Buying a computer, should I get a Mac?

[John A. Schaefer]

Paul-
I was in the same boat as you last year. Until about 5 years ago, I was strictly a Windows user - but then I started to dabble in Linux. Over time, I got to thinking about moving to Mac, and last year I finally bought a 27" iMac (aka the Big Mac).

I'm not going to get into the religion/politics of Windows v. Mac - there's been enough of that in this thread already. I still use both, and each has their strength and weakness.

Before you make the final decision, do all the research that you can - just like you do before buying any other tool. As part of that research, I strongly encourage you to make an appointment and visit an Apple Retail store. Don't just stop in, but actually schedule an appointment through the Apple web site. Tell them on the form what you want to look at or talk about, and they'll have the right person available to help you in the decision making process.

(That's what I did, and there was absolutely no pressure. We just walking through the product, features, options, etc. I ended up buying a refurb from Apple's online store, and it will sit right next to my Windows and Linux PCs - as soon as I finish the desk to put them on...)

[Neal Clayton]

Several years ago, I was managing/developing a software effort out in California. The servers we were developing on were in San Jose. Most of my team was in Lancaster, CA. Occasionally, we were in Wichita, KS. Another core member of the team was in Boston. We ROUTINELY (i.e. everyday, all day) used X remotely, over a VPN connection no less, with no issues whatsoever.

Not only that, but people ROUTINELY use X in this way, day in and day out. They do things like run their processor intensive software on the mega-machine in the corner, logged in from a remote terminal. Not only does it work, it works seamlessly, and has no equal in the industry. We have been doing this for DECADES and it is a perfectly normal, everyday occurrence as natural as getting your morning cup of coffee. It was designed specifically to do this back when it was common to have a mega-server doing real work, and terminals scattered about controlling the show. This is the typical use of X, not he exception. It's only now that Linux has become popular that the standalone Unix-like workstation has become the norm. In the world of engineering and science, it would be very unusual to have standalone workstations. You most typically several powerful workstations scattered about with less powerful workstations sitting on most people's desks. Again, this is typical, not the exception.

Because X is socket based, it is entirely platform independent. As long as the platform supports sockets, an XServer can be written for it and it can interact with any program on the planet that supports X. It doesn't matter if the server is a Unix machine and the client is a PC, MAC, smartphone or WHATEVER. I can access any machine in the world from any other machine in the world. More, it is common for the terminal to be running multiple applications on multiple servers, in remote locations or not. This is perfectly normal in the Unix world.

Further, X predates Windows by a couple of years, as does the Macintosh GUI. It has absolutely nothing to do with KDE or Gnome, nor does it have ANYTHING to do with what your mouse buttons do or any other behavior. In fact, the X Server knows nothing at all about what window manager you happen to be using on your end. It's no problem for one user to be logged in using KDE while another user across the world is logged in using OpenWindows, and someone else is logged in using FVWM. It makes no difference at all. It is the local window manager that defines the look and feel of the GUI, including what your mouse buttons do, not X. This is part of the design philosophy of X.

I'm also confused at the link between KDE, Qt and Gnome. KDE was based on Qt, which was not free at the time. KDE doesn't "own" Qt, and can't decide anything about it. Qt is a Nokia product (was a Trolltech product). Gnome was started because some weren't happy with KDE being based on a non-free (free as in "liberated") product. Since 2005, QT has been available under GPL licensing, making this entire issue moot. LGPL licensing just makes QT and KDE more attractive to commercial customers, but GPL fixed the major philosophical gripe that sparked the Gnome project.

you don't need X to run terminal apps, though. yeah, i use SSH to get into my remote servers too, none of them have X, they don't need it. you can accomplish the same thing with screen and a few keystrokes.

yeah, the people who own Qt fixed the licensing issue, in 2010. linux was puttering around without a reliable, usable destkop GUI for what, 15-20 years before that?

you used X remotely, without VNC or some similar client/server? i highly doubt that. all of those VNC type programs were invented to solve the problem that existed from the get go, being that X could not function reliably as a remote client connecting to a remote server, it only did it theoretically. the absence of standards in X for their stated design left it up to the window managers to handle that stuff, and their opinions on it vary like the number of variables in a broken xorg.conf file vary.

this sums up quite well...

http://tleaves.com/2005/01/13/its-2005-x11-still-sucks/

Ubuntu's current Unity has very few effects and little customization. The long time users are making torches and sharpening their pitchforks . Ubuntu is also working on a replacement for X called Wayland. Now if they can get Nvidia, Intel and AMD (ATI) to develop drivers........... I'm no kind of expert on this stuff but there are people that echo Neil's complaint about Gnome 2.x being a mess which is why it's being put out to pasture. I like Gnome 2.x for its simple and straightforward menu structure, way more logical to me than Windows. it must have its issues though.

because ubuntu isn't selling politics, they're trying to sell an OS.

i really hope they succeed, but they're gonna have to drag the "i like my OS broken" zealots kicking and screaming along with them.

[Russell Hudson]

Not even close in a fight. Go Mac. They used to cost a lot more . Now, they're only a little more but twice the machine and twice as easy to use and they can now use intel base programs.

