[Creation]

Before I post, I might as well say that I've never liked Macs much. I used them every so often in high school, and while the interface was tough to get used to, I abhorred the one mouse button. I don't use Macs anymore, since CSU Chico has maybe four Macs total on the entire campus (that's a rough estimate). Being that I've used PCs since the 80486 was considered speedy, it's somewhat understandable.

I didn't come here to start a fight. I also didn't come here to say PCs are better, although at times I may seem to say that. I'll use comparisons to my personal experiences/personal computers in my questions, but I'm not trying to be a jerk.

I came here instead in the hope of getting some questions answered. I've known several sterotypes about Macs throughout my lil PC life, and I'm hoping to figure out why these are so.

The first and foremost, why Macs are considered better for graphics/media work. Is it the software, the hardware, or what? I can run Photoshop, Maya (Taste of Maya, specifically), 3D Studio MAX, CoolEdit, and most any media-manipulation software on my PC very quickly. Maya in particular is VERY fast (partially due to the GeForce 3's excellent OpenGL support), and Photoshop is snappy on both my Gateway laptop and my desktop. So why the Mac preference?

Second, the preoccupation with pretty colors. I haven't seen a new Mac yet that doesn't have bright colored plates all over the place. Why? This may be just me, but I don't care about the color of my custom-built ubertower. It's beige. You can't go wrong with beige. Hell, way back when IBM ruled the roost of PCs, beige was considered trendy. As long as my computer does what I want it to, it can be fecal green. Well, maybe not fecal green.

Third, are Macs as rock-solid stable as I'm led to believe? While the general stereotype of PCs are their instability, a custom-built PC running Windows 2000 is very stable. I know my hardware; if something's wrong, it's easy for me to find the source. Windows 2000 hasn't flat-lined in months. I'd leave it on all the time if my CPU fan wasn't so loud and inefficient (there's my only tiff with custom-built stuff; I can't for the life of me find a decent Slot A fan). So why are Macs so damn stable (and PLEASE don't just blurt out "Windows." Is it Windows's fault that VIA can't make a decent AGP driver?)?

Finally, I leave you with an article I found on GameDev.net which is a humorous yet ironically truthful comparison of all your OS's, incuding Mac stuff.

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/art...rticle1015.asp

Thanks,
Creation

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]

[killgore trout]

Why do people always come here looking for a fight?

[Creation]

You didn't read my post, did you?

I'm asking questions. I'm giving reasons why I'm asking these questions. If I wanted a fight, I'd say outright, "Macs suck." But I didn't.

Nor do I believe that "Macs suck." I didn't even imply that. So please, read the whole post before making judgments.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by killgore trout:
<STRONG>Why do people always come here looking for a fight? </STRONG>

Read the first sentence of the second paragraph.
If you can't help, don't hurt.

[applenut1]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>You didn't read my post, did you?

I'm asking questions. I'm giving reasons why I'm asking these questions. If I wanted a fight, I'd say outright, "Macs suck." But I didn't.

Nor do I believe that "Macs suck." I didn't even imply that. So please, read the whole post before making judgments.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]</STRONG>

go to Apple's web site. you may just fine a mac without "the pretty colors".

[rob5243]

Welllll....I'll take a stab at this but I'm sure there are people on the forum that can answer your questions much better than I can.

As for why macs are better for graphics, I guess it's just always been that way; Apple had a huge influence on the desktop publishing industry in the 80s (and still does of course), probably because they really started the GUI concept for personal computers. The GUI was simple and allowed artists [i.e., not hardcore geeks] to use computers to do powerful content creation. And Macs have had colorsync and such technologies to help with graphics. I've used Photoshop on both PCs and Macs and I have to say the experience is much better on the Mac OS, since Adobe writes the program to work great on PPC and Altivec machines. I dont know about 3D applications, i havent used them. The video card issue is a long-standing problem but NVIDIA helped with 3D recently.

