Apple takes a few shots at Windows during WWDC09

[John Henry]

Strangly all those who works with big raw images and videos in their offices (i mean professional studios) are using MAC. Why not building a PC that costs cheaper? Simply. MAC does not have problems with compatibility and errors and BSODs that PC does.

I myself always prefered PCs with windows but i guess i gonna buy a mac very soon. PC for emule and some programs. MAC for work.
And finally i'll stop to update my hardware each year because it get's old for a new windows OS.

 

[PhreePhly]

I'm not disagreeing that you can get faster PCs for cheaper. Everybody knows that. I'm arguing against the idea that Apple is ridiculously overpriced for what they give you. That's simply not true. They may not give you many options, but what you get isn't marked up that much.

I think too many people are comparing apples and oranges and focusing just on specs. When you hollistically compare the two, they come out about equal. I think it's ridiculous that DarkNovaGundam is trying to pit a MBA against a standard laptop, when the MBA is a bargain for an ultraportable.

I guess I'll never agree with the comparison being almost equal. 15%-30% is a huge mark-up in the computer world. I've been using a laptop daily for the past 12 years, and frankly have had few problems with the laptops I've had. The things that Apple tries to market as being "better" are just not worth it to me.

But on the battery life issue: Anandtech is still trying to figure out what exactly is going on, and supposedly other OEMs have noticed this also. I had a hackintosh laptop that showed the same phenomenon, so at least in my case, drivers weren't the issue. Apple is doing something very right, but nobody really knows what it is.

On the whole though, I completely agree with you. It's just that we value different things in notebooks.

Bottom-line: Apple isn't expensive, they just don't let you choose to go cheap on anything.

I'm curious about the battery thing also. I think it is drivers. I think that somehow the OSX driver model makes more efficient use power. Efficient use of power, means that intimate knowledge of the hardware is necessary. In the PC world, this is not possible. A driver is written for a piece of hardware, but that hardware may be on 3 or 4 different chipsets or have additional hardware that causes conflicts. The apple world is different, the hardware subset is much, much smaller, so tighter specs can be written.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

Strangly all those who works with big raw images and videos in their offices (i mean professional studios) are using MAC. Why not building a PC that costs cheaper? Simply. MAC does not have problems with compatibility and errors and BSODs that PC does.

I myself always prefered PCs with windows but i guess i gonna buy a mac very soon. PC for emule and some programs. MAC for work.
And finally i'll stop to update my hardware each year because it get's old for a new windows OS.

I know plenty of folks that use PCs for RAW image manipulation and I have a very good friend that does professional video editing on a PC running AVID software. Photoshop CS4 is only 64-bit on the PC, not on the Mac. And, PC's are as stable if not more stable than Macs. Sorry, but what you're saying is not true. There are plenty of professional studios using PCs.

PhreePhly

 

[John Henry]

I know plenty of folks that use PCs for RAW image manipulation and I have a very good friend that does professional video editing on a PC running AVID software. Photoshop CS4 is only 64-bit on the PC, not on the Mac. And, PC's are as stable if not more stable than Macs. Sorry, but what you're saying is not true. There are plenty of professional studios using PCs.

PhreePhly

The fact is that in order to use more recent programs for PC you have to update your hardware each year. It's not like that for a mac.

 

[pillainp]

The fact is that in order to use more recent programs for PC you have to update your hardware each year. It's not like that for a mac.

I frankly find that a little hard to subscribe to.

It is true that a lot of PC (WinLin) users upgrade frequentlybecause it is as easy as switching a piece of hardware, but it seems to me that this is a function of the fact that you actually can, whereas with a Mac, an upgrade would likely mean you had to buy a new machine, seeing as how a Mac is deliberately built to be non- user-upgradeable.

If you e-x-e-r-c-i-s-e** a little foresight when you plan a build, a good setup can last you a long time.

I guess a mac would need regular upgrades too, to run all the latest software. Heck, I hear you need to buy a whole new Mac ( if you are using one of the older PowerPC units) to run the latest OSX, whereas a regular WinLin PC would only require upgradation of a few core components to run the latest Windows or Linux versions.

I guess you can grasp the cost implications of that.

We must also not forget that a lot of PC users (I mean WinLin people, since Mac Pros are essentially PC's anyway) are compulsive upgraders, and must have the latest greatest thing available, regardless of cost.

