@DeanGuitarsOwn@DeanGuitarsOwn Holy cow you're an ignorant one. ALL computers have a tendency to actually work these days. Crashing is an OS issue. Mind you neither Vista nor Windows 7 has ever crashed on me, and I'm honest to goodness not making that up. I've also had a Dell since 2003, and it's still working perfectly.
As for the stupidity you typed about Windows, 7 brought things to the table that Apple copied when it was still in beta. Windows XP doesn't sell at all anymore.
Now I'll admit that Windows could be a bit more advanced, but who the hell are we fooling, OS X is still in the stone age in certain aspects, while advancing in others. It wasn't until 10.3 that Apple introduced Expose, which is still a horrible alternative to standard multitasking on all other operating systems. Yes, Apple is trying, and yes, Vista was bad, but at this point both OS's have good and bad, and if you weren't ignorant you'd see they are quite on par in most every aspect.
Dude i am not a mac fan but i like macs but anyways Macs are overpriced for many reasons such as their rocksolid OS which is unix based so it does not get virus but another thing i see is the design in it but if you want a reliable media center then go for the mac mini but if you want a cheap media center then go for the hp and dude just because they're overpriced doesnt mean they suck
@cesarsony124 there are barely any viruses on macs because they have such a small market share of all the computers, not because they are unix based. If you were to design a virus, wouldn't you want to try to hit the bigger audience (aka Window users)
@robbit126 That is true robbit, that was smart for them to target Windows Users since they could get more people which that mean more $ man people that create virus's for evil are shit
Not trying to be a jerk but what you said is incorrect. Its actually the PC vendors that are offering computers in varying colors (so the "looks" thing is a Windows PC thing), and Macs are priced just the same as PCs. Right now the iMac line is priced and spec'd so well that its hard to find any equal all in ones on the PC side. In fact - the base model iMac is not too much more expensive than a tower PC with like specs. And all in ones are generally much more expensive anyhow.
Fact is in 2009 Apple downed prices (maybe because of the economy, maybe just for competitions sake) where a lot of their models became very useful for their purpose, and often even the best deals. I still think Apple should give us the option of buying a tower (like a non-industrial level Mac Pro), because as nice as an iMac or Mac Mini can be, most people don't care that it's small or compact. Laptops are great being small and light, but I don't see the reason on a home system.
My comment about Apple's pricing has to do mostly with the fact that in here I see many comments that are about a month old or so - and Apple's price drops actually began a couple years ago. The new Mini's and iMacs have been out for well over a month now so the "overpriced" comments shouldn't be here if people would actually research this. On my channel I have a new price comp video about the mini and dell studio hybrid.
Apple right now due to lower market share can't really offer a tower. The basic idea is that sales of a tower may diminish the powerful sales revenue generated by the iMac. Its a hot seller - and I would go out on a limb as to say the best selling all in one PC. The problem is people's fear to change from Windows to OS X because its different. There's a whole weird sorta logic behind it all but it does make sense. If not I can try to explain it - possibly in a future video lol.
Thing is the prices didn't just go down, like on the Macbooks, but rather the hardware improvements made it more worthwhile to get the computer. Getting a $2000 iMac was never a better deal then it is now with the new i5/i7 series.
If I was gonna buy a new laptop, I'd get a Mac. Yes, there's the issue with incompatible software, essentially renewing my library all over again, but as far as Desktops go, at least for me, I don't care much for the all-in-ones. A Mac mini is too weak and a
Mac Pro too expensive. I just can't spend thousands of dollars on the hardware I need to do what I do when I have the option of buying a PC desktop for $1500 with the highest-end hardware available for the home market.
An iMac with an i7 would be great, but again, it's a thousand dollars over the budget that I could get a regular tower with even better hardware from HP or something. I won't be getting an elite monitor, but again, that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to get the hardware I need for much less, not to mention only the Mac Pro is expandable enough to upgrade hardware and add new hard drives, etc etc. The Mac Pro is too "Pro" for the regular user, I guess. But this is all just my thoughts.
Here is the problem though... for the hardware that the i7 iMac has (monitor, processor, ram, HDD, OS, apps, etc) it is a great deal! There are no other screens like this. Sure you can get the same hardware for less, but you lose the awesome screen - which is why its so expensive in the first place. And when I did a comparison (I have a video about this) the comparison showed the iMac i5 being very close in price to a similar PC with similar specs. Essentially the overpriced myth is dying.
The Mac Mini isn't as weak as people think. I see PC vendors offering much less specs for systems that are not too much less expensive than the Mini. And with the MBP line while it is certainly possible to get a PC with similar specs at a much lower price, it is also possible to get one with similar specs and the same higher end price tag. Apple just has chosen to not play in the low end. Maybe they will someday, who knows.
The prices did indeed go down, but it was gradual. The biggest and most notable changes were during the transition from the PowerPC to intel. Makes me wonder what the production costs were for a Mac during that era.
A $2000 iMac even in the last series was decent since that one packed a fast processor. But agreed - the recent 1999 model the i5 is an amazing deal. I'm a fan of the all in one. As an average user I just find there are so many "no-hassle" benefits to the design.
So you'd rather pay a thousand dollars more for an iMac with i7 then you would for a regular PC with the same specs, just to say screw OS X and run Windows anyway?
In my opinion, if you still have software/games that OS X doesn't run, there's absolutely no worth in getting a Mac... Macs are designed to run OS X and the OS X software library, not Windows and games that require hardware that even the highest-end iMac can't accommodate.
I do a lot of video editing too. Thing about editing is, you need a lot of HDD space for the HD video files. My computer has 2 500gb hard drives and it's still not enough; only the Mac Pro has enough capacity for an advanced editor's needs.
I'm not arguing against what you do, I'm just giving you the alternate side of things. Adobe's software is amazing and more then enough for most people, I would even say it matches the level of Final Cut and Apple's software suites.
I will totally agree with you - I do a great deal of video editing myself and the HD slips away rather fast the more you get into your project. My core2 duo iMac has a 320 HD and it was down to only 25gb left when I finally finished the project lol. Nice thing is - once its done - burn a disk image, delete the old files and move on with life.
No offense intended but since everyone talks like all PCs can game and no Macs can. The truth is that most PCs cant game that well either! Most are cheaper walmart PCs that simply don't have the hardware required. And at the top end yes Macs can certainly handle gaming. When it comes to the "hardware" - Macs are fine with it... probably moreso than PCs since Macs don't dip below a certain line with their specs, where PCs do.
Ok, you said that pcs are built harder than the shiny Macs. Macs are made of aluminum and there isn't much shine to them at all. Most shiny computes are PCs since they use plastics. Macbooks are built with sudden motion sensors that lock the HD and protect them from a crash.
the reason why macs run better is because apple has a say in what they can run. I have an HP laptop as well as a mac system, ive been using PC all my life untill this year and i am in love with the Mac, especially snow leopard. (i still use the laptop as well). Most windows users will bash Mac because they haven't experienced the system for more than a few minutes in the apple store, but i an vouch for the fact that the mac is a much better system.
i have had a xp pro computer , vista home premium 32 bit and my laptop alienware m15x with vista 64 bit 5 years with xp no bsod vista 32bit no bsod and vista 64bit no bsod and my 400$ vista 32 but computer is faster then my friends 2500$ imac and his 13" macbook pro.
