[SOLVED] Why the Mac?
- Thread starter LucaFire
- Start date
Solution
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,605
- 599
- 59,140
While I wont disagree with what you have said, Apple has created a simplistic ecosystem for people to use. Since they control the hardware and the OS, along with a lot of the software, they can assure it will have less issues than Windows which does not control the hardware and software.
It is for people who essentially don't want to have to think. Not to say they don't but they want to just load the PC and it works.
I personally will never use them nor would I ever allow them on a network in a work environment unless that environment benefits greatly from them such as rendering (even that can be done on a Windows PC though). You cannot control them in any way compared to a Windows PC and network.
It is for people who essentially don't want to have to think. Not to say they don't but they want to just load the PC and it works.
I personally will never use them nor would I ever allow them on a network in a work environment unless that environment benefits greatly from them such as rendering (even that can be done on a Windows PC though). You cannot control them in any way compared to a Windows PC and network.
someguynamedmatt
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2010
- 1,551
- 0
- 20,160
I'm sure some Apple fans will be around here to defend their decisions, but until then I'll just type out a small wall of text.
On the hardware side, they do use Xeons on their desktops and Macbooks have a nice unibody chassis, but so does my Asus Q501 and it cost me literally a third as much for identical internals, and even after the mark-up for a workstation-grade processor, you're still left with $500+ that is entirely unaccounted for.
A lot of people like to point out OSX, but I disagree with it being a good thing that you have an operating system only used by a small fraction of the general population, and the things you like about it may be negative points to someone else. There is nothing you can do on an OSX system that you can't also do on a Windows system. No, maybe the exact program you like isn't available, but your personal software preferences can't be held as a point in either direction. I'll make an important statement below on this subject, though.
In the end, Apple just has such a good marketing division that people just buy into it, many of them without any idea what they're actually buying. The BIGGEST key point is that Apple has made an outstanding environment for users who neither know nor care to know anything about their equipment, other than that it works when they tell it to turn on. As a Unix-based operating system, it's virtually impossible to screw anything up, but this also makes it virtually impossible for a power user to do any type of meaningful manipulation to that system. Apple is targeting that very specific segment of casual-'premium' users, and doing very well at hitting its mark.
This is all just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
On the hardware side, they do use Xeons on their desktops and Macbooks have a nice unibody chassis, but so does my Asus Q501 and it cost me literally a third as much for identical internals, and even after the mark-up for a workstation-grade processor, you're still left with $500+ that is entirely unaccounted for.
A lot of people like to point out OSX, but I disagree with it being a good thing that you have an operating system only used by a small fraction of the general population, and the things you like about it may be negative points to someone else. There is nothing you can do on an OSX system that you can't also do on a Windows system. No, maybe the exact program you like isn't available, but your personal software preferences can't be held as a point in either direction. I'll make an important statement below on this subject, though.
In the end, Apple just has such a good marketing division that people just buy into it, many of them without any idea what they're actually buying. The BIGGEST key point is that Apple has made an outstanding environment for users who neither know nor care to know anything about their equipment, other than that it works when they tell it to turn on. As a Unix-based operating system, it's virtually impossible to screw anything up, but this also makes it virtually impossible for a power user to do any type of meaningful manipulation to that system. Apple is targeting that very specific segment of casual-'premium' users, and doing very well at hitting its mark.
This is all just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,605
- 599
- 59,140
I wouldn't consider a Mac a sandbox though. A sandbox would be more like Linux, where you have complete creative control over every aspect form what hardware you use to how the GUI will look and interact with you.
Windows is a bit more like a prebuilt sandbox or maybe like Legos when following the instructions, you decide the hardware but the GUI is already made yet still somewhat customizable to you.
Mac however is more like a sandbox where everything is already done, or a model car/plane that only fits one way. There are variations for sure but the end design works the same way no matter what.
It is a controlled ecosystem at its best. Now they are branching out a bit but Jobs wouldn't have had that. He believed that what he designed was what was right. And there is nothing wrong with that nor the people who use them. I just prefer a bit less control.
