|
Jim Crafton wrote: They're clearly just a bunch of leftist-pinko-commie-anti-jeffersonian-socialist-euro-thugs that want to take advantage of us all.
Well, if they gave it away, how would Steve Jobs fund his evil satanic empire? I mean, we gotta look at the big picture here.
|
|
|
|
|
Please, don't interrupt my stream of consciousness babbling with logic! Big picture? Is that free yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Big picture? Is that free yet?
I just got back from Wal-Mart because you know how I can't resist evil empires. Anyway, I can confirm they are still charging for Big Picture. Sorry man.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: No you can't. OS X doesn't run out of the box on any hardware other than Apple hardware.
True but easily solved.
Jim Crafton wrote: So if running OSX is a priority or desire you need to get Apple hardware.
It is not my priority but I have it on one of my machines, not a Mac, for the learning experience. Apple hardware is not needed but you need to be careful when choosing the hardware for compatibility.
Jim Crafton wrote: a) a violation of the EULA
Don't care much about the EULA, I buy one license and can use it for one install. I have even had it run on a virtual machine but it was too slow so I installed it on the hardware on one of my machines that was compatible.
Jim Crafton wrote: b) a PITA in the long term (and short term for that matter)
No problems here.
Jim Crafton wrote: And most tend to be pretty poor.
Maybe so, but like I said, I do all my software support so it is irrelevant for me. If hardware support is better then it may be worth the extra hardware cost.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: The savings in the hardware would easily cover the extra cost of one Mac OS X license plus one year Mandriva support and maybe some extra RAM or a external 1T disk.
Only if you steal your software for that Windows installation. Go look at total cost of ownership and come back when you actually price the software Apple makes (ie, office software) compared to Microsoft. Sure, if you use Linux no sweat, free is always the cheapest. But the Apple is expensive debate is always against Microsoft. But, nobody looks at the whole picture when being biased.
Oh, and one vote is from me because I'm not a fan of the FUD people like you spread. But, then again, who has time to bother with real research when it's religion speaking.
The only time Apple gets insanely expensive is if you go extremely high end or if you steal/only use free software. And lets not forget when you install Mac OS X it comes with software you can use forever and not 30 trials like your typical PC OEM.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Only if you steal your software for that Windows installation. Go look at total cost of ownership and come back when you actually price the software Apple makes (ie, office software) compared to Microsoft.
Your statement is illogical since you can get Mac OS X and any Mac OS X software you want running on better and equally priced hardware or lower priced and equivalent hardware. In the end, not using Apple hardware to run Mac OS X software will give you a lower cost.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But the Apple is expensive debate is always against Microsoft.
Not true! Proof, the case in point. 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But, nobody looks at the whole picture when being biased.
I'm being biased to my needs and requirements and I would expect you to do the same. I don't participate in these debates to "spread the truth" or "discover the truth". I participate to learn about different view point and maybe improve my own view point.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh, and one vote is from me because I'm not a fan of the FUD people like you spread. But, then again, who has time to bother with real research when it's religion speaking.
I, the FUD spreader, have done my work. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: Your statement is illogical since you can get Mac OS X and any Mac OS X software you want running on better and equally priced hardware or lower priced and equivalent hardware. In the end, not using Apple hardware to run Mac OS X software will give you a lower cost.
Your statement is uneducated and proves you can't read a whole thread. For one, you must run OSX on Mac hardware so your scenario couldn't happen LEGALLY. For two the hardware isn't more expensive every time. For three you can get away with paying less OVER ALL for a Mac than a PC so this whole argument that you propose is illogical.
If you combine the cost of going the Apple route vs the PC route with Windows you can pay LESS a lot of times for Apple. Not say you'll always pay less, but that's the whole point. People like you that just blindly assume without learning spread the FUD. And that's religious. Too bad most people are zealots instead of a real professionals, but I digress.
