How dumb are you? You think know so much about laptops that you can criticise the video but you can't even tell the difference between a macbook and a macbook pro? Dipshits these days. Credibility lost.
wow, they purposely looked at the most expensive macbook pro. What loosers. She could have gotten a Macbook for 1,000 and gotten everything she needed. But she decided to be cheap.
"A Little too small?" Wasn't she looking for portability? She's f-ing dumb.
"color of this one" Ha, she's looking at aesthetics instead of power.
@IgnorantPCFanboys if you cant tell the difference between a reg mac book and a macbook pro, why did you say that shes looking at a macbook but the pricing for a macbook pro? the way to tell the difference is easy, reg macbook are all white, macbook pros sometimes have the black borders around the screen.
@IgnorantPCFanboys yes i can, the black border as i mentioned, and actually if u look behind the one shes looking at, there is an actual regular mac book right fucking there for you to compare it to so get your facts straight!
let's take the macbook pro which blows away your vaio (albeit, it costs even more) but when considering the ;total cost of ownership'. it's actually cheaper, in the long run
Which MacBook Pro blows away my VAIO? The entry level one I mentioned, at $1,699? The one with a slower hard drive? The same processor? Marginally faster RAM? LESS hard drive space? Far worse graphics? No blu-ray drive? Less storage space?
How exactly does this blow away my VAIO?
And there is no total cost of ownership. You plug it in, you use it, and it works. And when something happen that's my fault, I have an accidental damage warranty. So if I drop it and the screen cracks, it's replaced.
Oh right, there is an option for a 7200RPM hard drive, for an extra $100. Wow. And it still has worse graphics, no blu-ray, same processor...
Now, since you want to talk total cost of ownership, let's pretend that both laptops undergo some form of accidental damage. Now my VAIO gets replaced for free, and you have to pay hundreds to get your MacBook repaired or replaced.
Total cost of ownership is variable, and it is definitely not higher simply because it runs Windows or is from Sony.
No, not all Sony notebooks do. I was talking about my model specifically that did, which cost $1,150, which I hope you'll find is far less than the cost of a similar MacBook Pro.
What am I doing? Gaming mostly, which I'd like to see on integrated graphics on anything that actually looks decent. But, it's used for other applications as well. Decoding HD video, 3D modeling applications, etc.You should learn about the importance of the graphics card.
Gee, look at that, I looked at your link, and the links in your link, and neither of them actually have any arguments, they just state the TCO is higher. One of them says there's a spreadsheets....but the link to it is dead. Strange world, isn't it?
The one written by Mike Schramm has absolutely no evidence in itself, and merely links to other articles as so called proof. When I look at them, I get an incredibly old comparison which may have been valid then, but is no longer. And there's also one which cites a spreadsheet by Winn Schwartau, which isn't actually there.
Your other link also cites the same spreadsheet which no longer exists, did you happen to read it?
2 years ago is damn old, and if you think otherwise you're insane. Do you think companies don't adjust their product lines and change prices over time?
My refuting evidence is that you have given me nothing to refute.
I read the article, it consisted of him stating PCs cost more to maintain without elaborating on how. Maybe your nickname should be IgnorantMacFanboys.
Now that they've cut prices, and everyone else has, and new technologies have come out...Macs are still overpriced!
Still waiting for some kind of evidence on this PC TCO is higher, bullshit.
The TCO tool considers reliability costs, downtime per user per year, productivity losses/gains, reboots and system maintenance. The enterprise also needs to consider the help desk and other support time/costs per user per PC.
The TCO tool also allows you to calculate the resale value of the computer. It did not take long to discover that Mac's resale value is much higher than WinTel's.
That's what the article states, but there's no fucking EVIDENCE. You're just being a fucking fanboy now.
To prove Macs are overpriced one simply needs to look at what the competition offers at the same prices, or at what prices they offer comparable offerings.
Dell Studio XPS 16 compares easily to the 17" MacBook Pro with a higher quality RGBLED display, i7 720QM, 4GB of DDR3-1333, Mobility Radeon 4670, 9 cell battery and the Sony Imagination Studio Suite, for $850 less when both are evenly configured.
HP Envy 15 blows away a similarly priced MacBook Pro 15", with a better Core i7 720QM, 2GB more DDR3 RAM, better discrete Mobility Radeon 4830 video card and the same form factor (really, it's like a ripoff tbh).
Equivalent of GarageBand in the Sony Imagination Studio Suite I mentioned. It comes with very good equivalents to all of iLife's features, except iWeb. iWeb is a POS, don't even get me started.
Where's your equivalent of Windows, with the largest catalog of software programs out of any major operating system?
What amazing features does OS X have? A lack of printer and scanner drivers? Kernel panics? Instability? Deleting your Home folder when you log into a guest account?
windows has the largest catalog but a smaller one of well-written programs. i speak from extensive experience on both sides. you can knock iweb, i knock most windows apps. even lockergnome agrees with this.
lack of printer and scanner drivers? the very same could be said for vista. do you want some links? bsod, rsod, far greater instability in windows. where did that last one come from? ive never even HEARD of such a problem. is it a rampant one?
i've been running OS X on macs and PCs for years and years, yes. there's nothing "amazing" about it like you mac fanboys make it out to be, it's just another OS.
that article is from 2005. it's still a blue screen of death in vista and windows 7.
windows 7 was released for public beta testing in january, and the RC was released in may. with public testing on that scale, and from what I've heard about people's satisfaction with RTM releases, it's obviously not going to have "zero problems" (osx definitely has problems too) but the general public will be quite satisfied.
