# This is a good portion of why I hate Apple



## whoadamn (Jun 17, 2009)

Generic, run-of-the-mill product.
Apple's equivalent of which they so graciously blessed us with, don't even regard the price, it's an Apple.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 17, 2009)

Hardly Apple's equivalent.  The Time Capsule drive does more.

One is a USB hard disk.

The other is a wireless hard disk, wireless base station, integrated backup system, printer server, and network accessible storage.  Overkill for those wanting just an external hard disk, but not for those wanting more.

Aye, it's priced like an Apple, but not by as great a difference as your comparison would suggest.

Edit: Apple's description.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 17, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Hardly Apple's equivalent. The Time Capsule drive does more.
> 
> One is a USB hard disk.
> 
> ...


I just don't see how even that justifies the 300+ dollar difference. You could buy all the equipment required to enable the same capabilites as that and still have a decent wad leftover in your wallet. Sure you may require a tower, but what would be the purpose of buying the Apple storage device in the first place?

It is nice to have everything in one place, but how many users are actually going to make use of all the features offered? I think the idea's not entirely to offer more to the consumer, but broaden the market and attract more people that are willing to pay that much for a name and the one thing it offers they need.

Even if it is the amount of features that interests the consumer, it would still be cheaper to purchase a low-end computer, earn an additional pile of these imperative features and sacrifice the storage space that they were probably never going to make use of anyways. After all, if they were simply looking for something to store large amounts of data, I'd bet they'd much rather the improved latency brought by a physical, USB connection.

I believe Apple also deliberately attempts to extort their dedicated customers by charging insane prices for things attainable at a much lower cost. The only reason they remain unaware of their overspending is simply because they refuse to take into consideration anything that isn't a product of Apple... and for what, because they look pretty? I'll bet they're making a killing on markup, considering a fully functional desktop computer can be produced, sold to a reseller at a higher price and sold again at an even higher price to the end-user and still remain under the proclaimed value of Apple's Time Capsule.

Unrelated, I would laugh hard if Microsoft adopted a new logo... that of a full apple.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

You're a consumer, if you don't think it's worth the price, then don't buy it.

"Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it."

If the consumer will pay the price then the retailer is selling it at a good price.

Have you ever looked at the prices of cables at big box electronics stores?  6 foot USB cables like $20-30.  $100 for 10 feet of componant video games?  They're insanely over charged and you get get far better prices if you look at local computer stores or locally run A/V stores.  BUT THE CONSUMER DOESN'T BOTHER.


----------



## Aden (Jun 17, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> You're a consumer, if you don't think it's worth the price, then don't buy it.



For the love of $deity, *this*. Quitcherbitchen and buy what you want. We don't need to hear.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 17, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> You're a consumer, if you don't think it's worth the price, then don't buy it.
> 
> "Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it."
> 
> ...


As much as it runs consistent among nearly every industry which has made it public, Apple seems to rely on stupidity and ignorance for income to a far greater extent than others. They masquerade their appreaciation and support of their consumers solely to build enough trust to charge them at every possible opportunity.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> For the love of $deity, *this*. Quitcherbitchen and buy what you want. We don't need to hear.


 
I get most of my PC and A/V cables at the dollar store.  RCA cables like $1.50, 8 foot USB cables for $2.  VGA, DVI, HDMI cables you can get at far better prices at local stores.  Often better customer service as well.

At my local computer store I bought a $120 hard drive but I was short on jumpers for my system.  I asked them if they could sell me some, they said they don't carry them as a product but said the guys in the computer repair department would give me a dozon for free.  I'd NEVER get an offer like that at BestBuy.

Local stores often have better prices on most products, but then a big box store might have the same product but it's on sale this week.  Shop around.  It is your money and you can spend it as you choose, you don't have to spend it all in one store.  The store that will give you the best price and the best service is more deserving of your dollar.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> For the love of $deity, *this*. Quitcherbitchen and buy what you want. We don't need to hear.


41,363 other topics and counting, if this particular one is an annoyance to you, find another.


----------



## Roland (Jun 17, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> I just don't see how even that justifies the 300+ dollar difference. You could buy all the equipment required to enable the same capabilites as that and still have a decent wad leftover in your wallet. Sure you may require a tower, but what would be the purpose of buying the Apple storage device in the first place?



People are all about certain things:
- Conservation of space
- Simplicity
- Having something do everything for you

If you've ever worked in technical support, you'd realize the less people have to think about doing anything, the more they are willing to use it.  Many people will not do what you suggest (which is perfectly reasonable), because it requires to many wires, effort and coordination. 



> It is nice to have everything in one place, but how many users are actually going to make use of all the features offered?



No one.  They never do.  



> Even if it is the amount of features that interests the consumer, it would still be cheaper to purchase a low-end computer, earn an additional pile of these imperative features and sacrifice the storage space that they were probably never going to make use of anyways. After all, if they were simply looking for something to store large amounts of data, I'd bet they'd much rather the improved latency brought by a physical, USB connection.



Again, customers care about some very short-sighted things:
- A lack of wires
- Convenience
- Compact hardware
- Big numbers

The less amount of wires they have to worry about, the better.  People are impressed by anything that is wireless.  Plus, customers barely know about transfer speeds, let alone what performs better and by how much. And if anyone were willing to buy this device in the first place, they can hardly be expected to bother trying to setup a more efficient, cheaper equivalent. 



> I believe Apple also deliberately attempts to extort their dedicated customers by charging insane prices for things attainable at a much lower cost. The only reason they remain unaware of their overspending is simply because they refuse to take into consideration anything that isn't a product of Apple... and for what, because they look pretty? I'll bet they're making a killing on markup, considering a fully functional desktop computer can be produced, sold to a reseller at a higher price and sold again at an even higher price to the end-user and still remain under the proclaimed value of Apple's Time Capsule.



What people are willing to pay is directly proportional to the amount that they believe they don't have to think.


----------



## Aden (Jun 17, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> 41,363 other topics and counting, if this particular one is an annoyance to you, find another.



Hundreds of other models of hard drives and counting. If this particular one is of annoyance to you, find another.

:V


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 17, 2009)

Roland said:


> People are all about certain things:
> - Conservation of space
> - Simplicity
> - Having something do everything for you
> ...


...yeah.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 18, 2009)

To their credit, FutureShop are selling it for $49.03 less than the Apple Store.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 18, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> To their credit, FutureShop are selling it for $49.03 less than the Apple Store.


  They also offer bitchin' warranties.


----------



## darkdoomer (Jun 18, 2009)

haha; apple is really cheap hardware but overpriced because it has the apple logo on it. oln ly illiterates purchase it thinking it 's worth it.

but anyone who knows to use a real computer and its os; or anyone who think about privacy or demand performance hates Apple. At least Microsoft won't sue you if you install linux on a PC.

also, engineered obsolescence.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm echoing the "... then don't buy it" sentiment.

I'm largely in the same boat, though.

How to make an Apple product: Coat it in translucent plastic and/or brushed metal. Stencil an Apple logo on. Multiply the price by two.

It's the big reason I don't buy Apple stuff. (The other being that most of their stuff pisses me off when I have to use it.)



darkdoomer said:


> but anyone who knows to use a real computer and its os; or anyone who think about privacy or demand performance hates Apple. At least Microsoft won't sue you if you install linux on a PC.


The implication here being that Apple would. Which is patently false. I suspect apple doesn't give a rats ass if you actually use OS X. It's just a hook to get you to buy their hardware.

(And if anything, I think Apple actually has _better_ Linux support than most vendors. All their stuff is old and generic. )


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 18, 2009)

net-cat said:


> (And if anything, I think Apple actually has _better_ Linux support than most vendors. All their stuff is old and generic. )



They certainly had better Windows Vista support than the OEMs in Microsoft's pocket...


