanced than Windows Vista, which was released in January of 2007, and is simply yet another poor copy of the Mac. Apple will further stretch that gap later this year when the next version on Mac OS X is released.

The Macintosh is also faster, more reliable, and more secure than Winblows, while Apple's hardware is better than any other computer manufacturer as well. This graph says it all really, and remember, Mac OS X, which has won the best operating system for the past five years, and is the leader here, was released nearly two years before Winblows Vista. It will be interesting to see how well rated Mac OS X Leopard will be later this year...

 

[BomberGal]

There is no comparison. Microsoft is so far behind Apple it is not funny. It is well known that the current version of Mac OS X, which was released in May of 2005, is far more advanced than Windows Vista, which was released in January of 2007, and is simply yet another poor copy of the Mac. Apple will further stretch that gap later this year when the next version on Mac OS X is released.

The Macintosh is also faster, more reliable, and more secure than Winblows, while Apple's hardware is better than any other computer manufacturer as well. This graph says it all really, and remember, Mac OS X, which has won the best operating system for the past five years, and is the leader here, was released nearly two years before Winblows Vista. It will be interesting to see how well rated Mac OS X Leopard will be later this year...

Based on subjective assessments of the author...

Pointless graph, don't you think a PC user would rate them another way?

XP > Vista, anyway.

 

[KissStephanie]

Will not buy a Mac, too expensive for what you get.

And how did you figure that out? A Mac is in fact cheaper for what you get when exactly compared for speed and software with a PC.

They are good for graphic designers, video producers and snobs (don't believe me, try talking IT with a Mac user. Most of them have no idea).

That's actually a compliment. If people want the simplicity of a computer, then many Mac users can do this without needing to know anything about IT. On the other hand, if Mac users enjoy digging further into the OS, including IT, then the Macintosh and it's UNIX core is every bit as challenging and complicated as any other operating system of course. It's the best of both worlds.

Based on subjective assessments of the author...

That's right, and it was from Computer World magazine! Not only that, but the Macintosh has been named the best operating system by PC World for the past five years. Pretty impressive as both publications focus on PC's and not the Macintosh.

Pointless graph, don't you think a PC user would rate them another way?

It was rated by a PC user, so of course it's not pointless, and I found it perfectly accurate. It was a subjective opinion from Computer World magazine which happens to focus on PC's. In my opinion, the only people that may find it a useless graph are some Winblows users that don't like or agree with what they see.

XP > Vista, anyway.

That is pretty sad then. If an operating system that was released by Microsoft in 2001 is better than an operating system released in 2007, then Microsoft are more backwards than I had already thought. Apple, unlike Microsoft, continually improve on their previous releases.

 

[BomberGal]

That's right, and it was from Computer World magazine! Not only that, but the Macintosh has been named the best operating system by PC World for the past five years. Pretty impressive as both publications focus on PC's and not the Macintosh.

So....

Your point? I could do the same graph and end up with something completely different. Subjective opinions are not evidence. That's all this thread is. Subjective opinions. Mac users will say "Mac is better than PC", PC users will say "PC is better than Mac".

It was rated by a PC user, so of course it's not pointless, and I found it perfectly accurate. It was a subjective opinion from Computer World magazine which happens to focus on PC's. In my opinion, the only people that may find it a useless graph are some Winblows users that don't like or agree with what they see.

So I should trust one magazine? Good or not, it doesn't mean it's correct for everyone. I've had no problems with PC, I have all sorts of terrible problems with Mac - why should I switch to a Mac?! Not to mention the way Mac promotes themselves... BTW, I cannot find anywhere that it says Scot Finnie, the author, is a PC user (he may well be, but I can't find it. Looks to me like he probably uses lots of systems. If he thought Mac was so great, he'd surely use it). If he does use PC, then surely that means that, even though he rates Mac so highly, he still has very good reasons to use PC?!

You found it accurate? Why, are you a professional in the industry? Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Here's a tip...it's not. You seem awfully bitter against PC. What's the matter, you can't figure yours out?

Subjective does not equal definitive. My subjective opinion says PC >>>> Mac. Does that make it true? Graphs made out of subjective opinion, rather than data, are not 'useful'. I don't agree with the graph, because I find Windows easier to use than Mac. Why am I wrong?

