Thinking of getting a mac possibly

[Ionium]

I don't have alot of programs that require windows, just the GOW editor and UT3 editor so I could possibly just have a dual boot and keep windows 7 in offline mode. But now that mac has steam that opens up alot of possibilites for gaming for me in my spare time, plus I do photoshop and final cut pro (use to use it before in college). But what makes OSX / Mac alot better than PC, why should I drop my money on one, besides being far less vulnerable to viruses / spyware ?

 

[cbags101]

Both OSX and Windows have their advantages. I don't want to convince you to get a mac. Personally, I think OSX is a 100x better experience on a laptop. Not that Windows doesn't have the same functionality...OSX just feels natural when using with a touchpad.

What mac are you thinking about? MacBook or iMac?

 

[Ihaveworms]

I agree with cbags. OS X on a laptop just feels like it is meant to be. I still use my windows 7 desktop whenever I am at home and have no grudges against either OS. I'm not sure if I would get a mac desktop over a windows desktop.

 

[hvale2k5]

If you have the money then go for it, dont get it if you're going to use window most of the time.

 

[phide]

But what makes OSX / Mac alot better than PC?

Sorry, but the question is too generic. OS X does some things better. OS X does other things not as well. Some Macs compete very strongly with comparable PCs and sometimes they don't. Sometimes OS X applications are better than their Windows counterparts and sometimes they aren't. It's not an especially clear-cut thing in a grand, generic sort of sense.

 

[Ionium]

Both OSX and Windows have their advantages. I don't want to convince you to get a mac. Personally, I think OSX is a 100x better experience on a laptop. Not that Windows doesn't have the same functionality...OSX just feels natural when using with a touchpad.

What mac are you thinking about? MacBook or iMac?

Was thinking of getting a desktop mac possibly. Just so many hardware issues over the years with windows, BSOD's, ATI video card / Nvidia card problems, so many frustrations over the years even with shop builds...

 

[cbags101]

Was thinking of getting a desktop mac possibly. Just so many hardware issues over the years with windows, BSOD's, ATI video card / Nvidia card problems, so many frustrations over the years even with shop builds...

Cool. I personally would stick with my Windows desktop. But, The 27" iMacs are really nice. In fact, I remember reading that you cant get a stand alone LCD of the same quality for under $1k. So that is a definite hardware advantage. Also, I don't think Apple's customer service can be beat. That is a huge plus considering you were saying sick of hardware failure, etc.

On a side note though, Apple uses the same hardware as every other computer manufacture. OSX brings it all together to interface nicely, and the design is incredible too. Since Apple can choose their hardware, and design the software around it, it's going to work pretty well (barring the sub-par video performance recently). It's all just as likely to hardware fail, but you may not have the glitchyness found in Windows sometimes and are also more likely to get it fixed quickly by Apple.

 

[Serpico]

Cool. I personally would stick with my Windows desktop. But, The 27" iMacs are really nice. In fact, I remember reading that you cant get a stand alone LCD of the same quality for under $1k. So that is a definite hardware advantage. Also, I don't think Apple's customer service can be beat. That is a huge plus considering you were saying sick of hardware failure, etc.

Pretty much. The same 27" display is sold by Apple for $1000, Dell for $1100, and NEC for $1400. The 27" iMac is a fantastic deal given the quality of the display and that you are getting a fast, space efficient, and silent computer thrown in there. If you are so inclined you can also use it as an external display for your old computer if you want to keep it, you just need a dual link DVI to mini-DP adapter or a video card with DisplayPort output.

 

[Zumino Zufeilon]

It's not that it is less likely to fail, it is less likely to have driver/stability issues because apple tests everything for compatibility.

The 27" iMac is an amazing value, you really can't buy that screen for less then $1000-$1100, and with the iMac you get a decently speedy computer on the back of it for not much more.

I would avoid the Mac Pro's, they aren't worth it, for a number of reasons really. The Mac Mini's are nice, if you've already got a screen/keyboard/mouse (mac compatible), but they're fairly low power. They are amazing for not taking up space though!