It's an issue with Snow Leopard. If you had your guest account active in Leopard, and you attempt to log in to it after upgrading to Snow Leopard, there's a chance that it will delete your Home folder for your main account when you log out.
Check engadget, CNET, Gizmodo, etc. They all had articles out on it. Apple itself admitted the problem exists, a month after users have been reporting it, and that they are working on a fix.
Of course not, I never said that. But Mac fanboys, yourself included, always try to make it seem as though Macs are issue and worry free. They really aren't.
From these latest issues with Snow Leopard, to clearing PRAM and repairing disk permissions, it's just as difficult to maintain a Mac as a Windows PC.
what problems do windows PCs have, specifically? i'm asking about problems that affect PC users in general, not problems with specific models, and are problems inherent in the OS, not bullshit like malware
yes, you already pointed that one out. macs have far more vulnerabilities, we've been over this. besides, this has been patched, and this isn't something that would affect the vast majority of PC users at all.
XP and vista users who disable automatic updates or use pirated copies of windows (which can still download critical security updates, even though they turn off automatic updates since it's a "call home feature") are the only ones affected
The GT 120 is a $70 card. There is no defending it. The Mac Pro as a workstation should come standard with at least some kind of workstation level graphics card, not a GeForce G-Fail.
With the new iMac coming with a Core i5-750, a Radeon 4850 and a 27" IPS panel for $2000, there is NO REASON Apple shouldn't be giving a Radeon 4850 and at LEAST a 2.93 Ghz Xeon in the $2,500 Mac Pro.
Not only do its graphics suck, it's overpriced even by the standards of Apple's new products. Which for once, are fairly priced.
and what are you basing this on? have you done a survey of workstaion buyers/ owners? are people returning their mac pros in droves because of your newly found revelation about 'weak' graphics cards?
I had a 15" MacBook Pro until recently, it was a decent laptop, but it wasn't error free, and it was more expensive than comparable Windows laptops.
My sister also has a 15" MacBook Pro, and several other members of my family also have Macs. They like them, but they don't prefer them over Windows laptops or anything like that.
Why do you assume that everyone who doesn't love Macs, hasn't used one? We're not ignorant, we simply have opinions. And we form them through experience and facts.
Because we wanted to try something different and give it a chance? Some of them prefer Macs, some prefer Windows PCs. But none of them hate either of them.
that isn't relevant. look at the 4-core mac pro. at its base configuration it's essentially a core i7 PC with a crappy graphics card and small amount of memory, all for $2,500.
and the mac mini? for $599 you can do better than that.
what the computer buying public has and wants is irrelevant? how so? do you think computer manufacturers define these people as irrelevant? what is wrong with the graphics in the mac pro? if you are getting one, wouldn't it make much more sense to bump up just a hair to the octocore?
Bump it up a hair to the dual processor model? That's not a hair, that's like $500. That's a good chunk of money.
The only advantage the Mac Pro has over a standard i7 PC is support for ECC RAM, really. And if you need that, HP and Dell have their own Xeon Nehalem workstations for cheaper.
And the Mac Pros graphics are borderline terrible, the GT 120 is nothing more than a rebranded GeForce 9500GT, which is a $70 card. And the Radeon 4870 costs no more than $150 at retail.
Borderline terrible for anyone doing serious rendering work, or things of that nature, it's a cheap card and I expect it in nothing more expensive than a $1000 Dell. If anything the Radeon 4870 should be the default card.
Why do you need iLife in a professional workstation? If you're buying a computer this expensive I'm hoping you have professional software to run on it. OS X is nothing special, I don't see why you think it is.
uhh, the Mac Pro is a professional workstation, not a children's toy. If you're not using it for things like rendering and of that nature, you should be using an iMac.
Why should I? He can use it for whatever he wants to. My point isn't that he can't have it, or use it for whatever he wants, it's that it's overkill.
How many people do you know who actually need a quad or octo-core machine for any sort of serious work? And I didn't just say rendering, I said "things of that nature". Tasks that are CPU and GPU intensive.
Folding at home, rendering, parallel processing, doing serious work. The Mac Pro is marketed as a workstation. Not a home user's desktop.
Neither am I, which is why i defend the point that Apple's consumer desktops (the iMac and Mac Mini) may not be overpriced, but they are not logical purchases.
However, the iMac now uses desktop parts, so its performance is now closer to those of similarly priced desktops, factoring in the monitor.
I'd rather pay a fair price for a computer I can't ~easily~ take apart, than extra for a computer I can. I can put in a slight bit more effort, I'd rather not put in more money.
This one I hadn't seen yet. Another great attempt to knock the Macbooks out of the top stop on the consumer reports ranking. Funny how you don't see MS pushing PC desktops at all. She bought a low end big piece of plastic Dell, did I see that right? Bleh! Over the next 2 years she'll end up buying another one, when she coulda had a MacBook that would last twice as long and be twice as good.