That is pretty sad then. If an operating system that was released by Microsoft in 2001 is better than an operating system released in 2007, then Microsoft are more backwards than I had already thought. Apple, unlike Microsoft, continually improve on their previous releases.

So, XP was treated the same way when it was first released, as compared to Windows 98. Takes some time for things to be running well. If Microsoft has not improved on XP to make Vista, it doesn't automatically make XP bad, what kind of logic is that?

Call it "Windows" rather than "Winblows" and people might start taking your opinion a little more seriously here, rather than you just sounding like someone who ****ed up their PC big time.

 

[goalpie]

Its what you put into the computer that counts.

I have seen plenty of people running around with their macs pretending to be designers when their work is crap.

 

[KissStephanie]

Your point? I could do the same graph and end up with something completely different.

Go right ahead then. I'll be interested in reading your subjective in depth reasons for your comparison.

Subjective opinions are not evidence.

I didn't say that a subjective opinion is evidence, but I have shown that a subjective author that works for a well known publication that focuses on PC's rates Mac OS X higher by a considerable margin. That certainly says a lot more than many of the opinions on this thread in my opinion.

His words from last year which can be read on the link that I supplied...

"So, why is the year-old Mac OS X Tiger so much better than Windows Vista, which Microsoft won't even ship before January 2007? It isn't that Apple has put more effort into its operating system; Microsoft has mounted a gargantuan effort on Windows Vista. It's that the two companies have very different goals. I've come to believe that Microsoft has lost touch with its user base."

Subjective opinions are not evidence. That's all this thread is. Subjective opinions. Mac users will say "Mac is better than PC", PC users will say "PC is better than Mac".

I don't entirely agree with that. In my experience I am aware that all Mac users will claim that Mac OS X is the best operating system because it is, while many Winblows users also claim that Mac OS X is the best operating system. That includes quite a number of Microsoft employees that I know in Seattle that are quite aware that Apple creates the best hardware and software, while Microsoft's objective is to not make the best software, but to be the best marketers of their products. Quantity is more important than quality, and innovation for that matter, to Microsoft.

So I should trust one magazine?

Actually there were two, Computer World and PC World, and neither of them are Mac publications. These two magazines are all about Windows related computers, yet they still both rate Mac OS X higher.

I've had no problems with PC, I have all sorts of terrible problems with Mac - why should I switch to a Mac?! Not to mention the way Mac promotes themselves.

Firstly, the law of average shows that there is always going to be some Winblows users that are satisfied with their experience, even on the ancient 2001 technology that you use. However, the numbers show that Mac users don't switch, while many, many Winblows users have done so in recent years.

Secondly, I don't believe that you have experienced all sorts of terrible problems with a Mac because that doesn't happen with Mac OS X Tiger of course, so I would be interested in hearing what they were, and thirdly, how is it that Apple promotes themselves that bothers you?

Is it because their hardware and software is award winning? Is it because Microsoft have copied them ever since the first Macintosh was released in 1984? Is it because Apple and Google have been named as the two most innovative companies in the computer industry?

BTW, I cannot find anywhere that it says Scot Finnie, the author, is a PC user (he may well be, but I can't find it. Looks to me like he probably uses lots of systems.

Scot Finnie is an impartial journalist. He has mainly written for PC publications, and is quite aware of many operating systems. I would imagine that he knows more about this than you do since you're choosing to use 2001 technology, which I can't imagine doing for the life of me, particularly as Mac OS X Tiger is ahead of it's of time. You can read more about him on his web site.

You found it accurate? Why, are you a professional in the industry? Why is your opinion more valid than mine? Here's a tip...it's not. You seem awfully bitter against PC. What's the matter, you can't figure yours out?

Excuse me? Is there really any need to attack a poster regarding their opinion? I have not done this to you, and nor do I intend to do so. I am not at all bitter about Microsoft in the least, but I am aware that they make crap, and that they are miles behind the products that Apple produces.

Subjective does not equal definitive. My subjective opinion says PC >>>> Mac. Does that make it true?

