Precisely. I think Macs are great - and far superior to most Windows machines, but I'm no Apple fanboy. Quite the opposite - my phone is Android, my main PC runs Ubuntu. As I mention, we have several Macs and a Windows Dell too.
Macs cost more to buy for the equivalent spec as a PC, assuming you don't care about build quality or portability. Or ease of use. Or stability. Or relative freedom from malware.
A computer is a tool. Who cares how many gigahertz the processor runs at, or whether your graphics card is a generation behind. How well does it get the job done?
I'd recommend buying a Mac for pretty much anyone, unless:
- you have a strict budget of £300
- you need a software package that only appears on Windows
- you play a lot of PC games
- you build your own PC
For everyone else, a Mac will be a far better purchase. It'll be easier to use, and less hassle to maintain.
A couple of misconceptions abound regarding Macs.
Firstly, they are just as useful for "power" users as Windows PCs, or even more so. OS X is unix-based and so comes with pretty much any tweak or tool that a techie would ever need.
Secondly, they are Macs, not MACs. A MAC address is a unique identifier for a network interface - your computer will have one or more MAC addresses, whether it's Windows, OS X, or Linux based.
Upvote
0
I am a Ruby programmer, I was a Windows user all my life until about 6 years ago mainly because I stopped gaming. I then actually wanted a reliable simple environment for developing applications.
Like other people suggest, the reason for buying one platform over the other can depend on the types of software you want to run. Some specific software packages are windows only, however I expect this will change over time as Macs become more and more popular.
If this is the case there are ways to run windows on a mac, such as bootcamp where you can install a window on a separate partition or using Virtual machine tools like Parallels and VMWare. I still find myself having to go back to windows to test web applications in Internet Explorer because unfortunately there isn't a 100% reliable alternative to do this.
I would never go back to windows but that's mainly because of my career choice and needs as a user. If I was still an avid PC gamer I would almost certainly have a Windows PC.
I'm sure you'll make the best choice for your requirements.
Rob
Like other people suggest, the reason for buying one platform over the other can depend on the types of software you want to run. Some specific software packages are windows only, however I expect this will change over time as Macs become more and more popular.
If this is the case there are ways to run windows on a mac, such as bootcamp where you can install a window on a separate partition or using Virtual machine tools like Parallels and VMWare. I still find myself having to go back to windows to test web applications in Internet Explorer because unfortunately there isn't a 100% reliable alternative to do this.
I would never go back to windows but that's mainly because of my career choice and needs as a user. If I was still an avid PC gamer I would almost certainly have a Windows PC.
I'm sure you'll make the best choice for your requirements.
Rob
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Simply not true. Macs have a useful lifespan far beyond most Windows PCs.
I have a 2006 Intel iMac. It still works brilliantly well, and is certainly no slouch. All I've done is change the hard drive (£60) and upgrade the RAM (£70) - if I upgrade to OS X 10.6 (£30) it'll be good for at least another 2 years' service.
In other words, 7 years computing. And this is a business computer that stays on 24/7, and runs demanding software, and is used for hours most days.
Upvote
0
Actually its the OS that makes the lifespan poor on PCs. The problem is after installing a myriad of apps over a 2 year period windows just bogged down in crap with files scattered over a number of directories. A re-install fixes the problem so not really the PCs fault. And this is one aspect where imho microsoft are doing a poor job, the OSes are actually getting *worse* not better. XP is awesome OS, everything post this is unbelievably bad.
Upvote
0
What a load of crap! PC are more powerful, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, LESS hassle to maintain, have more software, have more FREE software, more versatile, easier to upgrade with more upgrade options, more choice in periperhals and monitors, have more games if you're into that, easier to use because everyone knows how to use windows (i do computer tutition and alot of stuff on the mac is considerably harder to do), cheaper and more flexible for setting up servers (linux,lstp,windows).