----------



## net-cat (Jun 18, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> They certainly had better Windows Vista support than the OEMs in Microsoft's pocket...


Perhaps. But to be fair, OEMs are notoriously horrible at Windows images, loading them down with unnecessary programs, adware, nagware, trialware, etc. If you installed Vista from a retail disc, as you are expected to do with Apple machines, you'd probably find that OEM support for Vista was a lot better in that case.


----------



## Biles (Jun 18, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> They certainly had better Windows Vista support than the OEMs in Microsoft's pocket...



It reminds me of what I read in 2007: "The fastest Vista laptop we tested this year was a MacBook Pro".

It should be no secret that Macs are generally more expensive (not overpriced) than PCs, but they do tend to have a longer lifespan. Older Mac models have better resale value. There are Macs that are nearly a decade old can even still keep up with the times, 3rd-party upgrades or not.

For example, I own a PowerMac G4 400, with an additional harddrive with a larger capacity and RAM upgrades, I was able to run Mac OS X Tiger on it. Apple states that a Mac has to have a processor of at least 867MHz or faster to run Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. But there is an online store that sell processors for Macs, and there are those that are even Leopard compliant which means you can squeeze more juice out of your old Macs.

I remember when people had trouble upgrading PCs so that they could run Vista on it, even on PCs that were not over a year old. Also, it didn't help either when M$ and Intel were busted for cheating on the hardware requirements. For others who didn't have trouble, they bought PCs with Vista installed in it. It's almost basically tossing out one's PC and to buy a new one. Ironically, this sounds similar to that Mac myth, that to upgrade a Mac, you toss out your current one and buy a new one in its place.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 18, 2009)

Goddamnit Apple, you damn capitalists!

:shakefist:


----------



## darkdoomer (Jun 19, 2009)

Biles said:


> It reminds me of what I read in 2007: "The fastest Vista laptop we tested this year was a MacBook Pro".
> 
> It should be no secret that Macs are generally more expensive (not overpriced) than PCs, but they do tend to have a longer lifespan. Older Mac models have better resale value. There are Macs that are nearly a decade old can even still keep up with the times, 3rd-party upgrades or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## net-cat (Jun 19, 2009)

Biles said:


> There are Macs that are nearly a decade old can even still keep up with the times, 3rd-party upgrades or not.
> 
> For example, I own a PowerMac G4 400, with an additional harddrive with a larger capacity and RAM upgrades, I was able to run Mac OS X Tiger on it. Apple states that a Mac has to have a processor of at least 867MHz or faster to run Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. But there is an online store that sell processors for Macs, and there are those that are even Leopard compliant which means you can squeeze more juice out of your old Macs.


I've got a 1GHz Pentium 3 that does well, too. (Running on parts from the 2000-2001 era.) Throw Linux or Windows XP on it and it'll word process, browse, watch DVDs and Email as well as any system out there. Granted, it's not going to run Vista or the latest and greatest games. But your G4 isn't going to run Snow Leopard, either. And it certainly isn't going to run games.



Biles said:


> I remember when people had trouble upgrading PCs so that they could run Vista on it, even on PCs that were not over a year old. Also, it didn't help either when M$ and Intel were busted for cheating on the hardware requirements. For others who didn't have trouble, they bought PCs with Vista installed in it. It's almost basically tossing out one's PC and to buy a new one. Ironically, this sounds similar to that Mac myth, that to upgrade a Mac, you toss out your current one and buy a new one in its place.


Well, most people will do that anyway.

Main difference is the OS. Hardware support on Mac OS X is very limited in terms of internal devices. That snazzy new Radeon HD 4870 (or whatever) will work fine in Mac hardware. If you're willing to run Windows.


----------



## Aden (Jun 19, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Main difference is the OS. Hardware support on Mac OS X is very limited in terms of internal devices. That snazzy new Radeon HD 4870 (or whatever) will work fine in Mac hardware. If you're willing to run Windows.



So wait, the only limitation to the card's support in OS X is the OS itself?

Perhaps there will be an update.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 19, 2009)

Aden said:


> So wait, the only limitation to the card's support in OS X is the OS itself?
> 
> Perhaps there will be an update.



Not likely. They way Apple is set up, they only make drivers for the hardware components they put in their computers. So any upgrade that isn't something that they already provide in one of their computer won't be supported. This lets their computers be pretty much the only computers that can run Mac OSX. Yet because of this they don't have to support as many products, and thus their drivers are usually pretty good.

Although, someone could write the driver for whatever component they wanted to add themselves.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 19, 2009)

Aden said:


> So wait, the only limitation to the card's support in OS X is the OS itself?
> 
> Perhaps there will be an update.


It's a number of things, actually.

(a) Lack of drivers for Mac OS X. (Apple keeps tight control over them.)
(b) EFI. The reason it works in Windows and Linux but not OS X is because the vast majority of cards still rely on the PC BIOS for initialization. When you boot a Mac into BIOS mode for Windows or Linux, this happens. When you boot into Mac OS, it doesn't. (Incidentally, if you boot an EFI version of Linux, you run into the same issue.)


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 20, 2009)

To OP: you dont have to use time capsule. There are other hard drives that work just as fine for macs that are cheaper, tho time capsule is different(though i think its overpriced and i dont need or want one, hence why i dont own one)



darkdoomer said:


> haha; apple is really cheap hardware but overpriced because it has the apple logo on it. oln ly illiterates purchase it thinking it 's worth it.
> 
> but anyone who knows to use a real computer and its os; or anyone who think about privacy or demand performance hates Apple. At least Microsoft won't sue you if you install linux on a PC.
> 
> also, engineered obsolescence.



1. apple uses the same hardware as every other PC maker, or similar hardware. Apple tends to have higher quality than other PC manufacturers.

2. most that buy macs are either artists or in higher education, schools also buy a lot of them. I hardly think they(or I) am illiterate based on the computer I use. I buy them because i like them and i have the money to buy them..

3. macs are real computers. the machine and OS functions as any other computer would. if macs arent real computers, neither are windows or linux machines

4. apple doesnt compromise your privacy as much as the thousands of viruses and spyware for windows. anyone that wants privacy wouldnt use windows. macs arent the best performing specwise, but they are respectable for the most part' they are also more reliable then most other computers.

5. apple wont sue you for loading linux or windows on it. in fact thy actually make a program in mac os called boot camp that lets you run another os or all three.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jun 20, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> 5. apple *wont sue you *for loading linux or windows on it. in fact thy actually make a program in mac os called boot camp that lets you run another os or all three.



Huh? Why would any computer company wanna sue you for loading another OS into your computer? I've never heard of that before...


----------



## Carenath (Jun 20, 2009)

net-cat said:


> It's a number of things, actually.
> 
> (a) Lack of drivers for Mac OS X. (Apple keeps tight control over them.)
> (b) EFI. The reason it works in Windows and Linux but not OS X is because the vast majority of cards still rely on the PC BIOS for initialization. When you boot a Mac into BIOS mode for Windows or Linux, this happens. When you boot into Mac OS, it doesn't. (Incidentally, if you boot an EFI version of Linux, you run into the same issue.)


A. With the advantage of increased stability and optimised code.
B. Didnt know this.. but it will become less of an issue as EFI gains ground on newer systems.



CodArk2 said:


> 1. apple uses the same hardware as every other PC maker, or similar hardware. Apple tends to have higher quality than other PC manufacturers.
> 
> 2. most that buy macs are either artists or in higher education, schools also buy a lot of them. I hardly think they(or I) am illiterate based on the computer I use. I buy them because i like them and i have the money to buy them..
> 
> ...


1. Not always true, there is a well reported case of Apple's LCD's offering a lower colour range than equivently priced and specced windows laptops.