As for the pretty colors...I guess Apple just wants people to think of a computer as a part of their home or workspace that looks good, like a nice piece of furnature, in addition to being powerful on the inside. They offered the iMacs in mulit colors cause they thought different people might want different colored computers. I thought it was a cool idea. But they seem to be moving towards a more conservative approach with graphite and metal and everything.

As for stability, I've found that Mac OS 9.1 can be unstable at times [just my personal experience, I've found it to be a lot more stable than windows 98], but OSX is about as stable as you can get. I havent had a single freeze since I've started using it.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>The first and foremost, why Macs are considered better for graphics/media work. Is it the software, the hardware, or what? I can run Photoshop, Maya (Taste of Maya, specifically), 3D Studio MAX, CoolEdit, and most any media-manipulation software on my PC very quickly. Maya in particular is VERY fast (partially due to the GeForce 3's excellent OpenGL support), and Photoshop is snappy on both my Gateway laptop and my desktop. So why the Mac preference?</STRONG>

I think you have a point here. At work I run Quark XPress on a PC (a Compaq DeskPro with 512 MB RAM), and I have to admit it's about as slick as the Mac version. But this is a pretty recent development, within the past few years. I think Macs were so far in front of PCs as far as graphics for so long that graphics pros just got used to Macs and grew to like them.

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>Second, the preoccupation with pretty colors. I haven't seen a new Mac yet that doesn't have bright colored plates all over the place. Why? This may be just me, but I don't care about the color of my custom-built ubertower. It's beige. You can't go wrong with beige. Hell, way back when IBM ruled the roost of PCs, beige was considered trendy. As long as my computer does what I want it to, it can be fecal green. Well, maybe not fecal green.</STRONG>

Actually, the iMac is the only Mac sold in colors anymore. The Quicksilver G4s and the "ice" iBooks look great! (I'll grant you that the "Flower Power" iMacs were awful ... I wasn't a big fan of the blue and white G3 towers from a few years back, either.)

I have a beige Compaq at work, and there's nothing wrong with it ... but it's the same thing 250 other people on my floor have. Then I go home to my purple iMac ... it's just a gorgeous machine, and it's MINE. The lines, the colors ... tastefully done. To some people, aesthetics matter. To others, they don't.

The PC makers' attempts to do non-beige computers are just awful ... dark gray with clunky navy blue or maroon faceplates ... yech.

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>Third, are Macs as rock-solid stable as I'm led to believe? While the general stereotype of PCs are their instability, a custom-built PC running Windows 2000 is very stable. I know my hardware; if something's wrong, it's easy for me to find the source. Windows 2000 hasn't flat-lined in months. I'd leave it on all the time if my CPU fan wasn't so loud and inefficient (there's my only tiff with custom-built stuff; I can't for the life of me find a decent Slot A fan). So why are Macs so damn stable (and PLEASE don't just blurt out "Windows." Is it Windows's fault that VIA can't make a decent AGP driver?)?</STRONG>

Actually, the classic Mac OS (OS 8/9) has been showing its age recently... it's probably not as solid as Win2k, but that's not really a fair comparison. A better comparison would be OS 9 vs. Win95/98/Me... I run Windows 98 at work (I'm not in IT and I have no control over what my PC runs) ... the past few weeks I've gotten so many blue-screen crashes trying to print from Word that I could just scream. Of course the techs don't know what it is and they can't do anything about it ... OS 9 crashed for me once in a while, but mostly it worked like a charm. Nothing worse than an extension conflict or two, and it was easy to find the culprit.

Another valid comparison would be Win2K/XP vs. Mac OS X ... I'm using OS X at home and it has been rock-solid for me ... IE crashes occasionally but I've had zero system crashes. And this is on 2-year-old hardware.

I think the Mac really kicks butt over Windows when it comes to troubleshooting simplicity, especially for the average home user. You don't need a degree in computer science to troubleshoot a Mac. The clean install -- installing a new system folder while leaving the existing one intact -- is pure genius.

My dad has a 1 1/2-year-old Gateway running Win98. Once he had trouble with freezing ... couldn't get the computer to respond at all, even after a reboot. Took it in to the Gateway Country store. They couldn't figure it out either, so they reformatted the hard drive.