Mac users will always try and justifiy spending double on the mac with the same old rubbish: they dont' get viruses, they sell for more 2nd hand, it's more stable, it's easier to use. The differences are marginal and do not warrant spending over double for what alot of the time is dated hardware. And yes it does matter the hardware is dated.. they're ripping you off!
Upvote
0
what are you talking about? what is bogged down? a number of files scattered across directories isn't going to slow a decent computer down.
The only issue with windows is the actual software companies installing their own software during start up sequences which may slow the computer down but anyone with half a brain can check and disable this.
Upvote
0
To address your points:
- PC are more powerful - for the same price, in the strict sense of number crunching, true
- cheaper to buy - ignoring build quality, true - false if you're looking at PCs with similar build quality
- cheaper to maintain - With hardware? Macs are PCs - so false. With software? Cheaper OS updates, no anti-virus needed, so just false
- LESS hassle to maintain - absolutely, categorically, unequivocably false
- have more software - true, which is why in special cases a Windows PC will be necessary
- have more FREE software - debatable, considering most Unix software has an OS X port
- more versatile - in an absolute sense, true. Not an issue for the vast majority of users
- easier to upgrade with more upgrade options - most people never upgrade more than RAM and HD. Most don't even do that.
- more choice in periperhals and monitors - I've not come across a peripheral I couldn't use. Monitors? Really?
- have more games if you're into that - which is exactly what I said above
- easier to use because everyone knows how to use windows - you teach computers exactly because everyone does NOT know how to use Windows
- cheaper and more flexible for setting up servers (linux,lstp,windows) - have you ever done this? I have. OS X is easier than Windows and (marginally) harder than Linux.
Upvote
0
To address your points:
- PC are more powerful - for the same price, in the strict sense of number crunching, true
- cheaper to buy - ignoring build quality, true - false if you're looking at PCs with similar build quality -
- cheaper to maintain - With hardware? Macs are PCs - so false. With software? Cheaper OS updates, no anti-virus needed, so just false
- LESS hassle to maintain - absolutely, categorically, unequivocably false
- have more software - true, which is why in special cases a Windows PC will be necessary
- have more FREE software - debatable, considering most Unix software has an OS X port
- more versatile - in an absolute sense, true. Not an issue for the vast majority of users
- easier to upgrade with more upgrade options - most people never upgrade more than RAM and HD. Most don't even do that.
- more choice in periperhals and monitors - I've not come across a peripheral I couldn't use. Monitors? Really?
- have more games if you're into that - which is exactly what I said above
- easier to use because everyone knows how to use windows - you teach computers exactly because everyone does NOT know how to use Windows
- cheaper and more flexible for setting up servers (linux,lstp,windows) - have you ever done this? I have. OS X is easier than Windows and (marginally) harder than Linux.
I can't be bothered to go into it anymore I work in IT, I sell, maintain all computers and networks etc. I would just like to ask how you think it's less hassle with a Mac?
Upvote
0
Do you sell Macs as well as Windows-based PCs? Do you support Macs? If not, how can you think it's more hassle with a Mac?
You do seem quite combative in this thread: "What a load of crap" and "What are you talking about" aren't particularly helpful replies...
Upvote
0
yes I support Macs but every week we get the same people spouting about how Macs are better in every department when they're not and it really gets on my nerves. Most people who have a neutral stance will state the benefits do not justify the extra cost.
Upvote
0
Define "neutral stance".
I'm glad you recognise that Macs have benefits over Windows PCs, though. (The opposite is also true, as I've mentioned previously.)
Upvote
0
Thats really not fair. I am myself known to question Micro$ofts decisions post XP frequently... But I cannot accept that XP is anywhere near as good as W7. XP was amazing in it's day, and a bigger leap forwards than W7 (well techinally win2k was the leap) but W7 genuinly is better.
It's not just the fact it's so stable and easy to use, but it's a better OS when you look under the bonnet as well. It makes extremely good use of harware and does not, as you say, get bogged down like previous versions. The registery works in a completely different way to previous versions.