Of course it doesn't make it true! You have in fact said for yourself that you think that Windows XP is better than Windows Vista! That alone would suggest to many that you don't know much about this. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Windows Vista is a significant improvement over Windows XP, even though they copied Apple to create it and that both lag well behind the current version of Mac OS X that was released two years ago.

Graphs made out of subjective opinion, rather than data, are not 'useful'. I don't agree with the graph, because I find Windows easier to use than Mac. Why am I wrong?

Someone is only right if they have spent significant and in depth time on the current versions of both operating systems, and anything less is just rubbish. I would like to read your in depth comparison of the current Mac OS X (10.4.9) and Windows Vista and the reason for your opinion. Oh wait! You think XP is better than Vista.

So, XP was treated the same way when it was first released, as compared to Windows 98. Takes some time for things to be running well.

What? It takes time for things to get running well? What does that mean? I'm sorry but I'm a Mac user so I am more used to things working well out of the box straight away, and that is yet another reason that the Macintosh is a superior product. I couldn't imagine having to wait for bugs to be ironed out of current software, but i suppose that is one of the differences between a Mac user and a Winblows user.

If Microsoft has not improved on XP to make Vista, it doesn't automatically make XP bad, what kind of logic is that?

Are you joking, or is this fair dinkum? In 2001 when XP was released, it was a reasonable operating system for it's time that trailed Mac OS X Cheetah in most reviews. It is now 2007, and that operating system in six years old, so if you're trying to claim that the current Microsoft release is not as good as the ancient Winblows XP, then that is laughable!

Six years is a very, very, very long time in this industry, and if they have not improved in your opinion in that time, or added new important, useful, and innovative features, then that is a joke! I have a different view of this than you do it seems. I couldn't imagine using 2001 technology as a Mac user that is using technology that is ahead of it's time.

Call it "Windows" rather than "Winblows" and people might start taking your opinion a little more seriously here, rather than you just sounding like someone who ****ed up their PC big time.

Where did I say that I stuffed up a PC? I have never owned a Winblows computer before, and my experiences have not come from owning such a thing of course. Are you trying to support an argument by making things up? Oh, by the way, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, then stop using ancient 2001 technology and use the current operating system for goodness sake.

Here are some current impartial comparisons of Mac OS X and Winblows Vista to add to the PC World article, and the graph from Computer World that I posted earlier. I can post more of them if you like as there are plenty of others that say similar to this...

Information Week: Mac OS X Shines in Comparison With Winblows Vista

"Amid the hype surrounding the release of Windows Vista, Mac users are taking solace from the fact that OS X is still a champ on many fronts. Here are some reasons our reviewer John C. Welch opts for Apple." Cont...

Laptop World: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Winblows Vista

"If you were to analyze the most vital elements of a computing platform--security, interface, and performance--Mac OS X Tiger trumps Windows Vista, and is our pick as the superior operating system. Although Vista is pushing the envelope with some of its features, it's still unproven in several key areas and could use snappier performance. Until that happens, we'll stick with Mac OS X Tiger."

Technology Review: Uninspiring Vista; How Microsoft's Long Awaited Operating System Disappointed a Stubborn Fan

"As this shift accelerates, finding software that works with a particular operating system will be less of a concern. People will be able to base decisions about which OS to use strictly on merit, and on personal preference. For me, if the choice is between struggling to configure every feature and being able to boot up and get to work, at long last I choose the Mac."

Erika Jonietz is a Technology Review senior *editor.

 

[RooBuoy]

Blah blah Mac Good blah blah Windows Bad

Probably the biggest waste of 5 minutes reading that dribble.

 

[KissStephanie]

Probably the biggest waste of 5 minutes reading that dribble.

PC users such as yourself seem so defensive, and instead of being able to stick to the topic, they seem to want to discuss other posters and make things up instead. Why is that? You offered nothing at all to suggest that Winblows is better, and instead you just wanted to try to discredit what I said, and the impartial comparisons that I shared.

You misquoted me because all I have done is share some info that supports that Mac OS X is far superior to Winblows, but I haven't seen anything that shows the opposite. I can stick to the topic though, but if you would rather live in denial about which is a better operating system, then have fun playing solitaire!

