As a Mac user, I would like to know how many other Mac users we have that read the Seek forums. If you are a Mac user, please let everyone else know. it would be nice to build a comunity of mac users that could assist incoming freshmen with using their Macs on campus and to assist each other when we need it.

Fred? this is Todd in the same CS1 class as you, Im the guy with the iBook and Im also planning on making up some bullshit excuse when I go home the next 3 day weekend to get my parents to let me buy a G5 powermac with some left over student loan money

anyways, a mac user group on campus would definitely be a cool thing to have on campus

I'm curious why did you buy a mac? I'm not trying to flame mac users, but I seriously don't see the benefit of having a mac over a pc.

personal prefrence. why does one drink coke instead of pepsi? because they like it better.

i thought macs were supposed to be easy to use

I’ll say it quicker this time. I like linux. I do not enjoy linux on highpower laptops, the hardware support is just not available. I do not want to waste a week (or watching my team members) every time I get a new machine installing linux.
I can not think of a single PC laptop that is as solid as a powerbook.
As far as workstations go Macs are over priced in my mind, a PC is just fine. Dual boot on a PC is not such a big deal because hard drive space is not nearly as limited.

darwin is unix based. stop saying linux.

Macs are best for dev work.

clearly you are a person who has not useed OS X nor have you seen what OS 10.4 Tiger will do.

Use a Mac long enough to get used to it and you will know why thewy are better.

tiger looks amazing. but hell, even beta versions of OSX 10.0 were more stable and powerful than windows

i dont think anyone here is arguing in favor of windows

and no one was implying that osx is linux based either

I'm glad you pointed out not one point at how it can outperform a PC. And yes I used mac's for 2 semesters, and I still don't understand what the big deal is behind them. Granted, I have not tried the G5. Mac's are suppose to be for "artists". Funny though my PC can render models faster in Maya than the mac can. (Same thing when applying filters in photoshop and illustrator.) Oh yes and I hate the docking bar, but the clear mice are cool.

[quote="devil"]
personal prefrence. why does one drink coke instead of pepsi? because they like it better.[/quote]

pepsi is better than coke


i've used macs before i like them, but i'm way too accustomed to windows. maybe if i had money to burn (and i mean MONEY to BURN) i'd get a mac and a windows computer, and probably end up learning a lot about OSX. the first computer i had was a badass (hahha) LCII with system 7. but then the next computer was windows and i know how to do everything on windows

i appreciate them for what they are and am glad there is competition in the market

I think there's a little confusion as to what "performance" is. Two people might have a differing view of the definition of the word. So, what are some aspects to a computer's performance? The typical PC user will answer:
- Clock speed. The pure number-cruncing ability. Pretty obvious, but also the most abused benchmark. Too many people pidgeonhole a computer based off of numbers. The x86 and compatible architecture processors operate at a higher rate, but they're also carrying along 8088-compatibility baggage from over 20 years ago. The POWER/PowerPC line has half the age and fewer antiquated opcodes. As a result, it has a shallower command pipeline. It doesn't need to run as fast to achieve the same goal.
- Thoroughput. How fast can the machine sling I/O at external devices (video, network, main memory, etc). This varies on the componentry. Many parts are made by the same vendors, so there's only marginal difference when benchmarked.

The thing is, most PC users don't take into account the rest of the system.

- dB ratings. How many case fans, or lack thereof, does your system need when the processor is pegged for long periods? A processor built more conservatively will emit less heat. It may not be as fast as it's bleeding-edge counterpart, but it won't require as much active cooling to keep it from going belly-up. Modern Macs (and some PCs, I'll admit) have usually only one or two slow moving fans. It's certainly a lot easier to sleep with than comparable jet-aircraft reminiscent PCs.
- Price. You get what you pay for. Simple as that. An Apple may cost more, but you're buying a workstation-class machine instead of just another "personal computer." That price guarantees parts built and/or tested from the ground-up to be compatible with your system. No funky motherboard/soundcard incompatibilites or video card/BIOS mucking. Stuff just works (tm). In the rare event that it doesn't, your money also pays the salaries of Apple's tech support, which is (last I checked) consistently rated top among computer manufacturers. Compared to the price of real workstations by HP, SGI, and Sun, the Mac is a steal.
- OS design. As stated above, you get a workstation-class OS with your machine. OS X was designed around the concepts of unix. It's coherent to anyone who's spent time in a similar environment (Linux, BSD, HP-UX, etc). The code paths are cleaner and more easily understood. A good modular design means OS components are easily swapped out, even while active. That means no "Restart your computer to continue" messages every time you change network settings. The basic unix design philosophy hasn't changed very much in the last couple of decades, either. That means there's nothing like compatibility layers piled on top of each other as Windows *still* uses with 8.3 filenames, .INI file processing, OLE, Windows 3.x-style registry changes, and all those countless forgotten APIs (anyone remember Win32s?).
- Security. Clean OS design lends itself to good security. Good permissions seperation means you don't have to run as the superuser to accomplish everyday chores. Even if spyware, viruses, or worms were to take over a Mac user's regular account, the rest of the system would be fine. (For the record, I'll agree that MacOS 9 and below sucked)
- Aesthetic Appeal. With the advent of microATX boards and the rash of casemodding fans, this is something where PCs are finally starting to catch up. The generic chunky beige box is being phased out in favor of other views. Now, it's just a matter of whether you prefer the bright and attention-getting look of new PCs or the balanced and 'doesn't-get-in-your-way' look of a Mac.

So, it's really the little things that compose the appeal of the Macintosh.

That's pure, unaccelerated number-crunching. Those apps don't have a piece of hardware devoted to them, so it gets handed off to the CPU. A faster processor will always come out ahead. Heck, an decade-old SGI machine will still kick a modern system's rear in 3D modelling, but that's because the hardware was designed and built for that kind of work. When most people refer to a Mac's graphical abilites, it usually relates to the user interface, not the speed. It's just as well. The "graphics" reputation the Mac has earned came primarily from the explosion of desktop publishing about fifteen years ago. The Macintosh had a WYSIWYG display which made for easy graphic design, as opposed to the DOS and unix systems of the day. Nowadays, you can outfit any modern system with the same tools. (By the way, if it hadn't been for the Mac, we'd all still be using TeX/LaTeX to generate documents and probably some coordinate parsing program to plot graphics. There's your history lesson for the day.)

That's perfectly fine. You've been trained on how Windows interacts with the user. If you're unable to adapt to a different shell, by all means stay with your current system. No one is forcing you to change. But please don't bring this up as a sticking point. Personal preference is just that--personal. You shouldn't make wide-ranging generalizations just because there's one piece that you don't like.


Oh, for the record, I think Coke is better than Pepsi, but nothing beats Royal Crown.

macs are fucking gay