The most remarkablke thing about W7 vs OSX, is that it is very nearly as stable and simple as OSX, but by it's nature it is fantastically broader in function and ability. Windows has greater potential for software developers than OSX, in the past this has caused windows to not be as stable. The fact that this problem barely exists anymore is really very impressive.
I say that even the most abused W7 system can be restored to it's original 'feel' within 20 mins. I also say that making 20 mins effort would be pointless, as any slowdown is so small that you simply won't notice.
Also, I can't afford MACs prices and my business can't afford to run such slow systems. Apple don't make a computer fast enough for serious CAD rendering. That is largely because of the restrictions placed on resource hungry software by OSX. On the windows system, I can choose to give a particular programme full priority of all resources if it has a lengthy task to complete.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
darrenwis
- Original Poster
- #95
Thanks for all the great advice here guys.
I've come accross this refurb imac from Currys for £749.00
Its not the new one but:
Is this a good price?
I've come accross this refurb imac from Currys for £749.00
Its not the new one but:
- Dual-core Intel® Core 2 Duo E8135 (2.66 GHz)
- Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
- Memory: 2GB
- 320GB
Is this a good price?
Upvote
0
20" screen with below even HD resolution. Processor years out of date, memory the minimum for any modern system and a tiny hard drive.
Refurb PC of that spec would be about £250-300 + £100 for a larger screen with higher res.
I'm sorry, but the bottom line is MACs are supposed to appeal to designers and photoshop enthusiasts. But there is no way 2gb ram could be considered a sensible amount for anyone working with images these days. An extra 2gb makes a massive difference and costs sod all.
It makes me cross that Apple would skimp on at least the extra memory purely because they know that 90% of their customers don't know enough to be put off.
Seriously, that iMAC is very, very out of date.
Upvote
0
I think rip off is the word you're looking for! Unfortunately people see the words Apple and Mac and think it must be a good computer because they're influenced by the type of fanboys you get on these threads.
Seriously you can get the same 2nd hand PC with that spec for less than £300.
Upvote
0
They slow down, always have, always will you get versioning issues with DLLs
, system and system32 directories fil up with temp files left over from system updates the list goes on.
Upvote
0
I'm a Mac user to the death BUT I live with 2 teachers... almost everything they have to use for school - their classroom websites, their planning software, their tools to create thing for classroom use - is council- or school-provided software and is PC-only. Seriously consider that! (they're primary school teachers) And consider the issues of file sharing with other staff and their possible use of PC-only software and ignorance at how to save files in a cross-platform format. (biggest prob for one of my housemates) One of them has a Mac as his personal machine but a PC the school provides.
I loathe PC, but often they are the sensible choice - both for practical and financial reasons. Just make sure your security software is up to date.
On a Mac, my suggestion is to get the most RAM and upgrade the hard drive. (they come with ridiculously small hard drives - I swapped a 320Gb into my MacBook that came with a 70Gb, it cost about £60)
Tina.
I loathe PC, but often they are the sensible choice - both for practical and financial reasons. Just make sure your security software is up to date.
On a Mac, my suggestion is to get the most RAM and upgrade the hard drive. (they come with ridiculously small hard drives - I swapped a 320Gb into my MacBook that came with a 70Gb, it cost about £60)
Tina.
Upvote
0
L
leemason
- Original Poster
- #101
There is obviously a big divide between many PC and Mac advocates. As mentioned previously in this thread I favour standard PC hardware running Linux. This in my view gives the best of both worlds in terms of cost and functionality. Having purchase a reasonably priced PC or laptop (you can even get several models very cheaply without an O/S these days) you can download Linux free and burn it onto a DVD or CD.
Once installed you will find that you have all (or most) of the software you need. If you use MS-Office use OpenOffice instead (it will read and write the vast majority of MS-Office files), you'll have Firefox as a web browser, if you use Outlook try Evolution for very similar functionality, etc, etc.
