Why certain people rather go for an Apple than a regular PC?

Since this forum is fulfilled with many users of computers, I always been wondering why there are half people in this world who go for an Apple laptop than for a PC laptop. My main question is what is the big reason why many switch to Apple?
Like for example, there are so many laptops that could do even more than an Apple laptop (some though). But like when you see a laptop of Apple, they cost way more than getting a regular laptop with windows having more potential power than a macbook. Even the smallest iBook cost about a 1,000 dollars.
Whatever Apple does in performance, PCs can do it, or maybe im wrong? And no, im not anything against Apple, to me it is a wonderful looking laptop, and also for its unique specifications such as their own operating system.
What do you guys believe?

 

I got an excellent deal ($800 for a C1D 2.0 Gig, 1 Gig RAM) and the software package is just great (Garageband pretty much sold me on it). Also, I use it for the Torq / Conectiv DJ interface, and Apples are damned fast and damned stable and generally perfect for what I need to do.

 

well... since i've been waiting, and waiting, aaand waiting for vista, my mind wonders to a macbook. part of the reason is because they switch to intel which is more powerful than powerpc.

OS X is wonderful too. but it definitely did not live up to the hype.

 

I can give you hundreds of reasons as to why Mac OS X is better than Windows. As long as you do not play games, Mac OS X is by far the more superior operating system. Try it for a month and you will understand. It beats the buggy, insecure and poorly drawn (on software) GUI of XP by miles.

 

Please be careful with this kind of thread, they sometimes spin out of control.

Most people switch for OS X. In my opinion the Mac makes for a better computer for the home user and the creative user. Windows really excels at business and games. Since I like web creation and photography, the Mac suits me better. People are afraid of the unknown, and for most Apple is unknown. Most people who talk badly of the Mac have never used OS X for an extended period of time. But it is not for everyone. If you need certain business apps or you like to game a lot, Windows is certainly better. Of course, now you can run Windows on a Mac which muddies the waters even more!

 

Wow, I guess it does make alot of sense. I understand the facts about a mac, and it is real nice to have something focused on interests such as art and creativity. I guess that the differnce about windows, is that you have to buy the certain programs for things that a mac would do. Am I right?

 

Not really. Things like Office applications you will still have to get for Mac. Although Macs do come with some additional applications compared to Windows XP, I find most of them pretty useless and I have to get the applications I need. But installing those apps in Mac is far easier than in Windows.

 

I own a mac desktop and a windows desktop and i love my mac better i am seriously thinking about getting the mac pro notebook b/c of college and i am a web designer and software developer.

 

For me it was a matter of trying the 'Apple hype' and seeing what it's all about. I got the MacBook and I can tell you I love the machine and OS X (which I'm using for the first time in my life) is very nice too. Would I abandon Windows altogther? perhaps not - but I'm quite certain my next laptop will be a mac too..

 

Handsdown if your going to get a notebook get a mac not a windows.

 

I prefer the Mac because it is fun. Windows is too tedious for my tastes. Was using XP for a few this morning and shutdown and got the Mac. Personal preference may play a part in the buying decision. Jusr my .02

susan

 

I have a lot of reasons. There are already a few threads like this I believe.
I'd state why I like OS X, but that would take a while and I'm tired

Only a few things I use windows for... Visual Studio, games and Rational Developer. But the last doens't count, as it's a VERY large install and um... I don't 'own' the license so I use the copy in the labs.
Otherwise, there are OS X alts to pretty much every major windows app, or they are made for BOTH environments.

 

Only if darned Google made Picasa for Mac. They have a version now ready for Linux but why not Mac?! I just got my macbook and all the reviews of iPhoto vs. Picasa seem to indicate that iPhoto sucks...

 

Have you tried iPhoto? It is very similar to Picasa. I think you would find it just as useful after you get used to it. Unfortunately if you take a lot of pictures, like myself, neither Picasa nor iPhoto suffice. That is why Apple made Aperture and Adobe is releasing Lightroom.