I've given many reasons about why Mac OS X is better, faster, more secure, more stable, and more innovative, so why don't you do the opposite? Macs are better because Apple make both the hardware, and the software used on it. A PC though is just bits of different companies that come together, and that is one of the reasons that it is not anywhere near as good.

Mac OS X leads Winblows Vista in all impartial, and most PC based reviews, and will run well on a computer that meets minimum requirements, while Winblows Vista is a memory and processor hog that won't even work on a computer that meets minimum requirements, and that is also one of the reasons that it is so much slower than Mac OS X.

That means that the majority of PC users can't and won't even use the most current operating system that Microsoft has released for quite some time, so they are stuck with the ancient Winblows XP. When they eventually do own Vista, Apple will have released further improvements to Mac OS X to further widen the gap between the two.

When Mac OS X Leopard is released later this year, then all Mac users will be able to use it on their computer. It will be faster than Mac OS X Tiger, and it will be an improvement on the highly rated Mac OS X Tiger. Vista on the other hand is definitely better than XP, but it can't be used by many because it is so much slower than XP.

I can't imagine not being able to use a new product and being forced to use such an old operating system as PC users are forced to do. Microsoft are a joke.

 

[BomberGal]

KissStephanie...do you work for Mac? Seriously?

If you've never even owned a PC, then how are you qualified to comment? You can't call it "Winblows" if you don't have much experience with it.

In regards to your above post, you've actually given no evidence why Mac is more safe, secure, stable, blablabla. All you've said is....it's more safe, secure, and stable. You gave a graph of someone's opinion. Big deal. Not evidence. Go compare them yourself, if you're so sure. But wait...you don't use PCs, so you wouldn't know! I will not and cannot make my own graph because I haven't used all the OSs. I know that I have a lot of experience with PCs (I've had one since I was about 6) and a lot (albeit less) of experience with Macs (years of using them daily at uni as I didn't have my own computer at the time when I moved out of home), and all I can say is that PC frustrates me far less. It doesn't make my opinion invalid simply because you don't even agree. You don't even use PCs.

XP may be 6 years old, it doesn't make it a bad OS. It does everything I need it to, everything many people in my office need it to, and we do some pretty high tech stuff (science). It does everything I need it to. I don't have problems. It's fast. It's stable.

Macintosh would want to improve, given my troubles with their older OS's at uni...

Your constant name calling of "winblows" is completely childish. You don't know anything more about the subject than me.

If anecdotal evidence is good enough for you to believe Mac > PC, then my anecdotal evidence is good enough for me to believe PC > Mac. This argument is not going to be solved. Your entire post/s consist of pretty much what RooBuoy said. "Mac good, PC bad". This is nothing more than your opinion! Which I would be fine with...if you stopped insisting it was law!

 

[dont bowl there]

What kind of problems did you have with the macs you used?

 

[BomberGal]

They are slow, they don't like the files I want to use, which crash all the time, or the programs, which don't like to run. They freeze all the time, they do this thing I mentioned in an earlier post...the cursor starts spinning its pretty little coloured wheel and just takes forever, even when I didn't tell it to do anything, and you can do nothing while this is happening...this would happen all the time at uni, most days I'd have to reboot. The ones we have there mostly look like the one Higgs Boson posted above.

I also don't find Mac menus and directories clear or as user-friendly. And the dock thing, the equivalent of a Windows start menu, would always either not do what it was told (say I tried to open a program from it) or it would just appear/disappear as it pleased, when I was trying to open it. Same with menus. And then how you adjust the settings on a Mac I'll never know. I'm sure it's not too difficult, but I find the Windows start menu with all its options generally a lot more intuitive. And they never like to load internet pages quickly or properly...although that could just be Safari (yuk). Internet Explorer is as crap. Firefox > all!

I don't hate Macs (though I do hate their marketing campaigns - who cares if your Apple comes with its webcam built in? So does my PC laptop! Who cares if your computer comes with iTunes? iTunes is an annoying program, and it keeps trying to install itself on my computer because of Shockwave/Quicktime whatever. And I will never own an iPod), but generally they just frustrate me, there are no big issues but it's all the little things that add up...they just won't do what I want them to do, 100% of the time. My PC does what I want it to, and I don't get all these errors that the Mac ads love to talk about. Badly kept PCs will, though. But so will a badly kept Mac.