Both iMac's are good value for what you're getting. Which is a pretty speedy machine, in a very, very small and efficient footprint. My dad commented that he forgot how much he enjoyed having an actual desk after he got his 21 iMac.

OSX is, in essence, a very specific Linux Distro that is maintained by Apple. Oh sure, it's not treated that way (by Apple or anyone else) but that really is basically what it is. That does get you a lot of extra security both with Lack-of-people-targetting, and with the additional security that is *nix environment. That said, with OSX, you are essentially paying extra for Apple to turn that *nix distro into a headache free (mostly) environment. Which, personally, I'll pay a little extra for that on many of my machines. (I want my work machines to work, if I want to engage in the hand-to-hand combat that is building/running a Win computer, I'll play with my desktop)

 

[100inch]

if you have been getting spyware and viruses, then you need to learn to avoid that.

You will be paying a premium for a mac, but imacs are comparable to other higher end brands. The graphics driver stability should be equal between the two and you should not have huge problems with either. Don't upgrade to beta drivers and stick with Nvidia as they tend to have less problems with newer games. People don't usually run into trouble with video drivers, especially if they don't play a great deal of games immediately when they come out.

If you have a little extra money, don't play intense games, and are willing to pay a premium then imacs are great.

I'm not sure what kind of problems you have had with your computer, but macs are not immune. They use the same kind of hardware as your PC and the updates are maintained with near equal stability on both. People, including myself, have gone years and years without driver problems, hardware problems, or crashes. There is not a bunch of unique and crazy types of hardware in a windows PC that is going to cause crashes, the base is going to be the same cpu/basic motherboard arrangement and chips/graphics card. The problems with 'cheap' manufacturers tend to be the PSU and bloatware which low-end users will keep and be annoyed by.

I use a macbook and OSX on the road and windows 7 at home. Windows 7 interface is faster to navigate and more streamline and less fisher-price style. (more useful, less kid friendly) OSX is prettier and is nicer to use on a laptop for a few reasons.

I have never had problems with my PC or mac, so i'm not sure if moving to a mac would be a solution. The both have the same basic hardware and driver stability.

The extra 'security' on macs is 99% from lack of targeting, not the operating system.

Also, "shop builds" are not more immune to user error than a dell.

 

[Terpfen]

You will be paying a premium for a mac

Not necessarily. This is true only if you weigh a computer purchase by the value of the hardware components and leave out the cost of the OS license, included applications, time spent in setup or in maintenance, and long-term productivity.

But most people only think in terms of what comes out of their wallet on day one, which is where the “I can build a computer cheaper than that!” train of thought comes from. Sure, you can build a cheaper computer, but not a comparable computer. Sort of like how you can always buy a cheaper car, but it won’t necessarily stack up against that Mercedes-Benz you had your eye on.

Your insistence that the iMac line can’t handle “intense games” is also false. An iMac will handle whatever game you throw at it. To be fair, you’ll have to boot into Windows to put it through the requisite (and meaningless) Crysis test, but at least that option is available.

The extra 'security' on macs is 99% from lack of targeting, not the operating system.

False for the same reasons that Linux distros are generally secure: Unix.

 

[heatlesssun]

False for the same reasons that Linux distros are generally secure: Unix.

Apple patches tons of flaws that never get exploited that easily could be but few bother.

 

[Terpfen]

Apple patches tons of flaws that never get exploited that easily could be but few bother.

Sure, so do the maintainers of the various Linux distros. No one’s claiming that OS X is completely unassailable, just refuting the idea that it’s left unscathed because hackers don’t pay attention. There are 50 million Macs out there: that’s a pretty ripe target, if only for the bragging rights of being the first to do so in a high-profile way. But instead, nothing happens. That counts as better security.

 

[Serpico]

Not necessarily. This is true only if you weigh a computer purchase by the value of the hardware components and leave out the cost of the OS license, included applications, time spent in setup or in maintenance, and long-term productivity.