[Johnny Kleso]

NO...

MACs are not faster or more stable than PCs and cost much more than PCs
The only issue is do you have access to MAC software and are you more comfortable using a MAC than a PC

If you still want a MAC read this how to build a MAC out of PC parts
http://nofilmschool.com/build-a-hackintosh/

If you want a super PC build this one and install Win7 as it runs Adobe software 3-5% faster than MAC OSX

[John McClanahan]

Will the new Win 7 system still run faster after loading the needed anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-spam and all the other goodies?

Also, if you want Windows style problems, build a Hackintosh without OS-X supported hardware. Apple makes the software for the hardware they use, that's why it works good.

John

[John Coloccia]

you used X remotely, without VNC or some similar client/server? i highly doubt that. all of those VNC type programs were invented to solve the problem that existed from the get go, being that X could not function reliably as a remote client connecting to a remote server, it only did it theoretically. the absence of standards in X for their stated design left it up to the window managers to handle that stuff, and their opinions on it vary like the number of variables in a broken xorg.conf file vary.

I'm sorry, Neil, but I really have to disagree with this. Haven't you ever seen an X terminal? At one time, X terminals littered people's desktops. X terminals have given way to the workstation, but it's still completely common and typical for applications (typically node locked) to be installed on a handful of powerful workstations stations, with only the display being redirected to the local workstation.

[Keith Outten]

If you haven't seen the new Apple video it may be worth your time, be forewarned that it is about 111 minutes long.

Clearly Apple is moving in a direction that seems to be very popular supporting automatic information sharing among desktops, phones and iPads.
The new Lion OS upgrade will be available for only $29.00 and the iCloud service is free starting this fall.
Their support for 3rd party developers seems to be a smart move and the lower cost of their software is selling hardware which seems to also be helping their bottom line. I think that Apple is moving in a very positive direction.....finally. Click on the link below to watch their latest video.

http://www.apple.com/
.

[Paul McGaha]

The kids and I bought my wife and ipad for mothers day. She loves the thing.

The way she is talking her next computer for sure will be an apple, probably her next cell phone too.

I've been with her for 33 years, had no idea she was an apple girl.

PHM

[Curt Harms]

because ubuntu isn't selling politics, they're trying to sell an OS.

i really hope they succeed, but they're gonna have to drag the "i like my OS broken" zealots kicking and screaming along with them.

Kicking and screaming they are . Someone from the tech support universe checked into one of those threads and made a good case for restricting customization. Ubuntu sells support services. Having 100 different desktop configurations would make telephone support impossible. Support via remote access would be a little better but

• You have to be able to get the O.S. up and connected to a network before a support tech can remote in. If you can get to that point, the need for tech support can lessen.
• Security considerations when allowing remote access.

[joe oski]

Maybe what you need are 2 computers, one for you alone!!!! one for garbage and family. I have never had a virus on "MY" computer or slow down.
The other one, the one the family uses (but never turns av off to make things faster LOL) has been reformatted at least twice a year.
Both computers run XP, as win 7 is not compatible with my old video editor, word processor, or cad software.

[Paul Steiner]

I would like to thank everyone that responded to this thread. FYI I have decided to go with a Mac. When looking at computers with my wife, she said she wanted an all in one machine. She said that all in one machines look cleaner and nicer. We then compared Gateways, Dells, Sonys and Macs. When found that on the high end of the machines the the price difference smaller than we thought.
Also I realized that I think we will always be a two computer household, one Mac and most likey PC netbook or laptop. I probably will not throw my PC desk top out at least another year or two.
My next dilemma is what Mac to get and it comes down to the 21" or the 27"? The 21" should be fine, but wow the 27" is big and beautiful.
And do Macs go on sale? Best buy is the nearest retailer that has Macs that is likely who we will get it through if we do not find a sale elsewhere.

Paul-
I was in the same boat as you last year. Until about 5 years ago, I was strictly a Windows user - but then I started to dabble in Linux. Over time, I got to thinking about moving to Mac, and last year I finally bought a 27" iMac (aka the Big Mac).

I'm not going to get into the religion/politics of Windows v. Mac - there's been enough of that in this thread already. I still use both, and each has their strength and weakness.

Before you make the final decision, do all the research that you can - just like you do before buying any other tool. As part of that research, I strongly encourage you to make an appointment and visit an Apple Retail store. Don't just stop in, but actually schedule an appointment through the Apple web site. Tell them on the form what you want to look at or talk about, and they'll have the right person available to help you in the decision making process.

(That's what I did, and there was absolutely no pressure. We just walking through the product, features, options, etc. I ended up buying a refurb from Apple's online store, and it will sit right next to my Windows and Linux PCs - as soon as I finish the desk to put them on...)

[Scott Shepherd]

No, they don't do too many "sales". MacMall.com might be a tiny bit less, but not much. It's school season coming up, so make sure you follow up on any specials. A lot of time they do a back to school special during the summer and they throw in a free ipod with a new system. That's a nice $200 addition.

I think there's a free printer deal too. You have to buy it for $100 and then send in the rebate to get $100 back.

Edit- I just checked a site about it and they all expected to be announced yesterday, but it wasn't, so I would expect to to be announced very soon.

If you have a student in the family (or friend), there is an educational discount of 3% or something like that. Might be 5%, I can't remember. It's worth getting them to ride along with you. Rent a kid if you have to

[Brian Ashton]

I would like to thank everyone that responded to this thread. FYI I have decided to go with a Mac. When looking at computers with my wife, she said she wanted an all in one machine. She said that all in one machines look cleaner and nicer. We then compared Gateways, Dells, Sonys and Macs. When found that on the high end of the machines the the price difference smaller than we thought.
Also I realized that I think we will always be a two computer household, one Mac and most likey PC netbook or laptop. I probably will not throw my PC desk top out at least another year or two.
My next dilemma is what Mac to get and it comes down to the 21" or the 27"? The 21" should be fine, but wow the 27" is big and beautiful.
And do Macs go on sale? Best buy is the nearest retailer that has Macs that is likely who we will get it through if we do not find a sale elsewhere.

You need to decide what you're going to do with it.

Do you have a need for a 27" screen? Remember the bigger it is the more limited places it will fit.

Do you need the graphics processing power? Remember at best your computer will save you about 1 second of time sitting in front of it waiting for something to finish...

Do you need the CPU processing power? Same as above. At best you can expect to save 5 seconds of your life (much less than it took to read this, unless you're one of those freak speed readers) waiting for the little rainbow coloured ball to stop spinning...

Do you need 1TB of HDD space? Remember if you go down the safe route you will need a backup (Time Machine) external drive that will need to be bigger than the internal HDD...

Remember that very few computer users, pc or mac, ever use their computers full potential or even come close for that matter. It's much less about what you need (lets face it 95% of use would be fine with a Celeron for what we do with computers but that's not "cool") and far more about the psychology and the human desire to have the latest and greatest technology.

If you have the money and it won't impact on anything else - then who cares buy the big one... On the other hand $800 is a large amount for some. I could buy a lot of tools from LV for $800.

[Rich Harman]

You need to decide what you're going to do with it.

Do you have a need for a 27" screen? Remember the bigger it is the more limited places it will fit.

Do you need the graphics processing power? Remember at best your computer will save you about 1 second of time sitting in front of it waiting for something to finish...

Do you need the CPU processing power? Same as above. At best you can expect to save 5 seconds of your life (much less than it took to read this, unless you're one of those freak speed readers) waiting for the little rainbow coloured ball to stop spinning...

Do you need 1TB of HDD space? Remember if you go down the safe route you will need a backup (Time Machine) external drive that will need to be bigger than the internal HDD...

Remember that very few computer users, pc or mac, ever use their computers full potential or even come close for that matter. It's much less about what you need (lets face it 95% of use would be fine with a Celeron for what we do with computers but that's not "cool") and far more about the psychology and the human desire to have the latest and greatest technology.

If you have the money and it won't impact on anything else - then who cares buy the big one... On the other hand $800 is a large amount for some. I could buy a lot of tools from LV for $800.

The Time Machine external HDD does NOT need to be larger than the internal drive - it can even be smaller. However, it does need to be larger than the space you are using on the internal HDD. You can also exclude folders from the backup so that you are not backing up things that take up lots of space that are not that important.

As far as using the computer to it's full potential, I think many people really do. If you are just surfing the web and emailing then probably not but as soon as you start using graphics or CAD programs then you are. Since every hardware improvement in computers is used by the software developers to add more features to their programs it seems like you can never stay ahead performance-wise. All you have to do to use the full potential of computer is start up Aperture or run Windows using Parallels.

[Brian Ashton]

The Time Machine external HDD does NOT need to be larger than the internal drive - it can even be smaller. However, it does need to be larger than the space you are using on the internal HDD. You can also exclude folders from the backup so that you are not backing up things that take up lots of space that are not that important.

As far as using the computer to it's full potential, I think many people really do. If you are just surfing the web and emailing then probably not but as soon as you start using graphics or CAD programs then you are. Since every hardware improvement in computers is used by the software developers to add more features to their programs it seems like you can never stay ahead performance-wise. All you have to do to use the full potential of computer is start up Aperture or run Windows using Parallels.

That is true to a point but you lose a lot of what time machine is about... the ability to go back in time and recover from whatever may befall you. The smaller the backup drive the less time you can go back to. It can conceivably be only a few days if you are a file hoarder and or the backup drive is too small. My backup drive is double the size of my internal drive and I only have the ability to go back just under 3 weeks and the internal is only 1/3 full. I used to exclude folders but I had a hdd die on me and I learned from that to let the backup grab everything and not take chances on guessing what I do and don't think I'll need later.

Many is such a vague term. Relatively speaking it's only a small percentage of people that use their computers anywhere near their capacity and even less on even a semi regular basis. I use ArcGIS, Pytha, AutoCad and a few others and they never really taxed the computer all that often even though I was using them in a virtual pc environment running 512mgs of ram. When you look at performance tests they measure tasks in seconds of difference - that's all you loose by buying a slightly slower computer, seconds. But we're starting to sound like pc users and need to keep it on track for the OP.