I've used Macs plenty of times with no real problems (well, that might sound contradictory given the rest of my posts, but it's not like all the problems happen at once), but at no point have I ever thought "hey this is so much better than my PC". OK, so they might be prettier - sometimes - but function > aesthetics.

 

[RooBuoy]

PC users such as yourself seem so defensive, and instead of being able to stick to the topic, they seem to want to discuss other posters and make things up instead. Why is that? You offered nothing at all to suggest that Winblows is better, and instead you just wanted to try to discredit what I said, and the impartial comparisons that I shared.

You misquoted me because all I have done is share some info that supports that Mac OS X is far superior to Winblows, but I haven't seen anything that shows the opposite. I can stick to the topic though, but if you would rather live in denial about which is a better operating system, then have fun playing solitaire!

I've given many reasons about why Mac OS X is better, faster, more secure, more stable, and more innovative, so why don't you do the opposite? Macs are better because Apple make both the hardware, and the software used on it. A PC though is just bits of different companies that come together, and that is one of the reasons that it is not anywhere near as good.

Mac OS X leads Winblows Vista in all impartial, and most PC based reviews, and will run well on a computer that meets minimum requirements, while Winblows Vista is a memory and processor hog that won't even work on a computer that meets minimum requirements, and that is also one of the reasons that it is so much slower than Mac OS X.

That means that the majority of PC users can't and won't even use the most current operating system that Microsoft has released for quite some time, so they are stuck with the ancient Winblows XP. When they eventually do own Vista, Apple will have released further improvements to Mac OS X to further widen the gap between the two.

When Mac OS X Leopard is released later this year, then all Mac users will be able to use it on their computer. It will be faster than Mac OS X Tiger, and it will be an improvement on the highly rated Mac OS X Tiger. Vista on the other hand is definitely better than XP, but it can't be used by many because it is so much slower than XP.

I can't imagine not being able to use a new product and being forced to use such an old operating system as PC users are forced to do. Microsoft are a joke.

I didn't quote that huge post because well, it's huge and it would make scrolling through this page unbearable. I quoted your post this time, happy?

BomberGal brings up very good points as well.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Windows XP offers anything that I want in an operating system, why I need to change to Vista just because it's "newer" shows why you are using a mac.

Also you saying Mac OS X is bug free, if you seriously believe that then you are delusional. I seriously doubt that a program that big has 0 bugs.

 

[KissStephanie]

Re: Mac or PC: Mac OS X Wins Easily!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Windows XP offers anything that I want in an operating system

Some people accept mediocrity, and if you're happy with an operating system that is six years old, and is rated behind both Mac OS X Tiger, and Vista, then I don't know what to say to that besides that some Winblows users are often happy with ancient technology that rates about 6/10 by a well respected and impartial computer expert as I posted in a graph last night.

Winblows XP is in fact broken, and it needed a major and dramatic overhaul, and that is the reason that Microsoft spent so much time on Vista. They have certainly made a significant improvement over XP, but they have failed to catch Mac OS X Tiger. Apple will stretch that gap again when Mac OS X Leopard is released in October.

why I need to change to Vista just because it's "newer" shows why you are using a mac.

Who said anything about Winblows users upgrading to Vista because it's newer? I certainly didn't. It is better than XP though, which isn't saying much, and as it should be after six years, even if it still lags behind Mac OS X as I had shown in the reviews that I posted.

Also you saying Mac OS X is bug free, if you seriously believe that then you are delusional. I seriously doubt that a program that big has 0 bugs.

Where did I say that Mac OS X is bug free? Are you making things up again? Why is it that Winblows users see so many things in posts that were never written?

Now that you mention it though, if there are any bugs in Mac OS X, then they certainly are not noticeable or ever encountered. I suppose that's one of the reasons that Mac OS X Tiger has been rated as 9/10 by a well respected and completely impartial computer expert as shown in the graph that I posted last night.

It's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X has been named the best operating system for the past five years by PC Magazine, and it's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X easily beats Windows Vista in impartial reviews. The gap between Mac OS X and XP is even further of course, as it should be too as XP is an ancient operating system that was released in 2001.