 

cash,

No. In defense of Apple, I haven't tried iPhoto yet as I have not yet transferred all my photos from the windows PC with Picasa, to my MacBook. I may not do it right now because I'm considering buying MacBook Pro (yeah, I know, I'm stupid ). But all the reviews and readings so far seem to tell me Picasa is much better, but you seem to indicate it really isn't all that bad...

 

It's not great, but it is not that bad. Reviews only say how the reviewer feels. You have iPhoto, it is free, so try it for yourself. Start by copying a few pictures see if you can get the hang of it. For me, I take 100-200 pictures when I go hiking, which is every couple weeks on average, plus the misc pictures in between. iPhoto and Picasa just don't do so well with that many pictures IMO, so, I use Aperture. All I am saying is try it. You have it right there.

 

I want to try Mac but scared to switch over from XP

 

You have 15 days to try the unit, send it back if you don't like it.
If possible, try it at a dealer. You also do have the option to use XP on it.

 

I switched because I was sick of always having to repair something on my computer. I mean software wise. Always changing settings, installing hardware, uninstalling bloatware, etc. Since I have set this Mac up I haven't had to change anything.

And my Mac always WORKS.

 

I switched(first to Linux, now to Mac) because I got tired of how buggy windows was. Not only how buggy, but how extremely uncustomizable it is. When I work on a computer, I want to do what I want to do fast and the way that I like it done. Windows doesn't cut it for me anymore.

 

Blame it on being a PC user also, but I have tried iPhoto and personally I find it to be extremely unintuitive ESPECIALLY for people who have used Picasa. And I say that as someone who desperately wants to make iPhoto my main photo app.

In picasa you just put your photos in a folder and it automatically is detected. In iPhoto you import your photos and they are then copied to another folder giving you duplicates. And when you work on a photo then you aren't actually working on the photo, you're working on a COPY of the photo thus making a 3rd copy. Delete a bad batch of photos and go to the directory and those pictures are still there because all you deleted was some odd cache file. And my current gripe is that I'm on a macbook so i only keep 2006 internal and the rest on an external. If i'm on the road and open iPhoto without that external drive attached the whole thing freezes because it can't find those older pics (what the heck is the cache for then if its going to freak out because it can't find the original????).

I know for mac pro's it seems silly to complain about this stuff but understand that on the PC side then your trained to know exactly what directory your files are so if a software takes that out of your hands then its very confusing. I've been forced to just run Picasa via Parallels because it works the way it should.

 

You can change the behavior of iphoto copying your photos.
I'm not sure about changing the behavior of it making a copy of the original after editing, but really... why wouldn't you want to keep a copy of the original?

On another note, why would you not want it to organize your photos for you? I used to hate how itunes would organize my mp3's when i imported them, but now I like it. Keeps things tidy for me with no work.

 

Because I'm not a pro. I'm just a guy with a camera and alot of pictures. If I took 50 pictures and 40 of them are pure garbage and 5 need to be enhanced then why do I now have 55 photos wasting space in my laptop? If I wanted to retain the original then thats what the "Save As" function is for.

Not everyone who can afford a maid uses one. If I have a "Pictures" folder to hold my library then it would make sense that any edited pictures would end up in that folder. Yet iPhoto chooses to put it somewhere else.

Anyway, dont think i'm trying to hate the program. iPhoto is one of the reasons i made the switch but in all honesty its really a program only a mac-fanatic can love. I'm trying to learn it but its really making things tough. (Kinda like when iTunes "organized" my music and destroyed years of file naming in favor of their rediculous "Track Number - Song Title" format)

 

as many people say one is better at something than the other, it really is all relative.

the only reason Mac is so popular in the Design world is because they push their name in that direction and give large discounts to schools studios etc. which is good marketing, but that is the only reason they are still alive.

anything you can do in OSX you can do in XP, and basically vice versa, but not quite.

you PAY fo the software that is included when you buy a new Mac. ILife is great software, but it isn't that great, and similar open source software is available on XP. when ILife is updated, you will pay if you want to update as well.