I'd put my iMacs up against the quality and reliability of most desktops any day. I still challenge anyone to show me a more reliable computer than my '05 iMac. And as for price - the only reasons MS tackles Apple in laptops is because they know that side by side per form factor Macs are not necessarily more. They mislead consumers with the lower starting price - but they are normally stripped down. The price often exceeds a Mac when fully featured. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
OK now sorry but that's a dumb comparison. My Macs are also a lot YOUNGER than your PCs. How about we compare my 3.5 year old iMac to the millions of 2 year old PCs that are now being replaced due to hardware failure (sadly many are being replaced by another 2 year pc).
Im sorry you are a decent but that really wasn't a good comparison. I JUST got into Macs under 4 years ago - ask me in another 4 years what the status of these 2 machines is.
how is it a bad comparison? I told told you I had a Windows Me machine (2001) and a Windows XP machine (2004). I also have a windows 98 (98), and a custom p2 box (98). all of those computers are older than your macs and they are all cheap so they must be high quality because they are reliable. I don't know how people have hardware failure because all of those are cheap Hps and packard, Tangent. I don't think computers die every 2 years. I know people that screw up the Os and buy a new Pc. ^_^
How can you NOT see how its a bad comparison. I only got my first Mac in late 2005. If I had been into Macs all my life THEN we could compare, but you and others keep forgetting I'm a former Windows/PC user. So all of my older computers (whats left of them) are ALL PCs, not Macs. So this comparison cannot be made at this time. That is why I said to talk to me in 4 or 5 years from now.
My old Compaq laptop is still alive but it might as well be on life support - also running ME (bleh!)
I don't think Youtube will be around that long. to tell you. your mac will no longer be useful by that time. they will probably have 2080P or something like that which would probably need twice the processing power for 1080P which takes awhile on a core 2 duo.
How can you claim the my iMac won't be useful by that time but your Windows machine from back in the days of ME still is? Sorry but ROFL! My iMac is 3.5 years old and out does the 2.5 year old XP laptop that my roommate has. Her's has issues galore, including a bootup time that is about 3 times as long as my G5. What you determine useful vs what I do may be different. But to me when a computer starts giving you headaches - its no longer useful. I don't consider ANY running ME to be useful.
And actually the argument isn't just "living longer" but being more reliable over time. I still have 2 PCs that at least still breathe, but they are by no means reliable or trouble free machines. They are old and almost useless machines that need a lot of work before they can be considered useful again. Maybe I'll rip the processor out of the newer compaq and throw it in the older WeBase and install Linux
old hardware gets useless over time. I can also find a use for them, you can use them as a home server, a web browsing computer, etc. the two younger computers are used everyday for financing, and what every basic Windows user does.
Old hardware does get useless over time. But I will stand behind Macs (due to the OS and better quality parts) as being more useful for longer periods. I would NEVER use any of my old PCs for even web browsing - it takes forever just to open up a simple folder! And what do you mean "what every basic Windows user does?"
Low end computers can web browse, check email, watch 720P videos, listen to music,etc. Why does your Pc take forever to open a folder, that only happens if you have slow hardware, or you messed up windows. They both live around the same time. I can do exactly what my mac does with older computers. if you have not noticed computers with higher end components last longer because they will always have the speed to run the Next gen Os, or software.
My old PCs take a long time because they just do. Don't ask me to explain why, just that the hardware is older and they are slower than dirt! And all you guys think that average users screw up windows so thats why it is so bad - we know nothing of how to tinker with it - so what exactly did we do to it? Nothing. Its just how it is.
And even older Macs can run Leopard. Vista Ultimate can't run on older PCs. Not trying to be an ass, but that says something about Macs and their OS.
And I know its hard for many of you guys to accept this but Windows isn't exactly the best OS on the planet. ME sucked big time! I did nothing to the computer other than use it and "attempt" to defrag (ME sucks at this btw, never worked right for me). And same goes for XP and 98... they just were slow as dirt after a while and I this was after more attempts at defragging. Thankfully Macs file system runs circles around Windows so we don't have the fragmentation problem.
lol @ nic PC girls
bonzi76 3 months ago
How dumb are you? You think know so much about laptops that you can criticise the video but you can't even tell the difference between a macbook and a macbook pro? Dipshits these days. Credibility lost.
videogameplays101 8 months ago
@videogameplays101 apparently , you are the one that can't. credibility lost
IgnorantPCFanboys 8 months ago
wow, they purposely looked at the most expensive macbook pro. What loosers. She could have gotten a Macbook for 1,000 and gotten everything she needed. But she decided to be cheap.
"A Little too small?" Wasn't she looking for portability? She's f-ing dumb.
"color of this one" Ha, she's looking at aesthetics instead of power.
1:13 = win
Macbook was only 30 dollars more and would have been much better. They only hire dumb-asses on these commercials. It's official.
rifall 10 months ago
0:22 ummm, pretty sure thats a macbook pro shes looking at.
TokuinB 11 months ago
@TokuinB umm it's a macbook they umm had to ummm change the commercial because of ummm that
IgnorantPCFanboys 11 months ago
@TokuinB watch?v=WQhIOZ6PyEQ
IgnorantPCFanboys 11 months ago
@IgnorantPCFanboys whats ur point? the mac she looked at is still a macbook pro and not a macbook like this vid says it is
TokuinB 10 months ago
@TokuinB and how do you know that?
