[terry.sc]

Glypo, I've never known so much hatred towards a box of electronics. What's so special about Apple?
I'm sure if someone asked about buying an Audi TT I'm sure we wouldn't have to put up with trolling about them being overpriced junk and the people who buy them are idiots because it's just the same components as a Skoda Octavia RS in an overpriced metal box.

As you've now stated your piece but aren't prepared to back them up by replying again I'll just correct your FUD for you.

Originally Posted by glypo

And the software - how much of a mug do you have to be to buy OSX?!?! It's UNIX based... and people pay for it lol. It's honestly a source of much amusement to me. If you want a UNIX like system, you can download one of many Linux distros for free, legitimately, and find unlike OSX they are decent too.

Nope, if you want the BSD/Unix core that is underneath OSX it's an open source OS called Darwin and is available as a free download from Apple Being open source they even provide the source code. I presume you also count all those companies that choose Red Hat Linux as mugs for paying for their OS as well. Why do businesses pay for Red Hat instead of any of the free Linux you can find? Because they expect support that will deal with their problem when they want it and to get that service they pay for it. Works out more expensive than OSX as well.
Mac OSX comes free with every Mac, the only time you will have to pay for it is when you want to upgrade the OS to the next version, which also includes a full set of the great iLife suite, developer tools, etc. Sure I could download a Linux OS, but the reason I prefer OSX is the user interface, not because it's Unix. The last paid for upgrade of OSX was two and a half years ago and each OSX upgrade usually adds many more features and a significant speed boost each time.

I love people that think Mac's are immune to viruses. Just as my mate did, until I checked his system. Nothing is immune to malware... sure most of it is written for Windows based systems but that doesn't mean all.

Name one of these viruses, and did you use Intego Virusbarrier or ClamXav to remove them? Considering how opinionated you are on the subject how many weeks/months/years experience have you had of OSX?

The truth about OSX viruses. Since 1984 until 2001 there were around 60 viruses for the mac OS, each virus being killed off with every system update. Since 2001 and the release of OSX there has been one trojan found called Leap-A. For it to work you had to either download a file called latestpics.tgz or accept it being sent over IM, then expand the compressed file, then run it and type in an admin password so it can run. A bit of a giveaway if you click on a picture and it asks for your admin password. It then sent itself to anyone on your local network (so not the internet) using one specific version of OSX and one specific version of iChat (any older or newer versions don't give it access) and due to a bug in the trojan all it did was break the four most recent applications, but only those you have installed by drag and drop. It could not access any part of the system, nor any of the original Apple applications installed. Since then there has been no other trojans, nor has there ever been any viruses, spyware, malware, etc. on Mac OSX.
There are a couple of anti-virus programs for OSX, their main purpose is to prevent you forwarding any Windows viruses to others.

It's just like the whole iPod thing. Take a second to compare and you will find players with much better sound quality (Creative, Sony, Toshiba, SanDisk etc) and better video support... yet it seems everyone has iPods because it's the 'cool' thing to have.

Compare the ease of use of an iPod with any of the others, the one thing Apple does well is the user interface which for 99% of people is what matters, not the fact that a particular make has a bit better sound quality when you are going to be listening to it on the bus. If sound quality is a consideration you won't be playing mp3s. The iPhone again was considered underspecified compared with other smartphones, yet it has outsold all Windows Mobile phones put together purely because of the great interface. I'm sure the marketing has helped

Originally Posted by glypo

What is it with Mac users and the term PC. Do Apple suddenly sell mainframes, servers and supercomputers? Or do Mac users (and Apple marketing) not realise their machines are in fact Personal Computers? Just because IBM defined the term with a Windows machine, does not make all Macs somehow not PC's.

Yes, Apple sell Xserve servers and SystemX is an Apple Supercomputer at Virginia Tech, Mach 5 is an Apple Supercomputer used by the US military. They don't do mainframes though. Conversely what is it with Windows/Linux users and the term PC, they use the term to define their computers as an IBM Compatible and don't recognise a Mac as a PC.

Choice as well, with Windows or Linux box you have a wealth of hundreds of thousands of completely different styles with hardware options (I can name hundreds of laptop manufacturers for Windows for example, try doing that for Mac) and you can style Windows and Linux much easier than Mac to suit your needs.

Yet 9 out of 10 Windows PCs will still be bought from a small selection at PC World or similar, and never upgraded. Naming hundreds of manufacturers is fine, but if the laptops are all same as everyone else's you are only looking at a hundred different boxes the components are in. Naming hundreds of laptop manufacturers as an example of choice is contradictory to stating the Macbook is just the same as the others but more expensive.

Originally Posted by glypo

As for Mac's being backbone of creative industry, I disagree to an extent. But Linux really is the backbone of the creative industry in terms of movies and television. 3D and special effects is almost exclusively Linux, I hope you agree there.

Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Brothers and Columbia Pictures are Final Cut Studio based for their editing and effects, so using Macs. Linux is quite often used for their render farms and servers. Dreamworks is the only studio that uses Linux extensively. The BBC uses Final Cut studio.

Pixar etc etc all use Linux

Bad choice there

I know very little about the graphical design/image manipulation/etc industry. So I don't know what's widely used here, and I don't care much to comment on what I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised if Mac's were the norm here however.

Macs are the norm and for very good reason. They have much more accurate colour management (what you see on screen is what comes out of the printer) and as the Quartz graphics engine in OSX is pdf based it guarantees the layout on the screen is what is printed. Once designed the final pages can be saved as a pdf file that can be sent to the printer and it will print with exactly the same layout on the page, right down to text spacing.

Unless of course the Macs were slightly older when they were running PPC chips rather than x86's, which is basically what I'm thinking maybe 3D software runs better on PPC than x86?

Apple abandoned PPC because the chips couldn't keep up with the performance of x86's. To show the difference the first x86 Mac ran up to 4 times faster than the previous PPC Mac, but general computing requires the processors to perform well in many areas.
The PPC chips RISC architecture and AltiVec instruction set does speed up 3D rendering, especially texture mapping, which makes them useful for 3D work.

Originally Posted by glypo

As for Mac Pro being cheaper than an equivalent Linux or Windows machine. I have just done some research. As I like to base my statements on facts rather then nonsense. Using the specification of a £1749 machine on apple.com/uk I priced up a machine using the same 2 Xeon processors, same amount of ram, hard disk space and speed, same graphics etc and it came to £743.69, that is £1,000 cheaper than the Mac Pro.

I would also like to know where you get the twin quad core X5482 Xeons, Firewire 800 ports, optical digital audio in/out, gigabit ethernet, etc. for much less than an Apple machine.

Originally Posted by markwilliamson2001

2) No native DVD support or DVD burning in Windows, so you have to purchase additional software at extra cost!
4) Driver support in Mac is far superior.

It amazes me that even Windows Vista can't play DVDs out of the box. Compare this with OSX which includes a DVD player with a separate remote control. With the included iLife software you can create your own professional quality DVDs, and you can burn them directly from OSX.
The big reason I like OSX is that I can buy a camera, scanner, printer, etc., plug it in and it will be recognised and work without needing any drivers to be installed.