I have a hard time believing that. I can go to any computer sales store, and compare a 13" Macbook to a 2600$ HP Laptop, and the Hp was barely equal in speed, at 2.5x the price, yet, Microsoft does not yet have the hardware speeds Apple does. Apple always releases new technology first. A 2500$ iMac... thats odd, there are none that pricey unless you count all the software additions like Final Cut Pro Adobe and so on.
AVG Free... Avast! Antivirus... FREE! (Saved $40) PROBLEM SOLVED.
If both computers used the same hardware, then they would be the same speed? It's the same as if there was a pound bag of bricks, and a pound bag of feathers. THEY BOTH WEIGH A POUND. SAME.
Also, I haven't seen the blue screen of death in Windows for years.
I think people are looking at this wrong, most people can do just fine with a mini mac and the quality of components are good and stable and much harder to get a virus, and will save u a lot money in the long term in electricity cost. Now 64 bit with Snow Leopard. Unless your building your own PC with quality parts. Then yes a PC would be better if u need all that extra headroom or your a gamer or if u just want to have a pissing contest
Specs mean nothing if the OS is crap.Windows is slow,buggy and ugly plus you got worry about viruses and shit then you gotta tinker with it all the time
Yes, I got that. This video is old and ignorant, as noted in the description. I will make a new one with a real comparison if I have the time/patience in the future.
Believe me, Apple does overprice, but they don't for this.
The HP you mention here isn't a mini PC, it's a slim tower. It uses less expensive desktop components, and also takes up more room. This allows for the lower price.
The Mac Mini is a mini PC, it uses notebook components. While it may be less powerful comparatively, the price is fair based on the prices of actual competition, such as Dell's Studio Hybrid.
Is the Mac Mini worth it? Not in my opinion. But it's not overpriced either.
Dell Studio Hybrid Core 2 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache) Windows Vista Home Premium 1Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty 19" Dell S1909WX Widescreen LCD with DVI cable (This is a plus) 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz (Slow ass ram) 320GB SATA Slot Load CD / DVD Burner GMA X3100 (shitty videocard) Integrated Stereo Audio with 5.1ch Dell USB Multimedia Keyboard & Optical Mouse (also a plus) No Modem Included Starting price = $879 SALE price= $769
Mac Mini 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (BETTER CPU) 1GB 1066MHz DDR3 (FASTER RAM, expandable to 4 gigs, shuttle only 2) 120GB Serial ATA Drive (Slightly smaller) SuperDrive 8x 9400m (BETTER videocard) User's Guide (English) Digital Audio Built-in Speaker No kb, m or display (A negative) OSX $599
Oh, so that thing when you download exe files from the internet and your Mac says "This is a Windows application...can't install" that's just nothing right? Obviously, Mac can run ANYTHING Windows can (sarcasm). You're such an ignorant moron.
Don't bullshit me. If Apple had software that allows Windows apps to install natively on OS X, they would be sued out of their minds. At least don't make shit up. Parallels or Boot Camp running Windows is Windows, not OS X.
parallels has coherence mode which gets rid of windows and keeps the apps open. allowing the finder and the explorer to be beside each other or even on top of each other.
That still requires Windows though. An installation of it, a license from Microsoft... all this feature does is allow you to integrate Windows functions into OS X, granted you already have Windows. Without purchasing a Windows license, OS X cannot run exe files. Not to mention Parallels is not made by Apple, and it costs money to buy, and is still an emulator, which means you don't get the full speed/features of a nativly installed OS.
1. i uninstalled parallels because i never use it.
2. nothing runs slow when using it except games, thats what boot camp is for.
3. Microsoft gives windows free to people who know how to use command prompt.
ever heard of rearm? its code Microsoft made to extend you activation date up to a year, and by then you computer is infested by viruses so its a good time to reformat anyway.
It's an emulator, it can't run as fast as the native installation, it simply doesn't happen. Most emulators can't even carry out Vista's or Win7 Aero.
Microsoft doesn't give anything for free, so unless you pirated a copy, then no.
If you get infested with viruses, learn to use a computer.
It doesn't matter how you want to register it, even with an exploit, Windows won't exist on that computer unless you install it, and if you didn't get it illegally, then you can only install it by buying the CD.
Parallels or VMWare are Virtual Machines, meaning that they "build" a new computer into your real computer using a part of your hardware (memory, CPU resources, camera, usb ports, etc).
The exact same thing but with lower resources comparing to bootcamp, witch is perfectly logical since you are running TWO systems Simultaneously!
A virtual machine provides a COMPLETE SYSTEM PLATFORM which supports the execution of a complete operating system.
An emulator duplicates (provides an emulation of) the functions of one system using a different system, so that the second system BEHAVES LIKE (and appears to be) the first system.
In other words Emulators transform processes into other processes that the host system can understand! And this make them Insufficient!
Bootcamp is just a boot selector for operating systems! When running Windows via bootcamp you are running Windows OS as you would in an ordinary PC - No difference at all.
Yes, we all know Bootcamp is just a fancy way of saying Dual boot menu, but I'm talking about Paralells, which runs Windows from within OS X in it's own virtual machine. Maybe I had the wrong terminology using the word emulator, but just like all other virtual machines, Paralells cannot launch the OS at its full potential, and it is NOT anything like running the OS on it's own partition, booted right from scratch (via bootcamp, for example). It has virtual memory, virtual HDs, etc.
The difference is the performance since virtual machines using only a PART of the hardware. The rest characteristics are the same dude. The fact that are VIRTUAL do not make them incompatible in any manner.
The only problem is the part of the hardware it uses is minimal. Maybe Paralells is better than many other Virtual Machines, but as far as they all go, it's not just how much memory or disk space they get, it's about the processor power they have access to, speed of the memory, and their GPU usage is horrible if it comes to anything more than the basic GUI with no special effects.
Either way you want to look at it, it's a simple fact that a virtual machine doesn't work as well as a regular one.
Now it has DDR3 memory with up to 4GB, standard with a 2.0 Ghz core 2 duo processor, standard with a 120GB HDD, and has Firewire 800, which is faster, and five USB ports, not four, and a super drive (dual layer dvd/ cd burning) all for $600. I don't think it's fair to say that Macs are "overpriced" because (a) Apple makes sure their operating systems are bug free and easy-to-use and they don't have third- party manufacturers building their computers.
I do agree that you'd get more bang for your buck if you custom build your own pc hardware wise, but I'm not so sure about software wise. I am hearing very good things about Windows 7, though. I have nothing against Microsoft, or Windows; I just like the Mac OS better. For those of you that don't know, it is illegal to install the Mac OS on anything other than a mac, so that's why I wouldn't build a pc
Apple might no have 3rd party vendors building their computers, But if you look inside a new Mac it has all pc parts. I think they stopped making their own parts after the G-5. So now they are really giving Mac owners the big screw over. Too bad though, I seen apple as a company that thought outside the box. Now they just have a box with over priced junk under the hood. O and a flashy operating system. If you really Dislike windows try Linux out. Its free! cant beat that.