IgnorantPCFanboys 10 months ago
@TokuinB it looks pretty much like a white plastic body to me
IgnorantPCFanboys 10 months ago
Comment removed
TokuinB 10 months ago
@IgnorantPCFanboys if you cant tell the difference between a reg mac book and a macbook pro, why did you say that shes looking at a macbook but the pricing for a macbook pro? the way to tell the difference is easy, reg macbook are all white, macbook pros sometimes have the black borders around the screen.
TokuinB 10 months ago
@TokuinB i just told you its plastic. can YOU tell the difference?
IgnorantPCFanboys 10 months ago
@IgnorantPCFanboys yes i can, the black border as i mentioned, and actually if u look behind the one shes looking at, there is an actual regular mac book right fucking there for you to compare it to so get your facts straight!
TokuinB 10 months ago
@TokuinB i never saw a macbook 'behind' this one. then why has this been reedited
IgnorantPCFanboys 10 months ago
That's funny.. the original video IS in sync:
watch?v=-XOtCFNaNUg
It's not Microsoft's editing that's a problem, it's yours.
RepetitionKills 2 years ago
it has been reposted three times, now. please note the date of my video and the repost date of windowsvideo's video
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Okay, I apologize.
I should've paid attention to the dates but I didn't.
I side with you on this one, although I'm a PC..
RepetitionKills 2 years ago
well, that's ok
regarding the last part,
you are granted the chance to be wrong again
<:+)
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Mac sux! get over it!!
Boljusz 2 years ago
oh really? please elaborate as to exactly WHY mac sux
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
I have a Macbook Pro...yes MAC SUX
Buhma 2 years ago
sure you do. why does your mac suck, specifically?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Let's take the entry level 15-inch MacBook Pro and answer that:
Slowass 5400RPM HDD
INTEGRATED GRAPHICS?
250 GIGS OF SPACE?!?
NO BLU-RAY!?!?!!?!?
I'll stick with my VAIO FW, with Blu-Ray, a 320GB 7200RPM HDD and discrete Radeon HD4650 graphics with a gig of VRAM for $500 less, thanks.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
let's take the macbook pro which blows away your vaio (albeit, it costs even more) but when considering the ;total cost of ownership'. it's actually cheaper, in the long run
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Which MacBook Pro blows away my VAIO? The entry level one I mentioned, at $1,699? The one with a slower hard drive? The same processor? Marginally faster RAM? LESS hard drive space? Far worse graphics? No blu-ray drive? Less storage space?
How exactly does this blow away my VAIO?
And there is no total cost of ownership. You plug it in, you use it, and it works. And when something happen that's my fault, I have an accidental damage warranty. So if I drop it and the screen cracks, it's replaced.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
no, you can get one with a 7200 rpm hard drive, numbnuts. and please look up 'total cost of ownership' your vaio fails
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Oh right, there is an option for a 7200RPM hard drive, for an extra $100. Wow. And it still has worse graphics, no blu-ray, same processor...
Now, since you want to talk total cost of ownership, let's pretend that both laptops undergo some form of accidental damage. Now my VAIO gets replaced for free, and you have to pay hundreds to get your MacBook repaired or replaced.
Total cost of ownership is variable, and it is definitely not higher simply because it runs Windows or is from Sony.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
so all sony laptops come with a 7200 rpm hard drive? what are you doing that the graphics card in the mac won't handle?
please look up total cost of ownership before babbling any further like you know what it is.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
No, not all Sony notebooks do. I was talking about my model specifically that did, which cost $1,150, which I hope you'll find is far less than the cost of a similar MacBook Pro.
What am I doing? Gaming mostly, which I'd like to see on integrated graphics on anything that actually looks decent. But, it's used for other applications as well. Decoding HD video, 3D modeling applications, etc.You should learn about the importance of the graphics card.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
really? what is your operating system that is similar to mac osx?
yes, graphics is very important in macs, as well, since much video editing is done on them. you should really study about macs
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
You fanboys should stop babbling about this imaginary cost of ownership that you invent purely to make your computer seem cheaper.
You don't need paid anti-virus.
You don't need $300~ software suites.
Windows PCs don't magically break and make you take them in for repair.
Or anything else of that nature. And don't get me started on the Apple Store horror stories I've heard.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
if its imaginary, why do virtually all reviewers of computers use it? do you want some windows horror stories?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Virtually all reviewers of computers? Which reviews have you been watching lately? Ones by Justin Long? Those are commercials, if you didn't realize.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
um, no, justin long has never mentioned the total cost of ownership. I'm glad you know so much about it!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Way to miss the joke. And ignore my question.
Glad you're able to defend your statements!
See? now we're both using sarcasm.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
way to not know what TCO is.
ht tp://w ww. tuaw. com/2009/03/13/macs-still-cheaper-when-you-look-at-tco/
see now one of us is using facts. the other is you
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Gee, look at that, I looked at your link, and the links in your link, and neither of them actually have any arguments, they just state the TCO is higher. One of them says there's a spreadsheets....but the link to it is dead. Strange world, isn't it?
So what facts were you using, again?
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
htt p://tiny. cc/CQqxr
another one for you. where is your corresponding, refuting evidence?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
i see nothing about spreadsheets, are we looking at the same article? mines written by Mike Schramm
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
The one written by Mike Schramm has absolutely no evidence in itself, and merely links to other articles as so called proof. When I look at them, I get an incredibly old comparison which may have been valid then, but is no longer. And there's also one which cites a spreadsheet by Winn Schwartau, which isn't actually there.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
old comparison? 2 years ago is not all that old. where is your refuting evidence? what about my other link? are you ignoring that, as well?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Your other link also cites the same spreadsheet which no longer exists, did you happen to read it?