Turned out what it needed was a new mouse.

[edit: a little UBB 'operator error']

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: CaseCom ]

[fulmer]

if you use a modern Mac that runs OS 9.x and greater, and use it enough to get used to the interface (might take you 3 days max if you're not a total ditz), then I think you'll realize that the Windows interface is agonizingly inhuman. :shudder:

Sure, I thought like you, too, 4 years ago, until I picked up and used my first Mac in ages, a PowerBook WallStreet model, 292 MHz (top of the line for its day).

So the interface is just plain better. Use both until you know both, and I think most people will agree.

They combine form and function. If your malformed, beige PC box could look like a Power Mac's enclosure, any sane Wintel user would jump at the chance to have a pretty enclosure.

I could go on but even my eyes are glazing over at the length of this reply. :attention span screams as it meets a quick end:

[Cipher13]

Why do graphics pro's prefer Macs? It's all in the interface; and it all goes out the window with OSX.

OS9's interface is superb; you can get what you want to do done faster and with less headaches.

Its just... better.

Blah. 6 hrs of exams today, no more talking for me.

[Creation]

Thank you all for your intelligent responses. I welcome other perspectives, but I wanted to throw out a comment or two before I go to bed

applenut1: I didn't do extensive research on Macs. I asked my questions based on personal experience. I'm a PC user; I rarely have the need to go to Apple's website. This question was addressed later in the thread, so it's kind of a moot point. But I thought I'd throw that in so you'd understand the question a bit better.

fulmer: No offense, but your kind of response was one I was hoping I wouldn't get. Because no matter how good you may think the Mac interface is, I've been using the Windows 95/98/2K interface for five years. I'm used to it. I know my way around it. I know my PC and its innards inside and out. I can fix any problem with minimal downtime. I tend to think my computer's pretty nifty anyway, even with the beige. It's ridiculously tall; six 5 1/4" bays and enough room for a second motherboard (albeit a small AT motherboard) if I wanted to slap one in there. I could go on about the little things that make my computer mine. But that too is moot. Like CaseCorn said, for some asthetics is important. It's not for me.

CaseCorn: I'd respond to more of your post (which I enjoyed reading), but I'm getting tired I'll write more later. But I'd like to know what you think of Alienware's stuff. Asthetically, not necessarily functionally. They make some pretty nice looking PCs, not just slapping a color plate on the side of an ordinarily plain chassis.

Edit: I made a booboo

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
<STRONG>

At work I run Quark XPress on a PC (a Compaq DeskPro with 512 MB RAM), and I have to admit it's about as slick as the Mac version. </STRONG>

No, no and no. Compared to the Mac experience, using Quark on a PC is like using a computer without thumbs. Windows is just not designed to display apps the way the Mac is, in which an app takes over the top menu bar but leaves the desktop exposed, using palettes for controls rather than toolbars/menubars in a self-contained window. Quark breathes on a Mac; on a PC, it feels stuffed into a space too small for it. (And this will be just as true in OS X, Cipher you old grouch.) Plus on a Mac you have an extra modifier key, the command (Apple) key, whereas on Windows PCs you now have the Start button--hands down the most worthless UI innovation to come to the PC since, er, Windows itself (pardon my cheap shot ).

I don't understand your reference to "bright-colored" Macs. My G4 is a rather understated grey-and-graphite combination; the iBook is white, the TiBook flat grey. Of the current iMac models, the only colorful one is Indigo, a dark blue that is hardly garish. A couple of years ago, when the iMacs came out in five colors, I would grant your point. The fact that you couldn't care less about the color of your "custom-built ubertower" puts you in the 1% minority of sophisticated computer users. Most people couldn't imagine building a PC anymore than they could imagine building a car engine, and so long as that's the case, why not buy something snappy and stylish?

As for stability, I've found pre-X Mac OSes somewhat more stable than Windows, because it was fairly easy to clear badly-behaving components from the system through a kludgey process called Extension Managing. My Mac ran under OS 9 with relatively little trouble, though Internet Explorer brought it down around once a week. Windows 98, however, drove me berserk; I could hang the system by doing nothing more complex than double-clicking the hard drive icon.