The major difference between Mac users and Winblows users is that Mac users enjoy an innovative computer experience that is ahead of it's time. Winblows users on the other hand are satisfied with an ancient computer experience from the past, and that fact has been shown in a few posts in this thread.

 

[RooBuoy]

Re: Mac or PC: Mac OS X Wins Easily!

Some people accept mediocrity, and if you're happy with an operating system that is six years old, and is rated behind both Mac OS X Tiger, and Vista, then I don't know what to say to that besides that some Winblows users are often happy with ancient technology that rates about 6/10 by a well respected and impartial computer expert as I posted in a graph last night.

Who really cares how old the operating system is. It works, it does everything I ask it to, it runs all the programs I want it to. If it were really as bad you are trying to make it out to be then why aren't we all using Macs because they are so superior?

Who said anything about Winblows users upgrading to Vista because it's newer? I certainly didn't. It is better than XP though, which isn't saying much, and as it should be after six years, even if it still lags behind Mac OS X as I had shown in the reviews that I posted.Where did I say that Mac OS X is bug free? Are you making things up again? Why is it that Winblows users see so many things in posts that were never written?

You certainly seem to be making a big deal about how it's 6 years old, and how it's technology is so outdated.

Now that you mention it though, if there are any bugs in Mac OS X, then they certainly are not noticeable or ever encountered. I suppose that's one of the reasons that Mac OS X Tiger has been rated as 9/10 by a well respected and completely impartial computer expert as shown in the graph that I posted last night.

It's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X has been named the best operating system for the past five years by PC Magazine, and it's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X easily beats Windows Vista in impartial reviews. The gap between Mac OS X and XP is even further of course, as it should be too as XP is an ancient operating system that was released in 2001.

The major difference between Mac users and Winblows users is that Mac users enjoy an innovative computer experience that is ahead of it's time. Winblows users on the other hand are satisfied with an ancient computer experience from the past, and that fact has been shown in a few posts in this thread.

I think you better look at this quote:

What? It takes time for things to get running well? What does that mean? I'm sorry but I'm a Mac user so I am more used to things working well out of the box straight away, and that is yet another reason that the Macintosh is a superior product. I couldn't imagine having to wait for bugs to be ironed out of current software, but i suppose that is one of the differences between a Mac user and a Winblows user.

And that fact that so few PC users have posted in this thread is because we really don't give a shit about Macs TBH.



http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9017218

Mac OS X has bugs, who woulda thunk it

 

[BomberGal]

Re: Mac or PC: Mac OS X Wins Easily!

Some people accept mediocrity, and if you're happy with an operating system that is six years old, and is rated behind both Mac OS X Tiger, and Vista, then I don't know what to say to that besides that some Winblows users are often happy with ancient technology that rates about 6/10 by a well respected and impartial computer expert as I posted in a graph last night.

Yada yada yada, XP is hardly mediocre....

Mac, Vista and XP all rated above Linux in that graph, yet various Linux OSs are supposed to be some of the best around. What do you have to say to all the Linux users?

If all you've got is that XP is old, you're losing. And like RooBuoy said...just shows that you need pretty new things to keep you entertained. There's probably not all that much difference between each new version that they put out unless you are really testing your computer's limits. Windows 98 will probably do most of the things that both Vista and the latest Mac release do.

Winblows XP is in fact broken, and it needed a major and dramatic overhaul, and that is the reason that Microsoft spent so much time on Vista. They have certainly made a significant improvement over XP, but they have failed to catch Mac OS X Tiger.

But you don't use XP, how do you know? Are you an IT expert? How are you qualified to say Vista is a significant improvement? In fact how is XP broken? Please explain. At least I bothered to explain my Mac issues.

Apple will stretch that gap again when Mac OS X Leopard is released in October.

Really, you work for them right? Otherwise who are you constantly quoting? You've used those exact words at least twice now! And how do you know the new OS will be better? Used it have you? Everyone thought Vista was going to be super dooper fantastic...

Who said anything about Winblows users upgrading to Vista because it's newer? I certainly didn't. It is better than XP though, which isn't saying much, and as it should be after six years, even if it still lags behind Mac OS X as I had shown in the reviews that I posted.