2 years ago is damn old, and if you think otherwise you're insane. Do you think companies don't adjust their product lines and change prices over time?
My refuting evidence is that you have given me nothing to refute.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
there was more to the article than just a spreadsheet, which you choose to ignore, hence my nickname
yes, quite right, 2 years ago macs were MORE expensive. now that they have cut prices, the evidence is for the mac, even moreso!
nice non-answer, where is your evidence that in TCO, pc comes out on top?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
I read the article, it consisted of him stating PCs cost more to maintain without elaborating on how. Maybe your nickname should be IgnorantMacFanboys.
Now that they've cut prices, and everyone else has, and new technologies have come out...Macs are still overpriced!
Still waiting for some kind of evidence on this PC TCO is higher, bullshit.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
The TCO tool considers reliability costs, downtime per user per year, productivity losses/gains, reboots and system maintenance. The enterprise also needs to consider the help desk and other support time/costs per user per PC.
The TCO tool also allows you to calculate the resale value of the computer. It did not take long to discover that Mac's resale value is much higher than WinTel's.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
macs overpriced? evidence please
the article clearly states that macs are cheaper when considering TCO, therefore, pc's are MORE expensive!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
That's what the article states, but there's no fucking EVIDENCE. You're just being a fucking fanboy now.
To prove Macs are overpriced one simply needs to look at what the competition offers at the same prices, or at what prices they offer comparable offerings.
Macs. are. overpriced.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
i have seen the evidence, first hand, having had my own pcs for the past 12+ years.
show me one pc competitor that offers all that comes with a mac, at the same or less cost
pcs are overpriced
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Dell Studio XPS 16 compares easily to the 17" MacBook Pro with a higher quality RGBLED display, i7 720QM, 4GB of DDR3-1333, Mobility Radeon 4670, 9 cell battery and the Sony Imagination Studio Suite, for $850 less when both are evenly configured.
HP Envy 15 blows away a similarly priced MacBook Pro 15", with a better Core i7 720QM, 2GB more DDR3 RAM, better discrete Mobility Radeon 4830 video card and the same form factor (really, it's like a ripoff tbh).
Macs are overpriced.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
where is the equivalent of garageband? hell, where is your equivalent of osx and all of it's features?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Equivalent of GarageBand in the Sony Imagination Studio Suite I mentioned. It comes with very good equivalents to all of iLife's features, except iWeb. iWeb is a POS, don't even get me started.
Where's your equivalent of Windows, with the largest catalog of software programs out of any major operating system?
What amazing features does OS X have? A lack of printer and scanner drivers? Kernel panics? Instability? Deleting your Home folder when you log into a guest account?
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
windows has the largest catalog but a smaller one of well-written programs. i speak from extensive experience on both sides. you can knock iweb, i knock most windows apps. even lockergnome agrees with this.
lack of printer and scanner drivers? the very same could be said for vista. do you want some links? bsod, rsod, far greater instability in windows. where did that last one come from? ive never even HEARD of such a problem. is it a rampant one?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
so you have experience with all windows programs ever? that's a feat
thebsdguy 2 years ago
nope, but enough to formulate a reasonable deduction. so, you have run osx on macs for years and years with thousands of hours logged? same idea...
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
i've been running OS X on macs and PCs for years and years, yes. there's nothing "amazing" about it like you mac fanboys make it out to be, it's just another OS.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
kinda like bsd? you are your own worst enemy.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
ht tp://ww w.guardian.c o.u k/technology/2009/oct/13/apple-bug
how are you going to spin this one? windows doesn't have these kinds of issues, and bsods are rare. what the fuck is an rsod?
stupid fanboy
thebsdguy 2 years ago
oh really?
h ttp://w ww. computerworld. com/s/article/9139471/Programmer_slip_up_produces_critical_bug_Microsoft_admits
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
ht tp://ww w. microsoft-watch. com/content/operating_systems/move_over_blue_screen_of_death. html
stupid fanboy
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
nope, it's still a BSOD.
funny that you're pointing out a vulnerability. didn't you know OS X has far more vulnerabilities than windows? look it up
thebsdguy 2 years ago
it's a RSOD-can't you read? do you need a video of it?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
wow, you're fucking stupid.
that article is from 2005. it's still a blue screen of death in vista and windows 7.
windows 7 was released for public beta testing in january, and the RC was released in may. with public testing on that scale, and from what I've heard about people's satisfaction with RTM releases, it's obviously not going to have "zero problems" (osx definitely has problems too) but the general public will be quite satisfied.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
of course its old, its about the red screen of death in microsofts latest release: windows vista
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
i already told you, moron, it's still a blue screen of death. no public release of windows has ever had "red screens of death."
it's still a BSOD even in 7.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
It's an issue with Snow Leopard. If you had your guest account active in Leopard, and you attempt to log in to it after upgrading to Snow Leopard, there's a chance that it will delete your Home folder for your main account when you log out.
Check engadget, CNET, Gizmodo, etc. They all had articles out on it. Apple itself admitted the problem exists, a month after users have been reporting it, and that they are working on a fix.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
and windows7 will have zero problems is your prediction?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Of course not, I never said that. But Mac fanboys, yourself included, always try to make it seem as though Macs are issue and worry free. They really aren't.
From these latest issues with Snow Leopard, to clearing PRAM and repairing disk permissions, it's just as difficult to maintain a Mac as a Windows PC.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
no, they have problems -but far less than windows peecees
so, how many macs do you own?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
what problems do windows PCs have, specifically? i'm asking about problems that affect PC users in general, not problems with specific models, and are problems inherent in the OS, not bullshit like malware
thebsdguy 2 years ago
ht tp://ww w. computerworld. com/s/article/9139471/Programmer_slip_up_produces_critical_bug_Microsoft_admits
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
yes, you already pointed that one out. macs have far more vulnerabilities, we've been over this. besides, this has been patched, and this isn't something that would affect the vast majority of PC users at all.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
security is not important to the vast majority????? i must write that down!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
of course it is but can you show me proof that this has been used against ANYONE?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
can you show me it HASN'T?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
burden of proof is on you, though. where is the proof that this vulnerability has been used against an everyday user?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
lol-what percentage if install base is using windows7?
ht vtp://abcnews. go. com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=7239975
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Windows 7 isn't even vulnerable to conficker... you're behind, dumbass. the vulnerability Conficker exploited was patched in October of _2008_.
stop being a fucking idiot and come up with RELEVANT sources.
by the way, adiblasi uses a mac pro because he has a shitload of peripherals that need to be connected, and he has a pretty good reason for using it.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
i never said it was relevant to windows7. i was merely using an exploit that STILL poses a threat, as opposed to YOUR misinformation
ht tp://ww w. darkreading. com/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220300359
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
XP and vista users who disable automatic updates or use pirated copies of windows (which can still download critical security updates, even though they turn off automatic updates since it's a "call home feature") are the only ones affected
thebsdguy 2 years ago
is that why oxford brookes was attacked? because they use pirated copies of windows?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
i didn't say ALL users affected by conficker pirate, you fucking idiot. read what I fucking say before shitting out more comments.
yes, his youtube videos, you illiterate fuck.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
so they disabled auto updates you illiterate fuck?
so little youtube videos are now major rendering, you illiterate fuck
you illiterate fuck
you illiterate fuck
you illiterate fuck
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
exactly, you're getting it!
the guy has probably tens of thousands of dollars worth in studio equipment, I don't see why a mac pro is overkill for his fucking studio.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
did you ever stop to think that he likes the speed, graphics, etc.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
mac pros don't have impressive graphics capabilities and stop pretending they do
thebsdguy 2 years ago
who defines impressive graphics? you?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
lol, the GT 120 card is weak as hell, don't even try.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
weak as hell for whom???
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
The GT 120 is a $70 card. There is no defending it. The Mac Pro as a workstation should come standard with at least some kind of workstation level graphics card, not a GeForce G-Fail.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
snipurl com/sn258
you might have to scroll down a few pages to get to the GT 120's score but that's not bad at all!
(actually it's terrible lol)
thebsdguy 2 years ago
With the new iMac coming with a Core i5-750, a Radeon 4850 and a 27" IPS panel for $2000, there is NO REASON Apple shouldn't be giving a Radeon 4850 and at LEAST a 2.93 Ghz Xeon in the $2,500 Mac Pro.
Not only do its graphics suck, it's overpriced even by the standards of Apple's new products. Which for once, are fairly priced.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
"Pro" just means it's "pro priced" as in "overpriced."
thebsdguy 2 years ago
and exactly what should the price of the base octocore mac pro be, exactly?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
they sell them refurbished for $2,799 and apple probably still makes a killing off of that
thebsdguy 2 years ago
no. tell me exactly what a new one should cost.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
and how is it when there are four?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
4 GT 120s? probably marginally better than one but 4 shit cards are not much better than 1
thebsdguy 2 years ago
i noticed that your entire listing was titled 'high end cards'. does this tell you anything?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
yeah
it tells me that the GT 120 pales in comparison to cards that cost $150 retail
thebsdguy 2 years ago
and how is the GT 120 for the AVERAGE computer user?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
the AVERAGE computer user doesn't buy a workstation computer bro
thebsdguy 2 years ago
then how is the GT120 for the average workstation buyer?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
horseshit
thebsdguy 2 years ago
and what are you basing this on? have you done a survey of workstaion buyers/ owners? are people returning their mac pros in droves because of your newly found revelation about 'weak' graphics cards?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
by the way, if we are onl talking about workstations, shouldn't the only card reviews be that of 'workstation cards' not also gaming cards?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
is the GT 120 a workstation card?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
you are the one stating that the mac pro is 'only and always' a workstation. you tell me.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
workstation? oh no, it's an overpriced joke of a desktop. $2,500 for garbage, lol
thebsdguy 2 years ago
the mac pro is garbage? please write and tell trent reznor that
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
he's a musician, he's naturally an idiot
thebsdguy 2 years ago
so all musicians are idiots???
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
didn't say that
thebsdguy 2 years ago
your statement says that since he's a musician, he's an idiot-correct?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
@IgnorantPCFanboys Mac books arent Garbage But they are WAY OVER PRICED
Wayne2219 1 year ago
@Wayne2219 are you taking the TCO into consideration
IgnorantPCFanboys 1 year ago
even the $2,200 imac with the i7 will probably outperform the base model 4-core MP for $2,500, hahaha
thebsdguy 2 years ago
and what is it like when you are running FOUR of those?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
I had a 15" MacBook Pro until recently, it was a decent laptop, but it wasn't error free, and it was more expensive than comparable Windows laptops.
My sister also has a 15" MacBook Pro, and several other members of my family also have Macs. They like them, but they don't prefer them over Windows laptops or anything like that.
Why do you assume that everyone who doesn't love Macs, hasn't used one? We're not ignorant, we simply have opinions. And we form them through experience and facts.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
don't prefer them over windows laptops'
then why did they opt for a mac, rather than a peecee?
because most pc fanboys don't even know what folder actions are
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
do all mac users use folder actions?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
do none?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Because we wanted to try something different and give it a chance? Some of them prefer Macs, some prefer Windows PCs. But none of them hate either of them.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
"our hardware is shit, but hey, we get a pretty OS lol"
thebsdguy 2 years ago
and exactly, what percentage of all computer users have better hardware than what is available from apple?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
that isn't relevant. look at the 4-core mac pro. at its base configuration it's essentially a core i7 PC with a crappy graphics card and small amount of memory, all for $2,500.
and the mac mini? for $599 you can do better than that.
thebsdguy 2 years ago
what the computer buying public has and wants is irrelevant? how so? do you think computer manufacturers define these people as irrelevant? what is wrong with the graphics in the mac pro? if you are getting one, wouldn't it make much more sense to bump up just a hair to the octocore?
599-better? PROVE IT!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Bump it up a hair to the dual processor model? That's not a hair, that's like $500. That's a good chunk of money.
The only advantage the Mac Pro has over a standard i7 PC is support for ECC RAM, really. And if you need that, HP and Dell have their own Xeon Nehalem workstations for cheaper.
And the Mac Pros graphics are borderline terrible, the GT 120 is nothing more than a rebranded GeForce 9500GT, which is a $70 card. And the Radeon 4870 costs no more than $150 at retail.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
when you investing this much already, in a computer $500 really isnt that much. what about osx and ilife?
'borderline terrible' for whom?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Borderline terrible for anyone doing serious rendering work, or things of that nature, it's a cheap card and I expect it in nothing more expensive than a $1000 Dell. If anything the Radeon 4870 should be the default card.
Why do you need iLife in a professional workstation? If you're buying a computer this expensive I'm hoping you have professional software to run on it. OS X is nothing special, I don't see why you think it is.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
"os x and ilife" is his only argument. you realize you're arguing with a braindead moron, right?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
Yes, but I'm bored.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
this straight from theBSguy!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
and what percentage of the computer buying public is doing 'serious rendering'
many non-professionals own macs. why do you think only professionals have them? how much experience with osx on a mac do you, personally, have?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
and what percentage of non-professionals won mac pros?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
about half of the mac pro owners that i know, are non professional
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
half? okay, so what do they do with their mac pros?
thebsdguy 2 years ago
make youtube vids, surf the net, search for cures to cancer, etc.
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
uhh, the Mac Pro is a professional workstation, not a children's toy. If you're not using it for things like rendering and of that nature, you should be using an iMac.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
tell that to adiblasi
NOW!!!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
....?
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
tell him to go start rendering with his mac pro
NOW!!!
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
what do you think he uses to render his movies? geez
thebsdguy 2 years ago
you mean his youtube videos????
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Why should I? He can use it for whatever he wants to. My point isn't that he can't have it, or use it for whatever he wants, it's that it's overkill.
How many people do you know who actually need a quad or octo-core machine for any sort of serious work? And I didn't just say rendering, I said "things of that nature". Tasks that are CPU and GPU intensive.
Folding at home, rendering, parallel processing, doing serious work. The Mac Pro is marketed as a workstation. Not a home user's desktop.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
overkill? according to what expert?
i know a number of people who could benefit from that many cores
so, because its marketed as such, you CAN'T use it as one? can a falcon northwest computer edit video?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
It's a fucking workstation, not a desktop for you to look at your photos in iPhoto and make your pretty little website in iWeb.
It's overkill. Stop trying to find a way around it. You dumbass prick.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
so, absolutely no-one uses it as their desktop?
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Of course they do. Hell there's some 13-year old on YouTube with an eight core Mac Pro.
The point is, Apple markets it as a workstation. That is what it is. That is the purpose it is intended to be used for.
If you want to use it for dicking around, go ahead. But it makes about as much sense as opening a can of soup with a table saw.
Especially, when Apple just released a more powerful iMac than the quad-core Mac Pro, for $500 less, with a 27" LED backlit IPS panel.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
i will eventually have one, i am just not into the all in one aspect of the imac. it's great for many, just not me...
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
Neither am I, which is why i defend the point that Apple's consumer desktops (the iMac and Mac Mini) may not be overpriced, but they are not logical purchases.
However, the iMac now uses desktop parts, so its performance is now closer to those of similarly priced desktops, factoring in the monitor.