There are some folks here who insist they use Macs solely because they are better suited to their work (usually graphics- or print-based). Many of these people have spoken of their temptation to cross over, to the land where computers are cheap, processors are fast (at least in terms of clock speed), and operating systems now reasonably stable and easy to use. I think the majority, though, simply enjoy their Macs more: it's not just that we find the UI preferable, it's the gestalt of the machine that is somehow appealing, an idiosyncratic mix of common sense and odd conventions that give Macs a personality you simply don't find on PCs. That's a very hard quality to explain, let alone quantify, and it tends to drive PC diehards bonkers, who build machines that are demonstrably better than Macs in almost every way, and who still have to listen to Mac users carry on about how much better their computers are. Heh-heh.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG> But I'd like to know what you think of Alienware's stuff. Asthetically, not necessarily functionally. They make some pretty nice looking PCs, not just slapping a color plate on the side of an ordinarily plain chassis.
</STRONG>

I have always respected AlienWare as being kinda like the Apple of the PeeCee world. Gives the user what they want in a gaming machine and no bull **** .

Now, the colors look nice I guess. And it looks like the name "alienware" is imprinted into the case but where's the beef? Sure my G4 looks nice and I enjoy it when people are like "what is that?!?" But that is not the best part, the best part is much beyond the form, but the function that comes from it. The handles on my case, great for a LAN party, or the easy open case. Just pull down a single handle on the side and have instant access to the guts of my computer. (and if you want to keep people out, you can lock it closed.) Sure I could get out a screw driver and spend 5 minutes doing the same thing, but why? Its' so nice.

As for the imac's, well their target market is grandparents and college kids and such. And these people might like the colors (though you never really notice it) but the function is an all in one computer. Which you can pick up by the single handle on top. Now that is easy of use.

[Asimuth]

In 1988 I was selling Macs to advertising in Queensland what I discovered is that computers had made NO inroads in the creative endeavours (the US may have been slightly more advanced). There were no PCs at the average Ad agency. The best of them had a PC running accounting software connected to their head office - that's it.

By 1990 every agency had PCs and most of them were Macs - I don't doubt that Chait Day and other big US advertising houses had a significant impact on the choices but that is the way it happened. Mac was the only PC that was offering postscript out of the box and, whatever you think of postscript as a page description language, it was the only professional level page description language available on PC.

By the time the copywriters were using Word (significantly better and more intuitive than Wordperfect), the typesetters were using Macs to control their 2400 DPI setters (best for the time) and the artists were playing with MacPaint ( I know that sounds ridiculous but it was more pervasive than the high end products because they were only doing "placements" - computers weren't use for real graphics). Silently the print industry was "dominated".

This seems to have kicked into the web and graphics publishing industries as well. No intent, just happy circumstance for Apple. Apple eventually picked up on this and worked the market but it had already developed momentum that still carries it to this day. Artists are not prone to change if they have a sucessful system for getting product out (believe me!).

NT started to take serious chunks of the market in the late 90s but it was a steep hill to climb and I don't think it ever got as far as it deserved to (I am a Mac lover but Apple absolutely lacked an industrial strength operating system). Why are Macs considered graphics machines? They were the only one with the product at the time and the "change" that was the desktop publishing revolution was built on Macs. The distinction is now one of habit, not performance.

I have already carried on for too long so I'll make the other points short(ish ). Fact is, as computers become more an artifact of life instead of a luxury people are drawn to individuality. Irrespective of your green example Macs have consistently set the theme of industrial design and professional designers have always lauded the design. On the practicality side NOTHING in the PC world is as usable as a G3/G4 Tower (you are not qualified to comment unless you've spent time in the bowels of both).