Pretty much what Jimmy said, it's mostly down to one or more of the following:
They want a machine that requires no thinking to use - Debatable compared to a pre-built Windows machine
They want a machine with good hardware - Apple tends to source quality manufacturers for their parts, less of a crap-shoot there.
They want a machine for rendering - Again debatable since they switched to Intel chips and are running the same hardware you can find in a Windows box.
They want a shiny new toy - A fool and their money are soon parted. At least it's a functional machine.
They want to avoid viruses - Obscurity is not security.
They want 'the best' - The best marketing wank, maybe.
They want something neat and tidy - Granted, in most cases there's much fewer wires.
They think they have to spend more for quality - True, but not as much as they believe.
Nothing against Apple, but many of their advantages have been neutralized in the modern market. Nowadays, you're paying extra for an OS and some shiny plastic. You get quality parts, but not much in the way of upgrading, so you have to spend a lot more sooner for better hardware as your current becomes obsolete.
They want a machine that requires no thinking to use - Debatable compared to a pre-built Windows machine
They want a machine with good hardware - Apple tends to source quality manufacturers for their parts, less of a crap-shoot there.
They want a machine for rendering - Again debatable since they switched to Intel chips and are running the same hardware you can find in a Windows box.
They want a shiny new toy - A fool and their money are soon parted. At least it's a functional machine.
They want to avoid viruses - Obscurity is not security.
They want 'the best' - The best marketing wank, maybe.
They want something neat and tidy - Granted, in most cases there's much fewer wires.
They think they have to spend more for quality - True, but not as much as they believe.
Nothing against Apple, but many of their advantages have been neutralized in the modern market. Nowadays, you're paying extra for an OS and some shiny plastic. You get quality parts, but not much in the way of upgrading, so you have to spend a lot more sooner for better hardware as your current becomes obsolete.
someguynamedmatt
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2010
- 1,551
- 0
- 20,160
Not a bad idea.
Don't take this as me bashing on anyone, because I'm not. There is a significant market segment out there of individuals who don't know what a CPU even is. My parents, for instance, refer to my desktop tower as my CPU. In my own experience in the workforce, it's these same people who hear from either marketing or friends that a 'premium' Apple system is the way to go since it's so much easier to use and foolproof, and so that's what is ultimately purchased. Those who are experienced enough to not be worried about stepping outside of OSX's handholding also seem avoid Apple and look elsewhere.
Steve Jobs was a brilliant businessman, one of the absolute best of our generation. But, he was a businessman, not really a tech engineer anymore - just look at the empire that was built. At one point, I would have agreed that Jobs was one of the most notable computer enthusiast forces out there, but that day has long since passed and now we have the Apple that we know today.
McHenryB
Admirable
- Jan 31, 2015
- 2,019
- 0
- 6,460
Let me comment to start with that this is perhaps not the best place to ask this question. Also, it is rather a leading question which, predictably, has elicited the responses it was intended to. I'll answer it from the perspective of someone who owns two Macs, three PCs, and a couple of Raspberry Pis. I run OS X, Windows (various versions), Linux, and FreeBSD.
I think there are two broad categories of Mac users. (1) Those who just want an easy to use general-purpose computer. (2) Developers.
Macs can appeal to the first category because they provide an easy-to-use operating system and are part of an extremely well-integrated ecosystem.
(i) The App Store provides a central repository of software, both free and paid for, that is guaranteed to work on your computer. It is clear that Microsoft are now trying to emulate this with the Windows Store - so far something of a failure.
(ii) Users don't need to bother with device drivers and the like. Because the infrastructure is so closely controlled the software just works with the hardware supplied. True it is a much more limited range of hardware, but the people we are talking about here are not typical Tom's users who worry about how best to apply thermal compound. They just want a computer that works; they are not going to be spending $500 on the latest graphics card.
(iii) Macs don't come with a whole bunch of bloatware and trial software as Windows PCs often do. They are already supplied with the applications that most people want to use - web browser, email, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, media centre, etc.
(iv) Macs are ideally paired with iPhones, iPads, and now iWatches. All these are undeniably, popular products.
(v) Probably a good way to determine those aspects of the Mac that users like is to look at those that Windows is now copying: centralized software store, free upgrades to the operating system, multiple desktops, etc. Of course, most of these are not Apple innovations; it's just that they have latched on to them and copied them quicker than Microsoft have.
Developers like the Mac because of the wealth of software it provides.
(i) Being UNIX, just about any UNIX software can be ported to OS X (or already has been). This includes a vast array of programming tools and languages that are not available for Windows.
(ii) If you want to develop Mac specific (or iOS) software you need a Mac. Period. You might think the same could be said for Windows, but it is not quite the same situation. If necessary it is easy, and supported, to run Windows on a Mac, either natively or in a VM. The same is not true the other way round. Anyone who follows this forum will be aware of hackintoshes - they will also be aware that these are unsupported and, from the number of questions we see about them, not straightforward.
Where Macs are totally unsuitable (IMO) are for games playing and for use in business situations. Since Apple gave up on server operating systems they just don't provide the structure to support business networking that Microsoft does. For corporate use Microsoft is king.
I haven't mentioned Linux here; I don't think I need to. Linux users will look at this thread and just say WTF?
In the end this is not a question that is going to get a satisfactory answer here. The sort of people who use Macs are fairly unlikely to visit Tom's (just look at the space dedicated to PC hardware and software as opposed to the two forums dedicated to Macs - and those are mostly filled with questions about running OS X on a PC!). And sometimes it is a decision based on totally irrational reasons. For example, some people just don't like Apple; some people just don't like Microsoft; some people just don't like either of them.
Typed on my Linux PC.
I think there are two broad categories of Mac users. (1) Those who just want an easy to use general-purpose computer. (2) Developers.
Macs can appeal to the first category because they provide an easy-to-use operating system and are part of an extremely well-integrated ecosystem.
(i) The App Store provides a central repository of software, both free and paid for, that is guaranteed to work on your computer. It is clear that Microsoft are now trying to emulate this with the Windows Store - so far something of a failure.
(ii) Users don't need to bother with device drivers and the like. Because the infrastructure is so closely controlled the software just works with the hardware supplied. True it is a much more limited range of hardware, but the people we are talking about here are not typical Tom's users who worry about how best to apply thermal compound. They just want a computer that works; they are not going to be spending $500 on the latest graphics card.
(iii) Macs don't come with a whole bunch of bloatware and trial software as Windows PCs often do. They are already supplied with the applications that most people want to use - web browser, email, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, media centre, etc.
(iv) Macs are ideally paired with iPhones, iPads, and now iWatches. All these are undeniably, popular products.
(v) Probably a good way to determine those aspects of the Mac that users like is to look at those that Windows is now copying: centralized software store, free upgrades to the operating system, multiple desktops, etc. Of course, most of these are not Apple innovations; it's just that they have latched on to them and copied them quicker than Microsoft have.
Developers like the Mac because of the wealth of software it provides.
(i) Being UNIX, just about any UNIX software can be ported to OS X (or already has been). This includes a vast array of programming tools and languages that are not available for Windows.
(ii) If you want to develop Mac specific (or iOS) software you need a Mac. Period. You might think the same could be said for Windows, but it is not quite the same situation. If necessary it is easy, and supported, to run Windows on a Mac, either natively or in a VM. The same is not true the other way round. Anyone who follows this forum will be aware of hackintoshes - they will also be aware that these are unsupported and, from the number of questions we see about them, not straightforward.
Where Macs are totally unsuitable (IMO) are for games playing and for use in business situations. Since Apple gave up on server operating systems they just don't provide the structure to support business networking that Microsoft does. For corporate use Microsoft is king.
I haven't mentioned Linux here; I don't think I need to. Linux users will look at this thread and just say WTF?
In the end this is not a question that is going to get a satisfactory answer here. The sort of people who use Macs are fairly unlikely to visit Tom's (just look at the space dedicated to PC hardware and software as opposed to the two forums dedicated to Macs - and those are mostly filled with questions about running OS X on a PC!). And sometimes it is a decision based on totally irrational reasons. For example, some people just don't like Apple; some people just don't like Microsoft; some people just don't like either of them.
Typed on my Linux PC.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram