280 replies to this topic

[Alessandro17]

acumos, on Oct 3 2007, 06:38 AM, said:

If you use Linux with software it crashes many times, my Vista never crashed, I use Antivir and Spybot and I never had virus problem. I think that if Windows is the most popular OS it's not a case! I really want someone can make change my mind!

It must be a matter of personal experience and which distro you use.
In my experience openSUSE is rock solid. As to Vista, until recently it kept crashing on me beyond recovery after a Windows Update or even installing a simple app like Firefox. Not to mention the lack of drivers or the terrible compatibility with programs I owned.
As to OS X I find it also rock solid. However these days I use openSUSE more often because I find it more flexible for my needs.
Why is Windows the most popular OS? Because they came before the others with a cheap OS for beige hardware. These days it is preinstalled on most PCs. However even Microsoft is beginning to realize that Vista is a potential failure (by allowing everybody to downgrade and by extending XP availability).

[zurk]

i like debian etch myself.
suse has issues. YaST sucks compared to apt and RPM based distros generally suck as a matter of course.

[~pcwiz]

I haven't used it for long but Ubuntu is working great for me. Oh and you may already know but Dell is selling Ubuntu preinstalled on some of their computers. See here:

http://www.ubuntu.com/dell

[Alessandro17]

zurk, on Oct 4 2007, 01:31 AM, said:

i like debian etch myself.
suse has issues. YaST sucks compared to apt and RPM based distros generally suck as a matter of course.

You might be surprised but I like SUSE and Debian almost the same.
However I have been using openSUSE more, of late.
Don't use YaST as a package manager, use smart instead.

[~pcwiz]

Hmm....maybe I should change the topic title to which Linux OS/Software do you prefer.

[acumos]

You need a bit of impartiality. 1) Bill Gates can't keep Dell to preinstall Windows, Steve Jobs can! 2) Yesterday I went to an Apple Retailer to try the new iMac Aluminum and as I started iMovie and tried to cut a clip the system crashed: the clip played but iMac needed to be restarted and now I see why...read the news! Vista has problem but not "out of the box"!!!

[Alessandro17]

acumos, on Oct 4 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

You need a bit of impartiality.

I believe I am reasonably impartial. If Windows was a good OS I would use it (more), why not.
As Linus Torvalds once said: "I don't mind them making money, I mind them making bad products"

Quote

Vista has problem but not "out of the box"!!!

That is pretty odd. I have had tons of problems "out of the box" with Vista, and so have countless other people.

Apparently you are the odd one out who has no problems with Vista, but has problems with OS X first attempt!

[bluedragon1971]

Alessandro17, on Sep 30 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

You missed the point. I wasn't talking about my personal tastes, I was simply stating facts, that is, it isn't true that Macbooks are more expensive than the competition because they are small, because Macbooks Pro are a lot more expensive

You have totally missed the point when talking about screens.  For example, the screen in my HP is 15.4" but is the same resolution as that of the MacBook (1280x800).  The screen on the MacBook Pro is 15.4", but is 1440x900, and the 17" version is 1680x1050.  Many other brands' smaller laptops have a lower resolution screen than the MacBook.

A higher resolution screen at the same size generally costs more (therefore the screen on the MacBook Pro would cost more than the screen on mine).  A smaller screen at the same resolution generally costs more as well (therefore the screen on the MacBook would cost more than the screen on mine).
Not only that, but there are many other differences between a MacBook and a MacBook Pro that make up the difference in price (processor, video card, RAM, hard drive, ExpressCard slot, etc.).

[~pcwiz]

I am sure I've already said this but I hate Vista. OK so I installed Vista and installed PC-Cilin for Vista. I later wanted to remove PC-cillin antivirus and in the middle of the removal Vista crashed and it wouldn't let me remove the program.

I've had tons of problems with Vista...

[Alessandro17]

bluedragon1971, on Oct 4 2007, 08:12 PM, said:

You have totally missed the point when talking about screens.  For example, the screen in my HP is 15.4" but is the same resolution as that of the MacBook (1280x800).  The screen on the MacBook Pro is 15.4", but is 1440x900, and the 17" version is 1680x1050.  Many other brands' smaller laptops have a lower resolution screen than the MacBook.

A higher resolution screen at the same size generally costs more (therefore the screen on the MacBook Pro would cost more than the screen on mine).  A smaller screen at the same resolution generally costs more as well (therefore the screen on the MacBook would cost more than the screen on mine).
Not only that, but there are many other differences between a MacBook and a MacBook Pro that make up the difference in price (processor, video card, RAM, hard drive, ExpressCard slot, etc.).