PedroMC wrote:
I'm being biased to my needs and requirements and I would expect you to do the same. I don't participate in these debates to "spread the truth" or "discover the truth". I participate to learn about different view point and maybe improve my own view point.
Then learn already and stop pretending you're learning when you're not.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Your statement is uneducated and proves you can't read a whole thread.
I have lost patience for the tone you are using so I'm just going to say ...
Jeremy Falcon wrote:For one, you must run OSX on Mac hardware so your scenario couldn't happen LEGALLY.
... that in my country, the Parliament makes the laws, including those related to software licensing, not Apple or any other software company. I, the uneducated one, sign out of this debate...
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: I have lost patience for the tone you are using so I'm just going to say ...
So basically you're not man enough to admit you're wrong so you'll dismiss it.
PedroMC wrote: ... that in my country, the Parliament makes the laws, including those related to software licensing, not Apple or any other software company. I, the uneducated one, sign out of this debate...
Lets get real you didn't know that point but whatever. Now, explain to me which law states Apple cannot enforce that? Nobody said they can send to you jail over it in every country. But they sure can not support it, etc.
Regardless, your point is still invalid since you can't run OSX on non-apple hardware in most places. And I suspect it's the same with your country until you can specifically point out a law. Call my crazy but I need proof before I believe something. And even if you did it doesn't make your original point valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: That argument has been proven false time and time again.
Hey, don't confuse people with the truth. 
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: I'm sorry
I'm not.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
That is what matters, your money, your satisfaction. 
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! You have my "5" on that post.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: Computafreak wrote:
I'm sorry
I'm not.
I'm not either, enjoy your Mac! 
I just bought a Mac too, a Mac Pro and I love it!
earlier I hadn't upgraded for quite a while so it was time to do so now (had a pc before)
so, I hope you love your new mac just as much as I do!
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: I'm sorry
I'm sorry you're religious. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a PC zealot. I just happen to prefer to be able to buy almost any combination of hardware knowing that it will actually be work and be supported
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: knowing that it will actually be work and be supported
I guess you didn't pay attention to PCs with Vista and 64-bit in the past few years. You'll never see that debacle with a Mac. But, I don't expect religious people to play fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you know, neither of the univotes came from me. That's immature
I really don't buy into your point. Vista has been the exception, not the rule, and even in that singular instance, it was pretty much sorted out after a short time (by SP1, I think most of the problems were water under the bridge). Windows 7 has support for almost every configuration out there, and so does Windows XP
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You'll never see that debacle with a Mac
Only because Apple simply don't support products which aren't certified. I admittedly don't know much about the support process, so feel free to correct me; this interests me. While this does improve overall reliability by zapping bad drivers, it increases the time-to-market and price massively
By the way, I'm not a zealot. If I found a Mac which would support the common drivers (generic keyboard, mouse, printer), support a reasonable range of software and not break the bank (less than £500), I would happily buy it. But I haven't
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: Just so you know, neither of the univotes came from me. That's immature
At least we agree on something.
Computafreak wrote:
I really don't buy into your point. Vista has been the exception, not the rule, and even in that singular instance, it was pretty much sorted out after a short time (by SP1, I think most of the problems were water under the bridge). Windows 7 has support for almost every configuration out there, and so does Windows XP
Sorry dude, you're being blind. You said you never have to worry. I pointed out one (recent but not the only) problem with your belief. And instead of saying good point you discredit my valid point. That's just being religious. Point is you'll have to worry even less with a Mac the crap always works. Now, you may not be able to always run something that a nobody manufacture makes, but then again nobody does that realistically anyway. So you're reasoning for liking PC is actually a reason to like Macs.
Apple isn't the only company making Apple hardware for one. Just google Lacie for one example. A lot of big names support them just as much. But nobody gives credence to that because they love their religion (ie, Windows).
And since you think the Vista example is bogus when it's not. Need I remind you of Win2K's problems when it first came out? Or did you forget about that too? What about NT4?