2. Maybe, but that is a bit of a stereotype.. most 'multimedia' packages.. like Adobe CS4.. and professional audio packages run on Windows as well.. or only on Windows.

4. True.. but in Windows defense.. it's the most widely used platform.. so its getting targeted by everyone.. the fact that it's easy to exploit is just making their lives easier. Linux machines can be more secure than Mac and Windows systems... probably why Linux is the dominant server OS..

5. Microsoft wont either.. what you do with your PC is your business.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 20, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Huh? Why would any computer company wanna sue you for loading another OS into your computer? I've never heard of that before...



Darkdoomer's probably thinking of the Hackintosh and related lawsuits.  (Apple sued Wired Magazine for installing Mac OS on a MSI Wind netbook.  The case was thrown out, but even frivolous lawsuits get expensive.)

Apple have always been really sue-happy about installing their OS on any hardware other than theirs.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 20, 2009)

Carenath said:


> A. With the advantage of increased stability and optimised code.


In theory. In practice, Apple's in-house drivers are about the same quality as Microsoft's in-house drivers. (Which is actually pretty good, in either case.)



Carenath said:


> B. Didnt know this.. but it will become less of an issue as EFI gains ground on newer systems.


Yes... Any year now.


----------



## Ruko (Jun 20, 2009)

How can you even compare a Comstar hard drive to an Apple time capsule. They don't even do the same things (time capsule has loads more features than external storage).

Plus, who the hell is Comstar?? Seriously, why would you trust your most sensitive documents and precious memories etc. to a brand nobody has ever heard of?


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 20, 2009)

Ruko said:


> Plus, who the hell is Comstar?? Seriously, why would you trust your most sensitive documents and precious memories etc. to a brand nobody has ever heard of?



The drive itself matters just as much as the drive controller.  That noted, I can't find anything about what brand drive is in that Comstar enclosure.


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> The drive itself matters just as much as the drive controller.  That noted, I can't find anything about what brand drive is in that Comstar enclosure.



...which is a problem.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 20, 2009)

Ruko said:


> How can you even compare a Comstar hard drive to an Apple time capsule. They don't even do the same things (time capsule has loads more features than external storage).
> 
> Plus, who the hell is Comstar?? Seriously, why would you trust your most sensitive documents and precious memories etc. to a brand nobody has ever heard of?


There's additional material below the original topic.

Umm... because it costs about 300 dollars less...


----------



## Aden (Jun 20, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> There's additional material below the original topic.
> 
> Umm... because it costs about 300 dollars less...



He's not talking about in comparison to the Apple product, just generic brands in general. It is to be compared to drives from major companies like Seagate.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 20, 2009)

Aden said:


> He's not talking about in comparison to the Apple product, just generic brands in general. It is to be compared to drives from major companies like Seagate.


Yea, actually.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 21, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Huh? Why would any computer company wanna sue you for loading another OS into your computer? I've never heard of that before...


well apple doesnt sue for loading another OS on a mac, which is what the one i was responding to was implying(at least microsoft wont sue you for putting linux on a PC).


----------



## Biles (Jun 21, 2009)

net-cat said:


> I've got a 1GHz Pentium 3 that does well, too. (Running on parts from the 2000-2001 era.) Throw Linux or Windows XP on it and it'll word process, browse, watch DVDs and Email as well as any system out there.



Well, IMO a PC would likely to last longer if it wasn't running Windows.



> Granted, it's not going to run Vista or the latest and greatest games. But your G4 isn't going to run Snow Leopard, either. And it certainly isn't going to run games.



Well of course it's quite obvious a newer Mac or one with beefed up specs are likely to perform much faster and handle much more resource intensive softwares than older or not so powerful ones. However at the end of the day, stability matters the most.



CodArk2 said:


> well apple doesnt sue for loading another OS on a mac, which is what the one i was responding to was implying(at least microsoft wont sue you for putting linux on a PC).



I think I remember back in the days that M$ once tried to bully the OEMs by threatening to pull their support if they attempted to offer other viable OS other than Windows, though I wasn't sure exactly what their contracts stated. But M$ also threatened to do the same as well if OEMs packaged Netscape browser. This led to subsequent events leading up to the Anti-Trust case against M$ by the U.S. government.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 21, 2009)

Biles said:


> Well, IMO a PC would likely to last longer if it wasn't running Windows.


That statement doesn't make any sense. How does the operating system determine how long the hardware lasts?


----------



## Irreverent (Jun 21, 2009)

net-cat said:


> That statement doesn't make any sense. How does the operating system determine how long the hardware lasts?



I suspect he meant that it would have a longer useful life, running leaner code compared to Windows.  I shouldn't assume.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 21, 2009)

net-cat said:


> That statement doesn't make any sense. How does the operating system determine how long the hardware lasts?



Among other things, it wouldn't have to thrash the hard disk for two minutes just to show the Start Menu.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 21, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Darkdoomer's probably thinking of the Hackintosh and related lawsuits. (Apple sued Wired Magazine for installing Mac OS on a MSI Wind netbook. The case was thrown out, but even frivolous lawsuits get expensive.)
> 
> Apple have always been really sue-happy about installing their OS on any hardware other than theirs.


 
This is because the homebrewed stuff built to assist installing Mac OSX violates some of Apple's copyrights.  Even if you LEGALLY bought OSX, there's stuff in terms of loaders, including the coprighted EFI stuff that needs to be copied and hacked to make it work.  It's not that Mac OSX on a PC is illegal, it's that the means used to do it is.

It'd be different if someone clean room backward engineered it like Compaq did with the IBM PC BIOS.  But no, this is just guys dumping and hacking the existing Apple stuff.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 21, 2009)

Fair use isn't piracy, but the lawyers at Apple make a living disagreeing with that.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 21, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Fair use isn't piracy, but the lawyers at Apple make a living disagreeing with that.


 
Fair Use isn't a valid legal defense in this case.  The firmware of a Mac is copyrighted, it is sold as software flashed onto the hardware you buy and is built specificly for operating that hardware.  By taking that software and modifying it you are causing financial damage to Apple.

You could create an entirely legal means of running Mac OSX by means of cleanroom backward engineering, but that require signifigant investment of money.  Instead people are violating both Apple patents and copyrights in the software used to run Mac OSX on a PC.


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 21, 2009)

I think,

Many stability related arguments against Windows are not cause of the operating system itself. The greatest downfall to the operating system is the sheer number of copies that are running on machines across the globe, most problems you will encounter are product of third-party organizations, regardless of which software layer they interact with. Issues relative to the function of the operating system are almost always caused by the introduction of external commands and scripts, in the same sense, you could tell a Macintosh to be self-destructive as easy as a PC. Operating systems are designed to do what they're told, if they're given the instruction to write in a restricted area, they will attempt to write there, what happens as a result of the command is merely standard procedure for encountering errors like that. It's not Windows or OSX to blame, it's the person who told them to do that.

Apple's products are less susceptible to error because they attempt to approve software released for their platforms before allowing (and in an implied sense, condoning) their release to meet the public eye. They don't absolutely prevent other software from being introduced without their "consent," but the way they've established their platforms, users would find it strange to not use Apple software on Apple products. This is great in terms of stability, but the induced limitation of software available to the average end-user as cause of their approval procedure, I find, makes it much less worthwhile.


----------



## RaveUtopiaCat (Jun 21, 2009)

Apple is a terrible computer company for the following reasons

1. They take a product, make it white, put an apple on it, triple the price, add an " I " infront of what the product is.

2. If it's not made by apple have fun trying to get it to work with an apple product

3. Soon in the year 2013 a mandatory app will be installed on all apple laptops and computers to monitor your fun levels making sure they don't get high

4. All they really ever made that was good is the Iphone/Ipod touch (only touch)

5. "My mac is 4 times faster then your windows computer" The reason, I don't really care that you can send an e-mail or save a document faster mine is going slower because I can actually run fun things to, but you must have tons of fun with office.

5. No Viruses?! Well that's because no one uses them, I'm sure your friends will be excited when you tell them about your new mac.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 22, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Fair Use isn't a valid legal defense in this case.  The firmware of a Mac is copyrighted, it is sold as software flashed onto the hardware you buy and is built specificly for operating that hardware.  By taking that software and modifying it you are causing financial damage to Apple.
> 
> You could create an entirely legal means of running Mac OSX by means of cleanroom backward engineering, but that require signifigant investment of money.  Instead people are violating both Apple patents and copyrights in the software used to run Mac OSX on a PC.



Apple computers have been using Open Firmware on PowerPC-based Macs and EFI on Intel-based Macs.

It's only a yet-to-be-tried provision in Apple's OSX EULA (Part 2, Section A, in Leopard's EULA) that gives Apple any legal standing at all regarding the use of an Apple OS on non-Apple PCs.

Also, how does installing a legally obtained operating system on one type of personal computer instead of another violate a patent?  That makes as little sense as the claim it violates a copyright.  All it violates is a questionable provision of an agreement.

The true pirates are Apple, not hackintosh enthusiasts.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 22, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Also, how does installing a legally obtained operating system on one type of personal computer instead of another violate a patent? That makes as little sense as the claim it violates a copyright. All it violates is a questionable provision of an agreement.
> 
> The true pirates are Apple, not hackintosh enthusiasts.


 
Once agian, the legal issue does not lie in running OSX on other platforms.  It's about HOW it is done.

Another key issue is that pieces of Apple's MacOSX code is being modified and distributed.  While it's not done now, it was how it was done previously, the OSX Kernel needed to be patched in order to run on the PC.  This meant taking the copyrighted OSX Kernel, changing some bits, then redistributing it without Apple's consent.  This is a copyright violation and it is not fair use.

Only in 2008 did means of accurately emulating the Mac hardware environment allowing you to install Mac OSX using a legally aquired Mac OSX install disc.  These more recent developments use open source emulation designs.

The EULA issue on Mac OSX is a bit different.  While you have agreed to a contract in the EULA, it remains to be seen if the contract can actually hold up in court and which juristrictions it would hold up and would not.  The entire basis of civil law is that contracts are up to interpretation and can just be outright bullshit.


----------



## hitokage (Jun 22, 2009)

The current legal issues are all based on the EULA, and whether a legal document and it's restrictions that is not signed is really legally binding.

EFI has never been the problem - it's an Intel standard and was used on Itanium workstations and servers several years before Apple moved to Intel CPUs. The problem lies with the fact there's a TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chip on the motherboard. The old reason clones didn't exist was cleanroom reverse engineering wasn't feasible as the ROMs (pre-Intel) contained a portion of the OS.

All the companies that are currently selling the machines are using the current method that allows you to use a legally acquired OS X install disc. No one was selling them before because of the need to use a special Mac developer copy of OS X that you couldn't legally obtain for resale.


----------



## ShardtheWolf (Jun 22, 2009)

darkdoomer said:


>



He just posted an awsome image that works twofold by
-swearing you out
-using Microsoft paint

Therefore, your argument is no longer valid.


----------



## ZentratheFox (Jun 22, 2009)

I really couldn't care less about Apple hardware, software, price, etc. A good portion of why _I _hate Apple is *Apple Fanboys*. They are the most arrogant, ignorant SOB's I've ever met, and I live in Texas, which is known for having quite a few idiots around.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 22, 2009)

Oh come on.  EVERYTHING has obnoxious fanboys.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 22, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Oh come on.  EVERYTHING has obnoxious fanboys.



Even Windows.


----------



## Irreverent (Jun 22, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Oh come on.  EVERYTHING has obnoxious fanboys.



We used to call them "User Groups" back in the day.....  And for the record, MUSIC/sp rocks!

You used to be able to derive OS or App penetration and popularity by the size/obnoxiousness of its fanbase.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 22, 2009)

RaveUtopiaCat said:


> Apple is a terrible computer company for the following reasons
> 
> 1. They take a product, make it white, put an apple on it, triple the price, add an " I " infront of what the product is.
> 
> ...



1. apple machines are silver and black, they stopped using the white plastic models like 3 years ago, there is a price premium, but only an idiot thinks its three times what a comparable windows box is worth. Usually it was a few hundred dollars more than a similar spec PC, and with apple's recent price drops that gap is less now. and the i thing is just marketing, which is like me criticising microsoft for naming EVERY operating system they come out with Windows something or another.

2. yeah, and good luck trying yo get you xbox to play wii games, or you DVD player to accept VCR tapes. companies have standards. apples standards just dont include making its os for other computers.

3. riiiight. microsoft had that years ago. its called the windows operating system. its tweaked every so often to ensure maximum frustration. if you  havent wanted to toss your computer off a high building, you havent had the full windows experience.

4. apples iphone and ipod arent bad. the iphone still needs work, but its till awesome. apple owns the music player market. nothing really competes with ipod even if there are some better choices out there. Mac OS is better than windows in quite a few things, the only reason windows dominates is its cheaper. Its computers and phones are good. its music player owns its market.

5. like what fun things, oh knower of all things mac? you can play most games on a mac and get on the net and listen to music, watch movies...really about anything you can on a windows machine. mac os uses less resources like ram than windows does to operate, which is why they are faster

6.(should be 5. but i can count). macs make up 10 percent of the PC market, and those that buy them usually are wealthy.mac isnt virus proof, but its unix underpinnings make it more secure than windows



ZentratheFox said:


> I really couldn't care less about Apple hardware, software, price, etc. A good portion of why _I _hate Apple is *Apple Fanboys*. They are the most arrogant, ignorant SOB's I've ever met, and I live in Texas, which is known for having quite a few idiots around.



I live in texas too. you really wont run into technology fanboys here. maybe ford fanboys or chevy...or some football team. Quite a few apple fanboys are arrogant and ignorant, but i have run into more than enough windows and linux fanboys who are just as ignorant, arrogant, and outright retarded. I have used all three so i can talk, but those that avent used a computer should pretend to know what they are talking about.  Thing about tat is _everyone_ uses windows or has at some point, including the apple fanboys. 9 times out of 10 mac haters have never used a mac. Windows is good, but macs have heir place too.



AshleyAshes said:


> Oh come on.  EVERYTHING has obnoxious fanboys.


 This. Exactly this. Obnoxious fanboys are not a mac exclusive lol


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 22, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> 1. apple machines are silver and black, they stopped using the white plastic models like 3 years ago, there is a price premium, but only an idiot thinks its three times what a comparable windows box is worth. Usually it was a few hundred dollars more than a similar spec PC, and with apple's recent price drops that gap is less now. and the i thing is just marketing, which is like me criticising microsoft for naming EVERY operating system they come out with Windows something or another.


First of all, you could buy a complete desktop package for under 800 bucks. The cheapest complete package Apple offers is 1400. I'll use the same reseller as the original post:
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...665000FS10123148&catid=10607&logon=&langid=EN
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10118719&catid=

Aside from that, what does "a few hundred bucks" equate to you, something you'll spend at the convenience store? With the money you'd save on the HP model, you could easily buy the hardware required to blow the Apple out of the water in respect to performance.



CodArk2 said:


> 2. yeah, and good luck trying yo get you xbox to play wii games, or you DVD player to accept VCR tapes. companies have standards. apples standards just dont include making its os for other computers.


Misinterpretation, the person you've quoted was speaking in terms of Apples support for generic, supposedly universal products, not support for obsolete media or products of their competetion.



