Are Mac's worth the price premium?

[Ysarex]

....is OS X and Macs really worth the price premium?

There's an important point that often get's overlooked when the operating systems are compared. First, because this is always a "MAC zealots versus the world" battle the MAC zealots will always insists that the opposite choice is Windows. They may or may not then note that the MAC is running UNIX.

It is of course very easy to run UNIX, LINUX, BSD, etc. on tha non-MAC computer. Another post here noted that a MAC can run various UNIX incarnations -- yep, so can any other non-MAC computer. I have a couple LINUX systems at home and they're not MACs - duh.

The MAC OS-X is a lie and MAC users should know this. What Apple sells as it's OS-X is a classic, subtle Apple lie in the very name itself -- an indication of Apple's overall character which should not be discounted. It is in fact not an OS or operating system. The operating system on contemporary MACs is BSD. That's FREE BSD which you can download now and run on any generic computer: The FreeBSD Project What Apple sells is a shell over the OS. They can't sell the OS because the copyright holders (University of CA at Berkeley) won't let them. That's why you can still boot your MAC right now with the correct key combination held down and read the legal copyright notice from UCB that legally has to be there. FREE BSD IS the MAC's OS. The MAC OS isn't "based" on UNIX it is in fact BSD which is a UNIX clone created at UCB and still owned by UCB. The "cat" is just a shell like Ubuntu or Debian etc. is a shell over LINUX. Apple's shell is nice and easy to use and well designed -- they get credit for that. But let's not forget that Apple's last attempt to create a real computer OS was the abomination OS9 that made Windows XP look spectacular. Heck, back in the day I wrote shells over OSs; compared to writing an actual OS it's like grade school math compared to calculus.

Is the MAC OS-X worth the premium? Not really since UCB gives it away. Is the MAC shell over BSD worth the premium? You betcha!

Joe

 

[bhop]

....is OS X and Macs really worth the price premium?

There's an important point that often get's overlooked when the operating systems are compared. First, because this is always a "MAC zealots versus the world" battle the MAC zealots will always insists that the opposite choice is Windows. They may or may not then note that the MAC is running UNIX.

It is of course very easy to run UNIX, LINUX, BSD, etc. on tha non-MAC computer. Another post here noted that a MAC can run various UNIX incarnations -- yep, so can any other non-MAC computer. I have a couple LINUX systems at home and they're not MACs - duh.

The MAC OS-X is a lie and MAC users should know this. What Apple sells as it's OS-X is a classic, subtle Apple lie in the very name itself -- an indication of Apple's overall character which should not be discounted. It is in fact not an OS or operating system. The operating system on contemporary MACs is BSD. That's FREE BSD which you can download now and run on any generic computer: The FreeBSD Project What Apple sells is a shell over the OS. They can't sell the OS because the copyright holders (University of CA at Berkeley) won't let them. That's why you can still boot your MAC right now with the correct key combination held down and read the legal copyright notice from UCB that legally has to be there. FREE BSD IS the MAC's OS. The MAC OS isn't "based" on UNIX it is in fact BSD which is a UNIX clone created at UCB and still owned by UCB. The "cat" is just a shell like Ubuntu or Debian etc. is a shell over LINUX. Apple's shell is nice and easy to use and well designed -- they get credit for that. But let's not forget that Apple's last attempt to create a real computer OS was the abomination OS9 that made Windows XP look spectacular. Heck, back in the day I wrote shells over OSs; compared to writing an actual OS it's like grade school math compared to calculus.

Is the MAC OS-X worth the premium? Not really since UCB gives it away. Is the MAC shell over BSD worth the premium? You betcha!

Joe

In the real world of typical software (adobe) there's only Mac OSX and Windows.

 

[Ysarex]

....is OS X and Macs really worth the price premium?

There's an important point that often get's overlooked when the operating systems are compared. First, because this is always a "MAC zealots versus the world" battle the MAC zealots will always insists that the opposite choice is Windows. They may or may not then note that the MAC is running UNIX.