I'd rather pay a fair price for a computer I can't ~easily~ take apart, than extra for a computer I can. I can put in a slight bit more effort, I'd rather not put in more money.
manjyoumethunder 2 years ago
id rather spend the extra money to get exactly what i want
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
i bet you order your memory from apple thinking you're getting better quality stuff LOL
thebsdguy 2 years ago
uh, no. crucial offers the same ram for much less. only a true idiot orders more ram thru apple
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
PC"S are WAY overpriced
IgnorantPCFanboys 2 years ago
haha edited by shelia! the editing does look pretty bad
drinkskimmilk 2 years ago
This one I hadn't seen yet. Another great attempt to knock the Macbooks out of the top stop on the consumer reports ranking. Funny how you don't see MS pushing PC desktops at all. She bought a low end big piece of plastic Dell, did I see that right? Bleh! Over the next 2 years she'll end up buying another one, when she coulda had a MacBook that would last twice as long and be twice as good.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
they should advertise desktops because that is where they excel the most in my opinion. apple excels at laptops enough said.
ASCII808 2 years ago
I'd put my iMacs up against the quality and reliability of most desktops any day. I still challenge anyone to show me a more reliable computer than my '05 iMac. And as for price - the only reasons MS tackles Apple in laptops is because they know that side by side per form factor Macs are not necessarily more. They mislead consumers with the lower starting price - but they are normally stripped down. The price often exceeds a Mac when fully featured. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
my windows Me machine, and a 400$ 2004 windows xp machine. all cheap computers that have lived longer than your macs.
ASCII808 2 years ago
OK now sorry but that's a dumb comparison. My Macs are also a lot YOUNGER than your PCs. How about we compare my 3.5 year old iMac to the millions of 2 year old PCs that are now being replaced due to hardware failure (sadly many are being replaced by another 2 year pc).
Im sorry you are a decent but that really wasn't a good comparison. I JUST got into Macs under 4 years ago - ask me in another 4 years what the status of these 2 machines is.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
how is it a bad comparison? I told told you I had a Windows Me machine (2001) and a Windows XP machine (2004). I also have a windows 98 (98), and a custom p2 box (98). all of those computers are older than your macs and they are all cheap so they must be high quality because they are reliable. I don't know how people have hardware failure because all of those are cheap Hps and packard, Tangent. I don't think computers die every 2 years. I know people that screw up the Os and buy a new Pc. ^_^
ASCII808 2 years ago
How can you NOT see how its a bad comparison. I only got my first Mac in late 2005. If I had been into Macs all my life THEN we could compare, but you and others keep forgetting I'm a former Windows/PC user. So all of my older computers (whats left of them) are ALL PCs, not Macs. So this comparison cannot be made at this time. That is why I said to talk to me in 4 or 5 years from now.
My old Compaq laptop is still alive but it might as well be on life support - also running ME (bleh!)
endlessdream94 2 years ago
I don't think Youtube will be around that long. to tell you. your mac will no longer be useful by that time. they will probably have 2080P or something like that which would probably need twice the processing power for 1080P which takes awhile on a core 2 duo.
ASCII808 2 years ago
How can you claim the my iMac won't be useful by that time but your Windows machine from back in the days of ME still is? Sorry but ROFL! My iMac is 3.5 years old and out does the 2.5 year old XP laptop that my roommate has. Her's has issues galore, including a bootup time that is about 3 times as long as my G5. What you determine useful vs what I do may be different. But to me when a computer starts giving you headaches - its no longer useful. I don't consider ANY running ME to be useful.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
And actually the argument isn't just "living longer" but being more reliable over time. I still have 2 PCs that at least still breathe, but they are by no means reliable or trouble free machines. They are old and almost useless machines that need a lot of work before they can be considered useful again. Maybe I'll rip the processor out of the newer compaq and throw it in the older WeBase and install Linux
endlessdream94 2 years ago
old hardware gets useless over time. I can also find a use for them, you can use them as a home server, a web browsing computer, etc. the two younger computers are used everyday for financing, and what every basic Windows user does.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Old hardware does get useless over time. But I will stand behind Macs (due to the OS and better quality parts) as being more useful for longer periods. I would NEVER use any of my old PCs for even web browsing - it takes forever just to open up a simple folder! And what do you mean "what every basic Windows user does?"
endlessdream94 2 years ago
Low end computers can web browse, check email, watch 720P videos, listen to music,etc. Why does your Pc take forever to open a folder, that only happens if you have slow hardware, or you messed up windows. They both live around the same time. I can do exactly what my mac does with older computers. if you have not noticed computers with higher end components last longer because they will always have the speed to run the Next gen Os, or software.
ASCII808 2 years ago
My old PCs take a long time because they just do. Don't ask me to explain why, just that the hardware is older and they are slower than dirt! And all you guys think that average users screw up windows so thats why it is so bad - we know nothing of how to tinker with it - so what exactly did we do to it? Nothing. Its just how it is.
And even older Macs can run Leopard. Vista Ultimate can't run on older PCs. Not trying to be an ass, but that says something about Macs and their OS.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
And I know its hard for many of you guys to accept this but Windows isn't exactly the best OS on the planet. ME sucked big time! I did nothing to the computer other than use it and "attempt" to defrag (ME sucks at this btw, never worked right for me). And same goes for XP and 98... they just were slow as dirt after a while and I this was after more attempts at defragging. Thankfully Macs file system runs circles around Windows so we don't have the fragmentation problem.
endlessdream94 2 years ago