I use the Mandriva Powerpack edition and this include all of the above plus loads more including Skype, Adobe Reader, Scribus (electronic publishing), digiKam (photo management), The GIMP (graphics), Amarok (Audio Player), Fluedo DVD Player, K3b (disk burning), KompoZer (web authoring), VMware Player, etc, etc.
And all at a much lower cost that a PC with Windows or a MAC.
Once installed you will find that you have all (or most) of the software you need. If you use MS-Office use OpenOffice instead (it will read and write the vast majority of MS-Office files), you'll have Firefox as a web browser, if you use Outlook try Evolution for very similar functionality, etc, etc.
I use the Mandriva Powerpack edition and this include all of the above plus loads more including Skype, Adobe Reader, Scribus (electronic publishing), digiKam (photo management), The GIMP (graphics), Amarok (Audio Player), Fluedo DVD Player, K3b (disk burning), KompoZer (web authoring), VMware Player, etc, etc.
And all at a much lower cost that a PC with Windows or a MAC.
Upvote
0
C
colinbythesea
- Original Poster
- #103
Just dropped back into this thread again. There seems to be a lot of suggesting Macs are overpriced pretty things and all the old arguments about software not being available etc..
I am quite happy with the Mac bashing. As a long term Mac user I cannot really explain why I couldn't use anything else. But I kind of like that others don't get it because if everybody used Macs Mac users couldn't be knowingly smug. When buying a computer if you come to the conclusion a Mac is an overpriced pretty boy then buy a PC and leave Macs on the shelf for Mac users to buy. We don't mind.
I am quite happy with the Mac bashing. As a long term Mac user I cannot really explain why I couldn't use anything else. But I kind of like that others don't get it because if everybody used Macs Mac users couldn't be knowingly smug. When buying a computer if you come to the conclusion a Mac is an overpriced pretty boy then buy a PC and leave Macs on the shelf for Mac users to buy. We don't mind.
Upvote
0
Always will?? Sorry but it's hard to take a point of view seriously when 50% of it based on a claim to know what will happen in the future!
Anyway, the way w7 handles the above temp files issue is radically different to previous versions. Also, it uses a split level registery to get the best of both worlds - fast loading from boot to the desktop, but also all programs ready to start very swiftly.
If you abuse a w7 system, you may end up taking 10% longer to boot/launch programmes. Given that you buy a system 100% faster then a similarly priced MAC, the small degradation is really a non issue.
Also Apple pulled a real con with recent versions of OSX. Realising that people judge speed by how long it takes to launch a programme and switch between programs, they increased the resources held in reserve for the OS. This gives you a silky smooth OS that is always responsive and is primed to kick start all common programs quickly. However, once running the programs have less resources to munch into (and unlike windows it won't shift resources to a programme that needs more if doing so would stop the silky feel of the OS). This is typical MAC pulling the wool over the eyes of it's userbase. It feels quicker than some windows PC's, hence it can get away with actually being a little slower.
Give me an identical spec MAC and PC, with the same software, and anything processor intensive will be finished faster by the PC. It just will.
Upvote
0
Its based on experience as someone who has for 20+ years earned their living writing software, on DOS and then on Windows. Its always been the same and whilst improvements have been made its still not good.
W7 is a joke. Recently I had to put SQL 2008 express on a new w7 box. Wouldnt install, trawled the web turns out there is a kown issue with *all* express products, yes this is M$ software running on an M$ operating system. What you have to is create a dos shortcut as admin, run up the 64 bit command line and then type the command in to execute the launcher. This is just one of a few absurd things in the, thankfully, short time I have had to endure w7.
I could go on but cant really be arsed.
Upvote
0
Mac's are all I've ever used so I am biased but there are several reasons I've stuck with them.
They are stable, reliable easy to use, no need to buy tons of add-ons and it doesn't need fixing every fives minutes unlike many PC users computers I know.
They are well suited to the job I do and they just work!
They are stable, reliable easy to use, no need to buy tons of add-ons and it doesn't need fixing every fives minutes unlike many PC users computers I know.
They are well suited to the job I do and they just work!