My system, for instance, is about 2 years old, and is capable of running anything you can throw at it, and that includes a lot of the "recent programs" you refer to in your post above, and it does this with no trouble whatever. Indeed the only thing I need to change is my motherboard, to open a path to the later C2D and 2Q CPU's (I have no intention of going Nehalem until the prices get a little less insane).

Therefore I cannot subscribe to your view, and conclude that it is largely a myth propogated by the same crowds that spawn the whole "Macs are greater" debates.

As of now, a Mac is the same as a PC, only running Apple stamped components and Apple's OS. And it is not user-upgradeable, at least not with the same ease as a regular (WinLin) PC, so the point is moot anyway.

Sorry for the diatribe, just my opinion.

**This word is being censored, for heaven's sakes -- come on, a little of this can actually be some good, even for geeks...
I didn't realise the people on this forum were so averse to it

 

[PhreePhly]

I frankly find that a little hard to subscribe to.

It is true that a lot of PC (WinLin) users upgrade frequentlybecause it is as easy as switching a piece of hardware, but it seems to me that this is a function of the fact that you actually can, whereas with a Mac, an upgrade would likely mean you had to buy a new machine, seeing as how a Mac is deliberately built to be non- user-upgradeable.

If you e-x-e-r-c-i-s-e** a little foresight when you plan a build, a good setup can last you a long time.

I guess a mac would need regular upgrades too, to run all the latest software. Heck, I hear you need to buy a whole new Mac ( if you are using one of the older PowerPC units) to run the latest OSX, whereas a regular WinLin PC would only require upgradation of a few core components to run the latest Windows or Linux versions.

I guess you can grasp the cost implications of that.

We must also not forget that a lot of PC users (I mean WinLin people, since Mac Pros are essentially PC's anyway) are compulsive upgraders, and must have the latest greatest thing available, regardless of cost.

My system, for instance, is about 2 years old, and is capable of running anything you can throw at it, and that includes a lot of the "recent programs" you refer to in your post above, and it does this with no trouble whatever. Indeed the only thing I need to change is my motherboard, to open a path to the later C2D and 2Q CPU's (I have no intention of going Nehalem until the prices get a little less insane).

Therefore I cannot subscribe to your view, and conclude that it is largely a myth propogated by the same crowds that spawn the whole "Macs are greater" debates.

As of now, a Mac is the same as a PC, only running Apple stamped components and Apple's OS. And it is not user-upgradeable, at least not with the same ease as a regular (WinLin) PC, so the point is moot anyway.

Sorry for the diatribe, just my opinion.

**This word is being censored, for heaven's sakes -- come on, a little of this can actually be some good, even for geeks...
I didn't realise the people on this forum were so averse to it

++ and the censoring thing is really funny.

I mean, I buy a top of the line Mac or I buy a top of the line PC (same specs as Mac), why would I need to upgrade on a different schedule? Adobe in Mac runs about the same as Adobe in PC.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

Bottom-line: Apple isn't expensive, they just don't let you choose to go cheap on anything.

I meant to answer this last night, but was frankly too tired and went to bed.

I think a better way to say this is that Apples are expensive, but if you can justify the costs, knowing all the variables, then who cares. It's your money. It's like buying a Lexus, many folks will say, but it's just a Toyota, but so long as you can justify it, then who cares, 'cause you're driving the car you want.

Please understand that in no way am I trying to say that Apples are cr*p. They are not. OSX is not my favorite OS and I have real concerns about it's security, however, Apple designers do know how to present difficult concepts in very clean dialogs. MS UI designers have much to learn and the OSX guys are some of the best.

PhreePhly

 

[John Henry]

Agree with both. Nice comments. I never had a mac, but i read a lot of positive reviews and since i have to buy a new laptop next year, the mac is my choise. And you said that mac can't be upgraded as PC. well PC LAPTOP can't be upgraded as mac. You can only add the memory. And maybe i was not so clear, but i meant the comparison between a pc laptop and mac laptop.

 

[PhreePhly]

Agree with both. Nice comments. I never had a mac, but i read a lot of positive reviews and since i have to buy a new laptop next year, the mac is my choise. And you said that mac can't be upgraded as PC. well PC LAPTOP can't be upgraded as mac. You can only add the memory. And maybe i was not so clear, but i meant the comparison between a pc laptop and mac laptop.

But how does that matter. I buy a 2.66 gHz, 4GB RAM Macbook Pro, or I buy a 2.66 gHz, 4GB RAM Dell Studio. Why would you need to upgrade either one before the other? If your focus is on digital image manipulation, both will perform equally well, in OSX or Windows. One is not inherently faster than the other. The PC one will become outdated faster only because PC's are constantly upgrading, whereas Apple's upgrade once a year or every two years.