CodArk2 said:


> 4. apples iphone and ipod arent bad. the iphone still needs work, but its till awesome. apple owns the music player market. nothing really competes with ipod even if there are some better choices out there. Mac OS is better than windows in quite a few things, the only reason windows dominates is its cheaper. Its computers and phones are good. its music player owns its market.


Really, I thought Windows dominated because of the innumerable software companies that write specifically for the platform and this thing they've got going on where Microsoft themselves will write an entire piece of software and release it at (oh my god, Apple users cover your ears) no charge. You also don't have to bank on whether you're going to need to pull you your credit card or not for a software update.



CodArk2 said:


> 5. like what fun things, oh knower of all things mac? you can play most games on a mac and get on the net and listen to music, watch movies...really about anything you can on a windows machine. mac os uses less resources like ram than windows does to operate, which is why they are faster


They're faster because there's not enough software available to slow them down.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 23, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> First of all, you could buy a complete desktop package for under 800 bucks. The cheapest complete package Apple offers is 1400. I'll use the same reseller as the original post:
> http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...665000FS10123148&catid=10607&logon=&langid=EN
> http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10118719&catid=



No its not. the cheapest imac offers is 1199.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac
Thats what you should find in stores. Is it cheap? No, but it isnt. Its a $400 difference. 

The tech specs for both of them from cnet
http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/hp-pavilion-a6500f-pentium/4507-3118_7-33127039.html?tag=mncol;psum

http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4507-3118_7-33541092.html?tag=mncol;rnav

The mac has a slightly faster processor, and a lot more cache memory. It also can have more ram and it sports a better graphics card. Only thing the hp has over the mac is it has a 180 GB larger hard drive and more ram standard without upgrades. for 400 less.

For a more fair comparison look at all in ones offered by other manufacturers.

imac (1199)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4505-3118_7-33541092.html?tag=rnav

HP TouchSmart (1599)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/hp...3280884.html?ttag=rev_spon_prod&tag=mncol;lst

Averatec All-in-One (1,299)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/averatec-all-in-one/4505-3118_7-33089300.html?tag=mncol;txt

Dell Studio One 19 (1,000)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/dell-studio-one-19/4505-3118_7-33637210.html?tag=mncol;txt

Sony Vaio JS250J (1000)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/sony-vaio-js250j/4505-3118_7-33517630.html?tag=rnav

Dell XPS One 24 (2000)- http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/dell-xps-one-24/4505-3118_7-33362543.html?tag=mncol;lst

most are nearly the same cost as the mac, and the specs are often less as well. the biggest price gaps are 1 or 2 hundred dollars less, and you end up getting better specs with the mac. the only thing most of them offer that mac doesnt is a touch screen, but thats more a gimmick at this point since few programs use them.




> Aside from that, what does "a few hundred bucks" equate to you, something you'll spend at the convenience store? With the money you'd save on the HP model, you could easily buy the hardware required to blow the Apple out of the water in respect to performance.



1 or 2 hundred dollars isnt make or break for me since i have a job. I need an all in one for space, i also happen to like macs, but i use windows on a near daily basis. That HP doesnt blow the imac out of the water, in fact its inferior in several areas. it has a 180 gb larger hard drive and faster base ram(which can be upgraded to 8 gb on the mac for about 100 dollars). 400 dollars could upgrade things yes, but that basically means taking it apart to upgrade or sending it to a shop. its too much hassle when i just want to use a computer.




> Really, I thought Windows dominated because of the innumerable software companies that write specifically for the platform and this thing they've got going on where Microsoft themselves will write an entire piece of software and release it at (oh my god, Apple users cover your ears) no charge. You also don't have to bank on whether you're going to need to pull you your credit card or not for a software update.



not quite. windows became popular because microsoft was willing to license windows to a lot of OEMs. apple kept to itself and its line of computers(save for the clones in the late 90's). early windows builds didnt offer much. it wasnt until windows 95 that windows really offered a lot of software, before that apple had more software(which is why most  computers of the late 80s and early 90s were apple). 

I am curious as to what apple charges for that microsoft doesnt. we get the web browser and video editing software and music software and a word processor and video software with the os. Updates to mac programs come through software update and are free. If you mean upgrades from point to point (10.4 to 10.5 to 10.6 etc) then that proves you _REALLY_ dont know about mac osx. 10.4 was tiger, when it went to 10.5(leopard) it added a lot of new features and some new applications for 129 dollars. 10.6(snow leopard) will add more features and changes for 29 dollars. windows "7" is really windows 6.1 (vista was 6) with some UI changes and a few new apps. i wonder how much it will cost...heres a hint, it wont beat apples price. New apple Operating Systems are always cheaper than windows Operating Systems. Apple sends out free updates every month or two to update the os, which is like a service pack, only more often(10.5.5 to 10.5.6 to 10.5.7 etc). Oh, and those are free. Please learn about how apple updates its software before assuming things.

tiger- http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Mac-Tig..._1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1245768229&sr=1-1

leopard- http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Versio..._1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1245768303&sr=1-1

snow leopard- http://apcmag.com/apple-mauls-microsoft-with-snow-leopard-os-x-upgrade-pricing.htm

vista- http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista..._1_9?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1245770067&sr=1-9



> They're faster because there's not enough software available to slow them down.


*sigh* i use mac and windows every day. anything windows can do a mac can do. the mac uses the same software in many cases, and if not, the equivalent of it can easily be found with a bit of looking. the only software macs dont do so well with(or at all) are the latest games. even when it does play games, it usually is about the same speed or slightly faster than a windows pc playing the same game. leopard is faster than vista because it uses less system resources, not because it has less software. using both i tell you that the amount of good software is the same. PCs just have more crapware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cxbstn2IZM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr85AMS1u8Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hOLTHIJbHM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwPbFE20msA&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXLzw5HBr28&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_AqimYMIfQ&feature=channel (long)
http://apcmag.com/15_reasons_macs_are_still_better_than_windows.htm


----------



## Roland (Jun 23, 2009)

A lot of the arguments that are being used in this thread were really only applicable, like, 2 years ago.  A lot of companies have adopted Mac as a platform and have begun creating bigger, better programs for them.  

Yes, they're still pricey compared to most laptops, but any decent laptop that you want to buy will still cost you at least $1000. Preference and purpose is all it really comes down to.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 26, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> No its not. the cheapest imac offers is 1199.
> http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac
> Thats what you should find in stores. Is it cheap? No, but it isnt. Its a $400 difference.
> 
> ...





I'm sorry to rain on your little parade ... 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009162
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229102

That's an intel Core i7 processor, 6GB of ram, a 1TB hard drive, an ATI Readion 4830 graphics card and running a copy of Vista 64. All for $1179.98 The same price as a wimpy iMac. I can game, run CS4, office suite and render a movie in the background...all at the same time with this machine. The iMac will slow to a crawl at rendering a movie and using CS4 at the same time, not to mention run out of screen space (for me at least) 

All this and with my machine... that I've got about $450 into will still stomp that iMac 

Phenom X3 triple core CPU, 6GB DDR2 ram, 640GB WD Black hard drive with 32mb cache, a ATI 4850 Graphics card and a very nice 500W power supply. I can't help but also mention that all the components like the motherboard and hard drive etc are all some of the highest rated products on Newegg.


----------



## benanderson (Jun 26, 2009)

The iMac is an ALL-IN-ONE computer and compared to other All-in-one computers in the same price range the iMac kicks them all out the door.

The MacMini is a space saving computer, when compared to other space saving computers the MacMini is a good machine.

The MacPro is a professional workstation and when compared to other workstation computers the MacPro's Xeon processor and amazing bus speeds top the lot.

Apple don't have a consumer Gaming PC because games are the last thing on Apple's priority list so you can't compare gaming machines to Apple's line up.