Upvote
0
L
leemason
- Original Poster
- #107
I have to agree with this. I have worked in IT for over 30 years and went to the original UK Windows NT 3.1 launch in London in the early 1990's and have worked with large networks of PC systems since the very early days of LAN Manager and Netware 2.11.
Since MS introduced the Windows Registry there has been an ongoing problem with Windows systems slowing down over time with use especially when there are a large number of applications installed and removed (as is the case with many peoples PC systems). In a business environment I always recommend that people install the absolute minimum number of applications and don't install "optional" items like itunes and the like on business PCs.
It is very rarely that I go into an IT department where they do anything but re-install Windows from scratch when there is a performance problem. Any other diagnostics is just a waste of time and money in a busy IT department. They have learned their lesson many years ago on this.
The same companies very often have a few MACs dotted about the place (in Sales and Marketing very often) and never get a single helpdesk calls for these (admittedly there are far fewer so this may not be any indication).
Upvote
0
F
Flying Hippy
- Original Poster
- #109
I might as well have my say on this. I am a mac freak.
Started way back with the apple IIE I though I would give the the humble pcs ago sometime with the 286, 386,486 I was spending a lot of money for upgrade add ons ect. Of course the situation has now improved years down the road or has it ?
I was even thrown out of class when I told the IT lectures Mac would be the way forward and they will be bitting into a large market share. That was when Macs had .05% of the market.
I worked at a large It Support center for 4 years and the amount of thing that would go wrong with them was just crazy. The only mac Questions we ever had was how to install a printer.
I still agree Macs are the way forward I have not upgraded mine for 4 years as I have seen no need to still runs all my design software with out the new fancy functions that a designer would be able to do anyhow.
Software seems to be compatible with one another now days as they use industry standards extensions.
The only reason why I would need to upgrade is to move forward with the operating system as the hardware is not supported for the new version of Mac OS which all the new software is being written. Four years is a good investment for a computer.
Long Live the Macs
Started way back with the apple IIE I though I would give the the humble pcs ago sometime with the 286, 386,486 I was spending a lot of money for upgrade add ons ect. Of course the situation has now improved years down the road or has it ?
I was even thrown out of class when I told the IT lectures Mac would be the way forward and they will be bitting into a large market share. That was when Macs had .05% of the market.
I worked at a large It Support center for 4 years and the amount of thing that would go wrong with them was just crazy. The only mac Questions we ever had was how to install a printer.
I still agree Macs are the way forward I have not upgraded mine for 4 years as I have seen no need to still runs all my design software with out the new fancy functions that a designer would be able to do anyhow.
Software seems to be compatible with one another now days as they use industry standards extensions.
The only reason why I would need to upgrade is to move forward with the operating system as the hardware is not supported for the new version of Mac OS which all the new software is being written. Four years is a good investment for a computer.
Long Live the Macs
Upvote
0
A little off topic, but I maintain about a dozen PCs for friends and neighbours for fun and a beer now and then. 5 years ago I'd be in someone's house every month or so and I'd re-install XP on all of them every couple of years to clean them up for one reason or another.
Last week a neighbour called me round just for the beer - complaining that he never sees me these days because nothing ever needs doing. I haven't had to fix anybody's PC for at least a year.
I do think that both PCs and Macs have got pretty stable these days ("Macs don't crash" always was rubbish btw - I could crash my mate's Mac at will and I get the Mac's SBOD - spinning beach ball of death - everyday; tho it always recovers itself prettily if you wait a few seconds)
The choice between a good spec Win 7 machine or Mac for an ordinary user is pretty much down to brand image and design choice (and familiarity) these days.
There are some very good specialist reasons for choosing one over the other, but the majority don't have a need for them (excepting gamers of course.).
Last week a neighbour called me round just for the beer - complaining that he never sees me these days because nothing ever needs doing. I haven't had to fix anybody's PC for at least a year.
I do think that both PCs and Macs have got pretty stable these days ("Macs don't crash" always was rubbish btw - I could crash my mate's Mac at will and I get the Mac's SBOD - spinning beach ball of death - everyday; tho it always recovers itself prettily if you wait a few seconds)
The choice between a good spec Win 7 machine or Mac for an ordinary user is pretty much down to brand image and design choice (and familiarity) these days.
There are some very good specialist reasons for choosing one over the other, but the majority don't have a need for them (excepting gamers of course.).
Upvote
0
C
colinbythesea
- Original Poster
- #111
Driven to yet another response.
Linux is lovely. (Underneath every Mac is UNIX anyway and you can play with the UNIX bits if you want to). I had a Linux netbook and ruined it by putting Windows on it. My only concern for the average user would be is Linux is a bit techie, but after many struggles I have had with Windows in the past it may be an equal level of techieness needed. I would suggest anybody who wants to try a windows alternative download Linux onto a DVD and fire it up on their PC.
I have wondered in these current times with government cuts why they haven't considered a wholesale move to UNIX in Government departments. It would save a fortune, UNIX servers would be more reliable, website authoring tools would be free. Their existing hardware would run faster saving on upgrades. It would also mean they could have access to the LINUX source code which has to be a good thing for not having to rely on an American commercial company for the basis of the nations IT.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry but you sound like you are referring to typical working practices upto and including XP. W7 is far more stable and keeps itself a lot cleaner.
Have you actually maintained w7 systems? I assumed most companies big enough to employ IT support were still bound to XP, or earlier.
Upvote
0
L
leemason
- Original Poster
- #113
I have maintained Windows 7 systems in some small customers. You are correct in saying that most large customers have stuck with Windows XP as Vista was such a disaster.
I will whole heartedly admit that Windows 7 is substantially better than any previous version of Windows and appears (so far) to be less susceptible to slowdown over time. But I haven't run it for long enough yet to see if that will remain to be true.
Upvote
0
Well, you would have to take my word for it, but I have. Most of our PC's have single use so not much software gets loaded, however my 2 year old laptop really is used for everything and runs w7 64bit with no appreciable slowdown. Compared to Vista, the difference is astonishing. It's got to the point no that it simply doesn't matter anymore, especially when PC hardware is so cheap.
This brings me back to the PC vs MAC price difference.
Whilst I accept that OSX makes peoples lives easier, that doesn't actually make it 'better' than windows, just different. Windows is very open ended and configurable, which is great as it allows a user to run a system that works best the way they wish to use it. However, as a result of the extra complexity, it takes a degree of knowledge to get the best from. OSX takes the opposite path and is much more closed and pre-configured, making life easier but limits it's abilities in many areas.
So what we have surely is a choice of equal operating systems, designed with different people in mind. But that doesn't make OSX more valuable, it's not as if MS couldn't design a similar OS for the same money.
So that still leaves me unable to justify the huge premium for the MAC. You look at both options, identical spec and choose the one with the OS you're happy with. So far they should cost the same. The only difference that should affect the price on the MAC is the build quality and the styling, which is fine... But why is the PC only 40% the price of the MAC??
Why would anyone, even if they can only use a MAC, argue that build quality and style is worth more than the computer and OS they are actually buying?
Upvote
0
Perceived prestige, badge love, fashion, self image, style,
perceived non-comformity, wealth, projection of wealthy image, design consciousness, tribal allegiance, marketing.
Same reason people buy BMW not Ford Mondeo. (The Head of Marketing at MBW Munich told me that they were selling image, not engineering.)
(But there are several very good objective reasons for choosing a Mac over a PC and vice versa - just not for the normal user.)
Upvote
0
D
darrenwis
- Original Poster
- #116
Hi guys,
A massive thanks for everyone on this thread, i've read each and every post and have decided a mac is not for me. I will mostly use office applications, maybe a little photoshop elements but nothing much more resource hungry.