PhreePhly

 

[John Henry]

But how does that matter. I buy a 2.66 gHz, 4GB RAM Macbook Pro, or I buy a 2.66 gHz, 4GB RAM Dell Studio. Why would you need to upgrade either one before the other? If your focus is on digital image manipulation, both will perform equally well, in OSX or Windows. One is not inherently faster than the other. The PC one will become outdated faster only because PC's are constantly upgrading, whereas Apple's upgrade once a year or every two years.

PhreePhly

D'oh, you always have an answer for everything

 

[PhreePhly]

D'oh, you always have an answer for everything

Sorry, I'm not trying to discourage you. If the Macbook works for you, enjoy it. If anything, it is a chick magnet.

You won't go wrong going the Mac route. You are not limited to OSX, you can run Windows, you can run Linux. As jw12345 has pointed out, there are some advantages to the Macbook construction, so as long as you understand all of the variables, go for the Mac.

PhreePhly

 

[Shak 10]

Apple Can Slate Vista But It's Used By More People Than MAC OS X Is.

 

[Lordbob75]

Here's my interpretation. The MS commercials don't exaggerate the same way the Apple commercials do. First of all MS isn't selling hardware. The laptop "hunters' are looking for a particular mix of capabilities. MS is pointing out that in the PC, there are many choices. With the Mac, you have a very limited choice. It may be more than a user needs. As an example, one of our clients has very strict video requirements on their sites. We must check in our phones with cameras and laptops with built-in video are banned. We must order laptops without a camera. With Apple, that would be impossible. So, while that Macbook may a higher spec, because it includes a camera, it's more than the user needs and wasted money.

On the other hand, the Apple commercials, while not actually lying (that would be illegal), infer far greater issues with PC's than actually exist. It makes sense from a marketing stand point, but it really is annoying to techheads that actually know the truth.

PhreePhly

Exactly, good point. For the sake of the thread, does anyone have any other examples? Does anyone have a rebuttal?

~Lordbob

 

[chrysalis]

the point is obvious to me.

they are saying they acknowledge their new OS isnt a major chance and have priced it accordingly.
windows 7 is not a major change over vista yet will likely be charged as a completely new OS.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

the point is obvious to me.

they are saying they acknowledge their new OS isnt a major chance and have priced it accordingly.
windows 7 is not a major change over vista yet will likely be charged as a completely new OS.

Personally I consider Windows 7 completely different (UI apart) from Vista.

Just because the UI is the same, doesn't mean its not a major change. It is much more faster with low resources, much better with handling things, and just plain better lol.

 

[pestbest]

SilentHillNight -I also use a Macbook but I use Windows 7 as the primary OS as Mac supports very few applications that I use in Windows 7.

I like Windows cause I know how to use it. It's easy to use after you learn the basics and make an attempt to try. It's fun fixing errors and facing problems that make you never stop trying to fix. It rocks I tell ya.

Apple just loves to spread FUD about Windows cause their market share is lower. I hate Apple because it does this. I once was excited about having an Apple Macbook but after seeing it's stupid lies and it's untolerable behaviour, my impression of everything Apple does turns to crap. Am I lying? Nope.

 

[jw12345]

Wait, one of the advantages of Windows is that you have to keep fiddling and fixing errors?

That's not fun, that's really irritating, especially if you don't give a crap about computers and use them for work, like they are intended.

I really like OS X Leopard, there are some things that annoy me, but most of which are fixed in Snow Leopard. But after using OS X for several weeks, Windows 7 is like a blast from the past.

Of course, personal opinion, workflow, yadayada apply.

 

[John Henry]

Apple just loves to spread FUD about Windows cause their market share is lower. I hate Apple because it does this. I once was excited about having an Apple Macbook but after seeing it's stupid lies and it's untolerable behaviour, my impression of everything Apple does turns to crap. Am I lying? Nope.

So, you don't like Apple only because they blame Windows?

 

[pestbest]

So, you don't like Apple only because they blame Windows?

I like Apple Products but I hate Apple. It's marketing strategy is disgusting. Thus, I'm going to stick away from it. I don't know, It's just so weird that I hate apple so much i decide not to buy from it.

 

[Lordbob75]

I like Apple Products but I hate Apple. It's marketing strategy is disgusting. Thus, I'm going to stick away from it. I don't know, It's just so weird that I hate apple so much i decide not to buy from it.

You could easily say the same about M$

~Lordbob