Computafreak wrote: Only because Apple simply don't support products which aren't certified.
Nobody supports someone else's products either. Singling Apple like that is extremely biased. Dell doesn't support HP printers now do they? That being said, Apple does work with their partners a lot better. You just don't have the driver issues on a Mac - period. Not nearly as bad.
Computafreak wrote: By the way, I'm not a zealot.
Then don't act like one by apologizing when someone buys one.
Computafreak wrote: If I found a Mac which would support the common drivers (generic keyboard, mouse, printer), support a reasonable range of software and not break the bank (less than £500), I would happily buy it. But I haven't
You haven't looked hard then. A mac mini will do that. Now, can you build your own computer for less, sure. But most people don't. They go OEM as they aren't geeks like us. That being said IMO what makes a Mac great is the OS. The fact they put good care into the design of their systems is just a bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Sorry dude, you're being blind. You said you never have to worry.
I agree, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the vast majority
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And instead of saying good point you discredit my valid point. That's just being religious.
No; that's standard debating techniques.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Now, you may not be able to always run something that a nobody manufacturer makes, but then again nobody does that realistically anyway
Windows offers generic drivers for keyboards, mice, monitors, etcetera. However, you do bring up a good point - how many people actually use the colossal amount of drivers that Windows provides? Could the less-used ones be offloaded onto the Windows disc and/or be made available for download? But I digress. The fact that you can buy almost any hardware component from almost any computer dealer, knowing that you don't have to check if Apple support it is the biggest reason for me to support Windows
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Singling Apple like that is extremely biased
I agree. And there are other companies who have similar restrictions. But the topic is about Apple
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Dell doesn't support HP printers now do they?
Dells run Windows or Linux, and these usually have the necessary printer drivers, thus supporting the printers. I believe that there are generic drivers also supported
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Then don't act like one by apologizing when someone buys one.
I was expressing my opinion in the form of a joke
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And since you think the Vista example is bogus when it's not. Need I remind you of Win2K's problems when it first came out? Or did you forget about that too? What about NT4?
Windows 2000 was released in 2000. NT 4.0 was released in 1996. So both of your examples are from at least 9 years ago. The hardware drivers were far less coordinated then. Plug and Play was just getting started. Windows had less drivers
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You haven't looked hard then. A mac mini will do that.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for teaching me something new. However, it still doesn't let me connect almost any peripheral, knowing that chances are it'll work (even if only with the generic drivers), and I could get a PC for a similar price, which would almost certainly be able to run a wider range of software and support a wider range of hardware
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: No; that's standard debating techniques.
You tell yourself that lie if you must. Putting down what I say without any reason at all outside you being wrong is really standard stubbornness techniques man. Not trying to be rude, but let's get real yo.
Computafreak wrote: I agree, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the vast majority
Which is my point. You could say the same exact thing about a Mac and Windows isn't that holy on hardware either. But yeah I'm a realist, there are more hardware vendors making drivers for Windows than any other platform. However that really has nothing to do with how you can use a lot of nice hardware on a Mac and get into one for a good price. Which is really the whole point of this anti-Mac religious thing people are spouting off on CP.
Computafreak wrote: Dells run Windows or Linux, and these usually have the necessary printer drivers, thus supporting the printers. I believe that there are generic drivers also supported
Wrong. They have drivers for hardware they sell. And so does Apple. The difference is you don't have to download them separately on the website like you do with Dell.
Computafreak wrote: Windows 2000 was released in 2000. NT 4.0 was released in 1996. So both of your examples are from at least 9 years ago. The hardware drivers were far less coordinated then. Plug and Play was just getting started. Windows had less drivers
I know my dates, I'm not the one that forgets history here. There's no satisfying a religious zealot. My first example was too recent and now these are too old. Tell me, do you enjoy being so blind to try and save face? My whole point was Windows isn't that holy with hardware like you want to believe. I gave you THREE examples and you gave me zippo to refute it... that's enough to anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you).
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You tell yourself that lie if you must. Putting down what I say without any reason at all outside you being wrong is really standard stubbornness techniques man. Not trying to be rude, but let's get real yo.
I understand what you refer to now. I hadn't justified my claims. My apologies
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Which is my point. You could say the same exact thing about a Mac and Windows isn't that holy on hardware either. But yeah I'm a realist, there are more hardware vendors making drivers for Windows than any other platform. However that really has nothing to do with how you can use a lot of nice hardware on a Mac and get into one for a good price. Which is really the whole point of this anti-Mac religious thing people are spouting off on CP.
Could you really say that Windows has comparable support for hardware to a Mac? You've acknowledged yourself that more vendors make drivers for Windows than a Mac. Now, by my standards (feel free to correct me) that means that Windows supports more hardware. That was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Wrong. They have drivers for hardware they sell. And so does Apple. The difference is you don't have to download them separately on the website like you do with Dell.
We appear to have differing definitions of 'support'. You appear to be referring to Dell providing telephone support (or something in a similar vein) for HP printers. I am referring to Dell providing a computer which supports (drivers can be installed to work with) HP printers. I agree with you if you refer to the first definition (that's not only strange, its bad business sense), but you have provided no evidence to disprove my point that Dell supports (second definition) a HP printer
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I know my dates, I'm not the one that forgets history here. There's no satisfying a religious zealot. My first example was too recent and now these are too old. Tell me, do you enjoy being so blind to try and save face? My whole point was Windows isn't that holy with hardware like you want to believe. I gave you THREE examples and you gave me zippo to refute it... that's enough to anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you).
I shall repeat myself. I am not a zealot. A zealot would be using personal attacks right now (for example "there's no satisfying religious zealots" or "anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you)")
However, if you must request a clarification, I am referring to a prolonged period of time during which support for most of the peripherals on the market at the time was non-existent or extremely patchy. Windows Vista's troubles were hardly prolonged; by the time of SP1, many of the issues were resolved. So that is out of the equation
Your other two examples (Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0) were in themselves valid, and at the time I concede that the Mac may have at least began to catch up in terms of hardware compatibility. However, what I tried to point out was that those two examples were nine years old. So they are very likely to be out-of-date. That has proved to be the case; the general consensus has been that the new version of Windows 7 has proved stable running both on real hardware and in a virtual machine
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: Could you really say that Windows has comparable support for hardware to a Mac? You've acknowledged yourself that more vendors make drivers for Windows than a Mac. Now, by my standards (feel free to correct me) that means that Windows supports more hardware. That was my original point
Fair enough, but that doesn't really make it ok to assume every other environment sucks, especially if you've never used it. Windows is popular, nobody can refute that, but it's not like if you go Mac you're stuck with using a iPod as your display. There's so many bogus arguments in the zealot crowd (it does go both ways) that are bogus and assuming you won't find hardware to run on a Mac is one of them. Of course, Windows will have more, most people don't really use weird hardware from a nobody vendor anyway.
Computafreak wrote: We appear to have differing definitions of 'support'. You appear to be referring to Dell providing telephone support (or something in a similar vein) for HP printers. I am referring to Dell providing a computer which supports (drivers can be installed to work with) HP printers. I agree with you if you refer to the first definition (that's not only strange, its bad business sense), but you have provided no evidence to disprove my point that Dell supports (second definition) a HP printer
I understand clearly what it means. And I don't you do. Go plug your printer that's Mac-compatible into your Mac and watch what happens. Computers aren't psychic, so I'll let you do the figuring out of how it worked. Apple does provide OEM driver support just like Dell. No different except you only used one and bash the other.
Computafreak wrote: I shall repeat myself. I am not a zealot. A zealot would be using personal attacks right now (for example "there's no satisfying religious zealots" or "anyone that's not closed-minded (ie, not you)")
I shall repeat myself. You acted like one and you continue to acted like one. I suppose only other people are zealots... my bad. And sure, I'm not terribly patient with zealots, so sorry for being abrupt. I've spent years on CP defending intelligence and there's always another moron around the corner to fight it.
Computafreak wrote: However, if you must request a clarification, I am referring to a prolonged period of time during which support for most of the peripherals on the market at the time was non-existent or extremely patchy. Windows Vista's troubles were hardly prolonged; by the time of SP1, many of the issues were resolved. So that is out of the equation
That's not clarification that's a justification over a point you made I invalidated so you can feel right. The fact is I showed you three times your holy Windows isn't so peachy. The fact you refuse to admit says more about you than me.
Computafreak wrote: Your other two examples (Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0) were in themselves valid, and at the time I concede that the Mac may have at least began to catch up in terms of hardware compatibility.
I don't think you get it. Here's the short of it, if you buy a Mac you don't have to worry about your hardware working - period. Only a few times in history have they ever made that a concern (moving to OSX for instance). However, on Windows it's never like that. You don't know what'll work despite the claims of manufacturers and Microsoft. I pointed out three instances where they totally screwed up in the marketplace, but that's not valid as far as your concerned.
I'll be simple, you have less hardware issues on a Mac - period. More vendors make Windows drivers - period. It doesn't mean they do a better job at it - period. Macs aren't always more expensive - period. And IMO (and it's an educated opinion trust me) OSX is much better of an OS than Vista. All of this Mac hating is uncalled for.
If you get one you won't have these problems you think you'll have. And by no means, don't get one if you don't want one, but don't say "I'm sorry" to someone that does and expect the logical people to not assume you're a zealot.
There's nothing to argue with this outside of either being a zealot or trying to save face.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: it's not like if you go Mac you're stuck with using a iPod as your display
I never said that
Jeremy Falcon wrote: There's so many bogus arguments in the zealot crowd (it does go both ways) that are bogus and assuming you won't find hardware to run on a Mac is one of them
I acknowledge that more hardware will run on a Mac than previous versions. However, I have repeated myself several times; a PC does support more hardware than a Mac. That was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I suppose only other people are zealots... my bad. And sure, I'm not terribly patient with zealots, so sorry for being abrupt
No. There is not a single person who I can think of as being a zealot. Even though I disagree with you, you've clearly put a lot of rational thought into your posts, considering both sides of the fence, so to speak
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Apple does provide OEM driver support just like Dell
You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that Dell doesn't support HP printers. Could you please elaborate upon this, because it's a little perplexing. And you are indeed correct in that saying that Apple provides OEM driver support. But it's for less products; that was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's not clarification that's a justification over a point you made I invalidated so you can feel right. The fact is I showed you three times your holy Windows isn't so peachy. The fact you refuse to admit says more about you than me.
In all honesty, I'm rather bemused by your response. I know Windows has problems. It's unstable, insecure, buggy, and a nightmare to work with on the PInvoke level. I never denied that. However, chances are that if you plug an unbranded wireless network adapter in, drivers will be there (or at the very least supplied on the CD or downloadable through Windows Update/internet). Could you say that about a Mac, because the cheapest Mac compatible wireless network adapter I've come across cost rather a lot of money in proportion to the cheapest Windows compatible adapters
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Here's the short of it, if you buy a Mac you don't have to worry about your hardware working - period
Because they make certain every driver works. While this does increase quality, it decreases quantity and time-to-market and increases price. This is a good stratagem in itself, but it's been taken to an extreme level, making it more difficult to procure device drivers for a Mac than a PC. Which was my original point
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I pointed out three instances where they totally screwed up in the marketplace, but that's not valid as far as your concerned.
Correct. Your first example (Vista) was not a prolonged period of time, and your other two were excused in my opinion because the marketplace was far less friendly towards cooperation. Plug and Play (which was also developed by Intel) was still getting started. However, at that point I acknowledge that Apple was more likely to be compatible with the hardware on the market. My dispute is that your examples were at least 9 years old
Jeremy Falcon wrote: More vendors make Windows drivers - period. It doesn't mean they do a better job at it - period
But it does mean that if one turns out to be [malicious|broken|incomplete], you can remove it and try another one. If all else fails, you could fall back onto a generic driver (depending on the type of hardware)
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And IMO (and it's an educated opinion trust me) OSX is much better of an OS than Vista. All of this Mac hating is uncalled for.
I never disputed your education, so why you bring it up is beyond me. I don't hate Macs; they have a wide range of applications, and are very good at supporting compatible hardware. My dispute is with the amount of hardware they support. While OSX may well be better than Vista, that wasn't my original point. You just went off on a tangent there
Jeremy Falcon wrote: don't say "I'm sorry" to someone that does and expect the logical people to not assume you're a zealot.
I remain amused when I consider how two words sparked this entire discussion. However, expressing my opinion as a light-hearted joke does not make anyone a zealot
|
|
|
|
|
Computafreak wrote: I never said that
I know. I love sarcasm though since it's the only that keeps an otherwise dry post somewhat entertaining.
Computafreak wrote: I acknowledge that more hardware will run on a Mac than previous versions. However, I have repeated myself several times; a PC does support more hardware than a Mac. That was my original point
Yes, but it was pushed under the guise of making it seem like you'd have all these problems with a Mac. That's just not the case. My point is people here tend to give them an unfair deal just because they know and are used to and married to Windows.
Computafreak wrote: You appear to have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that Dell doesn't support HP printers. Could you please elaborate upon this
They don't support HP printers to the extent they offer. That's my point. If you go buy an HP printer from HP directly that's not a model Dell offers, they won't support it - HP does. That's how Apple does it and what I was trying to convey. My other point is you can also get non Apple supported hardware that works on Macs. So, it's not like would never have any choice, just not as much as Windows. Realistically though, you have more than enough to get your job/playing done.
Computafreak wrote: But it does mean that if one turns out to be [malicious|broken|incomplete], you can remove it and try another one. If all else fails, you could fall back onto a generic driver (depending on the type of hardware)
It sure does mean that, and you can do that on a Mac too. It's almost like they're also computers. But, that has nothing to do with your point I was refuting with that line.
Computafreak wrote: I never disputed your education, so why you bring it up is beyond me. I don't hate Macs
I never said you disputed it; I'm letting you know I don't participate in zealotry. It's as simple as that. I won't pass judgment on something I don't know anything about.
Computafreak wrote: You just went off on a tangent there
By virtue of your apology you deem Macs inferior. I addressed the common zealot issues - which you tried to dispute. So, it wasn't that far fetched. But, now since there is no real dispute as I'm the only one in this with real Mac experience, I'm off on a wild tangent.
Computafreak wrote: I remain amused when I consider how two words sparked this entire discussion. However, expressing my opinion as a light-hearted joke does not make anyone a zealot
Yes it does. Repeated jokes are keys to the truth, just a veil of humor is thrown over it. Besides, if I was the believe that your not I'd have to take into account the whole thread where you acted like one anyway. Maybe you're not a zealot and just like to argue - fine.
Just to recap how I believe. I'd never suggest using a Mac if you prefer Windows. That's everyone's right to choose what they like. But, I am totally against religious bashing of something people have no clue about because their God didn't make it. It happens a lot and I get tired of it is all. I'll give you another perfect example...
Back in the day on CP people used to bash Java left and right. Microsoft and Sun were mortal enemies. Microsoft did .NET and hired some top Java gurus to implement C# (it's what it's based on). Now people around here will not talk so bad about Java. Java didn't change one bit, and this is just another example of religion. It just gets old after seeing it for years man.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