Compare the mini to a small form factor PC, that is of course if you can find one as small with Firewire 800, dual display outputs, silent operation and 13w consumption.
i LOVEEE macs, but the specs on the hp are way better, for the same price. of course id go with the mac mini just for os x but still. plus i think the HP comes with a display cause i have a s330t and mine came with a 15 inch display
I was thinking more along the lines of the Macbooks, where I would argue my statement is true. Otherwise, I guess I should restate so you don't spend another page of comments discussing my lack of accuracy in a comment: "with Apple you pay half your money towards the hardware, and the other half for OS X, give or take a few hundred, depending on the deal."
I think you forgot the fact that you still pay the full price for this Mac one way or another, I'm just saying hypothetically about $400 is the value of this machine, and you're paying the rest for OS X/the Apple brand. When I say $400, I mean that's how much the parts would cost to make it from scratch if it were a PC.
Please read what we've been talking about before you go off on a detour of forgetfulness and lose what once was a grasp of the concept we were discussing.
No, I made a point and you took that point and turned it into something beyond human comprehension. I think I'll just stop making points because you don't seem to understand any of them.
you make these 'points' but none of them have a shred of logic to them. you say that half the cost of a mac is osx, then backpedal on the resulting 300 mac mini being far superior to what you get in pc land for 300 bucks! da nile is not just a river in the mid east!
You need to understand that when I said that, it wasn't literal. It was simply a way of rationalizing that because you essentially pay so much more then you should for the hardware, the rest of the money goes towards having OS X run on it, hence you "pay for OS X". Of course trying to explain this to you would be another 5 pages or comments, so I'll just put it at rest.
so, when do we know when you are being serious and lieral and not? is the title of this video another example of not being literal?you realize that pc oems also figure in the cost of os (windows)
"you realize that pc oems also figure in the cost of os (windows)" -You said in your last statement.
Now, let's see. In this video, and in all my references to cost, did I not include the OS as part of the PC cost? I really can't make this any more clear. Look at a Mac. Look at its PC equivalent. Compare the prices. Subtract the PCs price from the Macs price, and you get X amount of money left that you're paying extra for the Mac. Hypothetically, that X amount of money is for what?
Sorry, that may have been too confusing. Basically, Macs are more expensive then PCs for identical hardware. Forget any of these really complicated and overly rocket-science-like analogies of what the extra money goes towards.
Yes and no. You're essentially paying for things like an aluminum shell, which plastic substitutes with almost no consequences, besides being less "shiny". While certain companies make junk, most PC manufacturers give you a solid computer that won't just break after 2 months like you may think.
Your monitor, your TV, your microwave, your refrigerator, more then likely any phone you may have, even the core components of your Mac are made of plastic. Don't even try to bullshit me that if you don't have an aluminum notebook that it will just break. YES, metals are more durable then plastic, but I'm not planning on tossing my notebook computer around the street any time soon. Not to mention, the aluminum case won't protect it from internal shock damage from impacts. Actually, plastic is
Secondly, my old DELL (of all things) is still around and fully working 6 years now. I know people with PCs almost 12 years old that still function. You're an idiot if you think a PC will break sooner then a Mac.
and how many macs have YOU owned? it's a well documented fact that pcs are, OVERALL, more cheaply made, than a mac, and will, therefore, break far earlier. this is not talking about the INTERIOR parts, but the exterior, where resistance to inadvertent drops can, and do, occur. do you think that no-one runs tests on this very factor? do you need an example? please stop being ignorant
I don't need to own even one Mac to understand below basic physics. PCs are made more cheaply, but their longevity is not dependent on a plastic case. If you drop your Mac, your aluminum case will be fine, but guess what... that doesn't mean it won't break on the inside anyway. Also, you seem to be quite ignorant of how durable plastic can actually be. If you want a laptop you can toss around and kick around, you'll have to get an industrial heavy-duty one with a shock absorbent case.
Aluminum is in fact more durable then plastic. However, please explain to me how this will be advantageous at all to the average user? I fail to see a point where the plastics inferiority to aluminum will cause a dilemma for the user.
it's one example of the many wherein the mac is better made than the pc. for varying things that can damage plastic but wouldn't aluminum. for example, a cigarette would melt plastic, but not aluminum
"a cigarette would melt plastic, but not aluminum" fair enough. The odds are very unlikely that plastic would melt right away or that it would touch the aluminum portion, nonetheless good example. I personally would still rather pay a few hundred dollars less then prevent a very minor and improbably risk, though.
Well, you can a more solid build, in the aspects that you talk about, for the cost of hardware power and performance. Not everyone is rich enough to buy a Macbook Pro for $4000 to get enough out of it to do all that a PC for half its price can do.
Because the basic one for $2000 gives you a core 2 duo 2.6 ghz and 2 gigs of RAM. That was okay back in 2006, but 3 years later these specs are a joke. If you want true performance, you have to buy a million upgrades from the basic defaults they give you.
The AVERAGE computer buyer doesn't want to pay $2k for a computer, period. They get a $600 PC to check their email on. I don't even expect average computer users to go online and debate between Macs and PCs.
agreed that the average computer user wants a computer in the cheaper range. exactly why the mac mini that you discuss here, would be perfect. i am just an average computer user. i refute you in the name of steve wozniak
However, this computer is designed to be compact. Unless you only want a Mac and nothing else, there are better deals from PC companies where you pay less and get more.
Umm, considering you get exponentially superior specs on PCs of the same price, the performance is better. Vista was a flop, so if you're referring to it's few instabilities, install Windows 7 beta and try for yourself.
Windows 7 takes a computers power and allows it to run to a higher potential than Vista. Where you get 4 gigs with Apple and use 250mb of it for OS X, you get 6 gigs for Windows and use 750mb of it. The PC has an extra 1.5 gigs for other apps.
And just because you didn't like Windows 7 does not deny it of it's improvements and focus on better efficiency.
It's better then any Windows that came before it, which IS saying a lot, especially because Windows is the dominant market. How many switchers to Macs do you think there will be if Windows 7 delivers flawless performance and everything a user needs without hassle?
It's better then any Windows that came before it, which IS saying a lot, especially because Windows is the dominant market. How many switchers to Macs do you think there will be if Windows 7 delivers flawless performance and everything a user needs without hassle?
And what exactly does a kernel do? Ubuntu, running on the same computer as my Vista is, is built on UNIX just like OS X and crashes more then Vista. What's the deal with that?
if you don't know what a kernel is, it proves a HUGE point. if linux is crashing more than vista, this continues that point in that you really fucked up your linux install
And I don't see how I fucked up my Linux installation. I simply inserted the CD, pressed install, and it installed. I've done it many times. Linux never works as intended, but my point was that just because an OS crashes does not mean the kernel is bad.
Not to mention, for as long as I have been using it, Vista has never crashed completely nor gotten a BSOD.
of course i know what it is. why else would i bring it up? linux never works as intended? is that why all of google's servers run on linux and not windows? because google (and youtube) want their servers on a platform that never works as intended? so, just because you have been extremely lucky with vista, this means its a strong operating system?
"linux never works as intended?" At least, not for me- or for that matter the average user. Google has professionals that know Linux down to the code, I'm sure they can work with it.
"google's servers run on linux and not windows" and not OS X either, just to put that out there.
"just because you have been extremely lucky with vista" I wouldn't call it lucky. It annoys me as much as the next guy, but the fact that it never (or rarely) crashes/BSODs can be backed up by many users.