I really enjoy using OSX for the most part, I don't like how it seems to dumb a lot of things down and a few other little bits about it. Uninstalling and removing an App should have a more dedicated method, have you ever tried uninstalling photoshop on OSX, bloody hell that is annoying.

OSX is missing a lot of little details that windows has had for years.

Picasa2 is much better than Iphoto, it doesn't move anything around on your computer but organizes them quickly and efficiently, and has a lot of other excellent features.

and Picasa2 imports photos in an instant, Iphoto takes way to long.

and it is free to all.

and whoever said windows isn't very customizable?????? ehhhhhh??????? mac OSX is not customizable at all compared to windows, you can make your windows desktop look like whatever you want using a plethora of opensource software. you can customize every aspect.

you can hardly customize anything in OSX

 

if 40 of them are garbage, then why are you keeping them? You talk about wasting space with copies, but if it isn't worth it to keep it, then thats a worse waste of space.

plus there is freeware for iphoto to give it little enhancements. such as taking care of the duplicates.

 

Yeah, like i said, you can have it not create duplicates. Just like you can tell iTunes not to manage or touch your music.
Besides, itunes never touches original music files. If it is set to music management, and you add music to itunes, it makes a copy of it, leaving the original folder untouched. At least, thats how it works for me. Or I can just tell it to not manage the music and add the folder. Thats how I have it set up in XP.


Uhhh.. removing programs harder than XP? You're joking. Seriously. Thats complete BS. Almost all apps are single file apps. For those that add into the library, it's pretty simple if you don't want to use an uninstall program that came with an application. I jus went to the libraries and removed the files. How is this different than windows? In XP you have that step, PLUS you still have the crap in the registry.

Sorry mate, I've been a window users for a very long time, and I've found that they are both very customizable. Yeah, you can change XP shell IF you hack it. And those free ware programs aren't really free. You don't have full functionality of say... windows blinds or stardock, without paying a fee. And they are not that stable. I, and other people, have seen some problems with them. Ever tried removing it? Thats a bloody mess!

Sorry, but after my 2 months of using a mac, I would never go back to a PC to do media production work. There is really no good freeware audio programs. Sure, garageband isn't great, but it's better than pretty much any open source software i've seen in XP. And for a small fee, I can get Logic Express, which is also better than pretty much any music software for under $250.

Can you go in Picasa, make a Calendar or book, and then have it sent to kodak to be printed, all inside the program?

 

I believe Picasa is also a non-destructive editor, like iPhoto. In other words it does not modify the original, meaning it makes copies. It may not seem that way, but the copies are there. If it is not, I would not use Picasa. Photo editors like Picasa and iPhoto do not do a good enough job to be destructive like Photoshop is.

You must understand, neither iPhoto nor Picasa are meant to do a lot of editing or organize a ton of pictures. They are for people who need a little editing and have relatively small collections. I use Aperture for this reason, and Adobe is developing Lightroom for this reason.

As for the differences between iPhoto and Picasa, you have to get over the hump. It took me a while to figure this out, but you have to get yourself to understand that you view/edit/move/etc through the GUI, not Finder. It is hard to get past that, but once you do, you don't really care about the folder structure anymore.

One more thing, please keep the comments positive. These threads can spin out of control quickly.

 

i am just curious as to approximately how many photos you estimate each to be able to organize. iphoto has a capacity for ~250 000 photos. so how is that a small collection?

mind you i haven't used aperature. so i can't comment on how aperature works.

 

IMO, Macs and PCs each have their own spot in the computer world. PCs are the most cost efficient and offer some specialized software not available on Mac-based computers (although Boot Camp has solved the later problem somewhat). I personally love PCs because the majority of the people on this planet have PCs and they also offer significantly more choices and customizations when it comes to hardware. However, I'm also a big Mac lover (who has just bought a new MacBook ). Put quite simply (as many Mac owners do), they just work - no software glitches, no spyware, etc and are very reliable without upkeep. Also Macs, IMO, trump the PC in video/photo editing in terms of ease of use and quality of the software available.