Last point, stability... This is, honest to god, true. I have owned a Mac since late 1985 (continuously - MacPlus, Classic, IIvx, Beige G3, Dual G4 tower). I have had, in total, 5 days when I could not use my Mac because it was out of service (the actual figure is four and three quarter days including the VX being at a repairer for two days). I have had a number of crashes throughout that time but not as many as I have had working in the windows enviroment at work (1989 to today). I do not know what a definitive measure of stability is but I will say I do not have a single associate (anyone I've asked the question of) who can claim anything similar from a windows machine. I do know a programmer friend in Queensland who uses Macs and can better my story - 7 days at work and play over 9 years. Up to 1999 he still used his SE!

Day in, day out my Mac gets my work done without me having to know dick about computing, and that's pretty impressive. But the why is easy - I paid a fortune! I paid exhorbidant amounts to buy, I paid disgusting amounts to upgrade and software vendors charged me obscene premiums over PC'ware for the same item. Low build numbers and good margins mean that Apple ships quality product. I don't know what my total cost of ownership is but I'd be willing to guess I'm ahead of the bell curve - just think about the lost productivity in having a system out of comission for a day, or an hour...

Hope I didn't bore you too much.

[cheerios]

hey, I can't help you much with some of your questions, but I'm getting my first mac tomorrow, (unless UPS is a baldfaced liar), so I thought I'd stick my head in and explain my reasons for switching, in hopes that somewhere in there are some of the answers you're looking for... I'm running a 533 Celeron with Win 98 right now, to give you an idea of my windwos experience thus far. I've been using MS products since the days of DOS, and 386 processors. I've heard the mac FUD and believed most of it, and before I started college last year, the last mac saw was running system 7 or so... "where's the other button on the mouse? Where's the X button to close windows? I throw away the disk, and it ejects it, not deletes it?!?" seemed VERY confusing.

Then, I hit college, and met Juanvaldes, and Bob, his Dual Processor G4, with the developer preview of OS X. At first, I was scared of it... it seemed TOO easy... where was the challenge? I mean, fully customisable apple menu, pop up windows, application switcher, hide commands (that was my favorite). Where was all this handy stuff in windows? And, best of all, no floppies!! The mac world has moved on, and I'm glad to be doing the same . And the neat thing is, both OS 9 and OS X are very intuitive. It takes a day or two of tinkering, and you know where just about everything is, how to use it, and what it does.

After using X on Juan's machine, I went back to my PC and couldn't stand it. It crashes, I can't find a browser I like, it makes me work around it, instead of working FOR me. I know these aren't hugely concrete justifications, but the whole EXPERIENCE is just better. I've never threatened to throw Bob out the window, like I do my PC regularly. I think I've managed to crash something in X maybe twice (Onmiweb is a pissy little app), and a few more times in 9, but no where near as badly as in windows.

So, I'm switching over. I want the stability, I want the ease of use, I want it to look nicer than 98's ugly grey... I want performance. The new computer I'm getting is a 400 Mhz G3. As i understand it, that should outperform my PC by a decent amount, and this is 3? revisions behind hte current iMac models, I think more... I want attention to detail, little things like an included ethernet card and modem, and effort put into the way things look, although I'm not a fan of hte iMac form factor, it does look a lot nicer than my HP tower.

As for the alienware cases, the black one there is real classy, but as I understand it, Alienware is like the apple of hte PC world... They make quality machines with quality parts, instead of sellinga 2 gig P4 with 4 gigs of HD and 64 megs of RAM, and telilng some PC illiterate person that the 2 gig processor will make the internet go faster. That green one, though...:shudders: i believe you mentioned fecal green earlier in the thread? there it is for ya! Also, notice hte fans in the side of the case? the processors Apple uses run greatly cooler than PC processors, resulting in machines like my iMac that are fanless and can be cooled by convection, instead of PC's that make more noise than a hurricane, just keeping the processor from frying. I was at a lan party last night, and was in shock when one of hte die-hard PCers counted his fans... 8 of them, I believe for an Athalon overclocked to 1 Gig.

Well, since I'm tired, sick, and rambling, I'm gonna shut up, and hope something in there was useful! Good luck in your quest for knowledge!!