Whatever. But still nothing justifies the huge difference in prices (here in Europe) between Macbooks/Macbooks Pro and PC laptops.
At the moment there is one on special offer at a local store with absolutely great specs for €749!!!

(Cheapest Macbook, with miserly specs, Eur 1.049,00!)

You don't have to convince me, you (and Apple) have to convince the consumers of the largest economic area in the world (the EU) that Macs are good value for their money.

[consolation]

Alessandro17, on Oct 5 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

You don't have to convince me, you (and Apple) have to convince the consumers of the largest economic area in the world (the EU) that Macs are good value for their money.

Arghhh..... Apple does not sell it's product on value for money! OK, you sound Italian, is a Ferrari "good value for money?" Hell no; only two seats, burns a lot of petrol, expensive to run, by your logic Ferrari should make cheap cars from cheap materials to sell MORE of them. With Apple you are paying for style, quality, good engineering, the privilege of using osX and, yes, a certain amount of exclusivity.  

To put it another way; one company (let us call it Bell) makes 300x profit and sells 1000 units each year from assets of 100kx, another company (let us call it Maple) makes 100x profit and sells 200 units each year from assets of 20kx. (x being an arbitrary unit) Ask yourself, which company is the better performing one and which one will have a better stock price.  Apple does not care about selling most computers or spreading osX around the world. Like all businesses it's only concerned with maximising the shareholder's investment. Hence, it does not need to compete in the volume, budget segment.

Alessandro, if you can find me a Eur 700 laptop with no air holes/vents on the bottom; so it can be used on the lap or duvet or anywhere I might choose to use a portable computer, I might start to be convinced of the need to discount macbooks.

[Alessandro17]

consolation, on Oct 5 2007, 06:17 AM, said:

Arghhh..... Apple does not sell it's product on value for money! OK, you sound Italian, is a Ferrari "good value for money?"

Good point. How many cars do they sell? It is extremely rare to actually see one on the road. And Macs are almost as rare as Ferrari. However Ferrari is only part of a huge multinational (FIAT). So even if Ferrari run at a loss, it wouldn't matter.

Quote

Alessandro, if you can find me a Eur 700 laptop with no air holes/vents on the bottom; so it can be used on the lap or duvet or anywhere I might choose to use a portable computer, I might start to be convinced of the need to discount macbooks.

I havent actually seen it, I should drive to town. However I don't care, I used to put my HP on my lap for hours and I found it quite OK.

Update: I have just seen a HP for €499!!!
The specs were nothing special, but more than worth the price.

[Synaesthesia]

Look, whatever. "Premium Brand" arguments aside, the point is that it sucks that Apple products are more expensive in the USA, than in Europe, by a lot. Especially seeing as they're made in China like every other piece of computer hardware.

Which is why we turn to hacks, or get around the system by buying macs in America. Or something.

BTW Allessandro, what computer do you have?

[Alessandro17]

Synaesthesia, on Oct 5 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

BTW Allessandro, what computer do you have?

A powerful hackintosh (specs later )

[Synaesthesia]

Sweet.

[~pcwiz]

C'mon, I'm dying to see your specs Alessandro

[Alessandro17]

pcwiz, on Oct 5 2007, 10:32 PM, said:

C'mon, I'm dying to see your specs Alessandro

Actually they can be found in many threads.

1)Intel Bad Axe 2
2)Intel Q6600
3)4GB RAM, Crucial Ballistix
4)XFX 7900GT
5)3 Seagate Barracuda
6)1 Pioneer DVR-110 and 1 Pioneer DVR-112
7)Case Cooler Master Centurion 534, nothing special
8)Server grade PSU, 650 Watt

[lord_muad_dib]

not to mention that in italy, apple never done ads, anywhere, no tv ads, anything, either of macs or ipods

macs are very rare, it's hard to see a mac outside professional work scenarios

OT closed

[R2k.]

same thing here in Serbia,most of people doesn`t even know what is Apple computer ...
i think that apple computers are more expensive because you (first of all)pay for brand and than for hardware and software ...i mean, apple hardware is not so different that any other hardware on the market...intel inside ....

and i just don`t want to pay for brand !




~R

[glassJAw]

That's all fine and dandy but the core use of a Mac is for OSX. Sure you can install OSX86 but it's still crippled and it's a pain to update it.

And a Intel Mac is not purely the same as other brands. There's a Apple touch to it that other companies do not offer. For example the magnet plug, the screen is much nicer, the design doesn't look like every other brand. All other laptops use the same OEM and don't make anything unique to differentiate their computers.