 

iPhoto may have that capacity, but in my experience once you get a few thousand pictures in there, the organization starts to get useless and it starts to slow down.

 

Not really read all the thread, but.. Picasa is also available for OS X right?

 

I switched for many reasons. These are just my personal opinions.

First, I think it's the best looking notebook on the market. I'm a designer and I care about what my hardware looks like. Apple's design strategy seems to take into account so much more than other brands. I find myself saying, "hey that's neat" everytime I use it. It doesn't just look good. It functions well and I don't think many would argue about it's top notch design quality either. I'm a huge fan of minimalist design and everything Apple produces is designed that way.

Second, I've always used a PC and I feel that the ease of use is better on the Mac. There's no clicking to "apply" and things like that which drove me nuts. It's very straight forward and easy to learn.

Third, I love using iPhoto, and Garageband. Maybe their not right for you, but for me they are perfect. Once again they are easy to use and learn, and they have more than enough features for everyday use. As far as editing goes, I use Photoshop for the big stuff anyway so I don't knock iPhoto for not being able to do certain things.

Fourth, I like when people notice I have a Mac. It's almost like their puzzled by it. On one hand their thinking it's an overpriced brand and that it's the minority in the computer world, but on the other hand they always want to play around with OSX, iLife apps, and everything else on it. They always say, "cool" and that's exactly what it is.

And last, it always comes down to personal preference and for me there was nothing I didn't like about it.

 

That was mad deep Chris.

In my opinion, I dont really think that it is cool for everyone to notice that it's a mac and that it is an overpriced laptop. What is cool about a laptop is its functionality and its features. I dont even care if from the outisde looks like crap. what matters is what's inside of the computer

 

I personally am planning to switch to mac because I despise windows and I don't know how to use linux. I've used macs a couple times before and I was impressed by how much better it worked compared to a PC. Note, this comparison was between an iMac G4 vs. the newest PCs.

 

I'm switching to Macs too. Whoo!

 

It is not that over priced. Most people compare them to crap like HP units. HP saves money by not having good customer service / tech support. Other companies do similar. Plus, most of those that are similar specced but cheaper are often do not have slim profiles. Granted, you are paying a bit more initially for OS X. But at least you don't have to pay $200 each time they have a new OS come out. I'm glad I'll only be paying $50 for Leopard as opposed to $200 for Vista.
You're right, it's not just the outside that matters. But it DOES matter. Sorry, I don't want a massive 3" thick plastic unit.

 

Ditto! Well said.

 

As you said, it is not only looks: portability is great issue. Also, I'd like to see a toe to toe comparison. Same processor, BT, integrated webcam, remote control. Macs are somewhat more expensive but not that much. They usually stay somewhat within 10% -15 % of a comparable Dell, promotions or educational discounts notwithstanding.

 

I think the slightly higher price is very much worth the added stability of the Mac OS, the much greater attention to detail, and all the little extras that are put into the Mac both on the hardware and software level. You can't find a notebook that is made as well as a Mac.

 

Not to mention macs run longer than PCs...macs can still be functional after 5-8 years, but usually PC laptops get their death sentence around 3 years.

 

I agree that Apple products generally last longer. I've got a G4 400mhz PowerMac that is running OSX 10.3.7 and is still very usable. I've got Adobe CS running on it until CS3 comes out later next year for my MBP. This old tower was made in 1999 and is almost eight years old now. That's ancient in terms of a computers age.

My PC that I bought in 2002 has already gone through one motherboard and feels way more outdated than the older PowerMac.

 

I have used PCs w/ Windows since 3.1 and Macs with various OSs for many years. I have recently installed and used various flavors of Unix. Windows XP is nowhere as buggy as most people say if you configure it correctly and OS X is better than I expected. Your choice of OS should be based on what you intend to do with the computer. For most people, a Windows machine will work for them, so long as you take a few sensible precautions related to security. OS X makes Macs very strong candidates esp., combined with the Intel CPUs. Apple's marketing and sales strategies are sometimes bewildering to me (the amount of MacBook RAM that ships is ridiculous) and there are other peculiarities that take some getting used to (right click and closing applications TWICE). I originally thought that the triple threat combination of OS X, Windows, and *nix would be very cool, until I figured out that Darwin basically takes care of my *nix needs.

