Next time you tell the wife you are taking her to Ruth Chris's, or somewhere like that, take her to Burger King instead.

See if SHE thinks it's all the same It's just dead cow, after all...

Another comparison between meat and Apples....Get over it already. You are among the "Elite"....enjoy your secret pleasure.

Another side step of an obvious fact...

Get over it, Dad!

.. Hmmmmmmmm.....10% on one side 90% on the other for 30 years and counting... the minimizing of that fact pretty much is the real side stepping of the obvious....But hey at 1% a year there is a chance Mac will catch up....around 3010. Watch the market Follow the money....Short Apple

I wonder why almost every topic on this part of the forum have to turn into 'mine is bigger' contest. There is no use debating which OS is better to use, as there is no use debating which arranger is the best on the market. Windows Vista might work perfect for some users, but majority of them are not satisfied with it. Microsoft realized that, and that's the reason for prolonging Windows XP sale and support, as well as hurrying up with the development of Windows 7. As for the Windows XP and OSX, XP was always considered to be unstable and vulnerable OS (although with vast software support), while OSX was synonym for problem-free easy-to-use OS (although it was running on quite expensive hardware, and had much fewer applications for use). All this of course doesn't mean that if You choose XP you will have constant problems with you PC, or if You choose OSX that you will not have problems using your hardware and software. In order to find what's best for You, You have to try all the possibilities by yourself and then make decision, because what's best for me, might not be good for you. [This message has been edited by kalimero (edited 01-10-2009).]

[This message has been edited by kalimero (edited 01-10-2009).]

When I worked in IT, the most common thing I heard from Mac users (aside from arrogant remarks and hubris) was, "Cool! Is there a version for my MAC?". The answer was usually "no". Hence Intel chips and bootcamp for the MAC...

Wow, some guy asks for advice for a computer purchase and it turns into a "I know more than you" thread. I have been reading the thread for a few days and could not resist jumping in so here goes.

Seems to me there are a few folks here not old enough nor experienced enough to know the history or the benefits of the PC or the MAC systems. It is generally accepted that Steve Jobs and company far outshined the Bill Gates camp in pure improvements in the technology end of the systems. The real problem stemmed from the fact that Jobs decided to keep everything about the Apple products a deep guarded secret while Gates was smart enough to have a somewhat "open" system which allowed software developers a chance to write useful products for the PCs while the Apple guys went wanting. It also is known that Zerox developed the popular user interface we now know as the windows system which Gates literally "stole" from Zerox and used in his first edition of the Windows operating system.

I can remember when I was teaching technology classes on the old original Apple systems, the Radio Shack TRS-80, the Amiga systems, the the first IBM systems. Yes, the place I taught decided to use them all. We even built up a few z-80 systems from scratch and they worked pretty well also.

The corporate world jumped from the old IBM mainframe systems which used the old green screen moniters to the IBM PC systems on the user end because IBM had the reputation of being the best in the business. Gates licensed his OS to IBM and the rest is history as they say. If Steve Jobs had been that smart we would be entrenched in a MAC world today.

The main problem with the PC world has been created by those folks who have seen fit to cause Microsoft as much trouble as possible and create all the virus software. This also has a history which dates back to how Bill Gates and company ram rodded their way into a lot of sectors. On his way to the top his company created a ton of microsoft haters - each one for a different reason.

The very same thing has happened in the network world. For a long time I was a Novell Certified Network Instructor teaching very expensive high end network classes to the IT guys from the corporate world. Novell's OS is outstanding but they could not match the marketing dollars of microsoft and slowly we saw NT, then other Microsoft products replace many of the Novell networks.

In today's world I doubt it makes much difference which system a user selects. There is great software for each system. I can't speak for the software used for music production because I don't use those products - but I do know just about anything else you can do on one system can be done on the other. Seems to me it is rather like the old "Ford vs Chevy" arguments that once prevailed.

Meanwhile, if you really want to help Mike with his question why not take a step back and stop all the uninformed, opinioned, crap and try to help the man. If you like your system - tell him why. If you hate your system - tell him why. If you have not actually used each system than contain your comments to the system you really have some experience with.

Well - all this is just my opinion too.

Hammer

Hammer

A slight correction. PARC (Xerox development center invented the GUI indeed) It wasn't Gates that toured PARC it was Jobs. Steve jobs "stole" the idea and ran with it because Xerox was stuck in a copier paradigm, Xerox also invented the Fax ("Telecopier", and desktop publishing.


Apple actually had the nerve to threaten to sue MS when Windows began using the GUI. Xerox became very very interested in that lawsuit for obvious reasons. Needless to say Apple quietly backed off.

I totally agree Jobs dropped the ball and was a little too "visionary" believing by giving Apples away to schools, Kids would grow up and be Apple users. Apple should have allowed clones. The PC landscape would have been much different today. Apple was brought back from the dead a few times. Back in the day it was common advice to find your software first Then decide on the hardware. No problem finding software for DOS and competitors. Apple was proprietary and they had their users over a barrel. Today they charge 3X the price for the same components in a pretty package. The components are no better then then what are offered in PCs Intel doesn't make special super chips for Apple, nor does Nvidia,ATI,Seagate,and the rest of the common components now found in both machines. I know of people who are building their own PCs an loading Leopard and it's working although against the EULA of Apple..

The more the hardware becomes the same the more vulnerable Apple will be to malicious attacks. I think they should just sell the OS and allow any one to install it on any PC.
Sell the "elite" hardware to the few hardcore "Apple community" members. Then more software companies will write for it and if it is a better OS it will beat the tar out Microsoft in sales and use.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-10-2009).]

Mike, I think when you reach a certain age, comfort level and familiarity play a big role in our buying decisions, especially when said purchase involves a potentially large and tedious learning curve. I have about 5-6 active computers in my home at present. All are PC's running XP, Vista 32, and Vista 64. ALL have minor problems and require constant maintenance and upgrades. Still, I have not purchased a Mac. In fact, having spent an entire career in the computer industry, including mainframes, minis, large networks which included both PC's and Macs, etc., etc., I have never owned, used, or learned, a Mac. No real reason other than just being a creature of habit. I'm sorry that I didn't.

I have not had any 'Vista' problems specifically related to the 64 bit version. On the other hand, I have different applications on the different versions. All my music apps are on XP or Vista 32. None on Vista 64. Most of the apps I have loaded onto Vista 64, even those without the V64 approval, have run without problems. Most of the the problems I have experienced with all versions of Windows have more to do with 'infections' of one sort or another (malware, spyware, viruses, etc.) rather than any intrinsic defect in the OS (although being vulnerable to viruses, etc. could be construed as a defect). In my gut, I suspect that Mac has the better OS, but then again, it depends on how you define 'better'.

My advice; work more gigs and buy both. Hope that helps .

chas

Hammer, I do agree with most of the things you wrote (especially the last part), but there are some things you said I can't agree with.

As Kingfrog said, it was Steve Jobs who 'stole' GUI concept from Xerox, and implemented it in Lisa, overly-expensive (even for the Apple standards) predecessor of Macintosh line. Later, Gates 'took' the concept and implemented it (although rather poorly) in Windows (which was merely GUI extension of MS-DOS operating system).

Also, it wasn't Gates who was 'smart enough to create "somewhat open system', it was IBM, and it wasn't about the software, but about hardware. IBM created PC to be an open system, so that the third-party companies can create hardware add-ons, device drivers, and programs. They had BIOS under copy-protection, but some firms like Phoenix and Award 'circumvent' the copyright by creating code that would accept same input and produce same output as original BIOS, while having totally different internal code.

Since it was an open-system other companies had access to schematic of PC internals, and started to produce 'clones'. These clones where rather low quality, compared to the original, but they where much cheaper (although still quite expensive for today's measures) and these facts combined with market competition and far-east Asian factories that produced cheap components, made possible so low price of PC as we have for the last two decades.

Apple got the 'price problem' because from the start it used specific hardware produced with far less volume then PC components, therefore there was no price-drop from market competition or high volumes of production, and prices where stellar high.

After 'switching' to Intel platform, prices become much more affordable, although still higher then PC-prices, because they use higher quality components, and of course charge their 'brand'. But if, for example, anyone tries to assemble PC equivalent to Mac Pro and use the best available components, the price difference would melt down to 10% or so).

Finally, it's almost childish to say that 'Bill Gates haters created virus software to harm Microsoft', and that this is the main problem for the PC world. There are viruses also for OSX and Linux, there are even viruses for mobile phone operating systems.
It's not the viruses that cause majority of problem for PC-s is instability of operating system that happens after several installations/uninstallations of software, and after using poorly created applications, combined with ever-growing OS with lot's of open-doors for malicious programmers. All this 'thanks' to Registry concept.