It is of course very easy to run UNIX, LINUX, BSD, etc. on tha non-MAC computer. Another post here noted that a MAC can run various UNIX incarnations -- yep, so can any other non-MAC computer. I have a couple LINUX systems at home and they're not MACs - duh.

The MAC OS-X is a lie and MAC users should know this. What Apple sells as it's OS-X is a classic, subtle Apple lie in the very name itself -- an indication of Apple's overall character which should not be discounted. It is in fact not an OS or operating system. The operating system on contemporary MACs is BSD. That's FREE BSD which you can download now and run on any generic computer: The FreeBSD Project What Apple sells is a shell over the OS. They can't sell the OS because the copyright holders (University of CA at Berkeley) won't let them. That's why you can still boot your MAC right now with the correct key combination held down and read the legal copyright notice from UCB that legally has to be there. FREE BSD IS the MAC's OS. The MAC OS isn't "based" on UNIX it is in fact BSD which is a UNIX clone created at UCB and still owned by UCB. The "cat" is just a shell like Ubuntu or Debian etc. is a shell over LINUX. Apple's shell is nice and easy to use and well designed -- they get credit for that. But let's not forget that Apple's last attempt to create a real computer OS was the abomination OS9 that made Windows XP look spectacular. Heck, back in the day I wrote shells over OSs; compared to writing an actual OS it's like grade school math compared to calculus.

Is the MAC OS-X worth the premium? Not really since UCB gives it away. Is the MAC shell over BSD worth the premium? You betcha!

Joe

In the real world of typical software (adobe) there's only Mac OSX and Windows.

In the real world of typical software how much $$$$$$$ per day are the rotten Apple and Microsuck paying software application vendors NOT to port their products to LINUX?

Joe

 

[bhop]

In the real world of typical software how much $$$$$$$ per day are the rotten Apple and Microsuck paying software application vendors NOT to port their products to LINUX?

Joe

Does it matter? If you want to use Photoshop or Lightroom, for example, you have to use either OSX or Windows.

 

[mjhoward]

Something that hasn't really been brought up yet...

Has anyone compared the price of a Windows 7 Pro upgrade to that of the new OSX Lion upgrade ($189 vs $29)?
How about the new Apple Pages vs Microsoft Word ($19 vs $109)? Or better yet Visual Studio 2010 vs XCode ($669 vs FREE). Mac equivalent software is generally WAY cheaper, unless you are talking about 3rd party things like Photoshop, etc.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

3 pages deep but maybe i can add something. I build my own PC desktop and run windows 7 and i think its great.

I would say no, macs are not worth the premium. I think the biggest, and most justified, allure for macs though is the way everything is designed together, from the component choices to the OS. When you can have that much control over everything going into a design there must be some stability/ performance advantages, and compatibility becomes basically a non-issue. Many people love the lifespan a mac can offer, especially with the support apple provides. But i think the inherently short shelf life of any computer makes this a wash, since in 5 years (maybe less) you will probably want whatever the latest performance computers are offering.
I personally reformat my machine probably once a year and this alone i think keeps me running a 4 year old desktop relatively smooth. I plan to get another year at least out of it.
So you could pay about $2,000+ every 5 years (+/- 1 year) for a mac or pay half of that and get equal if not better raw specs. and still get the same lifespan out of it.
I know quite a few people with macbooks and macbook pros and i dont think there's any "pc/windows issue" that they haven't had; viruses, OS crashes, hard drive crashes.

This is a great point. All computers (Mac or PC) have a shelf life-- 5 years is probably a good estimate.

Something that hasn't really been brought up yet...

Has anyone compared the price of a Windows 7 Pro license to that of the new OSX Lion license?
How about the new Apple Pages vs Microsoft Word? Mac equivalent software is generally WAY cheaper, unless you are talking about 3rd party things like Photoshop, etc.

And WAY crappier, too. There's very good reason MS office is king. It works well, it's backwards compatible, and with every new version it sees major improvements.

 

[Ysarex]

In the real world of typical software how much $$$$$$$ per day are the rotten Apple and Microsuck paying software application vendors NOT to port their products to LINUX?

Joe

Does it matter? If you want to use Photoshop or Lightroom, for example, you have to use either OSX or Windows.

Only in the taste that's left in your mouth after biting the rotten apple or the pain you feel from the bite marks in your neck.

Joe

P.S. I make my living teaching Photoshop and that's why I use both MAC OS-X and Win7, but I know I'm being forced. If I didn't have to use Photoshop those LINUX systems in my home would instantly become exclusive. I can dislike Apple, Microsuck and Adobe for that.

 

[mjhoward]

Something that hasn't really been brought up yet...

Has anyone compared the price of a Windows 7 Pro license to that of the new OSX Lion license?
How about the new Apple Pages vs Microsoft Word? Mac equivalent software is generally WAY cheaper, unless you are talking about 3rd party things like Photoshop, etc.

And WAY crappier, too. There's very good reason MS office is king. It works well, it's backwards compatible, and with every new version it sees major improvements.

It sounds like you've never used Apple Pages. It is every bit as good and easy to use as MS Word (I actually like it better now that I've learned how to use it) and it also backwards compatible as well as being able to export as an MS Word document.

 

[Derrel]

I'd like to steer this back to USABILITY and CONVENIENCE for photography use. Is there any Windows operating system, or Linux system, that allows the photographer to color-code or "label" his or her files? Is this possible under Windows or Linux? Can the user of any Windows or Linux system COLOR-CODE or LABEL files, and arrange them by color or label, or search for them by color or label?

I just searched for "Images" labeled "Orange", and searched 5,287 image files, and came up with 270 images I have labeled as "Orange", or essential, exceptional, or first-rate.

I just searched for "Images" labeled "red", and searched 5,287 image files, and came up with 548 images I have labeled as "red", which means A-list images.

I just searched "Images" labeled "Blue", and searched 5,287 image files and came up with 327 images labeled as "Blue", which means Backed up to another drive or copied to removable media.

I just searched "Images" labeled "Green", and searched 5,287 image files and came up with 462 images labeled as "Green", which represent RAW .CR2 or .NEF files that need to be processed into "Red-quality" images.

Of course, the above color-coding is all of MY OWN creatiuon, and applies only to image files. Music files follow a similar color-coding, but are of course searchable separately, if desired.

Under Mac OS X, when I open a folder full of say 1,000 .CR2 files, I can visually SEE, by color code, which are the better images, without having to see any thumbnails...just by the color-code I can tell which files are the best, second-level, or backed up, and even which are CRAP...I can also look at files that are Blue and KNOW for SURE that they have been copied to another disk, or backed up to removable media. When I open a DVD-ROM or CD-ROM disc and see BLUE-colored folders, I KNOW for SURE, that is not the original back-up disc, but is a SECOND COPY of my back-up or offload disc, and not the "original" disc.

Does Windows or Linux support this functionality?

 

[Josh66]

In the real world of typical software how much $$$$$$$ per day are the rotten Apple and Microsuck paying software application vendors NOT to port their products to LINUX?

Joe

Does it matter? If you want to use Photoshop or Lightroom, for example, you have to use either OSX or Windows.

Or Wine.

Not ideal, but it works and you don't have to actually buy another OS, like you do with VirtualBox or similar.

 

[rpm]

Derrel that is actually a very interesting functionality I was unaware of but unfort I can't look at it completely as a photography only investment. furthermore i don't think ill ever be the type to own two computers one for private use one for professional; I'm still finishing up my Masters but I don't see myself ever seeing the practicality of it unless my future-employer gives me a computer.

 

[Redeyejedi]

all my pc's last several years with no real issues. sure parts leave QC and fail at consumer level, but with 100,000 times more parts in the market failure rate has to be a higher percentage compared to tremendously fewer products in the market.

also, with ALL of these guys (esp apple/mac) on the planned obsolescence tip 5 years is a long time to upgrade as software advancements may necessitate higher performing components.

the analogies to cars is just silly.
99% of PC issues are PBKNC related(problem between keyboard & chair). i wager to assume similar with macaholics and mac machines.
continuing with car analogy, and the yugo/bmw example does not parallel the PC/MAC comparison. a better comparison would be ford taurus vs bmw 3 series, however, when i purchase/build my car i can have any engine on the market, whatever suspension i desire, tires and windshield and radio and etc all of my choice....i come out cheaper than the bimer and perform better.
continuing with the auto analogy(yugo/bmw), suppose in my bimer i neglect to change the oil, fail to conduct routine maintenance, stay on top of updates etc.... the yugo passes the smoke spewing bmw on the autobahn....albeit probably in the bike lane...hehe jk....afterall remember bmw really stands for bob marley and the wailers.

can't you rate, color coordinate, assign sorting with bridge, nx2 etc?

Something that hasn't really been brought up yet...

Has anyone compared the price of a Windows 7 Pro upgrade to that of the new OSX Lion upgrade ($189 vs $29)?
How about the new Apple Pages vs Microsoft Word ($19 vs $109)? Or better yet Visual Studio 2010 vs XCode ($669 vs FREE). Mac equivalent software is generally WAY cheaper, unless you are talking about 3rd party things like Photoshop, etc.

but ms office is by no means the best or cheapest option for PC.

is a mac worth the premium?
- it depends on what softwares you will be running
- it depends on who you are and whom you wish to spend your $ with
- it depends on what you want to accomplish/usage
- it depends on you budget
(not in any particular order)

ps just built a win7 pc - i7 3.4 quad core, 16gb ram, 60gb ssd, 2tb hd, a really nice case of my choice....all for well under $1k, 1/3 price of "comparable" quadcore but better specs.

 

[Dao]

I need to use vSphere client. So Windows get my vote for now.

 

[Ysarex]

I'd like to steer this back to USABILITY and CONVENIENCE for photography use. Is there any Windows operating system, or Linux system, that allows the photographer to color-code or "label" his or her files? Is this possible under Windows or Linux? Can the user of any Windows or Linux system COLOR-CODE or LABEL files, and arrange them by color or label, or search for them by color or label?

I just searched for "Images" labeled "Orange", and searched 5,287 image files, and came up with 270 images I have labeled as "Orange", or essential, exceptional, or first-rate.

I just searched for "Images" labeled "red", and searched 5,287 image files, and came up with 548 images I have labeled as "red", which means A-list images.

I just searched "Images" labeled "Blue", and searched 5,287 image files and came up with 327 images labeled as "Blue", which means Backed up to another drive or copied to removable media.

I just searched "Images" labeled "Green", and searched 5,287 image files and came up with 462 images labeled as "Green", which represent RAW .CR2 or .NEF files that need to be processed into "Red-quality" images.

Of course, the above color-coding is all of MY OWN creatiuon, and applies only to image files. Music files follow a similar color-coding, but are of course searchable separately, if desired.

Under Mac OS X, when I open a folder full of say 1,000 .CR2 files, I can visually SEE, by color code, which are the better images, without having to see any thumbnails...just by the color-code I can tell which files are the best, second-level, or backed up, and even which are CRAP...I can also look at files that are Blue and KNOW for SURE that they have been copied to another disk, or backed up to removable media. When I open a DVD-ROM or CD-ROM disc and see BLUE-colored folders, I KNOW for SURE, that is not the original back-up disc, but is a SECOND COPY of my back-up or offload disc, and not the "original" disc.

Does Windows or Linux support this functionality?

I think the usability argument between the OS systems is pretty meaningless these days. Yes, you can color code folder icons in Win7 but you'll have to search on the folder name and no you can't color code files, but then again you CAN buy a Microsoft two button mouse to use on your MAC.

I use MAC OS, Win 7, Ubuntu LINUX and even old Win XP systems (old campus still has them). The most irritating difference between them all is Apple's stubborn refusal to ship a two button mouse -- the critical point of interface, but easy enough to fix. Apart from that they're all very usable with nice and irritating features from all.

Joe

 

[mjhoward]

The most irritating difference between them all is Apple's stubborn refusal to ship a two button mouse

The magic mouse has left and right click along with many gestures that I've found pretty useful.