I gotta put in a rant about Vista. Why bother? The only thing it adds to what I already have is eye candy and a huge price tag in terms of the license and the need for new hardware. My system is rock solid and that's really all that I care about.

Just my $.02 -

 

I'm in a dilemma and this forum has helped alot. HP dv2000t or Macbook? Both have same specs, HP has bigger screen/Lightscribe and is cheaper by almost $70. Stay with Windows or go with OS X? -sighs-

 

First off, you'er not going to get good customer service with HP. They've been hailed as doing a great job getting a lot of new customers and making better quality machines lately, but their CSR's still suck. They're still rated as one of hte worst companies to deal with. You won't get that with apple. Not too say that people don't have issues with Apple's CSR's at times, every company has poor CSR's.

As with any notebook purchase, yous hould get an extended warranty. How much is a 3 year warranty for HP? Can you wait up to a year to buy it like you can with Apple?

Generally Apples are considered to be the least buggy and problematic laptops. Understanding of course that the MB/MBP hardware still has some bugs left in them due to the change to intel. Mine has some bugs, and will probably need to be sent back, but I'd rather have that then some issues I know people run into with other systems.

I like what you said Fisher. I think you have it right. The OS/system will depend on your needs. Gamer? then a Mac isn't right for you. Want to do a lot of server work? Then XP and OS X are not for you. Want a stable, productive environment that has lots of programs and is easy to use, plus ability to do some gaming, then a Mac is good.

BTW, you dont' have to close a program twice to close it out. apple-q shuts it down completely. I actually prefer the way mac handles shutting down apps compared to XP.

Yeah, who needs vista? One answer: Gamers who have the $$$ to spend for new hardware that can take advantage of DX10 games. Thats it.

 

Thanks for the response hollownail. That greatly helped.

 

Unless you need particular application(s) that is only available in Windows, get the MacBook. After a long time in PC land I bought a Macbook last week and its taken me only about a week to get applications (mostly free or relatively low cost) to replace all of the functionality of my PC and I do a LOT on the PC (use most of a 100gb disk in applications and data).

I find the Mac superior in every way. Its elegant, stable, and just WORKS with no tinkering, optimizing, or fooling around.

The PC camp is very concerned with specs, and software AND hardware requires almost constant updating. As a result hardware and software is pretty short lived "as is"

The Mac camp, seems much more concerned with functionality and the hardware and software requires much less change, giving much longer functional life to the hardware while still evolving feature sets.

Now this is partly because Apple has much more control over the hardware, and they made some decisions that resulted in a much more stable OS, but the bottom line is, if a Mac offers the functionality you need, its total cost of ownership vs productivity over time is likely much more favorable than a PC.

Just my $0.02 worth

 

Thanks jimboutilier. I just chatted with an Apple rep and my vote is for the Macbook again. All I need to do is save up a few more Benjamins so I can purchase accessories for the Macbook.

 

I think part of the reason that PC users are so obsessed over hardware is becasue the OS is so bloated; I don't mean by install size as XP is much smaller than OS X, but by the amount of resources it takes to run.
Plus, they have the majority of the PC gaming community. And to play modern games at the best quality you constantly have to update.

You just don't have that with a Mac. The system requirements change slowly and besides specific software, I don't think one will need to upgrade as often.

 

well phungy, go with the MacBook. I just got mine last Friday and i love it. And if you ever need windows you can always just install that. I have, since i need it for school to test apps and stuff. This is my first mac as well and so far it quite awesome. Anyway, this has to be your choice since you have to live with it everyday. Good luck.

 

Thanks epicbard. I am sticking with the Macbook.

hollownail, how much space does OS X take? This will help me decide on a suitable hard drive size.