no clue about MACs
Archives Forums/MacOS X Discussion/no clue about MACs
| ||
| what makes MACs so great, i honestly can't it yet people still go crazy over them |
| ||
| what makes MACs so great Choice :-) |
| ||
| They work like a computer is supposed to. :) |
| ||
| Don't you mean: "What makes Macs so insanely great?" |
| ||
| yes what does make them so great i honestly don't know what is so great about them, don't say they are more stable than windows i run scans on my PC on a regular basis and it hasn't crashed on me |
| ||
| Personally speaking, I just got to the point where I couldn't be bothered to do all the scans, checks, hunting around in poorly integrated programs, constantly fiddling with settings that is required to operate a windows machine correctly. I snapped. Now a lot of people would now turn around and say I don't have the l33t skills and I'm a n00b for doing so, but quite frankly I see a computer as a tool to be used not a lifestyle choice. So I went out and bought a Mac. And to cut a long story short, my mac mini has been the best tool I've ever bought. I shall make two analogies that I think best describe the difference between a Mac and A PC. The first is the British Car industry. Before the Japanese imports arrived in the UK, a car was expected to break down and you were expected to know how to fix it. Every car owner in Britain had to be an amateur mechanic, constantly fixing and tuning there oily bags of bolts that is, as a tool, just meant to get you from A to B. But Japanese cars did not break down. They didn't need constant maintenance. They would start even when it was cold. They, excuse the expression, just worked. They created the better tool for moving you from A to B and that is why Japan has a car industry and why the UK does not. The second analogy is Western and Eastern electronic goods. Western electronics tend to have one big button marked "on" which switches the device to factory settings and starts doing its job well. Eastern electrical goods tend to have a wall of dials and switches which allow you access to every setting, and if you play around with them for long enough, you may get the device to do the job a bit better than the western device. My computing experience with a PC and Mac has been like night and day. Sure, if you have enough time to fiddle around with a PC, yes it can do more than a Mac, but I don't. As an out the box working, low maintenance, tool; the Mac is in a league of its own. |
| ||
| "I snapped. Now a lot of people would now turn around and say I don't have the l33t skills and I'm a n00b for doing so, but quite frankly I see a computer as a tool to be used not a lifestyle choice. So I went out and bought a Mac. And to cut a long story short, my mac mini has been the best tool I've ever bought." That's almost exactly my same story. I bought a Mac and was amazed at how everything just ... works. It updates itself automatically when necessary, nothing screws up, I don't have to fiddle with a 100 different settings and sliders and config programs to make it useable, no drivers to download. It's a thing of beauty. And, yes, it's more stable than Windows. My Mac has crashed exactly once since I bought it. |
| ||
| hmm, so less hassle now it is starting to look like a machine i would spend money on, everyone else i asked just said crap like "it is just better" or some other lame crap with no actual reasons for buying i will go to the MAC store near my house and try one out |
| ||
| @Link1426: I second waht WarrenM and GA said above. After 20 years with Microsoft software and PCs, I needed something new and bought the first Mac Mini when it came out last year. Since then I am hooked and moved completely to OS X and Macs. I currently own four Macs and no PC anymore, but well, I know that I am nuts. ;-) The reasons behind my fascination are very simple: The Mac -really- just works. It has a UNIX foundation with everything a hacker, geek or whatever you want to name it loves. All the things people love about Linux is also inside a Mac thanks to its Mach kernel and FreeBSD userland. On top of it is a beautifully designed GUI and you will not find a Mac application that is not perfectly well integrated. (Unless, of course, it comes from Microsoft.) If you are a technical person that only judges a product by its functionality, then this argument does not count for you, but it does count for me: Software for Mac OS X just looks well designed and beautiful. It is a piece of art, while Windows and its mostly ugly applications look like a cheap newspaper with lots of "loud" ads and headlines. The Mac spoiled me, and using Windows now really annoys me because of its thorough ugliness. If there was no Mac anymore, I'd rather use Gnome than Windows these days. It does not look as nice as the Mac, but at least it does not look cheap and ugly. And all of the Mac applications know what drag&drop is all about (except for the Microsoft products) and heavily use it. This really is an important difference to Windows, where you right click all the time: On the Mac, drag & drop is the way to do things. And since we are talking about objects on a desktop metaphor, this is more natural. But in the first two weeks there is a chance that you will become frustrated with a Mac: Everything is easier than it is on Windows, and you just need some time to think straightforward and simple again -- which is something you never do when you use Windows. In Windows, you always have to go around a corner and take a detour to get something done. In a Mac, you -ALWAYS- go the straight and obvious way. Only that Windows users forget what the obvious way is, and that is why the transition to the Mac takes a while. But after two weeks, you do not -want- to use Windows anymore. You'd radther go with Linux/FreeBSD and Gnome/KDE instead than going back to Windows. But on the Mac it is not just the software itself that looks good and "just works". Also the hardware and the many, many beautiful little details that went into it are amazing. I have this Intel iMac Core Duo, and it does not produce noise and it consumes only 65 Watts per hour. And Half Life 2 runs absolutely smoothly at 1680*1050 pixels with all details turned on. And no fan jumps in. I have a real problem with noise, so I can only find that extremely cool. If there was no other reason to buy a Mac - this would already be reason enough for me. I do not know of any PC that can claim that it is noiseless. But the Mac is. A few months ago, a colleague of mine managed to pull my old PowerBook off the table because the power cable was somehow tied around his chair. This is something that probably many people have experienced before, and Apple now is the first (and still only) notebook manufacturer that has learned its lesson and developed what the call "Magsafe". They now have magnetical power plugs on their new notebooks, and when somebody pulls the power cable, it justs goes off without pulling the notebook with it. After the experience with my old notebook, this is just a killer argument for buying a MacBook (Pro). If you do not want to invest too much money, start with the Intel Mac Mini with a Core Duo CPU with at least 1 GB of RAM, better 2. Unlike Windows, Mac OS X really takes advantage of much memory, and if you have PowerPC only applications that need to run in Rosetta, you want the additional memory to speed up the emulator. What you also need will be Bootcamp to dual boot into windows (www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp) and you might also want to get yourself a copy of Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X (www.parallels.com), which is a very nice "VMWare" for the Mac. With Parallels, you can Windows in a window on the Intel Macs. Really cool and useful. Since you are a "switcher", I would not recommend buying a used PowerPC Mac. I am sure you will still want to have Windows available, just in case. Althoguh you won't be using it except for playing computer games. ;-) As for BlitzMax: It looks the nicest on Mac OS X and to be honest, I do not know how it really behaves on Linux or Windows. I have installed it on all three platforms and made sure that all the sample programs compiled and ran, but I actually only use BlitzMax on OS X on PowerPC and Intel Macs. And there it is just nice. :) |
| ||
| how the crap did you get half-life 2 to run on a MAC and i will justb uy a used mini mac or something when i get some money to try it out and i am not going to stop using windows anytime soon, i am jsut going to use the big 3 OSes(linux, MAC and Windows) |
| ||
| Half-Life 2 runs nice on the Intel Macs -- under Windows, of course. Boot Camp is your friend. ;-) But you DO need an Intel Mac, the old PowerPC Macs, like the first Mac Mini, wonīt help you there. They can only run ported games like Unreal Tournament 2004, Doom 3, Quake 1-4 or Return To Castle Wolfenstein. Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and use all systems. Each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses. Iīm only saying that once you start using the Mac, you will not --want-- to use Windows anymore unless you have a good reason for it, like requiring a certain application that only exists for Windows. But donīt get me wrong. I should be more grateful to Microsoft. Their operating systems keep me in business and I still make my money in the Windows world. ;-) |
| ||
| i really like having the vast options that windows give you it is fun for me to navigate and figure out what each thing does, i am glad they are using the intel chips now because the main reason i never even bothered to look at MACs much was becuase of no games on it and none of the programs i wanted to use but i doubt i will completely convert to MAC OS or to Linux i am assuming they use the same connecters for monitors and stuff i plan on having one with windows, one with linux and one with MAC OS and have them all hooked up to one monitor,keyboard and mouse set(i am building a switch box for that) |
| ||
| The Macs usually have DVI while most PCs still use VGA connectors. The Mac Mini comes with a DVI to VGA converter, so you should not have a problem there. The trouble will be with PS/2 mice and keyboards if you plan to use them - Macs only have USB keyboards and mice these days. Apple is much faster than the PC world in dropping support for legacy devices. |
| ||
| i got a few USB keyboards laying around and i say not dropping certain connectors is a good thing, slowly phasing them out is better because a lot of people don't want to go out and buy a new keyboard or mouse if they don't have to and i got a bunch of adapters for keyboards and mouses |
| ||
| A question, if I use Boot Camp on a Mac to emulate a Windows OS, am I able to compile also a Blitz program from within the emulator, and have a Windows-compatible exe file which works on any Windows-based PC ? Sergio. |
| ||
| Boot Camp isn't an emulator. It's a boot-loader : You select whether you want to boot into OSX or Windows. The other option is to run a virtual OS - of which a couple are available currently - where you can run Windows in a window/fullscreen in OSX, and Windows thinks it is running on it's own PC, so everything should work. I think they are currently refining graphics-card integration so that a VM'd Windows would be able to use native 3D acceleration - meaning games could work at almost full-speed. ... |
| ||
| i won't need either of those. i am going to build my own Windows machine, buy a Mac, build a Linux machine and build a server for any online games i make or host |
| ||
| Why bother? A Mac can run OS X, Windows, and Linux. All it takes is a reboot. (Oh, and to clear one thing up for the sake of my own anal retentiveness, "MAC" is not an acronym. It's just "Mac." None of this all-caps stuff. The name becomes ugly when capitalized - and besides, "MAC" refers to the cash machine.) |
| ||
| because i get to show off and i rather not split a HDD between 3 OSes i am short on cash so i may just stay with windows for awhile and plus i know how to optimize the system to outperform a Mac with the same system specs |
| ||
| Well, I've been eyeing the iMac for a while, but now that they use the Intel Core Duo processors, I may, just MAY consider an iMac within a year after Vista's release, may just hold off to see how well Vista does before going to a Mac. At least an iMac is about half the price of those big towers, and just as functional, and still has a dedicated graphics card, instead of that stupid integrated junk like the Mac Mini uses. If I can lock in on a large enough HDD, I may consider making a neapolitan partition, and have all three flavors of OSes on an iMac with Mac OS X (if that's even still around after a year, it may be Mac OS X1 then), Windows Vista SP1 (if MS is fast enough to release that by Christmas 2007), and some distro of Linux (I already have SuSE 10.0, may switch to Ubuntu by then). All and all, I would configure an iMac with the largest HDD I can afford, so that way I can do a triple partition, if Apple'll allow for three equal partitions. |
| ||
| I currently own a 12" PowerBook G4 but I'm seriously thinking of trading up to the 13" black MacBook. Mainly because I really need to run Windows natively. Running it under an emulator just doesn't cut it. XP runs like treacle and anything needing 3D hardware acceleration is out. I can't even use Blitz 3D. It will definitely be Neopolitan flavoured, too. The only concern I have is with the integrated Intel GMA 950 graphics - namely, is it going to be up to the task of running Max3D or Vista? Is anyone currently running Blitz3D natively on a MacBook? Also, if someone (ideally a member of the BRL dev team) could comment on whether the full version of Max3D will work ok on a MacBook it would be appreciated. I have seen some comments recently that it will need a fairly high-end graphics card and I don't really want to have to fork out for a MacBook Pro if it can be avoided. |
| ||
| Well, at least iMacs run ATi X1600, but that may change after a while, too, now that AMD's got ATI under them now, which may, in turn, force Apple to go nVidia before too long. We'll see what happens in another year from now... Hehe, just out of fun, I maxed out a Mac Pro (which is nVidia based, BTW), and with four 500 GB HDDs, 16 GB RAM, nVidia Quad, two Cinema 30" displays, and all that max-it-out junk, I'd much rather buy a PT Cruiser or Ford Focus, it's that expensive... I'm glad that the iMac's the cheaper alternative. |
| ||
| Well, I've just been talking to the local Apple rep and he reckons the basic MacBook will be able to handle Vista/DX10 ok, even though it won't be officially supported of course. And because Boot Camp is time-limited until about the same time Leopard is due for release, that'll more-or-less force Boot Campers to upgrade to Leopard for continued support. He also reckons there's a significant performance difference between the Intel GMA 950 graphics and the ATI Mobililty Radeon X1600. Although the MacBook will be fine for most run-of-the-mill games/apps, for high-end 3D work the frames rates will be much higher on the MacBook Pro - by a factor of about 5 he reckons. |
| ||
| Yep, that's what I felt about going to the dedicated graphics like that. Seems like that'd be the way to go, at least with that, you can grow into your Mac, and not just design Blitz games that'll be tossed out the window in another couple of years. |
| ||
| Yeah, after reading a lot more reviews, reluctantly, I think I'm going to have to go with the MacBook Pro. The MacBook's 64MB graphics memory is actually shared with the 512MB main memory (unlike the Pro, which has separate video memory) plus some overhead. So you'd really need to upgrade to the maximum 2GB to offset that to get acceptable 3D performance. Also, if you're going to install multiple OSes, you're going to need a larger hard disk (say 100-120GB) to accommodate all that bloatware. Having done that as well, now the price is not much less than that of the entry-level MacBook Pro anyway. Yeah, the word on the street seems to be that the MacBook's integrated graphics can handle all but the latest high-end 3D games for now (provided you install additional memory) but like you say, it's hardly future-proofed. And it's probably the bare minimum spec for Vista. The other major con with the MacBook is probably the glossy screen and the problems you get with reflections. Whereas with the Pro, you have the option of getting the usual matt, anti-glare display instead. The other features I really like about the Pro are the illuminated keyboard and the ExpressCard socket. It turns out that if you take a bare-bones, white MacBook and soup it up so it's equivalent to the black MacBook, it works out $150 cheaper - and the only difference is the colour. Apparently Apple hiked the price of the black MacBook when they realised that (like the black iPods) they were selling like hotcakes. So, I'm definitely starting to lean that way now. Even though I do really like the smaller, lighter, longer battery-life, sexy, black MacBook - as painful as it is to my wallet, I think I'm gonna buy the 15" MacBook Pro instead. |
| ||
| Sweet, for the iMac, I'd have to say that the 20" iMac is far better than the 17" iMac, for the obvious reason, that it has the faster processor and larger hard drive, and gives you the better graphics card option. The 20" will do more for the BlitzMax programs, and allow you to write better games... Just upgrade from that 512 MB to at least the 1 GB x 1 stick, that'd be my advice there. |
| ||
| Sure, but I could never go with a computer that's anchored to a desk. For me, it's just gotta be portable! I figure if you want/need a bigger screen at home, you can just plug your MacBook into a full-size keyboard, mouse and Cinema display - then you've got the best of both worlds. Well, I've finally done it, I've put my money where my mouth is. After days of struggling with my conscience and my lust, the good Smeagle lost out to the evil Gollum. Yes my love, today I ordered a maxed-out 15" MacBook Pro. Oh yeah, we're talking 2.16GHz, 2GB DDR, 512MB graphics, 120GB HDD. Ahhh, my precioussssss! |
| ||
| that is nice, i would have gone for a 17 inch for movie watching on trips. with upgraded battery life of course |
| ||
| Yeah, but then again, you're stuck with the integrated graphics on the MacBook, and to go with the MacBook Pro which does have a separate graphics card, you're looking at a $2,500 notebook, when a MacBook would run about half that with a similar configuration. Wish that Apple'd learn to do like Dell and go with ATI or nVidia in their MacBook notebooks, instead of the Intel graphics... |
| ||
| don't we all, if they stopped using Intel graphics then i would be begging my parents for one right now |
| ||
| RAM: Strange, we have eight new and not exactly cheap Dell Latitude notebooks here that also "only" have Intel Graphics, no sign of nVidia or ATI in these machines at all. And, when you look at the prices of Mac Pros and comparable Dell Precision workstations, then I think it is Dell who has to learn some lessons these days. By the way, when you compare the MacBook with the MacBook Pro you are actually comparing oranges with apples, and you simply cannot do that. The only MacBook getting anywhere close to the smallest MacBook Pro would be the black MacBook with all extras, and then you see very soon that the price difference is only a few hundred dollars, and not the 50% you are talking about. And for the higher price, you get a bigger screen, 3D ATI graphics and a notebook case that is -not- made of plastic. All of that easily justifies the extra costs. One should also keep in mind that the target audience for the MacBooks is different from the one for the MacBook Pros. Most of the MacBook customers probably never find out that their notebooks do not have an outstanding 3D performance. They don't play with them. They don't write games. They don't use Maya. When you're into these things, you buy the professional machines, not the low-end consumer stuff. To put it all very simple: The MacBooks have a competetive value for their price, like all other current Apple machines. But nevertheless, we can still here the same Apple-is-expensive-whining as we did in the years before their switch to Intel. Only this time, the whining is entirely unjustified. |
| ||
| Well put, Winni. That's exactly the conclusion I came to, although I didn't explain it quite as well. Yep, the basic MacBooks just aren't intended for the serious gamer. And how can anyone justify buying a Dell when you can now run Windows, Linux and OS X (undoubtably the finest desktop OS on the planet) all on the same gorgeous machine? Anyway, hopefully now I'll get a lot more mileage out of my MacBook Pro before I need to upgrade it, than I did with my PowerBook. |
| ||
| Hmm, well, at least the iMacs and Mac Minis are desktops that are actually portable, and can be plugged into anyone's keyboard and mouse, and wall outlet without too much hassle, unlike a PC desktop, and you still have dedicated graphics, and a larger hard drive that you can partition for three different OSes, and still have room left over. |
| ||
| I read this article today and thought it might help some folks out. http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232 A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective |
| ||
| It's a bit out of date. |
| ||
| It still gives Windows users an idea of what to expect. |
   |