I have been to pc world today and see the Acer Aspire Z5700 all in one pc. It has:
Intel Core i3 550 processor
3GB memory
500GB hard drive
23" Touch display
More info here: http://www.acerdirect.co.uk/Acer_As...ll-in-One_Desktop_PC_PW.SDCE2.048/version.asp
I had a little play and it seemed nice and at the moment its £599.99 reduced from £999.99
I'd like any comments on the pc, I think its proabably suitable for what i'm going to be using it for.
Are there any major holes in my thinking here?
A massive thanks for everyone on this thread, i've read each and every post and have decided a mac is not for me. I will mostly use office applications, maybe a little photoshop elements but nothing much more resource hungry.
I have been to pc world today and see the Acer Aspire Z5700 all in one pc. It has:
Intel Core i3 550 processor
3GB memory
500GB hard drive
23" Touch display
More info here: http://www.acerdirect.co.uk/Acer_As...ll-in-One_Desktop_PC_PW.SDCE2.048/version.asp
I had a little play and it seemed nice and at the moment its £599.99 reduced from £999.99
I'd like any comments on the pc, I think its proabably suitable for what i'm going to be using it for.
Are there any major holes in my thinking here?
Upvote
0
C
colinbythesea
- Original Poster
- #117
Completely disagree. I think you are mixing pre-configured up with an operating system that doesn't need to be told about every last detail of it's existence just to work. Based on UNIX it couldn't be more open and accessible.
An example from a committee I am Chairman of. When we formed last year we were sorting out general ways to work and at the first couple of meetings we were discussing e-mails we had sent to each other and the Secretary had sent out a few with Word attachments. The others on the Committee were discussing whether they had received mails, how they were trying to sort out junk, how the word files crashed their systems, wouldn't open in their version of word, how their computers were slow and needed rebuilding to work properly. Smug me just sat there. I had received all of the mails opened all of the attachments and I don't even have word on my MacBook. They even all worked on my iPhone.
I suggested we use PDF files to send documents around. A universal file format that everybody should be able to read. It took a few weeks for everybody to work out how to make PDF files and download readers. This also surprised me as I got blank looks when I suggested just saving files as PDFs which has been a standard part of OSX on Macs for years. Also I couldn't believe that reading PDF files wasn't part of the Windows operating system.
I don't have to endlessly configure my Macs and tell them what to do they just do it. I cannot think of a way Macs are limited in comparison to PC's. They can even run Windows programs in an emulator and boot up Windows. Can a Windows machine boot OSX and run Mac software in an emulator?
Planning the new generation of our systems it annoys me that Internet Explorer doesn't comply with the world standards for HTML5 and CSS3, it's starting to get there because it's losing market. But the fact you have to write a perfectly good system in accordance with the standards the go away and write work arounds for Explorer which will stop working in a years time, for me, shows the difference in mentality between the MS and Apple approach to life.
Upvote
0
I think that's an excellent choice if you wanted something stylish. There are several iMAC style all in one PC's now, but that is probably one of the best I have seen. It even has a decent graphics card which is unusual for an all in one system at that sort of price.
Also, the touch-screen, although they are all a bit of a gimmick, it's a fun gadget to have.
I think the price is very good really. I just checked Google shopping prices and most places are asking a lot more. Anyway, it's only £600 and I see no reason it won't give you at least 3 years hassle free computing before you feel the need to upgrade. I doubt anyone on this thread would argue that it's not a good deal. Esp with the 23" 1080p screen, so you're buying a HD TV as well in a way...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So install the free PDF reader! You can't blame an OS for not having a specific piece of software pre-installed, that would be a hopeless principal for any OS to pursue. I could same of safari and flash...
In anycase, MS have their own alternative to PDF, it just never caught on. That doesn't mean they want to give up and push all their customers on to a 3rd party product by default.
Regards OSX based on UNIX, sure it is. But it's not unix anymore! The way OSX controls resources cannot be overidden by software installed on it in the same way it can be on windows. OSX holds resources to for the OS to ensure it always feels slick and responsive, which is great but somewhat less useful than giving the app you are using at the time free reign.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