Also another thing to point out, many users don't know how to do the simplest things, like turn off UAC. There are a few more or less advanced steps in Vista to boost its performance that most people, particularly the ones that complain, don't know about/how to do.
"linux never works as intended?" At least, not for me- or for that matter the average user."
then please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically recently. h ttp://tinyu rl. com/qjw9gz
yes, linux is better in the server department than the relatively new osx server and far easier for former windows server people to implement (same hardware can be used)
I have complaints too, but I don't walk around crying about it and buy a Mac because I don't know how to even slightly better the experience.
"please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically" Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
"the fact that it's been a real pain" is not because it crashes, it's because it slows down unless you constantly restart it and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times.
Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
it's been free, since inception in 1991. that's 18 years ago, LOL. why the sudden surge in popularity? because it fails to run? just because its beyond you to install it properly doesn't mean that it's beyond everyone! and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times."
I have complaints too, but I don't walk around crying about it and buy a Mac because I don't know how to even slightly better the experience.
"please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically" Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
"the fact that it's been a real pain" is not because it crashes, it's because it slows down unless you constantly restart it and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times.
I never said Linux wasn't free, quite the contrary actually. And in over 18 years of availability, only about 1% of people use Linux, that tells you how good it is. A lot of that 1% are developers, by the way, and most have dual-boot with Windows or OS X.
And I have installed it properly, many times. Really not complicated, not to mention installing it has nothing to do with individual applications being useless or error prone.
Not sure to what you were referring, but please, do cite examples.
for a totally free operating system to steal THAT much away from windows, is pretty awesome. i know of many people who have installed linux who are NOT developers. there are pc makers offering it, now. what is your source for claiming that most are developers? i want an exact source.
My source is my eyes and ears, every CS program across school's I've been to/read about use Linux, my professors teach using Linux, so yeah... it's a platform where companies like Sun Microsystems, who play a massive role in development (like creating Java) focus on. If not developers, they are inevitably advanced users. I would think even you can't sit there and tell me that a standard user like my mom can deal with Linux.
And yes, we've all seen Vista's problems, thanks for clarifying.
i installed ubuntu and it was actually EASIER than installing microsoft windows. do you deny this fact? and if so, what would keep ANY user from using ubuntu?
well, you try to act like vista has had zero problems just because you've been extremely lucky
For the last time, I know it's not hard to install Ubuntu, but it's just an all-around fuck-up OS in my experience. It's basically freeware, sometimes useful but never anywhere near as good as commercially developed software.
And also for the last time, I do have problems with Vista, I just don't let them get to me by being stupid like a vast majority of those that complain and end up switching.
u dont buy a pc, u build it.
falloutseriesftw 5 months ago
ive been using pcs for about 10 years, i bought a mac in january, and i will NEVER buy a pc again!
theyre sooo fast! yh they glitch now and again but less than my pc did
BonafydeMusic 1 year ago
I have a mac and it crashes a much a windows does. And there a no viruses, because so less people use macs. That means viruses cannot spread.
Blackmarked 1 year ago
Macs are expensive for a reason.
They actually work.
Pc's are mad shitty on purpose, so they'll crash or break so you'll have to buy new parts or a whole new computer.
I've had my iMac G3,G4 AND intel core duo Mac mini ever since they came out.. all three working like a charm.
Pcs are total pieces of junk.. not to mention for 519, you're stuck with winshit XP, winshit Shitsa, and winshit 7xtheshit.
and to wrap it up for Winshit, 7 is the future for Pcs all over the world, but it's the past toOSX
DeanGuitarsOwn 1 year ago
@DeanGuitarsOwn @DeanGuitarsOwn Holy cow you're an ignorant one. ALL computers have a tendency to actually work these days. Crashing is an OS issue. Mind you neither Vista nor Windows 7 has ever crashed on me, and I'm honest to goodness not making that up. I've also had a Dell since 2003, and it's still working perfectly.
As for the stupidity you typed about Windows, 7 brought things to the table that Apple copied when it was still in beta. Windows XP doesn't sell at all anymore.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago 4
Now I'll admit that Windows could be a bit more advanced, but who the hell are we fooling, OS X is still in the stone age in certain aspects, while advancing in others. It wasn't until 10.3 that Apple introduced Expose, which is still a horrible alternative to standard multitasking on all other operating systems. Yes, Apple is trying, and yes, Vista was bad, but at this point both OS's have good and bad, and if you weren't ignorant you'd see they are quite on par in most every aspect.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago 4
Dude i am not a mac fan but i like macs but anyways Macs are overpriced for many reasons such as their rocksolid OS which is unix based so it does not get virus but another thing i see is the design in it but if you want a reliable media center then go for the mac mini but if you want a cheap media center then go for the hp and dude just because they're overpriced doesnt mean they suck
cesarsony124 2 years ago
@cesarsony124 there are barely any viruses on macs because they have such a small market share of all the computers, not because they are unix based. If you were to design a virus, wouldn't you want to try to hit the bigger audience (aka Window users)
robbit126 1 year ago
@robbit126 That is true robbit, that was smart for them to target Windows Users since they could get more people which that mean more $ man people that create virus's for evil are shit
cesarsony124 1 year ago
im not buying a computer with mac because it looks good, i find windows much more interesting than that overpriced shit mac makes...
Mac is for people who wanna show off they got more money, but in fact they don't
TheQriz 2 years ago
Not trying to be a jerk but what you said is incorrect. Its actually the PC vendors that are offering computers in varying colors (so the "looks" thing is a Windows PC thing), and Macs are priced just the same as PCs. Right now the iMac line is priced and spec'd so well that its hard to find any equal all in ones on the PC side. In fact - the base model iMac is not too much more expensive than a tower PC with like specs. And all in ones are generally much more expensive anyhow.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
Fact is in 2009 Apple downed prices (maybe because of the economy, maybe just for competitions sake) where a lot of their models became very useful for their purpose, and often even the best deals. I still think Apple should give us the option of buying a tower (like a non-industrial level Mac Pro), because as nice as an iMac or Mac Mini can be, most people don't care that it's small or compact. Laptops are great being small and light, but I don't see the reason on a home system.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
My comment about Apple's pricing has to do mostly with the fact that in here I see many comments that are about a month old or so - and Apple's price drops actually began a couple years ago. The new Mini's and iMacs have been out for well over a month now so the "overpriced" comments shouldn't be here if people would actually research this. On my channel I have a new price comp video about the mini and dell studio hybrid.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
Apple right now due to lower market share can't really offer a tower. The basic idea is that sales of a tower may diminish the powerful sales revenue generated by the iMac. Its a hot seller - and I would go out on a limb as to say the best selling all in one PC. The problem is people's fear to change from Windows to OS X because its different. There's a whole weird sorta logic behind it all but it does make sense. If not I can try to explain it - possibly in a future video lol.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
Thing is the prices didn't just go down, like on the Macbooks, but rather the hardware improvements made it more worthwhile to get the computer. Getting a $2000 iMac was never a better deal then it is now with the new i5/i7 series.
If I was gonna buy a new laptop, I'd get a Mac. Yes, there's the issue with incompatible software, essentially renewing my library all over again, but as far as Desktops go, at least for me, I don't care much for the all-in-ones. A Mac mini is too weak and a
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Mac Pro too expensive. I just can't spend thousands of dollars on the hardware I need to do what I do when I have the option of buying a PC desktop for $1500 with the highest-end hardware available for the home market.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
An iMac with an i7 would be great, but again, it's a thousand dollars over the budget that I could get a regular tower with even better hardware from HP or something. I won't be getting an elite monitor, but again, that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to get the hardware I need for much less, not to mention only the Mac Pro is expandable enough to upgrade hardware and add new hard drives, etc etc. The Mac Pro is too "Pro" for the regular user, I guess. But this is all just my thoughts.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Here is the problem though... for the hardware that the i7 iMac has (monitor, processor, ram, HDD, OS, apps, etc) it is a great deal! There are no other screens like this. Sure you can get the same hardware for less, but you lose the awesome screen - which is why its so expensive in the first place. And when I did a comparison (I have a video about this) the comparison showed the iMac i5 being very close in price to a similar PC with similar specs. Essentially the overpriced myth is dying.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
The Mac Mini isn't as weak as people think. I see PC vendors offering much less specs for systems that are not too much less expensive than the Mini. And with the MBP line while it is certainly possible to get a PC with similar specs at a much lower price, it is also possible to get one with similar specs and the same higher end price tag. Apple just has chosen to not play in the low end. Maybe they will someday, who knows.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
The prices did indeed go down, but it was gradual. The biggest and most notable changes were during the transition from the PowerPC to intel. Makes me wonder what the production costs were for a Mac during that era.
A $2000 iMac even in the last series was decent since that one packed a fast processor. But agreed - the recent 1999 model the i5 is an amazing deal. I'm a fan of the all in one. As an average user I just find there are so many "no-hassle" benefits to the design.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
You know what Macs don't have? Huge selection of software and games.
You don't got Left 4 dead.
You don't even got Half-life.
crapoartworks 2 years ago
borderlands, dragon age origins...im with you man
swisscheesepotatochi 2 years ago 2
easy install windows on max or get 2 compuyters i have 2 computers mac book pro and a i7 gaming barebone installing on mac just run bootcamp
irulethe70s 2 years ago
So you'd rather pay a thousand dollars more for an iMac with i7 then you would for a regular PC with the same specs, just to say screw OS X and run Windows anyway?
In my opinion, if you still have software/games that OS X doesn't run, there's absolutely no worth in getting a Mac... Macs are designed to run OS X and the OS X software library, not Windows and games that require hardware that even the highest-end iMac can't accommodate.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
i got a mac cause im a photo editor viddeo editor and my thoery is consoles are for gaming and osx86 violates the dmca in many ways too
irulethe70s 2 years ago
I do a lot of video editing too. Thing about editing is, you need a lot of HDD space for the HD video files. My computer has 2 500gb hard drives and it's still not enough; only the Mac Pro has enough capacity for an advanced editor's needs.
I'm not arguing against what you do, I'm just giving you the alternate side of things. Adobe's software is amazing and more then enough for most people, I would even say it matches the level of Final Cut and Apple's software suites.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
I will totally agree with you - I do a great deal of video editing myself and the HD slips away rather fast the more you get into your project. My core2 duo iMac has a 320 HD and it was down to only 25gb left when I finally finished the project lol. Nice thing is - once its done - burn a disk image, delete the old files and move on with life.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
No offense intended but since everyone talks like all PCs can game and no Macs can. The truth is that most PCs cant game that well either! Most are cheaper walmart PCs that simply don't have the hardware required. And at the top end yes Macs can certainly handle gaming. When it comes to the "hardware" - Macs are fine with it... probably moreso than PCs since Macs don't dip below a certain line with their specs, where PCs do.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
and u dont have an xbox or ps3
EVILicecreamman987 2 years ago
PCs are built harder than the shiny Macs.
My PC laptop is over 3 years old, and I have dropped this thing at least over it's life approx..... 5+ times? Maybe more?
Highest fall was probably 2 1/2 feet from the ground. To this day, I click the power button and it hums to life and thrives.
crapoartworks 2 years ago
Ok, you said that pcs are built harder than the shiny Macs. Macs are made of aluminum and there isn't much shine to them at all. Most shiny computes are PCs since they use plastics. Macbooks are built with sudden motion sensors that lock the HD and protect them from a crash.
Not trying to be a jerk - just fyi.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
the reason why macs run better is because apple has a say in what they can run. I have an HP laptop as well as a mac system, ive been using PC all my life untill this year and i am in love with the Mac, especially snow leopard. (i still use the laptop as well). Most windows users will bash Mac because they haven't experienced the system for more than a few minutes in the apple store, but i an vouch for the fact that the mac is a much better system.
MamboPython 2 years ago
i have had a xp pro computer , vista home premium 32 bit and my laptop alienware m15x with vista 64 bit 5 years with xp no bsod vista 32bit no bsod and vista 64bit no bsod and my 400$ vista 32 but computer is faster then my friends 2500$ imac and his 13" macbook pro.
now that seas something
jsquad192837465 2 years ago
I have a hard time believing that. I can go to any computer sales store, and compare a 13" Macbook to a 2600$ HP Laptop, and the Hp was barely equal in speed, at 2.5x the price, yet, Microsoft does not yet have the hardware speeds Apple does. Apple always releases new technology first. A 2500$ iMac... thats odd, there are none that pricey unless you count all the software additions like Final Cut Pro Adobe and so on.
PaganEgyptian 2 years ago
My dad bought a laptop with a 800 MHz pentium 3 and 256 MBs of ram from some store or something for 4,000 dollars 10 years ago.
TheRidersOfStriders 2 years ago
1.-PC need an antiviruses(40$+)
2.-MAC is faster with the same hardware(less process needed)
3.-MAC Mini is smaller
4.-Fabrication of MAC is better
5.-Blue screen of death in Windows(OS X is more stable)
I use the two operating sistems.Believe me , the product of Apple it´s more quality.
Sorri for my english,bie
OogeekoO 2 years ago
1-Free, even Microsoft has a free one specifically for Vista/7 now. It's basically a part of the OS.
2-Windows 7 is very much in tact with multicore processes. You're talking about a Vista flaw.
3-True, old video, see description.
4-Depends on what you're looking at. Companies like HP make very good and solid hardware.
5-I've never seen a BSOD since Windows XP, and Vista hasn't ever crashed on me. It's damn stable, and you'd know if you ever used it.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
PC needs antivirus?
AVG Free... Avast! Antivirus... FREE! (Saved $40) PROBLEM SOLVED.
If both computers used the same hardware, then they would be the same speed? It's the same as if there was a pound bag of bricks, and a pound bag of feathers. THEY BOTH WEIGH A POUND. SAME.
Also, I haven't seen the blue screen of death in Windows for years.
crapoartworks 2 years ago
This music sucks.
qqstar999 2 years ago
There's a volume control option on the bottom-right of the video player. I recommend you get familiar with it and use it.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
That still does not change the fact that the music sucks.
qqstar999 2 years ago
I think people are looking at this wrong, most people can do just fine with a mini mac and the quality of components are good and stable and much harder to get a virus, and will save u a lot money in the long term in electricity cost. Now 64 bit with Snow Leopard. Unless your building your own PC with quality parts. Then yes a PC would be better if u need all that extra headroom or your a gamer or if u just want to have a pissing contest
benthemiester 2 years ago
Specs mean nothing if the OS is crap.Windows is slow,buggy and ugly plus you got worry about viruses and shit then you gotta tinker with it all the time
RXO951 2 years ago
Windows is fast enough (esp 64-bit). Not AS fast, but not exactly "slow" as rumors make it out to be.
I worry about Viruses as follows: keep a hidden free antivirus running in the background and continue computing as I would.
I tinker with my computer because I choose to. I would do with OS X too. But no, you don't have to.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
retard alert.
hello!!!!!!!1 the mac mini is smaller hello!!!!!!!!
cyprusboy56 2 years ago
Yes, I got that. This video is old and ignorant, as noted in the description. I will make a new one with a real comparison if I have the time/patience in the future.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Believe me, Apple does overprice, but they don't for this.
The HP you mention here isn't a mini PC, it's a slim tower. It uses less expensive desktop components, and also takes up more room. This allows for the lower price.
The Mac Mini is a mini PC, it uses notebook components. While it may be less powerful comparatively, the price is fair based on the prices of actual competition, such as Dell's Studio Hybrid.
Is the Mac Mini worth it? Not in my opinion. But it's not overpriced either.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
notlikeyou200 2 years ago
Now see, that's worth it!
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
You have a point but that's the old mac mini, the new one is similar price but way better
technowizard101 2 years ago
sc0pl355 2 years ago
sc0pl355 2 years ago
sc0pl355 2 years ago
sc0pl355 2 years ago
Also, learn the difference between 'slimline; (Like your HP) and 'mini' computers.
The Mac Mini is a MINI computer, you HP is slimline.
sc0pl355 2 years ago
whats the point to a good computer if your running crap on it tho...
aegnt09 2 years ago
Because that crap happens to be more useful then OS X.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
useful... i think u ment to say useless...
aegnt09 2 years ago
Yeah, because OS X can run anything Windows can, right? At least don't deny raw facts please...
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
yes it can... are you agreeing with me?
aegnt09 2 years ago
I'm just laughing that you actually think it can.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
omg your an itiot. i have ran the mac finder and the windows explorer beside each other.
i have used ms paint and imovie at the same time on the same screen. now i have moved on to photoshop.
aegnt09 2 years ago
Oh, so that thing when you download exe files from the internet and your Mac says "This is a Windows application...can't install" that's just nothing right? Obviously, Mac can run ANYTHING Windows can (sarcasm). You're such an ignorant moron.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
no when i download an exe and open it parallels opens and says where would you like to install this?
you ignorant pc fanboy.
aegnt09 2 years ago
Don't bullshit me. If Apple had software that allows Windows apps to install natively on OS X, they would be sued out of their minds. At least don't make shit up. Parallels or Boot Camp running Windows is Windows, not OS X.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
parallels has coherence mode which gets rid of windows and keeps the apps open. allowing the finder and the explorer to be beside each other or even on top of each other.
aegnt09 2 years ago
parallels has coherence mode which gets rid of windows and runs the app.
you can have the explorer right beside the finder.
aegnt09 2 years ago
That still requires Windows though. An installation of it, a license from Microsoft... all this feature does is allow you to integrate Windows functions into OS X, granted you already have Windows. Without purchasing a Windows license, OS X cannot run exe files. Not to mention Parallels is not made by Apple, and it costs money to buy, and is still an emulator, which means you don't get the full speed/features of a nativly installed OS.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
1. i uninstalled parallels because i never use it.
2. nothing runs slow when using it except games, thats what boot camp is for.
3. Microsoft gives windows free to people who know how to use command prompt.
ever heard of rearm? its code Microsoft made to extend you activation date up to a year, and by then you computer is infested by viruses so its a good time to reformat anyway.
aegnt09 2 years ago
It's an emulator, it can't run as fast as the native installation, it simply doesn't happen. Most emulators can't even carry out Vista's or Win7 Aero.
Microsoft doesn't give anything for free, so unless you pirated a copy, then no.
If you get infested with viruses, learn to use a computer.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
1. bootcamp isnt an emulator, parallels is.
2. Your an itiot. use command prompt and type in the rearm code and kapow free windows. There is no cracks or pirated shit involved.
aegnt09 2 years ago
1) I know, I was referring to Parallels.
2) You do know that command prompt is an applications within Windows, right?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
yes. have you heard of the rearm code?
if not. Microsoft built it in to extend the time you have to register and they never took it out in the final build of vista.
It will probably be in win7 2 considering it pretty much is vista with a dock and less resources.
aegnt09 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how you want to register it, even with an exploit, Windows won't exist on that computer unless you install it, and if you didn't get it illegally, then you can only install it by buying the CD.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Parallels or VMWare are Virtual Machines, meaning that they "build" a new computer into your real computer using a part of your hardware (memory, CPU resources, camera, usb ports, etc).
The exact same thing but with lower resources comparing to bootcamp, witch is perfectly logical since you are running TWO systems Simultaneously!
vapon1 2 years ago
neither bootcamp nor parallels are emulators!
GET INFORMED before you post bullshits.
vapon1 2 years ago
Then what is Parallels? Please enlighten us all.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
A virtual machine provides a COMPLETE SYSTEM PLATFORM which supports the execution of a complete operating system.
An emulator duplicates (provides an emulation of) the functions of one system using a different system, so that the second system BEHAVES LIKE (and appears to be) the first system.
In other words Emulators transform processes into other processes that the host system can understand! And this make them Insufficient!
vapon1 2 years ago
Bootcamp is just a boot selector for operating systems! When running Windows via bootcamp you are running Windows OS as you would in an ordinary PC - No difference at all.
vapon1 2 years ago
Yes, we all know Bootcamp is just a fancy way of saying Dual boot menu, but I'm talking about Paralells, which runs Windows from within OS X in it's own virtual machine. Maybe I had the wrong terminology using the word emulator, but just like all other virtual machines, Paralells cannot launch the OS at its full potential, and it is NOT anything like running the OS on it's own partition, booted right from scratch (via bootcamp, for example). It has virtual memory, virtual HDs, etc.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
The difference is the performance since virtual machines using only a PART of the hardware. The rest characteristics are the same dude. The fact that are VIRTUAL do not make them incompatible in any manner.
vapon1 2 years ago
The only problem is the part of the hardware it uses is minimal. Maybe Paralells is better than many other Virtual Machines, but as far as they all go, it's not just how much memory or disk space they get, it's about the processor power they have access to, speed of the memory, and their GPU usage is horrible if it comes to anything more than the basic GUI with no special effects.
Either way you want to look at it, it's a simple fact that a virtual machine doesn't work as well as a regular one.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
here we go again
luis61961944 2 years ago
Now it has DDR3 memory with up to 4GB, standard with a 2.0 Ghz core 2 duo processor, standard with a 120GB HDD, and has Firewire 800, which is faster, and five USB ports, not four, and a super drive (dual layer dvd/ cd burning) all for $600. I don't think it's fair to say that Macs are "overpriced" because (a) Apple makes sure their operating systems are bug free and easy-to-use and they don't have third- party manufacturers building their computers.
kewlguy323 2 years ago
I do agree that you'd get more bang for your buck if you custom build your own pc hardware wise, but I'm not so sure about software wise. I am hearing very good things about Windows 7, though. I have nothing against Microsoft, or Windows; I just like the Mac OS better. For those of you that don't know, it is illegal to install the Mac OS on anything other than a mac, so that's why I wouldn't build a pc
kewlguy323 2 years ago
Apple might no have 3rd party vendors building their computers, But if you look inside a new Mac it has all pc parts. I think they stopped making their own parts after the G-5. So now they are really giving Mac owners the big screw over. Too bad though, I seen apple as a company that thought outside the box. Now they just have a box with over priced junk under the hood. O and a flashy operating system. If you really Dislike windows try Linux out. Its free! cant beat that.
pconthecheap 2 years ago 2
I don't dislike Windows "that much". I just like the Mac OS X better than Xp and DEFINITELY Vista. But those are good points
kewlguy323 2 years ago
the mac mini sucks its specs are a joke at best. why cant apple just put out a mid tower?
jordler 2 years ago
because apple likes to hear pc dipshits whine...
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Compare the mini to a small form factor PC, that is of course if you can find one as small with Firewire 800, dual display outputs, silent operation and 13w consumption.
You get what you pay for kids.
Jerrycosyweegirl 2 years ago
i LOVEEE macs, but the specs on the hp are way better, for the same price. of course id go with the mac mini just for os x but still. plus i think the HP comes with a display cause i have a s330t and mine came with a 15 inch display
laneisgangster7 2 years ago
home premium vs leopard??? LOL
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Hence why I keep saying... with Apple you pay half your money towards the hardware, and the other half for OS X.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
so the mac mini is only 300 dollars? wow, quite the bargain, then!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Maybe not 300, but the Machine's PC-equivalent value for the same specs might be like 400.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
but half of 600 is 300, not 400. are you refuting your own statement or admitting that you tend to overexaggerate?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I was thinking more along the lines of the Macbooks, where I would argue my statement is true. Otherwise, I guess I should restate so you don't spend another page of comments discussing my lack of accuracy in a comment: "with Apple you pay half your money towards the hardware, and the other half for OS X, give or take a few hundred, depending on the deal."
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
with Apple you pay half your money towards the hardware, and the other half for OS X, give or take a few hundred, depending on the deal."
so are you applying this to all of Apple's computers or not????
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Pretty much.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
so the mac mini HARDWARE is only 300 dollars? pretty low price!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
It is pretty cheap. And that's reflected in the hardware power it comes with.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
but still far better than a 300 dollar pc
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I think you forgot the fact that you still pay the full price for this Mac one way or another, I'm just saying hypothetically about $400 is the value of this machine, and you're paying the rest for OS X/the Apple brand. When I say $400, I mean that's how much the parts would cost to make it from scratch if it were a PC.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
so the mac at 300 dollars is cheaper than the pc. where is your cost for os?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Please read what we've been talking about before you go off on a detour of forgetfulness and lose what once was a grasp of the concept we were discussing.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
weren't we basically discussing how ignorant you are?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
No, I made a point and you took that point and turned it into something beyond human comprehension. I think I'll just stop making points because you don't seem to understand any of them.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
you make these 'points' but none of them have a shred of logic to them. you say that half the cost of a mac is osx, then backpedal on the resulting 300 mac mini being far superior to what you get in pc land for 300 bucks! da nile is not just a river in the mid east!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Okay, so you completely deny that Macs are more expensive then PCs. I'm debating with Apple's sheep.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
no, that's only true when using YOUR idea of the 'cost of osx'/ YOUR idea. Not mine!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
So it's MY idea that Macs are more expensive? Wow, where's my paycheck from Apple then?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
no, numbnuts. it was YOUR idea that the 'cost of osx' is half the price of a mac
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
You need to understand that when I said that, it wasn't literal. It was simply a way of rationalizing that because you essentially pay so much more then you should for the hardware, the rest of the money goes towards having OS X run on it, hence you "pay for OS X". Of course trying to explain this to you would be another 5 pages or comments, so I'll just put it at rest.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
so, when do we know when you are being serious and lieral and not? is the title of this video another example of not being literal?you realize that pc oems also figure in the cost of os (windows)
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
It's called using common sense.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
how do you know what common sense is? i say that because you rarely, if ever, show it. what about the second part of my last comment?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
"you realize that pc oems also figure in the cost of os (windows)" -You said in your last statement.
Now, let's see. In this video, and in all my references to cost, did I not include the OS as part of the PC cost? I really can't make this any more clear. Look at a Mac. Look at its PC equivalent. Compare the prices. Subtract the PCs price from the Macs price, and you get X amount of money left that you're paying extra for the Mac. Hypothetically, that X amount of money is for what?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Sorry, that may have been too confusing. Basically, Macs are more expensive then PCs for identical hardware. Forget any of these really complicated and overly rocket-science-like analogies of what the extra money goes towards.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
but you are also paying for quality of the build, which goes far beyond mere specs of the parts
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Yes and no. You're essentially paying for things like an aluminum shell, which plastic substitutes with almost no consequences, besides being less "shiny". While certain companies make junk, most PC manufacturers give you a solid computer that won't just break after 2 months like you may think.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
yes, it's a well-known fact that plastic is just as durable as aluminum. the air force plans to make all their planes out of plastic, from now on!
yeah, its not 2 months for a pc to break. some last as long as 6 months!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Your monitor, your TV, your microwave, your refrigerator, more then likely any phone you may have, even the core components of your Mac are made of plastic. Don't even try to bullshit me that if you don't have an aluminum notebook that it will just break. YES, metals are more durable then plastic, but I'm not planning on tossing my notebook computer around the street any time soon. Not to mention, the aluminum case won't protect it from internal shock damage from impacts. Actually, plastic is
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
often used for shock resistance.
Secondly, my old DELL (of all things) is still around and fully working 6 years now. I know people with PCs almost 12 years old that still function. You're an idiot if you think a PC will break sooner then a Mac.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
and how many macs have YOU owned? it's a well documented fact that pcs are, OVERALL, more cheaply made, than a mac, and will, therefore, break far earlier. this is not talking about the INTERIOR parts, but the exterior, where resistance to inadvertent drops can, and do, occur. do you think that no-one runs tests on this very factor? do you need an example? please stop being ignorant
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I don't need to own even one Mac to understand below basic physics. PCs are made more cheaply, but their longevity is not dependent on a plastic case. If you drop your Mac, your aluminum case will be fine, but guess what... that doesn't mean it won't break on the inside anyway. Also, you seem to be quite ignorant of how durable plastic can actually be. If you want a laptop you can toss around and kick around, you'll have to get an industrial heavy-duty one with a shock absorbent case.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
did i say i wanted one to kick around? no. did you see the word inadvertent? if you think plastic is as durable as aluminum.....LOL
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Aluminum is in fact more durable then plastic. However, please explain to me how this will be advantageous at all to the average user? I fail to see a point where the plastics inferiority to aluminum will cause a dilemma for the user.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
it's one example of the many wherein the mac is better made than the pc. for varying things that can damage plastic but wouldn't aluminum. for example, a cigarette would melt plastic, but not aluminum
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
"a cigarette would melt plastic, but not aluminum" fair enough. The odds are very unlikely that plastic would melt right away or that it would touch the aluminum portion, nonetheless good example. I personally would still rather pay a few hundred dollars less then prevent a very minor and improbably risk, though.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
this is just ONE example of the solid build of a mac-there are more. basically, you get what you pay for
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Well, you can a more solid build, in the aspects that you talk about, for the cost of hardware power and performance. Not everyone is rich enough to buy a Macbook Pro for $4000 to get enough out of it to do all that a PC for half its price can do.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
hahaha. i love that story! too bad the macbook pro doesn't cost anywhere near $4,000
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Because the basic one for $2000 gives you a core 2 duo 2.6 ghz and 2 gigs of RAM. That was okay back in 2006, but 3 years later these specs are a joke. If you want true performance, you have to buy a million upgrades from the basic defaults they give you.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
and you think the AVERAGE computer buyer wants more than that?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
The AVERAGE computer buyer doesn't want to pay $2k for a computer, period. They get a $600 PC to check their email on. I don't even expect average computer users to go online and debate between Macs and PCs.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
agreed that the average computer user wants a computer in the cheaper range. exactly why the mac mini that you discuss here, would be perfect. i am just an average computer user. i refute you in the name of steve wozniak
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
However, this computer is designed to be compact. Unless you only want a Mac and nothing else, there are better deals from PC companies where you pay less and get more.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
from a windows pc? you pay less and get FAR less!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Umm, regarding specs, that statement is downright wrong.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Umm, regarding performance, that statement is dead-on!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Umm, considering you get exponentially superior specs on PCs of the same price, the performance is better. Vista was a flop, so if you're referring to it's few instabilities, install Windows 7 beta and try for yourself.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
exponentially better? LOL nice try at overexaggerating. the performance is still far worse, even with windoze 7. tried it, DIDN'T like it!
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
Windows 7 takes a computers power and allows it to run to a higher potential than Vista. Where you get 4 gigs with Apple and use 250mb of it for OS X, you get 6 gigs for Windows and use 750mb of it. The PC has an extra 1.5 gigs for other apps.
And just because you didn't like Windows 7 does not deny it of it's improvements and focus on better efficiency.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
yes, its better than vista, but that's not really saying a whole lot
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
It's better then any Windows that came before it, which IS saying a lot, especially because Windows is the dominant market. How many switchers to Macs do you think there will be if Windows 7 delivers flawless performance and everything a user needs without hassle?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
It's better then any Windows that came before it, which IS saying a lot, especially because Windows is the dominant market. How many switchers to Macs do you think there will be if Windows 7 delivers flawless performance and everything a user needs without hassle?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
that'd be great, but i predict that windows 7 will be far from perfect, perhaps very far. it's built in that same vista kernel, which is foreboding
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
And what exactly does a kernel do? Ubuntu, running on the same computer as my Vista is, is built on UNIX just like OS X and crashes more then Vista. What's the deal with that?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
if you don't know what a kernel is, it proves a HUGE point. if linux is crashing more than vista, this continues that point in that you really fucked up your linux install
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I know what it is, but do YOU know?
And I don't see how I fucked up my Linux installation. I simply inserted the CD, pressed install, and it installed. I've done it many times. Linux never works as intended, but my point was that just because an OS crashes does not mean the kernel is bad.
Not to mention, for as long as I have been using it, Vista has never crashed completely nor gotten a BSOD.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
of course i know what it is. why else would i bring it up? linux never works as intended? is that why all of google's servers run on linux and not windows? because google (and youtube) want their servers on a platform that never works as intended? so, just because you have been extremely lucky with vista, this means its a strong operating system?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
"linux never works as intended?" At least, not for me- or for that matter the average user. Google has professionals that know Linux down to the code, I'm sure they can work with it.
"google's servers run on linux and not windows" and not OS X either, just to put that out there.
"just because you have been extremely lucky with vista" I wouldn't call it lucky. It annoys me as much as the next guy, but the fact that it never (or rarely) crashes/BSODs can be backed up by many users.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Also another thing to point out, many users don't know how to do the simplest things, like turn off UAC. There are a few more or less advanced steps in Vista to boost its performance that most people, particularly the ones that complain, don't know about/how to do.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
but many of the complaints come from PROFESSIONAL users such as chris pirillo
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
"linux never works as intended?" At least, not for me- or for that matter the average user."
then please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically recently. h ttp://tinyu rl. com/qjw9gz
yes, linux is better in the server department than the relatively new osx server and far easier for former windows server people to implement (same hardware can be used)
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
but the fact that it never (or rarely) crashes/BSODs can be backed up by many users."
and the fact that it's been a real pain can be backed up by far more many users
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I have complaints too, but I don't walk around crying about it and buy a Mac because I don't know how to even slightly better the experience.
"please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically" Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
"the fact that it's been a real pain" is not because it crashes, it's because it slows down unless you constantly restart it and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
it's been free, since inception in 1991. that's 18 years ago, LOL. why the sudden surge in popularity? because it fails to run? just because its beyond you to install it properly doesn't mean that it's beyond everyone! and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times."
it's been both, shall i cite examples?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I have complaints too, but I don't walk around crying about it and buy a Mac because I don't know how to even slightly better the experience.
"please explain why linux' desktop use has increased radically" Maybe because it's free? If it wasn't free, nobody in their right mind would use it for personal use.
"the fact that it's been a real pain" is not because it crashes, it's because it slows down unless you constantly restart it and clogs up RAM, making it very annoying at times.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
have complaints too, but I don't walk around crying about it and buy a Mac because I don't know how to even slightly better the experience.
but in osx one doesn't have to do this. why not windows?
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
I never said Linux wasn't free, quite the contrary actually. And in over 18 years of availability, only about 1% of people use Linux, that tells you how good it is. A lot of that 1% are developers, by the way, and most have dual-boot with Windows or OS X.
And I have installed it properly, many times. Really not complicated, not to mention installing it has nothing to do with individual applications being useless or error prone.
Not sure to what you were referring, but please, do cite examples.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
And Vista wasn't exactly Microsoft's glorious release, with XP hardly anyone complained, and with 7 it will be the same thing.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
for a totally free operating system to steal THAT much away from windows, is pretty awesome. i know of many people who have installed linux who are NOT developers. there are pc makers offering it, now. what is your source for claiming that most are developers? i want an exact source.
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
watch?v=NCtwtC1I2bo
watch?v=3cCuuc9U94w&feature=related
watch?v=_rZIWDOSD-A&feature=channel_page
watch?v=_pbRS9TXtVk&feature=channel_page
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
My source is my eyes and ears, every CS program across school's I've been to/read about use Linux, my professors teach using Linux, so yeah... it's a platform where companies like Sun Microsystems, who play a massive role in development (like creating Java) focus on. If not developers, they are inevitably advanced users. I would think even you can't sit there and tell me that a standard user like my mom can deal with Linux.
And yes, we've all seen Vista's problems, thanks for clarifying.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
i installed ubuntu and it was actually EASIER than installing microsoft windows. do you deny this fact? and if so, what would keep ANY user from using ubuntu?
well, you try to act like vista has had zero problems just because you've been extremely lucky
WellHowdyDew 2 years ago
For the last time, I know it's not hard to install Ubuntu, but it's just an all-around fuck-up OS in my experience. It's basically freeware, sometimes useful but never anywhere near as good as commercially developed software.
And also for the last time, I do have problems with Vista, I just don't let them get to me by being stupid like a vast majority of those that complain and end up switching.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago