Community Newsletter: Q&A: Is the Mac right for me?
- 4/5/07 11:48 AM
cdhanks
by lechtmmg - 3/30/07 11:15 PM In reply to: Macs DO crash by cdhanksanthything that is on you screen you can print from the hole page down to one line. Just take a picture
of the hole page comand-shift 3 or one line comand -shift 4.
lechtmmg
Yes MACs do crash, but....
by VernonE - 4/1/07 8:17 AM In reply to: Macs DO crash by cdhanksI just converted to MAC after being a PC user since the DOS days. My experience with PCs is the longer you use them the weirder they get. I usually planned on a complete reformat and reinstall yearly. I've only had my iMAC for two months. I've had nothing like the "blue screen of death" that was fairly regular on the PC. I have had a couple of lock ups, but I think it was related to permission errors I found and repaired when I ran OSX's disk utility.
dido
by ASANCHEZD - 4/3/07 6:22 PM In reply to: Yes MACs do crash, but.... by VernonEsomething similar happend to me as well, but i found that it was some beta sodtware that criple the mac mini after i stop using it and got the latest releases it never lock up again.
Its weird at the begining but may be its because i was use to over look for things in betwen the sistem or menus and with OS X what you see its what it is. may bee too simple that its get complicated at the begining.
Isolated incident
by turnerman - 5/14/07 7:16 AM In reply to: Macs DO crash by cdhanksAssuming the Mac is at fault, which is probably the reason, you have a rare incident. Even though I've owned my 20" iMac for over 4 months without a lockup or "crash", it would be unreasonable to believe that all Macs are bullet-proof or never have problems. In the same time, I've experienced a LOT less software problems with OS X compared to the 4 PCs I have at home running XP SP2.
I truly hope you get it running correctly - they're amazing machines.
Mac's are good...
by PhotoMan - 5/14/07 9:49 AM In reply to: Isolated incident by turnermanMac's are good machines...no question there but if the computer manufacturer IS the software company as well and has complete access to all the technical info, specs and codes....then there should be NO problems what-so-ever regarding software lockups or crashes. Given the fact that Mac's do crash and lockup and the amount of "fixes" posted by Apple (well over 3GIG's worth this year so far), I'd have to say that Mac's are more vulnerable than PC's. Don't forget that a PC gets its' hardware and software from around the world....a far bigger task for Microsoft and suppliers.
NB: Like I said, Mac's are good machines (I love the monitors) but they are far from perfect. Why anyone should be surprised (I'm not pointing any fingers, nothing personal intended) when someone talks about problems with a Mac is beyond me.
More vulernable?
by turnerman - 5/14/07 10:26 AM In reply to: Mac's are good... by PhotoManMacs are more vulnerable to what? Crashes? Lockups? Spyware? Viruses? Please elaborate.
Also the amount of "fixes", as you refer to them, include version upgrades that provide more capabilities, not just security patches. It's like when I upgraded to IE7 - I didn't consider that a "fix", but the 5 patches I had to download for IE7 afterwards were definitely "fixes". And that was for one Microsoft's software products, not hardware designed from people around the world.
You talk in size, which is unimportant, so now compare the quantity of patches in 2006 and 2007 that Apple released compared to Microsoft. I'd rather have 4 updates compared to 30 in a year.
It may be that Microsoft has more patches because hackers hate them and target their product (seems to happen with market dominance), but I'm simply a computer user and enjoying my Mac.
Fixes etc
by PhotoMan - 5/14/07 12:21 PM In reply to: More vulernable? by turnermanWhen you remember that the OS is not trying to work with apps from Timbucktu, but apps created in the office down the hall, I would assume there to be a greater level of communication (within Apple) and testing of the software before it's release.
Windows based software will always have a lot more problems as who-the-heck knows what the code structure of 3rd party apps are and how they've attempted to adapt it to a newer OS, ie: Vista (I've had Ultimate sitting in a box for the last two months......won't even think of installing it in the computer till the first SP at the earliest....too many bugs with 3rd party software / hardware and driver issues....I'm not on any bandwagon, Windows / PC's are not the Holy Grail either). Does Windows have problems with its' own software programs (other than the OS) ?...Sure it does....but it didn't make the hardware its' running on. With Apple making both...compatibality / fixes should not be an issue.
IE will have a lot more patches / fixes down the road as well since its' a prime hacker target as the majority of computer are using it. If Mac's were more popular, there would be more attacks on it. That's common sense. It's like those Mac <> PC commercials...they make believers out of people that have almost no common sense, cannot think for themselves and if told, wouild probably also believe that the earth was flat.....because the commercial says so.
Yes, size is important....shows quantity and "overall" quality of the app. Just checked the Apple web page...over 20 "fixes" (Apple's wording, not mine) in the last couple of months alone...lots re: ipod software...(Isn't that an Apple product?)
Where did you get the "4" figure from ???....not from the Apple Downloads web page for sure.
Hackers HATE Windows ?????......Wish that was true and they'd leave it alone. Fact is, they LOVE it ! With all the "world" writing software and building hardware for Windows' based boxes, there is a lot more chance of them being able to get their hands on some of the code floating around there in cyberspace. How did those that wrote the trojans / viruses that have hit Apple OS's get the code, remembering that Apple is a "closed door" company to 3rd parties ?
By all means, go on enjoying your Mac. Like I've said, its' a good computer...no doubt about it....but its' no more the Holy Grail than a Windows / PC or the car in your driveway.... Serves a function, gets the job done, change the oil and do a bit of maintenance and it may last long enough to justify the cost or give you a reasonable trade-in value.
Still don't see it
by turnerman - 5/14/07 12:57 PM In reply to: Fixes etc by PhotoManYou didn't justify your comment about vunerability anywhere - I'm really not sure what you mean. And for the patches, I also viewed the site but they're not all relevant to my system. In 4 months I've downloaded 4 updates - 1 for iTunes (small), 1 to 10.4.9 (large), 1 for iPhoto (small) and another for a security fix. Obviously there will be patches for specific software that people use (like Aperture) to upgrade performance or address compatability issues. Let's not pretend that non-Mac software developers ALWAYS make software that seamlessly run on both Intel and AMD processors.
Everyone has patches and Apple just went to a new processor platform - it's nothing new to computers. Like I stated before, I've seen a lot more updates on my XP SP2 machine (that I have Office 2003 loaded on) in the past 4 months than on my Mac. How many security vulnerabilites has the Office suite had? It's pretty scary when you go through TechNet and see them all.
It's funny you mention quality of patching - Apple will release one large update to cover everything while Microsoft will release patch after patch after patch, most requiring a restart each time. There have been 11 critical updates for Windows in the past 2 months alone.
If that makes you upset, I'm sorry. That's the truth of it. Both systems have basic setups and one had more patches than the other.
So, don't make me out to be a Mac "fanboy" because I'm telling the truth. I own and use both systems daily.
Cost - I paid $300 less than a Dell with exact specs that would have provided the same extended warranty covereage, so you can stop spreading misinformation today. And let's not go into custom systems, because that's outside the scope of this discussion.
re:Still don't see it
by PhotoMan - 5/15/07 11:35 AM In reply to: Still don't see it by turnermanI thought I was pretty clear. Try this scenerio...A car manufacturer builds into the vehicle a system requiring the owners' fingerprint or a special code imputed in order to start and "set up" the car to the owners' preferences (seat and mirror(s) position, etc). Since the car maker is building this system for its' own brand of cars, you'd expect it to work, without repeated trips to the garage for fixes. Apple creates its' own hardware / software like the car manufacturer. I'd expect the same results.
I too, pick and choose what patches or fixes are needed depending upon what is installed on my computer. I mearly stated about the quantity that Apple has put out..about the same as Microsoft...but for different reasons. For some reason, there are Mac users that seem to think Mac's have no need for, or ever require, fixes / patches / anti-virus.
I do not use Office or Word because, due to their popularity, they are targets for hackers. Nor do I use the other Micro$oft apps for downloading / editing photos or graphics work (like the Apple Apreture or iphoto versions) because their "power" is academic at best and have little, or no, use in the real world when working with graphics or photographes. The Mac apps are just as enemic. Those in my business use full fledged apps such as Corel and Adobe.
Microsoft and Apple release their patches the same way, either cumulative or seperate....no difference. Of course Micro$oft has more security patches out and for the obvious reasons.
I'm not upset at anything..except at those who state that Mac's never get viruses, or never lock up / crash and run forever without a reboot. Those individuals (and, believe it or not, I've heard the same from a few Windows' users) certainly do not have much of a grasp about what they are talking about. Without maintenance, no system is bulletproof.
I have used both systems as well. I'm not trying to make you out to be a Mac "fanboy" at all but the fact is that Mac users keep on forgetting that they cannot compete on an equal playing field with a Windows based system until Apple allows for 3rd party involvement and, until then, will never be able to amount to anything more than a few percentage points of the total computer sales and use worldwide. If you want to compare a Mac with a PC...then you better be willing to accept the risks that go with it.
When I spoke of use / cost over time, I was only referring to getting the use out of it (computer or car) and providing the necessary care before having to be replaced.
So far as custom systems are concerned, that is very much part of the discussion thread. If you want to do a proper job or be able to access information and use it within a certain environment then you had better be able to set up things within your computer as needed.
Re: Forum
by Bid13 - 5/15/07 2:59 PM In reply to: re:Still don't see it by PhotoManJust a few things I'd like to point out about your post Photoman.
While Macs are not invulnerable to viruses, the number of viruses are significantly lower than those on Windows. And the degree of difficulty for viruses to spread, or get installed on Macs is significantly higher.
You're right about uptime though, I've had my Mac for 5 months & I have had 2 kernel panics (the *NIX equivalent to the blue screen of death). I havent had a blue screen on my Windows machine in that time, but I have had my Windows machine just suddenly shut off upwards of 4 or 5 times in the last 5 months.
Some things to point about Apple Hardware / Software. Apple does not create their hardware, they choose which hardware they want to use. This means that they specifically tailor their OS to that hardware, eliminating the need for drivers (for users to worry about them anyways) and increasing stability and uptime.
Some things to remember about programs. Programmers do not specifically program for Intel or AMD chipsets (generally anyways). There is no need. The OS is built on top, providing an abstraction to the hardware. Programmers will generally program with API calls to the OS, which determines which driver to load, and the driver tells the OS how to interact with that hardware. Anyone heard of HAL (hardware abstraction layer... didnt fly very well and is really useless, but it was designed for this purpose within Windows).
Okay, so why am I digressing into this, well to prove a point. Mac OS X programs call the OS which interacts with the hardware. Apple designed the OS to interact with specific hardware, not broad range of hardware like Microsoft has to do. This does limit the hardware that you can use within the system, but does make it easier on the user.
I do use PCs and I do use Macs. I'm actually typing this comment on a PC. I do prefer my Mac for work, and my PC for play / work. The Mac has increased productivity and, in my opinion, higher reliability. Then again, their all just computers, they're all basically the same. This isn't so much an apple vs micro$oft discussion. This is a OS vs OS discussion. To choose Windows or NIX.. if NIX, to buy from apple a ready made machine, or to choose a flavour of NIX you prefer.
Btw, apple does release less patches. But then again, this is security by neglect. 3% of the world using Mac OS X is not as enticing as 90% using Windoze
Just some random thoughts.
Re:Re Forum
by PhotoMan - 5/15/07 8:55 PM In reply to: Re: Forum by Bid13I couldn't agree more with you on every point Bid13. A truly even comparison on the "Brains" within a Mac or a PC (w/Windows, linux etc) is impossible given the architectural differences between them.
A windows based system allows the user a broader range of peripherals and specific task orientated software. This, to me,(as well as the price difference of 10-20 years ago) is why PC's are so dominant in todays' market...but with, and because of, that came the peverbial troublemakers...the trojan and virus hacks. When Xerox invented the GUI, it opened the use of computers to just about everyone. No longer were lines of code needed to open an app or "work" a document or file. Just look for the picture and let the OS do its' thing.
Unfortunantly, with simplicity, along came the user that never really understood the "how" or "why" a computer works the way it does. The blind trust that users give to the box led to the trojan and virus infections that have caused untold damage over the years.
I'm happy to say (touch wood!) that the only times my PC has completely shut down (where a reboot was the only option) has occured when my youngest played one of his favourite (DOS based .exe) games that he has had for several years (Win95 based).
I "push" the possibility of a lockup (4 times this year when working on a (150MB image) client's job doing conversions to satisfy a less-than-knowledgeable printer)) when I have three graphics programs opened / running on the screen at the same time..especially if I'm dragging an image back and forth between them. I also receive thousands of emails from clients, many with unwanted "extras" that came with their little animated "free" gifs bouncing across the message screen. Any and all attachments are scanned first ...and fingers' crossed when opening. Maintenance is a daily routine irregardless of the OS.
I realize that Apple does not itself physically manufacture all the parts but all are manufactured strickly to the OS needs or the OS to the part. Because I can use the same HD in a dual boot Windows / Linux configuration, drivers to make the HD compatible with the OS(s) are necessary. This is a delimma right now for those installing Vista as the hardware / software manufactures have not all been up to speed with the supply of new drivers. Apple computers may not need drivers but I've heard from users in the past where they were "forced" to purchase new computers because the "new" OS would not work with the internal hardware.
A Windows based system lives off the Anti-virus and Spyware industry. You can be darn sure that the manufactures wish that Apple had a bigger market share....so they could sell more. If there was a real and truly "bulletproof" system out there that could be used with my software / hardware needs (and those of my clients), I wouldn't walk to the store to buy it...I'd run like hel......sorry.....I'm dreaming again !
I find it strange there are those who have to wave a banner in defense of their choice of OS's. I am a photographer with over 30 years worth of Canon equipment. My friend has 35 years worth of Nikon equipment. We, like every other photographer we know, never scream about just how "superior" one system is over the other (and heaven knows it is much easier to compare, in all equality, cameras than OS's), we just drool over each others' "glass" that was used to make that beautiful end product image.
In business, you use whatever is needed to get the job done in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. I've had jobs that were started on a PC and finished on a Mac...So what?. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. You use what you have to in order to get the job done for the customer. The end product is all that counts.
Macs do crash!
by lewist - 3/31/07 12:32 AM In reply to: Mac vs. PC by mdstevnzHaving worked with Macs in an educational environment I know from experience that they crash all the time. This is really frustrating when working with eleven year olds, who expect everything to be perfect all the time. I have also had a problem for a long time with the claim that the Mac OS is 'intuitive'. Frankly it is not. It is frustrating in the extreme and OS X is worse than previous versions, with the way things fly about in snazzy ways with little indication of why. I don't particularly shout for PCs but I really feel that Apple in general are not nearly as good as they claim. The truth of the answer to the question is that there is a lot of luck involved. Either could be great but a lemon is a lemon whether it is a Mac or a PC.
Chaz: Go for it.
by Lodestone1968 - 3/23/07 5:30 PM In reply to: Is the Mac right for me? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Chaz, I can't say enough about the iMac. Especially, the 24' inch version. I am a "switcher" and have used only PCs exclusively. ( A little stint with Redhat Linux- the kids didn't like it.) I have built several computers and have been a die hard fan of Windows. However, I got the chance to try the Windows Vista PRC-1 and was less than thrilled. If that is all Microsoft can come up with after five years it was time to move on. With the iMac right out of the box you can be setup, connected to the internet and working with photos in about 25 minutes. It will take you longer to clean the dust off your table where your monitor and desktop sat than it will to work with your new iMac. I wish I had switched a long time ago (right about when the Windows 98 & Windows ME game was being played). As for crashing it hasn't happened to me yet. Not a single crash, or lockup that required a re-boot. Nothing nada, it is actually kinda funny. A dirty music CD or DVD can lock up occasionally, go to "Force Quit" and eject the disc and clean it. Rock solid wicked fast performance. My only complaint is that it is harder to copy a disc than in Windows. I downloaded an free app and got over the complaint real fast.
making money with your photography hobby
by Joe WPB - 3/23/07 5:32 PM In reply to: Is the Mac right for me? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
hi Chaz,
I've been retired for a little over a year and have the same goal.
The machinery is really incodental...much more important to try to figure out EXACTLY what path to earning income with your photography skills you will take. So far my attemps have been a hit or miss thing.
Good luck
Mac is good for anything
by vdblu - 3/23/07 5:33 PM In reply to: Is the Mac right for me? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
An iMac should do you well if you are serious in going into photography. Just iPhoto alone is worth it. In terms of crashing, coming from someone who works with both PCs and Macs, Macs are more stable. Plus, I find Macs to be user friendly. You won't regret an iMac if you go that route.
And it's not as if you have to give up the PC completely. With Parallels and Boot Camp, you can run Windows in either virtualization or natively giving you the best of both worlds.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