When you apply logic to the situation you can see that the offerings from Apple are competitive, fairly priced and powerful. The only thing separating them from Wintel machines from a logical standpoint is personal taste.

No one is going to pay attention to what I just said anyway since everyone here are either rabid fanboys or jumping into the stereotype that Apple computers are for show offs and artists. :/


----------



## Hyena (Jun 26, 2009)

benanderson said:


> The iMac is an ALL-IN-ONE computer and compared to other All-in-one computers in the same price range the iMac kicks them all out the door.
> 
> The MacMini is a space saving computer, when compared to other space saving computers the MacMini is a good machine.
> 
> ...



Actually, yes I can compare the iCrap to the PC that I linked too. While the mac mini is in a different league and I think even starts at around $699 or something like that, the iMac is a desktop computer. Apple wants to market their computers to people who want to do creative stuff like video editing and image creation and manipulation. That iMac will struggle to do anything that the PC I linked to would most likely have no problem with what so ever. 

All in All, they're both desktop computers. They have the same function. I know the iCrap is a all in one, I don't care. All in one computers are fucking stupid, have you had to actually do maintenance on one of those? what a pain in the ass. 

I included a 23" monitor along with that "gaming" PC. the reason I linked to a gaming PC was because it can do everything the mac pro tower can do, and also do games. You see that gaming PC has the same number of processor cores, can support up to 16GB ram I believe, maybe more, and will do *everything* that the $2400 Mac Pro's can do. 

I will compare the iCrap to the towers, I'm sorry if you don't like that. but why would you pay $1200 for a computer that is actually worth $499.99 as a windows machine, but is impossible to work on, but just comes with a pretty shell? Face it, macintosh refuses to actually make a powerful product for consumers that is actually worth the money.


----------



## Aden (Jun 26, 2009)

You all care about this a lot. :T


----------



## Hyena (Jun 26, 2009)

Aden said:


> You all care about this a lot. :T



Here is an interesting number. Macs on average are just overpriced by about $400 it seems for the general computer. 

$400 times 10,000,000 units sold = $4,000,000,000.00 in extra money that consumers total are wasting on an Apple computer. What could all that extra money go to instead if the users had all just bought PC's ? maybe uhh... fixing the economy ? Not only that, but what could the extra $400 do for just the one single person.


----------



## Roland (Jun 26, 2009)

Hyena said:


> Here is an interesting number. Macs on average are just overpriced by about $400 it seems for the general computer.
> 
> $400 times 10,000,000 units sold = $4,000,000,000.00 in extra money that consumers total are wasting on an Apple computer. What could all that extra money go to instead if the users had all just bought PC's ? maybe uhh... fixing the economy ? Not only that, but what could the extra $400 do for just the one single person.



Stimulating the economy means spending more money on local products, which would seem is what Mac users are doing. 

Just go buy, build and enjoy your PC and be damned happy about it knowing you are better than everyone else.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 26, 2009)

Hyena said:


> I'm sorry to rain on your little parade ...
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009162
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229102
> ...



Um, i know you didn't read anything i wrote so let me write it in big letters so your fanboy brain can get it. THE IMAC IS NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS AN ALL IN ONE. I don't have space for a giant f**king box on or under my small desk. I am not a power user.I know how to build a computer, but i dont have time. I do not need top specs for running photoshop or flash or illustrator. I dont need a gaming pc, which is mostly what computers with specs like that are used for. I need something that runs well and doesn't take up much space. I posted links to reviews of other all in ones. If you had actually read what i wrote and clicked the links, i said it clearly that you cant compare a imac to a desktop like the one you pointed out because they arent in the same category of computers.



benanderson said:


> The iMac is an ALL-IN-ONE computer and compared to other All-in-one computers in the same price range the iMac kicks them all out the door.
> 
> The MacMini is a space saving computer, when compared to other space saving computers the MacMini is a good machine.
> 
> ...


i did, and thats exact what i was saying. macs arent expensive for their category. the mac pro is faster than the computer he listed, but he would never accept that since its a mac. I use macs for work, i dont show off, and newspaper page layout is hardly art(though graphic design is at times). Most mac haters never use the mac. He is only criticizing them based on specs and price. At least he isnt like the retard i saw once saying you couldnt get on the internet from macs.



Hyena said:


> Actually, yes I can compare the iCrap to the PC that I linked too. While the mac mini is in a different league and I think even starts at around $699 or something like that, the iMac is a desktop computer. Apple wants to market their computers to people who want to do creative stuff like video editing and image creation and manipulation. That iMac will struggle to do anything that the PC I linked to would most likely have no problem with what so ever.
> 
> All in All, they're both desktop computers. They have the same function. I know the iCrap is a all in one, I don't care. All in one computers are fucking stupid, have you had to actually do maintenance on one of those? what a pain in the ass.
> 
> ...



No its not fair to compare the two directly. its like comparing a porsche and a honda and saying they are both cars, but the honda is better because more people have it and its cheaper. Seeing that i work in the creative industry, you are full of crap when you say an imac would struggle with video manipulation and image creation an manipulation.. it does those two just fine. As a graphic designer i change images and draw things like logos and such all the time, saying a mac struggles with it just shows you are ignorant. Those are not super hard tasks for a computer. 

And saying all in ones suck because they are hard to repair is stupid. not everyone has space for a big boxy cpu. some need all in ones for space. and seeing as macs are very reliable and have good warranties, im not too worried about taking it apart to fix it since its still under warranty.

I know it may come as a shock yo you, nd a lot of other pc fanboy gamer types, to you might want to brace yourself: not everyone in the world wants to ply games on a pc! *gasp* an whats more, some people actually _work_ on their computers (useing them, not taking them apart). Having worked with windows before my job went all mac, its annoying to be pestered with vista. I used windows for 12 years, mac for 10. macs are easier to use and more reliable than any windows box i used.

An imac is not worth a 499 windows box. on specs its closer to 799. and considering its much smaller than a cpu tower, it goes up(the smaller and more powerful the computer, the more it costs). By work on im actually assuming you mean go in and upgrade everything all the time so you can use your computer as an electric penis "ooh yeah, mines bigger, badder and harder than yours hurhur". Most computer users arent power users and dont need super powerful stuff that breaks after a year or two. my last imac kicked the bucket after 10 years, in that time i had to get 4 windows computers, tells me something about their quality. they werent the cheap ones either(1000 to 1300 dollars). sat on desks doing the same thing, the imac was worth the extra 1k.



> Originally Posted by Hyena
> Here is an interesting number. Macs on average are just overpriced by about $400 it seems for the general computer.
> 
> $400 times 10,000,000 units sold = $4,000,000,000.00 in extra money that consumers total are wasting on an Apple computer. What could all that extra money go to instead if the users had all just bought PC's ? maybe uhh... fixing the economy ? Not only that, but what could the extra $400 do for just the one single person.



hmm, id say less overpriced and more "you get what you pay for" since macs last longer and have fewer issues than a windows pc. and how about the millions lost each year to pc glitches and viruses. what about the fact that majot companies hav entire departments devoted to fixing windows problems(IT staff and depts) do you think those are free? since macs last longer than pcs and have fewer problems, they make up for their increased initial costs in increased productivity and reduced maintanence. Besides, i would argue that stimulating the economy means buying things. buying a mac is giving money to an american company, that makes jobs in the us. i can argue those that buy a mac are encouraging the economy. where else should the money go to fix the economy? the financial industry caused this mess by giving loans to those that couldnt afford it and having more debts than they could pay off. buying pcs instead of macs wouldnt fix our economy.


----------



## Aden (Jun 26, 2009)

ITT: *CodArk2* doesn't help.