But most people only think in terms of what comes out of their wallet on day one, which is where the “I can build a computer cheaper than that!” train of thought comes from. Sure, you can build a cheaper computer, but not a comparable computer. Sort of like how you can always buy a cheaper car, but it won’t necessarily stack up against that Mercedes-Benz you had your eye on.

There is also the fact that all-in-ones by companies like Dell, Lenovo, and Sony have historically cost more than the iMac while having inferior components (CPU, GPU, RAM, hard drive space, display type, everything). A few months after Apple released the 24" iMac in 2007, Dell didn't even bother trying to compete anymore since it wouldn't ever put competing GPUs or IPS displays into the XPS One, so they discontinued the line and went with AIO's that were even lower grade.

People really need to do 1:1 comparisons when comparing computers. A 27" iMac starts at $1700, but when you consider what you're getting in the package and comparing it to competing AIOs, its a damn good deal.

Mac Pros on the other hand I cannot recommend to most people since 99% of users have absolutely no use for i7 Xeons on a server grade motherboard and ECC RAM. Its as pricey as you get with little return unless your kind of work really benefits from that. Hence the name "Pro"

 

[Serpico]

Sure, so do the maintainers of the various Linux distros. No one’s claiming that OS X is completely unassailable, just refuting the idea that it’s left unscathed because hackers don’t pay attention. There are 50 million Macs out there: that’s a pretty ripe target, if only for the bragging rights of being the first to do so in a high-profile way. But instead, nothing happens. That counts as better security.

Given the amount of irrational hatred of Apple out there, you'd figure that a nerd rage virus to show them would have come out years ago.

 

[heatlesssun]

Sure, so do the maintainers of the various Linux distros. No one’s claiming that OS X is completely unassailable, just refuting the idea that it’s left unscathed because hackers don’t pay attention. There are 50 million Macs out there: that’s a pretty ripe target, if only for the bragging rights of being the first to do so in a high-profile way. But instead, nothing happens. That counts as better security.

Good hackers don't give a rats ass about bragging rights anymore. It's about money and staying UNDER the radar these days.

 

[Archer75]

But most people only think in terms of what comes out of their wallet on day one, which is where the “I can build a computer cheaper than that!” train of thought comes from. Sure, you can build a cheaper computer, but not a comparable computer. Sort of like how you can always buy a cheaper car, but it won’t necessarily stack up against that Mercedes-Benz you had your eye on.

Quality is a matter of perception. Most people don't know this but for the past several years Dodge has been ranked higher in reliability than Mercedes. Just saying. It may look better and be more expensive therefore we perceive it to be better but it's not always the case.

Your insistence that the iMac line can’t handle “intense games” is also false. An iMac will handle whatever game you throw at it. To be fair, you’ll have to boot into Windows to put it through the requisite (and meaningless) Crysis test, but at least that option is available.

Not false at all. The ATI 5750 is underpowered for that 27" 2560x1440 resolution. It can play older games fine. But newer games it can't always maintain what I would call acceptable framerates. If I can't play new games at native resolution with all settings maxed and not get stuttering then it's underpowered. And benchmarks show in most games you can't maintain 30fps or higher. And I want a minimum of no lower than 30fps, not an average. But what is considered acceptable is different from person to person. The good news is there are better mobile cards to choose from for the next imac refresh.

Sure, so do the maintainers of the various Linux distros. No one’s claiming that OS X is completely unassailable, just refuting the idea that it’s left unscathed because hackers don’t pay attention. There are 50 million Macs out there: that’s a pretty ripe target, if only for the bragging rights of being the first to do so in a high-profile way. But instead, nothing happens. That counts as better security.

Macs have been the first to fall at the pwn2own challenge 3 years in a row. The winning hacker stated that macs are not more secure than windows 7, but they are safer.

In fact the first year he won he had two exploits lined up to use, the first one worked so he never said anything about the second. A year later at the next challenge that 2nd exploit was still unpatched and he used it to win again.