[San Acoustic]

Before I post, I might as well say that I never liked PCs much. I use them at work, and while the interface is moronic, I'm not, so it was no big deal. But I abhor the two mouse buttons.

I don't use a PC at home, given that I never had one and don't want one and hate them and think people who like them are morons, but don't think this is a flame because it isn't, you bottom-feeding slough sucker. I just want to know why some people eat shite and use PCs.

I didn't come here to start a fight. I also didn't come here to say Macs are better, although, while I'm here, I'll say Macs are better. I'll use comparisons to my personal experiences/personal computers, but unlike some to whom it comes naturally, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I came here instead in the hope of getting some questions answered.

The first and foremost, why do PC trolls show up on a Mac site?

I'm not flaming you, you moronic bozo. They show up because their IQs are lower and believe that when they say they aren't trolls, Mac users will believe them, because PC users believe them when they say they aren't morons. They also drive Model T Fords and laugh at peole who drive BMWs because they believe there is no difference. It's not their fault. They honestly cannot see or feel a difference, which is why, after cranking their Model Ts, they show up on a Mac board and crank BS.

This isn't a flame, though, and I'm not here to get anyone angry.

Second, the preoccupation with colors. Why would any Model T driver want anything but black? There is no purpose to color, no purpose to form, no purpose to using anything of superior design to a third-rate knockoff. This isn't a flame, though, and I'm not here to get anyone angry.

&gt;As long as my computer does what I want it to, it can be fecal green.

That explains your misunderstanding of color. But this isn't a flame, though, because I realize you have problems and are so full of it, your eyes are green.

But this isn't a flame, though. I really want to know whether you are out on a day pass or whether you escaped by telling the guard you aren't a moron.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[pathogen]

I think there's also something inherent in all mac designs... except those awful desktops (7300, etc)... something that spoke out that the computer was not the some of its parts (wires and chips and screws and fans) but something with individual identity, due to the close nature of the operating system with the hardware on a mac.

The mac has always seemed more like a prepackaged mutli-purpose device than a home hobby project, the way the first PC's were. When IBM, and later Dell and Gateway/Compaq, started to offer home computers, they never tried too hard to mask that what they were selling were components bundled together. The mac has always been offered as a complete solution for your basic needs, and easily expandable for others.

Right now, Apple wants to meet these basic needs with every iMac it sells: do your word-processing and spreadsheets (Appleworks and a printer), edit DV video (iMovie and Firewire), organize your music collection (iTunes and CD-RW), surf the net, get email, make a free homepage with your photos and movies (mac.com). With the G4 Tower, making DVD's is another aspect. As a rule and an agenda for Apple that they've follwed for almost 18 years, the mac products have the capibility to be very self-contained if they meet your basic needs in a computer.

I agree with what's been said earlier: Macs grew in prominance with the graphic and print industry because they were faster at having developped close ties with better than average drawing and layout programs. They had superior font management for the longest time. They made laserprinters a household / small office item before anyone else.

Recently, the imac is looking old, but in 1998 it ushered in an expectation that computers could still be "personal" and up to the standard of being a multi-purpose device that inspires creativity. This has been Steve Job's biggest agenda: to make available a tool that is more humanistic and inspiring than just a box of expensive bits and pieces.

The design of an Apple computer, its shape and color and smooth texture, are a constant reminder that it is the context of your work that decides your work's value. And Apple tries to start everyone out with a context that is more respectful than what others do: almost all others pander to expectations of what people think it ought to look like (giant towers, lots of fans, like a science fair kit, but somewhat curvy on the outside to be less imposing for women to use..., and impressively, PC customers' expecations have dramtically changed since the iMac and iBook and G4 introductions)

Many people who are visually inclined have recognized this agenda of Apple's as a virtue that they want to endorse. It's sensible design and practise.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: pathogen ]

[AlbertWu]

I've used computers since I was 2, starting with a 286, up until a Pentium, thenswitching to the mac when I was 10.

It was time to get a new computer, and the only reason I bought a mac was cause it ran HyperCard and the the school I went to happended to be big on HyperCard presentations and the like, so we went home from Fry's toting a brand new Performa 6400/180, Nowhere near top-of-the-line, but good enough for Hypercard.

Anyway, I set it up that night, and I was amazed at how easy it was. Plug it in, plug in the INCLUDED keyboard, plug the INCLUDED mouse into the keyboard, plug in the monitor, and press the power button. Now, I had used macs at school before, but I had never set one up until then, and it was BY FAR the simplest setup I had ever done. No finding a PS/2 mouse cause it refused to recognize the serial one, no scrounging around for a AT -&gt; PS/2 converter for the keyboard cause you didn't have a PS/2 one, etc. This computer CAME with everything you needed.

I have to admit, I didn't do anything spectacular on the Performa, but I came to love the MacOS. By the time I was ready for my next computer, I had learned the ins and outs of the OS and the computer, installed ram, an ethernet card, etc. One of the cool things about the Performa 6400, is that when you want to install ram or PCI cards, you unscrew 2 screws on the back and the logic board slides out. No taking off the metal case, making your way through the tangle of ribbon cables... It just slides out.

Anyway, My next computer was a PowerBook G3/333, a great machine. My first laptop. I loved the fact that the keyboard came off just like that, and I could change the ram and hard drive easily. Also, there was an expansion bay where i could stick almost anything, Zip drive, CD-RW drive, even a secondary hard drive. And as soon as I stuck it in, it showed up instantly.

My sister has an Acer Travelmate, with an external CD/Floppy module that you plug in and is recognized by a piece of software called HotIDE, which sits in your system tray. Anyway, after playing with it for a bit, I discovered that HotIDE gave errors if you tried to plug it in after you had disconnected it. Little did I know that you had to STOP the drive from the system tray, THEN remove it.

The point of that is, that when I tried to remove my expansion bay with a mounted drive, the powerbook STOPPED the system and displayed an error message telling me to reinsert it, unmount it, THEN remove it.

Which is more obvious?

On my PowerBook G3, I started dabbling with photoshop, eventually becoming decently proficient at it. I started doing Web Design on it, etc. I will REFUSE to use Photoshop on a PC just because of the insanity of it all. Photoshop for windows creates it's own virtual desktop that is REALLY annoying for some reason. I don't know why, but it is. You can't see anything in the background if it's maximized, and if it's not, your workspace is limited. I dunno. I guess it's just one of my pet peeves.

Now I'm on my third Mac, my PowerBook G4. When I went to install ram on it, I went prepared with my screwdriver set (which has like 30 million different assortments of phillips, flathead, and torx screwdrivers of all different sizes) and discovered that I didn't have to use ANY of them. The PowerBook G4 has a screw-driver-less ram install.

I am in no way a computer idiot. I spent 8 years of my life using Windows, DOS, and PCs. I prefer macs because they make my life easier, and I don't think that just because I don't HAVE to do things like open up the case to fix it, doesn't mean I CAN'T or that I am afraid to.

All this may seem trivial, but it represents the simplicity that Apple gives us. Simplicity that you just can't get with other systems.

Think different.

[cpatubo]

Adding another to the mix...

I too, grew up on DOS and Windows 3.1. I remember using Apple IIcs and IIes when I was a kid, but never really preferred the PC or Mac over the other. Then the Classic came into my life. That made me really want a computer for the first time.

In high school, I was introduced to Pagemaker 4 on a IIsi in my first graphic design class. I was hooked. System 6. Wow. The ease of use... friendly UI. This is what kept me into design all these years.

I still am a graphic designer. Even though I went to school for film and Television, my current career path is in graphic design. I like Macs because I do not have to worry about spending time on troubleshooting, pesky install procedures, etc... and I can concentrate on my work. I think this is the most important point. The freedom and power to use your creativity.