Honestly, I love my Mac. But when you argue so much and so ineffectively, you make all us Mac users look like dumb pricks. Please stop. You care too much.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 26, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> Um, i know you didn't read anything i wrote so let me write it in big letters so your fanboy brain can get it. THE IMAC IS NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS AN ALL IN ONE. I don't have space for a giant f**king box on or under my small desk. I am not a power user.I know how to build a computer, but i dont have time. I do not need top specs for running photoshop or flash or illustrator. I dont need a gaming pc, which is mostly what computers with specs like that are used for. I need something that runs well and doesn't take up much space. I posted links to reviews of other all in ones. If you had actually read what i wrote and clicked the links, i said it clearly that you cant compare a imac to a desktop like the one you pointed out because they arent in the same category of computers....
> 
> [edited out all your nonsense so this doesn't take up as much space]
> 
> ... Besides, i would argue that stimulating the economy means buying things. buying a mac is giving money to an american company, that makes jobs in the us. i can argue those that buy a mac are encouraging the economy. where else should the money go to fix the economy? the financial industry caused this mess by giving loans to those that couldnt afford it and having more debts than they could pay off. buying pcs instead of macs wouldnt fix our economy.



Alright, listen here. I OWN a Powermac G5 Dual 2.5GHz running OS X 10.5.6 I use final cut  pro 5 on the machine, and I then use Avid on my windows machines. I'm not going to go point through point that you make as most are so flat out stupid they arent worth my time even bothering responding to. 

I'm one of the more agnostic OS users you can find, I use Vista X64, Ubuntu 9 and OS X on a daily basis, I DO WORK on my computers, more taxing work than your little iCrap could actually keep up with. Yes, I do render and edit 1080 HD movies and have to render them for the business I work for. I also draw and paint using Adobe CS3 and am often found creating presentations in Powerpoint 2007 or managing databases in Access 2007. You really shouldn't ever assume things and call someone just a windows gamer fanboy, because I'll throw you flat on your face.  

First off, with Adobe I monitor my ram usage quite well, on average with the canvases I like to work at I'm using about 2GB of ram, I work on large canvases and then scale them down as it gives it a great finished and crisp look to whatever I'm working on. 

Second, you claim that mac's last ohh so much longer than PC's... well then tell me this, why has my G5 had to have the liquid cooling system replaced 3 times, and gone through 3 hard drives? Fucking thank god for apple care for all of those times, but my G5 and my co workers nice ass intel Powermac both have leaked and caused damage. His actually went through a motherboard somehow as well. My friend had his mothers iMac intel 1.8GHz screen randomly fail as well. All this stuff, and my computer I built back in 1999 (AMD Duron 1800+, 512MB DDR Ram, 64MB ATI 7500, 20GB Maxtor) is still running flawlessly to this day. Now you may claim it's because I'm doing work on the other computers, but that old computer back in the day I did tons of work on, and was usually maxing out the processor and ram while I did it. Now my little budget "Great Quality" PC that is a Fry's electronics special that I bought in 2005 for $179.99 is still on today and works flawlessly, its on right now powering a 22" LCD monitor with all my messengers on it. The fact you want to claim that "PC's break down every day" already labels you as a ignorant and arrogant mac fanboy. 

You don't have a space under, behind or beside your desk for a 9" by 18" tower? what are you a hoarder who has nothing but boxes stacked around your desk? I've seen cramped work spaces... never before have I seen something where a person wants to claim "I don't have enough space for something that takes up the space of a shoe box on the floor" 

If the mac isn't in the same category as an all in one, then where is it? Granted HP and other companies making these all in one things are pretty daft imo, I just showed that you can get a Core i7 machine with a better 23" HD Display and you honestly think a mac is comparable to that? the "gaming" machine blows most macs out of the water, while still staying below the entry iMac. 

I will agree with you on the fact that possibly the iMac is in the $799.99 catagory, I would then not be as bitchy with apple if they were offering a consumer a desktop for that price that was actually useful. The mac mini is a useful product, but then if you're going to have a separate unit and a monitor, why not just get something with 5X the power for a little more?

I didn't feel necessary to even bother looking at the links you posted up, I clicked one and saw it was the stupid all in one things and then didn't bother. See, the problem with you is that while I do all the same tasks (if not a little more stressful tasks because Avid and final cut can be a bitch at times) I also have fun and do my games. What is the big problem with having a computer that can actually do games? is this somehow too good of a computer to do your word processing on? if that's the case, stfu and go buy a Commodore. 

And to your last point, macs don't last longer than PC's I'm really sorry. I have had some of the most random hardware failures on my macs where as I've only had 1 hard drive on my windows computer crash, and then one power supply fail back in the day and take the motherboard with it. That's 2 failures to ..lets see... 6 failures I've had on various mac products I've used over the years. Lets not mention my iPod battery that didn't even last a year even though the iPod didn't get used but once every two weeks. 

Set down that jar of mac kool-aid and wake up to the reality around you. I'm done arguing with you.


----------



## Aden (Jun 26, 2009)

Why is everyone so angry

Also anecdotal evidence has no place in logical argument.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jun 26, 2009)

Aden said:


> ITT: *CodArk2* doesn't help.
> 
> Honestly, I love my Mac. But when you argue so much and so ineffectively, you make all us Mac users look like dumb pricks. Please stop. You care too much.



I likely dont change anything, so why does it matter? Trust me, i am far from the worst mac fanboy, mac users are thought of as dumb pricks mostly from them...or other dumb pricks who hate all macs and mac users. Do i have to use personal insults on him to help?



Hyena said:


> Alright, listen here. I OWN a Powermac G5 Dual 2.5GHz running OS X 10.5.6 I use final cut  pro 5 on the machine, and I then use Avid on my windows machines. I'm not going to go point through point that you make as most are so flat out stupid they arent worth my time even bothering responding to.
> 
> I'm one of the more agnostic OS users you can find, I use Vista X64, Ubuntu 9 and OS X on a daily basis, I DO WORK on my computers, more taxing work than your little iCrap could actually keep up with. Yes, I do render and edit 1080 HD movies and have to render them for the business I work for. I also draw and paint using Adobe CS3 and am often found creating presentations in Powerpoint 2007 or managing databases in Access 2007. You really shouldn't ever assume things and call someone just a windows gamer fanboy, because I'll throw you flat on your face.
> 
> ...



*sigh* insults dont prove anything, other than that you can't behave like a mature adult when confronted with someone that thinks different than you. there is no reason to be angry since i didnt call you anything. If you cant respond to someone without insulting them then shut the hell up or go back to high school where thats tolerated. you started all this anyway.

I  have owned more than one mac, an imac is the one i own at home. I use power macs, and windows machines at work. i'm biased toward macs, but not a windows hater even though i used windows way more than mac until 5 years ago. I like mac more but windows is ok.

You are not 'os agnostic'. you seem to target mac threads and bash macs only while saying how windows is better, like you did in the macbook thread. I may be a fanboy, but at least i'm honest about it...

Not all macs will last as long as mine did, but in general they are longer lived, based on everyone i've talked to that uses one. Some have had issues like any other pc, but most are fine. Again, i use windows computers daily. they break down more often, power supplies, hard drives, overheating...that i haven't had often on macs. i have had a hard drive fail on a mac pro at work, but that was once. macs aren't unbreakable and flawless, but they aren't all bad based on my experience with them. my experience is different, not wrong.

At home, i don't have a large desk, there is a space on the side, but other stuff is there. the cpu tower wont fit on the desk so i need an all in one or mini type.

The machine you showed isn't bad, and no where did i say the mac was better. read what i write before you use it against me. i said its in a different category. not better. it has better tech specs than a mac, the mac has better tech than other all in ones.