You think newer = better. You assume that everyone should get the newest systems because, according to your treasured graph, they are better. You told me it was a joke if I think XP is better than Vista, and that Vista is clearly an improvement....therefore you must assume that Windows users should upgrade.

Where did I say that Mac OS X is bug free? Are you making things up again? Why is it that Winblows users see so many things in posts that were never written?

LOL

Now that you mention it though, if there are any bugs in Mac OS X, then they certainly are not noticeable or ever encountered. I suppose that's one of the reasons that Mac OS X Tiger has been rated as 9/10 by a well respected and completely impartial computer expert as shown in the graph that I posted last night.

Hey I get it, you are married to this computer expert!

I don't seem to have bugs in my XP either. Strange.

It's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X has been named the best operating system for the past five years by PC Magazine, and it's probably also one of the reasons that Mac OS X easily beats Windows Vista in impartial reviews.

Ooooh...awards awards awards!

Big ****ing whoop! I don't care about awards, I care about what the computer does for me. People win ARIAs you know...doesn't make them good singers.

BTW I missed this paragraph of yours above.

Secondly, I don't believe that you have experienced all sorts of terrible problems with a Mac because that doesn't happen with Mac OS X Tiger of course, so I would be interested in hearing what they were, and thirdly, how is it that Apple promotes themselves that bothers you?

Is it because their hardware and software is award winning? Is it because Microsoft have copied them ever since the first Macintosh was released in 1984? Is it because Apple and Google have been named as the two most innovative companies in the computer industry?

I have explained some of my problems with Mac. Believe me, they exist.

Apple is a brand that promotes themselves as the being the latest, coolest product. A trend. Not only their iPod campaigns (which really are a shit mp3 player), but their stupid ads - I mean what the heck is that one where Windows is all bulked up with all his programs and Mac isn't? Because Mac just "comes" with iTunes? Why, does iTunes not take up any space on a Mac? What's so good about iTunes that it's great that your computer comes with it? And why the hell does everyone need iTunes? I'd rather my computer come with Word. (BTW, what office program are you using to make all your documents?) What about the ads where the Windows guy gets all these crypted errors? Well, hey, I don't have those.

I don't like things that insist they are the coolest product and that you're some kind of loser if you don't use it. Clothes, music, computers. Whatever. I don't like that kind of advertising. It's a very see-through ad campaign - young cool Mac user, old loser Windows user. It's patronising and pathetic.

I don't really care if Apple and Google have been named the most innovative companies. What does Apple do for me that other companies do not? And as for Google, WTF? I like Google, go away. Hey, who's the richest person in the world? Oh right, not the inventor of Macs...

The gap between Mac OS X and XP is even further of course, as it should be too as XP is an ancient operating system that was released in 2001.

Why is 6 years old ancient?? There are plenty of people using whatever the Mac OS is called that was released years ago, I bet you don't take issue with that! The fact that so many people continue to use XP shows that it stands the test of time.

The major difference between Mac users and Winblows users is that Mac users enjoy an innovative computer experience that is ahead of it's time. Winblows users on the other hand are satisfied with an ancient computer experience from the past, and that fact has been shown in a few posts in this thread.

Again, ancient?

What the hell is so innovative about Mac?? Please explain how the average user "experiences" "innovation" on their Mac. And how the XP (or Vista) user doesn't. See, so far you've actually not discussed anything particular to either OS...all you've done is quote some computer expert and his graph! What about your experience? Why do you hate Windows so much?

I enjoy my "experience" on XP because the computer does everything I could possibly need it to. I don't see how this makes me 'satisfied with mediocrity'. What about if I let bloody Quicktime get iTunes like it keeps asking me to? Will that make my computing a better experience?

You make me laugh. Winblows. Haha.

Winblows = childish name calling.
Satisfaction with XP = well, I get my work done without going on and on and on about how good the OS is.

Come on, who has more cause not to have their opinion taken seriously? Certainly not the satisfied user, but perhaps the immature name caller...

BTW. Why on earth do you keep quoting from all these PC mags when you dislike PCs so much? Surely you shouldn't value their opinions.