I would say more, but it's my turn to feel tired and ready for bed. Let's just say that I agree with a lot of the people here. Just my 2�.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>CaseCorn: I'd respond to more of your post (which I enjoyed reading), but I'm getting tired I'll write more later. But I'd like to know what you think of Alienware's stuff. Asthetically, not necessarily functionally. They make some pretty nice looking PCs, not just slapping a color plate on the side of an ordinarily plain chassis.</STRONG>

"CaseCorn" ... LOL (that's not a cheap shot, is it? )

The Alienware stuff looks pretty cool, although not as elegant as Apple's machines (I'm sure they weren't aiming for "elegant" anyway). Better looking than the usual PC fare ... I can see where they'd appeal to the college-age gamer crowd. Looks a little pricey for mainstream business use, though.

[Creation]

I leave the thread alone for the day and I get lots of neat stories

I've kept all of your responses in a text file for later fetching, in case this thread is lost in time. I've really enjoyed reading all of your responses to my questions. The maturity displayed here is encouraging. If I happen to have any other philosophical Mac questions (and I'm sure I'll think of a few), I'm about 99% sure I can ask them here without being thrown off the board. I'll get to the 1% later.

About my second question: since I haven't seen many Macs in recent years, and I'm not a Mac user so I don't go shopping around for the machines, my question was based on what I had seen in the past. Had I known that iMacs were the only colored machines sold as of late I probably wouldn't have asked. Too late now, anyway.

I'd respond to all of your stories, but I don't want this post to be too long

AlbertWu: I was under the impression that PC users who needed AT-&gt;PS/2 converters were those that custom-built the PC themselves. I ran into that problem when I upgraded my old P120 to a K6-2 300. The new motherboard had PS/2 ports only, while my old keyboard was an AT. The only instance I've heard of a PC manufacturer bundling incompatible parts was one company that included a game controller with a PC that lacked a joystick port. I've never bought a pre-built computer before, so I'm not the end-all source of such information. That's just my experience.

Casecom: Sorry That wasn't a cheap shot; that was me with a headache and a need to get some sleep. Simple misreading

San Acoustic: You're the 1%. Simple question, then I'm done with you: if I'm flaming Macs and Mac users with my post, why hasn't anyone else pointed that out and run me off the board?

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]

[cheerios]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>AlbertWu: I was under the impression that PC users who needed AT-&gt;PS/2 converters were those that custom-built the PC themselves. I ran into that problem when I upgraded my old P120 to a K6-2 300. The new motherboard had PS/2 ports only, while my old keyboard was an AT. The only instance I've heard of a PC manufacturer bundling incompatible parts was one company that included a game controller with a PC that lacked a joystick port. I've never bought a pre-built computer before, so I'm not the end-all source of such information. That's just my experience.
</STRONG>

I think what he's referring to is buying a new already made comp without peripherals, and trying to use ones' that were already owned. I've run into problems with that, with keyboard ports on our home-built systems.

[AlbertWu]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>
AlbertWu: I was under the impression that PC users who needed AT-&gt;PS/2 converters were those that custom-built the PC themselves. I ran into that problem when I upgraded my old P120 to a K6-2 300. The new motherboard had PS/2 ports only, while my old keyboard was an AT. The only instance I've heard of a PC manufacturer bundling incompatible parts was one company that included a game controller with a PC that lacked a joystick port. I've never bought a pre-built computer before, so I'm not the end-all source of such information. That's just my experience.</STRONG>

That was the problem - it didn't come with a keyboard or mouse. I had to get my own. ::shrug::

[San Acoustic]

Because I know who you are and saw what you did.

[IceEnclosure]

what'd he do?

[San Acoustic]

This

And even if he didn't, the only way to answer such insults is insult back, using his terminology.

It's a very bad web page. Half can't be devined without an 8 Ball.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[IUJHJSDHE]

I have used both systems and I like macintosh better then windows.
an if you use one for a while you get used to the enviroment and start to like it.

I like 9 best and say mac's are way better then windows.

[Creation]

You're pretty bold there, flogging me for something I've never even heard of. I try to be civil and you can't be civil back.

Grow up.

I'd comment further, but irrational people are immune to my flawless logic
Well, that and I'm a firm believer in what my signature says.