Apple Mac

[orbic1]

Who uses macs and are they worth it? I've been thinking of getting a mac for the space next to the various pcs just to try and use perhaps for music production but am unsure.

What's expandability like, and is it better to go for a lapmac or a deskmac? (i like the look of the powerbooks)

[Spathiphyllum]

Seems like a pricy proposition. I loved using a Mac years ago (actually it was an old Apple) but they were just too overpriced then - I'll bet things haven't changed when compared to their PC brethren.

What kind of music production are you interested in? The software suite that you use is probably more important than the computer device that you select. The parts are pretty much the same and the PC's upgradability will be cheaper. I'd probably save the money from hardware and spend the extra silver on upgraded software. Just my 2¢.

[orbic1]

Yeah, you're right - It would be the same software I'm using on my PC at the moment. It's just they're meant to be more reliable and they do look pretty groovy. That said, so do some of the PCs that are available now.

I was wondering if anyone can verify the fact that they are (better?) more reliable etc.

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by orbic1
I was wondering if anyone can verify the fact that they are (better?) more reliable etc.

Well, I can't really comment on their looks since I haven't seen them in a while, but Jobs and crew have always made a pretty box. But, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Verify reliability? If you spend the money to purchase decent components, reliability will be the same. You can't compare Apples to oranges in the hardware department unless you acquire decent parts. Of course, that might mean building it (PC) yourself - always the best option in my mind. I think the reliabilty issue alluded to by "experts" is more due to the stability of the OS. So, incorrectly, everyone assumes PC equals Windows OS and Mac equals OSX (I believe it's still a BSD derivative). For the money and for the experience, shop for a cool box, get your own top-notch components, and load it up with your favorite Linux.

Now if you are considering a laptop, I think building your own would be more trouble than it's worth. I haven't ever shopped for a laptop case... I don't even know if they're sold as a commodity.

[orbic1]

I thin kyou're right. I've always built my own PCs and always had good reliability and stability (esp with XP Pro). I have seen Laptop components for sale, trouble is though, that you have to buy 1000 or each part to make it close to the same price in a shop.

Design wise: toshiba have just brought out a nice white laptop with all the gubbins inside. Might look at one of those. Stick with PC and still impress those clients!

[Vin DSL]

LoL! Gay-baiting, huh?

[orbic1]

LoL! Gay-baiting, huh?

ok.....

[Vin DSL]

Originally posted by orbic1


ok.....

Choose your poison...

The short of it: http://forums.jaguarpc.com/showthrea...&threadid=9534

The L-O-N-G of it: http://forums.jaguarpc.com/showthrea...&threadid=9503

[craig1]

I prefer Macs. If you are looking at getting one, I recommend them. I think the OS is better, more intuitive and yes - more STABLE. The reason being that OSX is based on BSD which is a very stable OS. XP made large strides towards stability and is by far and away the best consumer OS that MS ever made, but I still like OSX better.

As for hardware, people complain about price all the time, but as usual, people don't actually research that stuff - sure you *can* get a cheaper PC - if you want a $450 Gateway, then you get what you pay for - I'm guessing you aren't looking for a disposable box anyway - so go to the apple store and price one for yourself. As for expandability... feh. Most macs have everything you need anyway - and expansion can happen externally if needed - almost all peripherals are USB/Firewire now anyway.

If you want a gaming machine, buy a PC, trick it out with the hottest graphics card, spend $4000 and be happy. Or buy a $150 console.

As for available Software - yes, for every Mac title, there is a Windows title available, the issue isn't so much availability, but useability. Mac Software is easier to use, IMO.

ultimately, I think different personalities like different boxen. Yes I use both (cause I have to). But I choose my Mac when I can.

[orbic1]

Interesting.... Will look into this further as I already have a high power PC that is used (amongst other things) for gaming.

Vin - you have an interesting "theory" on Macs. True - they sell lifestyle, but it's no more than homo than hetero.

(sigh - perhaps another locked thread on it's way...)

[mattsiegman]

I still prefer my Fedora Core 2 install to Mac anyday. And when I was using Slackware 9.1, I preferred it anyday. Macs may be more stable than older versions of Windows, but my experience with XP has not been bad -- so long as you lock down the computer sufficiently and avoid using Internet Explorer.

There is nothing wrong with Macs other than the fact that I think they are ugly, and I don't like the GUI for them.

[Vin DSL]

Originally posted by craig1
...I think the OS is better, more intuitive and yes - more STABLE. The reason being that OSX is based on BSD which is a very stable OS. XP made large strides towards stability and is by far and away the best consumer OS that MS ever made, but I still like OSX better...

I suppose this is all anecdotal, but I've used every MS OS that ever came out for PC's, and I'll have to say, in my experience, that W2K is the most stable, not XP.

This is very unscientific, but check the results:

(2910) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

(948) http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...apple+sucks%22

(180) http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...22BSD+sucks%22

(140) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG=Sear ch

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by Vin DSL
...anecdotal, but... I'll have to say, in my experience, that W2K is the most stable, not XP.

Yeah, my sentiment too. Never used NT 3.51 but it was relative crap compared to their current lineup. XP just seems to be too bogged down with eye candy. But W2K is a fine OS, once you extricate as much of the IE stuff as possible and tighten down the security.

I hate agreeing with Vin... It just feels so dirty.

[orbic1]

W2k3 is the most stable server platform that I've used, but I favour XP over 2000 anyday, I'm afraid. I suppose it depends on what you're trying to run. For overall compatibility, 2k still comes up trumps against XP I think. XP has it's benefits, though - introducing all of those "Home Users" to NTFS and a better pnetworking environment.

[Vin DSL]

W2K rules! Everything else drools!