Now, i'm not saying macs aren't nice machines, they are, and OSX is quite nice as well. But as some have said, it's not better than, say, windows 7. Just different. They both do things well and both have their weaknesses. And in the future when i'm in the market for an upgrade and if the video card is powerful enough I would consider a 27" imac.

 

[Terpfen]

Given the amount of irrational hatred of Apple out there, you'd figure that a nerd rage virus to show them would have come out years ago.

Bingo.

Quality is a matter of perception.

Quality can be measured by things like customer service satisfaction and lower amounts of repairs or replacements per units sold. Apple has either led or been ranked near the top in both categories for several years.

But newer games it can't always maintain what I would call acceptable framerates.

In that case, you’re arguing a subjective opinion and there’s no way to debate that on objective ground.

Macs have been the first to fall at the pwn2own challenge 3 years in a row. The winning hacker stated that macs are not more secure than windows 7, but they are safer.

Yes, I’m aware of that quote, and it was laughable at the time it was made. If OS X is more exploitable than Windows, it would be actively exploited in the wild. But it’s not.

In fact the first year he won he had two exploits lined up to use, the first one worked so he never said anything about the second. A year later at the next challenge that 2nd exploit was still unpatched and he used it to win again.

I believe the competition in question had to do with hacking browsers, not operating systems. And yes, Safari was the first to fall because the exploit was known to the hacker beforehand. Sort of an unfair playing field.

 

[100inch]

False for the same reasons that Linux distros are generally secure: Unix.

I completely disagree, but that is a common misconception out there and an incorrect assumption that has been floating around which is usually repeated by people with far less than enough knowledge to backup that statement. In reality, it has been more vulnerably, but rarely targeted in recent history.


Judging by posts, orginal poster will be safer on a mac.

As far as games....... Yes, a recent imac can play any modern game. All games can be considerably toned down. Apple is known to skimp on the graphics because that is not their target. But, if you play recent games and care about graphics and are paying the amount you pay for an imac, you would want to consider the alternatives.

 

[Serpico]

As far as games....... Yes, a recent imac can play any modern game. All games can be considerably toned down. Apple is known to skimp on the graphics because that is not their target. But, if you play recent games and care about graphics and are paying the amount you pay for an imac, you would want to consider the alternatives.

The main reason for their GPUs are thermals and power consumption. I feel safe cramming a full size GPU (or GPUs, haha) into my tower case. You can't really do the same thing with an all-in-one design since it is more similar to a laptop in terms of engineering concerns. Again, compare an iMac with a Sony, HP, or Lenovo AIO, not a tower case. Apple generally has the fastest GPUs of any AIO out there. Notebooks are affected by the fact that Apple wants to maximize battery life and reduce size/weight where they can, and this means that you'll get something like a 320M GT instead of a mobile Fermi in a 15" MBP.

 

[Archer75]

Yes, I’m aware of that quote, and it was laughable at the time it was made. If OS X is more exploitable than Windows, it would be actively exploited in the wild. But it’s not.

I believe the competition in question had to do with hacking browsers, not operating systems. And yes, Safari was the first to fall because the exploit was known to the hacker beforehand. Sort of an unfair playing field.

Windows Vista/7 has more and better implemented security technologies in it to block more exploits than OSX has. Thus the comment windows is more secure. The first day of the challenge the hackers had to hack the systems remotely. They had no physical access to the machines and none of them were hacked. It wasn't until they could physically touch the machines and either install 3rd party apps to hack the loopholes in those or to use the preinstalled software such as safari and navigate to a malicious website.

Not an unfair playing field at all. All the hackers worked on hacks/exploits in advance of the contest. The point I was making is that exploits exist, unpatched, for some time.

If you like at the security technologies behind the operating systems you'll see why those statements were made.

Hacking these days has less to do with hacking the machines but rather social engineering. Phising, etc.

But still, i'm looking to get my mom a 21.5" imac as I think it would be easier for her to use. She doesn't want it because no one she knows as one and she looked at reviews online and they were bad. I don't know what reviews she was looking at. But it should involved less phone calls to me than her 7 year old dell.

 

[C7J0yc3]

My $0.02 while trying to be as objective as possible. A little on my background firstly. I own multiple Macs as well as multiple PCs. My desktops and 1 server are whiteboxes, and my other servers and laptops are all OEM. For my job (sysadmin / security consultant) I use both my Mac's and PC's on a daily basis and couldn't get by without one or the other. I have customers with Macs, and customers with PCs. Each have their own security problems, and each have their hardware / software break / fix issues.

The arguments for Mac are generally that they are more secure, more user friendly, have better hardware, better build quality, better value for money, and better customer service. Let me shed some light from the other side of the fence right now.

Security: Macs are not secure. Let me repeat that MACS ARE NOT SECURE! They are still vulnerable to all the same problems that PCs are, and if you have ever used some of the more popular security tools there are whole sections dedicated to automatic exploitation of the Mac (there are for PC too). In fact when doing Pentesting I much prefer to come up against a mac because the "Security through obscurity" mentality is that of 99.999% of mac users and thus the system is usually left completely unprotected. Even with the latest patched build of 10.6.4 without some extra security just leaving the mac out in the open I can get in usually in about 5 minutes. Pwn2Own has shown this issue 3 years in a row, every year the Mac has fallen in under 5 minutes. And Pwn2Own isn't focusing on just browser exploits, the goal is to take complete control of the computer as fast as you can.

More User Friendly: Right and wrong. If you have never seen a computer in your life and you walk up to a Mac and a PC you are absolutely going to choose the Mac. Its very easy, strait forward, and simple. But for those of us advanced users the mac is actually incredibly complex and a PITA. Ever tried to Map a network share? Ever tried certain VPN setups that work just fine on PCs? Ever tried getting a Mac to work in a windows Active Directory environment? How about getting a Mac to work in a WPA2 Enterprise Radius network that is backed by AD authentication? PC's do all these things just fine, but on the Mac it took me forever to get them working the way I wanted, and in some cases had to just use a PC because the Mac just wouldn't do what I wanted.

Better hardware: Flat out lie. Mac's use the same hardware as PCs do and usually Mac's are about 6-10 months behind the curve in adopting new hardware. Usually when we do see spec bumps it is in processor, memory, and storage, but not graphics.

Better build quality: Another flat out lie. The first two generations of iMacs had HUGE problems with overheating. iBook, Powerbook, Macbook, and Macbook Pro's all have heat issues. Pre-Unibody Powerbooks and Macbook Pro's had huge issues with denting and case deformation. Macbooks have always had issues with their polycarb shells cracking. The unibody aluminum Macbooks and Macbook pros have issues with denting (something you don't see in plastic because plastic has some give and will return to its original shape). The iPhone 4, huge engineering disaster (I am aloud to mock it because I own one). The iPhone, 1st and 2nd Gen iPod touch, and iPhone 3G all had issues with their home button failing. iPods have had hard drive issues ever since the first generation. Battery issues on all iDevices, Overheating issues on the iPod Nano, I have been through 8 iPhones so far (3 1st gen, 2 3G, 2 3GS, 1 4) and all have been replaced for manufacture related defects. Current generation iMacs are no exception. The first aluminum iMacs had screens that had color profiles extremely off. We had a web design client replace all their development Macs with the new iMacs because their Powermac G5s were getting tired. After 2 weeks they dumped them and went back to their G5s because the colors they saw on their screen were nothing like what their end product was. Fast forward to the latest 27 inch iMac and the discoloration issues they are having due to the manufacturing process. The only two Mac design I have ever been around that had no issues the entire time I used it was the XServe RAID chassis.

Better value for Money: This depends on the Mac. Macbook Pro: Debatable, Macbook: Debatable, Macbook Air 13: No 11:Yes, iMac (if you want an AIO) yes (if not) no, Mini: no, Pro: If you need a pedistool server or a heavy lifting workstation for editing: Yes, XServe and XServe Mini: Yes. When I was looking to buy a new laptop 2 years ago I set out with a budget of $1300 wanted a minimum of a 2Ghz C2D with at least 4MB of L2 cache, enough graphics power to run TF2, CSS, HL2, and Defcon (games I play frequently on the road), 4GB of RAM, 13 or 14 inch display, good battery life (3 hours +), and 3 years of warranty. For the price (and with student discount) The Macbook beat out all the offerings from Dell, Lenovo, HP, Sony, Acer, Gateway, and Toshiba. The only one that came close at the time was a Lenovo T400, better CPU (2.4Ghz 4MB L2 vs 2.0Ghz 3MB L2) but worse GPU (Intel X3100 vs nVidia 9400). I bought the macbook because for the money I couldn't buy a better PC. However for a desktop (even a non gaming one) it makes more sense to build my own as AIO is nice, but if I need to swap RAM, replace a motherboard, add a video card, add a hard drive, swap a failed power supply etc it is much easier to do this even on a slimline PC then on the iMac. For a HTPC building my own i3 rig is about $150 cheaper then buying a Mac Mini. If you tell yourself that you want a 27 inch IPS panel and thats why your buying an iMac, that's fine, but for the 21 inch I can buy a 23" 1920x1080 IPS LED backlight panel from Samgsung for $230, better value for money.

Better Customer service: For the most part true, but I have had a couple issues with apple that I didn't have with say Dell or HP. The first issue I had with them was with an iBook G4. The logic board was failing, but the kernel panics that I was getting said it was because of the wireless. They replaced the wireless card in that thing 5 times before they finally replaced the logic board, even though every time I brought it in I told them "I have seen this before, its the logic board" They wasted almost a month of my time fixing an issue. Similar issue on a Dell Latitude D830 I had (Wireless card would turn on and off randomly) and I told the dell guy "I don't think it is the card, I think it is the motherboard." The guy disagreed but because I had their top tier support plan he sent me the motherboard anyway. First call fix. Second issue I had was with my iPhones. Like I said earlier I have been through 8 and all have been replaced for manufacture defect. When I went to get my 2nd 3Gs I noticed that the refurbed one had the immersion sensor in the headphone jack already tripped. I showed the genius who swapped it, and this time the one on the dock connector was tripped. We went through about 8 phones that day before he handed me one that had no flaws. After going home I checked around the internet and apparently this is a common issue. During the shipments from china the climate is so humid it trips the sensors before they even get unboxed. It could happen to anyone but I have been through Nokias, Motorolas, Sony Erricsons, Blackberries, and Samgsungs that have never had nearly the number of hardware problems that the iPhones have.

Now this is not saying that PCs are better. PCs break down, there are a million different manufactures so parts compatibility may work on paper but not in real life, windows issues galore, etc etc etc. No computer is perfect and I will never pretend that my Mac is better then my PC, nor is my PC better then my Mac. They are both tools and I select the proper tool to do the job I want (I wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, or a RJ45 crimper to put a splice on a cord), I just dislike the general view that Macs are superior in every possible way because the truth they aren't, nothing is.

 

[C7J0yc3]

But still, i'm looking to get my mom a 21.5" imac as I think it would be easier for her to use. She doesn't want it because no one she knows as one and she looked at reviews online and they were bad. I don't know what reviews she was looking at. But it should involved less phone calls to me than her 7 year old dell.

A good theory but a flawed reality. If you are switching her from PC to Mac you are still going to get the same phone calls. How do I burn a CD? I think I have a virus. It just doesn't turn on anymore. It says I have updates ready should I do them?

There is less chance of her accidentally deleting something and destroying her OS, and you can set her up with Time Machine for backups to help, but your parents will always call you for tech related issues. I have one on a Mac and one on a PC and still get phonecalls from each.

 

[KaosDG]

We are not going into this crap again