The mac mini is underspeced for its price, as is the imac really, but they aren't bad machines. they function well for what they do.

dismissing my links doesn't make any point i was trying to make wrong. also, macs can play games. i have played games on my mac. not as many games as windows, but it still plays them. i have game consoles for games anyway.

i have had numerous issues with windows computers. there were the hard drive failures and power supply failures, os problems where the computer wouldnt start BIOS or windows, cd drive failures, and one that got so overheated everything in it was just fried. these were all PCs by the way. only had a hard drive fail on a mac pro after i put it in, took it out and got a new one and it was fine. So thats 9 failures for PC (3 hard drive failures, 2 power connector issues,2 cd drive failures, 1 that wouldn't load BIOS and 1 melted computer)  vs 1 issue with a mac. hmm. 

an ipod doesn't really count in this. its made by apple sure, but thats like me bringing in the xbox 360 i had that got a red ring of death after 2 days of using it into this because it was made by microsoft and using it as an excuse to bash windows.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 26, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> I likely dont change anything, so why does it matter? Trust me, i am far from the worst mac fanboy, mac users are thought of as dumb pricks mostly from them...or other dumb pricks who hate all macs and mac users. Do i have to use personal insults on him to help?
> 
> [edit]
> an ipod doesn't really count in this. its made by apple sure, but thats like me bringing in the xbox 360 i had that got a red ring of death after 2 days of using it into this because it was made by microsoft and using it as an excuse to bash windows.




If you really want to debate with me over this, hit me up on my messengers and maybe we can even find some common ground. I don't feel like wasting any more of this thread, it's really about apple accessories rather than apple computers.


----------



## Norspe (Jun 27, 2009)

*sigh* Let's try to get this thing settled....


PROS:
Windows: Most software developers make products for Windows first because they own the majority of the market.
Windows computers can be customized to your own liking.

Mac: Runs much smoother and faster and will soon be 64 bit making it run even better.
Much more virus protection, every time there is a new virus Apple releases a patch to disable it.
Maintains a stable speed throughout the computers lifetime. (Had a 20 year old mac, gave to a friend and it still runs as good as ever)
Runs windows better than any other computer. (don't argue, it's been proven)
Unix.


CONS:
Windows: More viruses than the whole of Africa.If you have an internet connection, you are GOING to get a virus.
Speed and performance deteriorates over time. (every time I've owned a Windows native computer, it has degraded to the point of obsolete after just 4 years)
Wheres the Unix?

Mac: Gets software later than Windows, sometimes not at all.
Can't be customized as much as Windows.


I would say that Mac is better, but Windows could be equal if Microsoft would just get their asses in gear and fix its problems. I'm getting tired of this Mac is better, Windows is better bullshit. They both have their own uses, in fact I use both. Just go with whichever you need, and stop the goddamn arguing!


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 27, 2009)

klopp said:


> Speed and performance deteriorates over time. (every time I've owned a Windows native computer, it has degraded to the point of obsolete after just 4 years)


 
I'm trying to figure out if you just used the wrong word here or if you actually think that PC's *degrade* like rotting trees or something.

On that note, obsolescence is not a huge issue on PCs unless you're not a gamer. PC Gaming in most reguards typically pushes the limit with each year. Everyone wants to make their game the best and prettiest and use the best graphics possible. However for almost anything else you'd use a PC for, keeping the machine up to date is much less of an issue.

Mac's don't have a signifigant gaming scene but PC's do. Remove gaming from the equation and what's left for the typical end user? Watching video, surfing the internet, desktp, email, instant messaging? Just about anything else an end user is likely to use their PC has far lower requirements than gaming.


----------



## net-cat (Jun 27, 2009)

Oh, look. A post with some actual content.

And by actual content, I mean, "actual claims I can refute/agree with." None of this subjective crap.



klopp said:


> will soon be 64 bit making it run even better.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_xp_tablet_pc_edition#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition

I'd like to point out that there was a 64-bit Itanium version of XP (which was horrible) as far back as 2001.
And an AMD64 version of XP was released in 2005.
And Vista has been 64-bit since its inception.
And OS X 10.5 is also 64-bit. (Though a good portion of its userland apps are still 32-bit.)
And OS X 10.4 is 64-bit on PPC.
And commercial UNIX workstations have been 64-bit for _years_.

64-bit is a magic number that the sales folk use. The only people who should actually care about it are people who do large amounts of number crunching. (Graphic artists, scientists, engineers. Possibly gamers if gaming companies ever figure out that systems aren't all still P4 machines.)



klopp said:


> Much more virus protection, every time there is a new virus Apple releases a patch to disable it.


osascript -e 'tell application ARDAgent to do shell script "whoami"'




klopp said:


> Maintains a stable speed throughout the computers lifetime. (Had a 20 year old mac, gave to a friend and it still runs as good as ever)
> Runs windows better than any other computer. (don't argue, it's been proven)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote



klopp said:


> Windows: More viruses than the whole of Africa.If you have an internet connection *and are stupid and don't update your system or use a firewall*, you are GOING to get a virus.


Fixed. 

For the record, I've had fully patched Vista and XP systems running Windows Firewall connected directly to my cable modem and they've been fine. Though it's still not a recommended procedure.



klopp said:


> Speed and performance deteriorates over time. (every time I've owned a Windows native computer, it has degraded to the point of obsolete after just 4 years)


Can't argue with that. Most Windows developers still develop as if it were 1998.


----------



## Raithah (Jun 27, 2009)

klopp said:


> Runs windows better than any other computer. (don't argue, it's been proven)



Hah, sorry, a friend recently said to me the same thing and I've been scratching my head over it for the longest time - I mean, the custom part of 'Mac' pretty much refers to the case, motherboard and OS, right? Logic-ing it out, with perfectly equivalent hardware, you shouldn't see a difference anywhere expect in mobo construction (which shouldn't make a huge difference if said brand isn't terrible). Could you cite a source?


----------



## Arcadium (Jun 28, 2009)

Well to start off, a Time Machine does shit loads more then just a 1TB drive. End of story there.


You don't like it? DON'T BUY IT. I love Time Machine, and it truly does a fantastic job for automated storage. Add the Airport extreme, server capabilities, etc, it makes for a kick-ass office or business product.


----------



## Hyena (Jun 28, 2009)

Arcadium said:


> Well to start off, a Time Machine does shit loads more then just a 1TB drive. End of story there.
> 
> 
> You don't like it? DON'T BUY IT. I love Time Machine, and it truly does a fantastic job for automated storage. Add the Airport extreme, server capabilities, etc, it makes for a kick-ass office or business product.



I could buy an entire computer, and then buy a quality 1TB drive and put it in the computer... then network it. and it would do all the same stuff as the mac product and more...and still have it be cheaper.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 28, 2009)

Hyena said:


> I could buy an entire computer, and then buy a quality 1TB drive and put it in the computer... then network it. and it would do all the same stuff as the mac product and more...and still have it be cheaper.


 
I can buy a block of cheese and grate it at home to make shredded cheese.  I can buy a bag of preshredded cheese for about twice the cost of the same volume of a block of shredded cheese.

_Convenience_ has a price that many people are happy to pay if it will save time, effort, or knowledge necessary to carry it out.


----------



## Q-Lok (Jul 1, 2009)

Roland said:


> A lot of the arguments that are being used in this thread were really only applicable, like, 2 years ago.  A lot of companies have adopted Mac as a platform and have begun creating bigger, better programs for them.
> 
> Yes, they're still pricey compared to most laptops, but any decent laptop that you want to buy will still cost you at least $1000. Preference and purpose is all it really comes down to.



Fuh.  Thank you.  This whole argument is making my head hurt.  Badly.  And both sides of it, too.  I'm an incorrigible Macwhore, but frankly both sides are making me never want to touch my computer again.  And I live in front of my keyboard, so that's really saying something.

It really, REALLY does not matter which one you like as long as A) it does what you need it to without too much trouble and B) you don't violently shove it in everyone else's faces.


----------

